Oh, you are a Canadian, well this discussion is about U.S. lights. Not to discount your feelings, but they don't apply directly to the U.S. situation, sorry. Since you are not involved in this debate directly, I can even further ignore your negative comments.
By the way, you don't speak for all Canadians, you have to realize that.
Thanks for the clarification,
Larry
Just a general comment. I was afraid this would happen. It seems that whenever a subject is debated, there always seems to be one or more instigators whose sole purpose is to be negative and belittle people. Well we know who has been doing it and I hate it. For once, I would seriously love to see people just talk about stuff without all the cursing and name calling. It gets so old, so quick.
To those that enjoy DRLs and don't mind that others think you are dumb in having them on, more power to you but don't expect for other folks to not flash their lights at you since you are using your lights during the day. To the Canadians and other people that are stuck with DRLs, sorry about that, maybe it is easier for you to just give up and embrace them. For the rest of us who care about seeing everything, we will leave our lights off and help you to see better, as well.
What has been normal since the invention of the automobile is for people to drive without lights on during daylight. Only since the 70's in some countries, 80's in others, 90 in Canada and 94 (via GM) in the states have people even thought this kind of thing up. No one before
94 in the U.S. was begging for DRLs and after the fad goes away and things get back to normal, they won't be missing them either. I find it interesting that the folks that want to leave their lights on all day are the ones that are being rude to the folks that want them off when the lights have been off for the majority of the driving experience (people with DRLs are the newbies here).Anyway, thanks for those that were kind enough to contribute to this thread intellectually. To the others that would rather be rude, God bless you even more.
Cheers,
Larry
That has to be the biggest copout I have ever heard. Basically, you are saying you have no points that make sense, you have no information that makes sense, and everyone should dislike the DRL's because you do.
I never claimed to speak for all Canadians. You need to realize that DRL's aren't some big conspiracy to help the terrorists, or to be used as population control.
You know, something I can't grasp is why in the world we live in, with all that is wrong, are you so adamant about getting rid of DRL's? Why not find a good cause, and put your energy into that.
I used the numbers you provided. If you ever studied statistics, you'd know that there is not enough evidence there to call it proof "with a mountain of dead bodies."
Here is another group from your provision November 2006 (DRLs): 93 deaths.
2006-1996 (no DRLs): 80, 94, 74, 91, 102, 101, 88, 68, 83, 85. (Third place).How is the numerical sequence declining? Look at that 101 and 102 in the middle surrounded by all those lower numbers. Three of the numbers are greater than 93. They support nothing.
:), LOL, enough said. You expect people to respond to you seriously? It would be best if you would take a moment and reflect on why you are so combative. You see, in truth, there is no way to hold a conversation with you, you don't take anyone serious, except yourself. You continue to bad mouth others as if they are idiots, are you that much better than everyone else? I guess you just enjoy the attention, because you clearly just want to fight and make a spectacle of yourself.
Your comments do not changes the facts, whether pro or con. Other folks, who are not playing games, understand what was said and your comments do not negate this.
on Friday 31 August 2007 02:46 am, someone posing as Edwin Pawlowski took a rock and etched into the cave:
Well, that was an informative site:
??????? ?????????? ???????? - ????? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ????????? ? ??????????, ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????????! ??????????? ?? ????????????? ? ??????? ?????? Daytime Running Lights (6 ???
2007). ???? ??? ?????? DRL ??????????? ? ???????, ??????????? ?? ????????????? ? ??????? ?????? ? ????? ????????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ????????... ??? ??????? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????? 2006 ???????????? ??????? ?? ????????? ? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????? ???????? ?? ????????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ?????????. ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ?? ?? ?????????? ? ???? ???????? - ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ????????? ? 5% ?? 15% - ???????????, ????? ?? ? ?????????? ???? ? ??????????? ?? ?????????????? ??????!I'm not sure what to make of this. Something about beer?
Is 7:00AM too early for beer?
Oh, wait - I'm at work.
Nevermind.
????????? ?? ???? ????? ????????? ?
