day time lights

Page 6 of 11  
wrote in message


You don't know many Canadian's then. When we are pissed, we complain. And one thing we don't fear is our Government.

Maybe you should stick to flying your B-25's then, cause you don't seem to have the mental capacity to have a driver's license. That is the most pitiful excuse for not having DRL's that I have ever heard. Shall we turn the sun down as well?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh stop it 80 Knight. Clearly this woman knows what she's talking about. After all, how many of us here realized the B-25's and Abrams tanks used their DRL's to "mask" their location before she enlightened us.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My mistake. I admit, I was clearly outmatched by someone with such vast intelligence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How so?
As far as hard data goes, it's not possible to prove causality

I dont know, but this is not proof, nor really even well developed evidence. It may become evidence or even proof, but it is too soon to say for sure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hls wrote:

That's what GM keeps telling DOT/NHTSA

That's why DOT/NHTSA says they have to study it more, while the motorcyclists bodies keep piling up more every year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:rgiBi.230904

I repeat.. How did DRLs put you into a serious accident.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on Wednesday 29 August 2007 10:44 am, someone posing as Sharon Cooke took a rock and etched into the cave:

I would suggest maybe the idiots riding between lanes at 75+ MPH, riding with no hands while doing wheelies, riding between lanes at stoplights then taking off just before green, riding in the carpool lanes where they don't belong...
...I dunno. You tell me. I've seen accidents as a result of all the above.
--
www.perfectreign.com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know, the situations where you should have your lights on would be better served by automatic headlights or just turning them on the old fashioned way. You don't need DRLs to address the lighting needs you mentioned.
We don't run around with our hazards on because we might encounter one, we don't have our horn honked over and over because we might need to honk our horn, so why would we want or need lights on during daylight in case we might need them when it gets darker. It has never made any sense to me.
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larfx wrote:

Duhhhh, it's not for you to see, it's for others to see you. Do much two lane highway driving?
Hobo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think they make it easier to see on coming traffic. I base that on my eyes. I did do a little research and found the Postal Service reduced accidents by 35% with vehicles that have DRL. And we all know school bus's run with lights on.
Regards what anyone else thinks I want to use them.
wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And therein lies part of the problem. Supposedly knowledgeable and experienced drivers do not always have their lights on when they should, and no automatic system is capable of doing so. For example, many people and automatic systems would assume the lights are only needed at night, or in heavy rain, fog, or other conditions where visibility is limited. But the sad fact is they are needed on even the clearest, brightest days. For example, on a sunny day, -your- car, or worse yet, motorcycle, can be hard to see if it is in an area shaded by trees, buildings or other obstructions.
Let's take an example of someone trying to pass a car travelling west on a typical 2 lane state road on a sunny afternoon. Let's say we are approaching these two cars head on, travelling east. If the section of roadway we are on is shaded for any reason, the oncoming cars may not be able to see us, resulting in a dangerous situation. Meanwhile, with the sun to our backs, we wonder why the "idiot" trying to pass did not see us, since we have no trouble seeing him at all.
Sceptics can prove the value of DRLs to themselves, even if their cars are not equipped. Try driving for 1 week with the headlights on at all times, low beams are fine. If you are like the typical driver, you may well notice less people pulling out in front of you all the time when driving. In my own experience, idiots will still occaisionally pull out, but it seems to reduce the frequency of it happening.
I for one do not like more governmental intrusion into personal lives. For example, I do not believe in seat belt laws, helmet laws, prohibition from riding in the open beds of pickup trucks, etc. But just because I do not believe they should be forced on us by governments or manufacturers does not mean that some of them are not good ideas. In a perfect world, more folks would know the difference on their own without being forced.
Lee Richardson Mech-Tech
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lee Richardson wrote:

