"Mike Hall" snipped-for-privacy@sympatico.ca wrote in message news:JYFDb.3367$ snipped-for-privacy@news20.bellglobal.com... | Canadians drive daily without the problems that have been highlighted in | these threads.. most believe that it saves lives, and the statistics are | there to prove the point..
Hmmm... One statistic originally mentioned years ago to "prove the point" (but isn't mentioned much any more since it's been widely debunked) is that Canada had a 8% (or 9%, I can't remember) reduction in accident rates the year after DRLs were mandated by law. But across the border for the same two years the US had a 12% (I think it was) reduction in accidents by doing nothing. Obviously there were other factors that year (weather patterns perhaps) that had a impact on the number of accidents. One could argue that given those facts, Canada actually may have lost ground in the matter.
| I have lived and driven in Europe for a time, and | I liked the headlights there.. they have cut-offs which allow for a much | better beam without the glare.. it is accepted that Euro lights are better | designed than their North American counterparts.. US DOT approved headlights | are archaic and useless.. coming back to these shores, I have realized just | how bad they are.. I will be looking to fit Euro lights to my Jeep GC soon..
I would agree with your statement that a better design exists on european headlamps. But then they would be even less effective as DRLs if 90+% of the light were aimed at the street in the daytime...what a waste of energy (and cause of unnecessary associated pollution)!
| The simple truth is that US citizens do not like being told what to do, even | if it is in their own interests..
No doubt...and that is somehow now become a bad thing? One test of liberty is for one to make ones own cost-benefit analysis with as little government imposition as possible. Even if some politician can somehow claim (real or not doesn't matter) that something is for ones own good, should a law imposing that persons "view" be accepted by the masses? One _should_ be able to make a decision that X marginal benefit is worth X cost? Yes/No OR, does X marginal benefit really exist in the 1st place? Maybe Canadians want to be told what to do, but you are correct that those in the US cringe at that very idea (for good historical reasons).
You don't see a danger in the premise of government imposition in these marginal matters with many examples in history?
My guess is that Canada isn't as proactive in getting public comment from it's citizens is more the reasons why less of this is heard from those citizens. I see that as a very bad thing.
| reading through some of the forums, I see | stuff like "DRL's blind oncoming traffic in normal daylight".. absolute | bullshit..
Many people, especially aging people (which we all will be some day) have light sensative eyeballs. What seems acceptable to you can be quite painful for someone else. Why do you doubt what people claim are personal experience? I'm curious why you wouldn't believe them. I don't have glare "pain", (well at least not serious pain), but I believe those that say they do.
| the relative brightness of normal daylight is well above the | brightness of headlight systems, and all that can be seen is that the lights | are switched on.. one is more likely to be blinded by the sun reflecting off | of chrome..
Bingo, the glare of the sun at high noon off of shiny vehicle surfaces certainly make a vehicle VERY visable without lights. You've figured out the truth...I'm happy for you! :-) In some cases I've noticed, in situations you mention, you can hardly tell the cars with DRLs from the ones without. BUT the high beam DRL on a truck behind you even in the daytime can be quite bright in the rear mirror at a stoplight in other daylight situations. Not sure why one has to deal with high beams in their mirrors when sitting completely still waiting at a traffic light, but that is a sad rediculous reality these days!
When you were a kid...did you ever shine a 2 D-cell flashlight into your grandma's eyes in the daytime. I have...she winced terribly over the pain (and yelled at me quite loudly!). And that is a light source of 3-5 watts (vs. 55 watts). Some people experience pain from focused light sources...it's simply is a fact.
| If more people used their lights when they should, the DRL situation would | never have arisen..
Perhaps. Poor reason, however.
| the fact that some claimed that they could see ok | overlooked the point that others may not be able to see them.. it is not a | question of judging distances.. it is a question of being seen by others who | have to use the roads (pedestrians included)..
Do you really believe this? Why would a normal person have any trouble whatsoever seeing something in broad daylight? It is a such a rediculous assertion it is simply not to be believed. How in the world did we ever get by during the previous 100 years of driving? Now, if you're speaking of someone with a vision imparement, then I would agree light may help them...but I wouldn't want them driving at all.
| even now, some will not use | the cars lighting system in adverse conditions on the premis that they can | see well enough..
No question, I would agree. Give them a ticket, fine and points on their license. Better yet driver training would also be helpful. It's better to make people smarter not even more "dumbed down".
| I think that there is a good case for lighting systems | that come on automatically as the light level drops..
Absolutely NOT. I had a car with a "auto" light control system. It almost never would turn the lights on when it was foggy or snowing during the day. OR it would turn them on when I left the house on a foggy morning commute (from shade from trees in the yard), then somewhere on the way to work the car would turn my lights off (and it was still foggy out) without the benefit of my informed consent. Several people I know with GM's auto system have the same problem. Others I've told that their lights were off when they arrived at the office, didn't even now it. How wonderful auto systems are....NOT! Plus, with the DRLs providing a false visual queue that the lights are still on, they can't always tell for sure if their real lights are on or not (or if their real lights went off without their knowledge). The "auto" idea sounds good, but in practice rarely does it work correctly or reliably (except only for night use, which is probably only half of the time ALL lights are legally required). All state laws specifically identify the "operator" as the responsible party for control of the vehicles lighting systems NOT the manufacturer. A useless "auto" system based solely on outdoor ambient light levels that can't apply proper cognative decision processes to know when there is "limited sight distance below 1000 feet" (from Maryland vehicle lighting code), is not a reasonable solution. It promotes incorrect behavior...just the oposite of what should be promoted. The solution is to give citations and/or driver training as part of relicensing, NOT implement something that makes lighting even more confusing (or non-thinking) for the average person.
By the way, rear end collisions are a accident category that occur at a greater rate with DRL equipped vehicles. I'm open to your thoughts as to why that is.
| no doubt there will be | an outcry from the US civil liberties groups that it is anti-constitutional | to enforce drivers to use lights when they don't want to..
Laws DO exist requireing lighting for certain ambient or incliment weather conditions and one can be ticketed for not complying with the law. That is different then what you're suggesting...which is to take the decision process away from the operator/driver. Yes, some of us would have a problem with that, I think.
| DRL's are here to stay.. live with it..
People got excited over the pet rock too, proclaiming they were here to stay. If so, why is the NHTSA taking 9 years to make a final rule? Don't be a lemming and buy into the marketing stuff. GM and the politicians just want you to buy their cars or vote for them under a myrad of false premis. This is just one of them. It's all out there to sucker you in...don't let it for Pete's sake!