??????????!
?????? Daytime Running Lights (6 ???
??????????? ?? ????????????? ?
?????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????????
???????? ?????? ???? ?????? 2006
?????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????
??????????? ? ??????? ???????? ??
???????? ???? ????? ?? ?????????. ????
?? ?????????? ? ???? ???????? -
????????? ? 5% ?? 15% -
??????????? ?? ??????????????
This link contains the chart and data summary in English:
He's cherry picking???? He posted the numbers for the years 96-06. How in the hell is that cherry picking? According to your reference site (an English language site would be nice for those of us that do not read the Cyrillic like you apparently do...), there was no "dramatic leap". But then that's not at all surprising since everything you've posted has been riddled with hyperbole and misdirection.
For the same reason you end up with anti-DRL people who rely on nothing more than hyperbole and exagerations to support their cases. Neither side has put forth an awful lot of real evidence. Both rely on emotional bolstering of their otherwise weak positions. Both are taking something that is not as life and death as they'd like to have it be, and are trying to exagerate the value of their position in attempt to make something that is really quite trivial and more a matter of preference, in order to legitimize their zeal.
no mater one opinion, debating DRLs in a NG is like debating the benefits of lead in gasoline, one will never see either in the US LOL
mike
Glare? from a reduced voltage head lamp you better get your eyes checked
A study done by one person?
You did not read down about the good points of DRL.
It's too bad that your experiences with debate are consistently this way. Mine are not, at least not by majority.
So - after that introductory paragraph where you bemoan such things as name calling and insults, your immediately proceed to those very tactics with such statements as "think you are dumb" for doing what you do. Pot, kettle.
Ah yes - the not-so-subtle attempt to insult and degrade others by the "for the rest of us who care" line. Which, I'm sure you already know, attempts nothing more than to insult the opposite opinion by calling it such things as incondsiderate, etc. All because it simply does not lay down and embrace your view.
Oh - it's rude for anyone in the world not to allow you the things you want. Such a considerate person you are.
And the final insult of your post - those who did not disagree with you were intellectual. Of course, those who did, are not. After all, those who prefer DRL's are, according to your words above, inconsiderate, dumb, uncaring, and unkind.
So - just why did you waste the bandwidth trying to disguise your own unkind, inconsiderate intellectual dishonesty as some sort of noble diatribe?
80 Knight - combative??? Now that's rich! You should probably spend a little time in a group before making such funny comments. You jokester, you.
Zealots like you are funny Larry. You come to places like this to stir some pot of crap that is quite meaningless, and then do nothing but complain about any opinions that don't align with your own. And... you actually believe you have the power to tell anyone to stay out of a discussion in a usenet newsgroup? Do you even understand newsgroups? If you don't want contrary opinions, then don't bring your zeal into this forum. There is no discussion to contribute to Larry. You, Sharon, and any other advocate on either side has contributed nothing worthy of debate. Neither side has enough real ground to stand on. Both sides have fabricated meaningless mind exercises in vain attempt to justify their position. When you do that in a public forum, you should learn to expect that it will receive comment.
Yes ,GLARE! Even the output from a focused beam PENLIGHT can temporarily blind someone if it's shining directly in your eyes. FYI: the "reduced intensity" high beams on some GM cars (and most notably the inboard lights on a Saturn) with engines running will put out over 7,000 candela, ABOVE the threshold of "discomfort glare", into the range of "disabling glare".
Sharon - you accused Edwin of cherry picking, yet that is precisely what this site does. Look at the complete set of numbers and you will see that they very well cherry pick dates they wish you to focus on in order to bolster their point. Yet, right there on the chart are other numbers that not only refute their point, but make it look nothing short of silly.
OK Marlow, maybe you didn't see the follow-up post I did at 8:56 AM local time with the Bulgarian post in English. Text follows:
Well Cooke, whether in English or in Bulgarian, the numbers speak for themselves and they still condemn your "cherry picking" comment to Edwin, regardless of the language they're in.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.