Motorcycles have had hard-wired DRLs (low beams, actually) from the factory since the 1970s. This was a voluntary effort of motorcycle makers to make the bikes more conspicuous, considered desirable for a single-track vehicle, due to its small frontal profile, so seeing lit motorcycles in the shade isnt a problem. The 22 US States that had laws AGAINST running a two-track (car, truck) with lights on in clear daytime weather specifically allowed this daytime lighting thing ONLY for single-track vehicles, since studies were done in these states back in the 1940s thru 1960s indicating that if all vehicles were allowed to run daytime lights, it would create DANGEROUS visibility problems for all, since if all vehicles had their lights on the daytime, there would be distraction, glare, and yes, masking of other vehicles and pedestrians. After all, if EVERYONE has DRLs on their vehicles, its the same as if NO ONE has DRLs, but with the added annoyance of the constant lighting everywhere and the added expenses of more frequent bulb changes and increased fuel consumption (and indirect support of mid-east TERRORISTS) with its attendant air pollution. In 1990 or so, the US Congress passed a crap piece of legislation wresting control from the several states regarding road lighting laws and said in effect, DOT/NHTSA now will tell you what the lighting laws are in the US, and if any of you states have any differences of opinion, tough (Im sure theres a 10th Amendment issue in there somewhere). This legislation came about largely as a result of lobbying efforts by GM, so it could use the same wiring harnesses in all its vehicles for the US and Canada, to save a few bucks per vehicle. The DRLs are mandatory in Canada, but not in the USA. Below 45 N. Latitude, with its abundant daylight sunny conditions for most of the year, I (and many others) believe that DRLs are nothing more than a promotional stunt created by GM to increase its corporate bottom line. I believe people get emotional about the mandatory use of DRLs because its intuitive that cars with lights on are easier to see, and more visibilitys better, like some people refuse to buckle up in their vehicles because that way, theyll be thrown clear in the event of a collision, or that the SRS air bags will save them (about a 50-50 on that, without being belted). As far as driving with headlights on to prove the worth of DRLs, thats what I was doing 7 years ago when the other drivers vehicle turned left and plowed into the drivers side of my car. Ive had my epiphany, so no DRLs for me. Excuse me now; I have to start writing letters to my congress people, requesting that they pass laws AGAINST DRLs in this country, to help save lives. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<Snip>

Ah-ha. Here we go. "Anyone who uses DRL's are supporting TERRORISTS!!!!!111!!1!1!!" Seriously, get a grip on reality...quickly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
80 Knight wrote:

And you seriously need a course in logic, quickly: A. DRLs make a vehicle burn more fuel, which comes from oil. B. The US gets 40-some percent of it's oil from the Mideast. C. Terrorists are funded by Mideast oil revenues.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you use A/C? Do you drive with the windows down? Is your car perfectly tuned? How aerodynamic is your car? I can go on, but I think you get my point. All of those can cause a vehicle to burn more fuel, but wait. The BIG problem is driving lights... Like I said, get a grip on reality, or better yet, stop driving all together. It will make me feel much better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmmm, you don't realize that what is being talked about is something that is on all the time. You don't use A/C all the time, for example and you can turn it off. DRLs are generally on and the user has to pull fuses to get them off. You haven't said anything "real" for anyone to grip, oh yeah it must have been the cussing, yeah what a shining example of how to be.
Either address the actual points being made and stop the sarcasm, I feel like I am talking to a person that thought the topic was something else and just wants to rile people up.
Why oh why do we end up with Pro-DRL folks that have no argument or point but continue in the conversation as if their cursing and calling names would actually work. I am interested to see where else this goes, as I think that us folks on the anti-DRL side have made our case.
By the way, Mr. Knight, as pointed out earlier, the U.S. government won't mandate them and manufacturers like Toyota have stopped using them, it is a matter of time. Get with the program and realize that your little lights are only causing you aggravation by making you change them out early, while the rest of us don't have to worry about it.
Anyway, good night everyone :).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And none of your points make any sense. In this particular post, you and Sharon are trying to convince me that DRL's use up so much fuel that we are helping to fund terrorists. That is a lie, and you know it. As for "all the time", what about the aerodynamics of your car? If you drive a car that isn't aerodynamic, you can't turn that off either.

If you make a point that makes sense, I will give it my best. So far, you have yet to do so.

Made your case? You think you have made your case? You have thrown out the most pitiful excuses I have ever heard. If those "points" are all you have, the pro-DRL people have nothing to worry about.

I couldn't care less what the US government mandates. I don't live there. Here in Canada, they are required by law, and guess what? We don't really mind them.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.