Disabling Daytime Running Lights

Page 2 of 4  
Steve Mackie wrote:


Metrics is one system trying to replace an entrenched one, and THERE ARE economic impact problems (+ many Americans are mentally lazy). Kyoto Accord is a political scam, period.
1-4 are good, 5(?). DRLs are just a "Trip to Abilene". :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The metric system is only 35 years young in Canada. http://members.shaw.ca/gw.peterson/metric.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:34:21 -0400, "Steve Mackie"

I think the mentality is that we live in a "free country", so why should one manufacturer mandate a feature not everyone wants (FYI, Toyota also seems to have DRLs on most of its cars now I wonder if Toyota owners are as pissed as GM owners). On another note, I ALWAYS turned my lights on with my old truck (no DRLs), I'm not sure why I did that. Now I have a truck with AHLs and DRLs, the only time I turn the knob on the dash is when it's raining and it isn't dark enough to trigger the AHLs.
What bothers me more than DRLs are the people who feel the need to drive around during the day, or even in real early dusk conditions, with headlamps on and high-beams on, IN TRAFFIC. Like the bright sun isn't enough to blind other drivers..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes they were. Toyota then backed away from mandating DRLs in 2001 and made them options.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That may be your opinion but test conducted by the engineering department of several universities for the US Senate show otherwise. When the Senate committee was considering GMs request to make DRLs standard in the US they determined that DRLs cause more problem than they prevented. I. E. Drivers confusing an approaching vehicle, operating improperly with DRLs in low light situation, with a vehicle being drive properly with headlamps. Resulting in the driver misjudging distant while passing or pulling into traffic. Failure of a high percentage of operators of DRL equipped vehicle to turn on their headlamps when required.
They found the exact opposite of your opinion for motorcycles. Motorcycles do not have DRLs, they operate with the headlamp on and they have a tendency to individually disappear in a sea of DRLs The result of those test are available in the Congressional Record for anyone interested
mike hunt
No One You Know wrote:

<snip>
If it saves one life it's a good thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This confuses me. Can you re-word it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Mackie wrote:

He's saying that the willy-nilly approach to the placement of DRLs can CAUSE head-on collisions, since without uniform positioning of the DRLs, combined with low light conditions, oncoming drivers wanting to pass can be fooled into thinking the oncoming DRL-equipped vehicle is farther away than it actually is. A prime example of this is the earlier Saturn vehicles that used far inboard lighting as DRLs; whoever thought that up is likely responsible for a number of head-on collisions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

CAUSE
combined with

actually is.

inboard
number of

Okay I see. So regardless of the vehicle all lights should be in the same spot. This will make stupid drivers (that don't realize how much time they have to pass) better drivers. Gotcha.
What I'm saying is, the drivers that are using the excuse "his lights were in the wrong spot so I didn't realize how far away he was," should have their licence revoked.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Mackie wrote:

You're still not thinking this thru. If the Saturn (in the above example) HAD its HEADLAMPS turned on in said low level light conditions, there would be zero problem with distance perception as in the preceding example. Dependence on DRLs is tricking a whole generation of drivers into forgetting to turn their lights on. Safety? I don't think so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

on DRLs

lights
If you forget to turn your lights on, and your excuse is "my car has DRLs so I didn't notice my lights weren't on" is your excuse, your licence should be revoked.
In my honest technical opinion, there is no arguement in the world that would make me say whether or not DRLs are good or bad, because honestly, I don't care. If there are drivers out there that find it distracting and unsafe, maybe they shouldn't drive. If there are drivers that find cars without DRLs unsafe, maybe they shouldn't drive.
I find armored cars distracting, with their flat windshields, reflecting the sun in my eyes. I find people doing anything but driving while they are driving harmfull to my safety. I don't look to these things as excuses for me if I make a bad decision while driving and get into an "accident". Cars are like guns when they say "guns don't kill people, people do." There is no such thing as a "car accident,", it's called "a collision caused by neglectfull or careless driving."
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Silly argument. There is a easy solution with the DRL example you use...and that would be to get rid of them. the other distractions are not so easily remedied (in your current comparison examples)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sharon K.Cooke wrote:

Well, someone is definitely not thinking this through. Perhaps you think that headlights on all cars are equidistant from each other. Whether someone is driving with DRL's on or headlights on, if an approaching driver misjudges the distance to said vehicle, that is plain and simply driver error. God, I hope that I'm never driving a motorcycle towards you after dark!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Grayfox wrote:

No, it's not driver error; DRLs with far inboard mounts and reduced light intensity help create the ILLUSION that the oncoming 2-track vehicle is farther away than it actually is; this has been proven in independent testing. There are other ways of recognizing an approaching motorcycle at night; if you were truly a biker, you'd know that. Also, assuming you're a biker, you'd hate DRLs as much as I do; the more 2-track vehicles with DRLs that are put on the road, the less likely motorcycles are to be seen, since the former conspicuity that motorcycles enjoyed with THEIR DRLs (i.e., lights on with Run) begins to dwindle. If a motorcycle rider is in a collision with a two-track vehicle at a 100 mph collision speed, the car/truck driver will walk away. Guess what happens with the motorcycle rider about 80% of the time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sharon K.Cooke wrote: > No, it's not driver error;
It sure as hell is! If the driver being approached by a car with DRL's didn't err in judging the distance, there is no problem! Duh!
DRLs with far inboard mounts and reduced light

I think that your "ILLUSION" is a result of too much cafeine. I'd like to hear you tell that one to the judge: "Well your honor, I now know that the oncoming car was only 100 feet away, but with it's far inboard mounts and reduced light intensity, it appeared to be a mile away." The judge would give you 5 years for stupidity!
that the oncoming 2-track vehicle is farther

Actually, I hate those idiots who drive 24/7 with fog lights on!
the more 2-track vehicles with DRLs that are put on the road, the less

Guess what happens with

Uh, he judges the distance correctly and lives another day to pull your chain in this NG!???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills; the collision was a given, as was the 100 mph collision speed; The correct answer is, The motorcycle rider dies. Not just shook up or a broken arm, but DIES. Good Luck with your belief system.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sharon K.Cooke wrote:

How ironic that sentence is! You need to work on your knowledge of the English language. There is no such word as "conspicuity" in the English langauge!
the collision was a

My dear, if I may call you "my dear", if a motorcycle rider is in a collision with a two-track vehicle at a 100 mph collision speed", it matters not a wit whether or not the vehicle has it's DRL's on. What does any of this proposed scenario have to do with DRL's? You are really scratching and clawing to defend your position, but you are doing a poor job. Your motorcycle scenario is a lot of "smoke and mirrors" and has nothing to do with the safety of DRL's. You seem to subscribe to the theory that "bullshit baffles brains"!!! Since you snipped most of the early part of my post and failed to respond to it, I assume that you conceded to my wisdom on the matter of DRL's.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You also seem to have a limited vocabulary, as well as suffering from poor reading comprehension & limited reasoning. See: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid87473

My dear, if I may call you "my dear", You can if you're a homo; I happen to be of the male gender

Once again to fail to understand; the collision happens because the sea of DRLs renders the motorcycle less visible than it was before GM and its ilk started this DRL crap.
<snip>

I responded, and quite well; there's that lack of comprehension again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sharon K.Cooke wrote:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid87473
I find it interesting that your amazing vocabulary stems from a completely plagiarized article from a website in Auckland, New Zealand. If you were the cunning linguist you purport to be, you would surely have given credit to the actual author of the article, or at the very least, you should have used quotation marks. Ah, but of course, you only divulged your plagiarism in an effort to support your contention the the word you plagiarised actually exists. So now that we know you were actually using someone elses word, we would still expect you to prove that the word "conspicuity" actually exists, other than in your mind and the mind of the actual author of "your words". I still say that there is no such word. You and the author are mistaken. Prove me wrong Sharon! You shouldn't believe everything you read. And you certainly shouldn't plagiarize a word that doesn't exist. Next time, look it up!
By the way, did you also plagiarize that other non-existant word "DISbenefit", when you said "This would seem to indicate a safety DISbenefit of 3% with the use of DRLs.". Sharon, you have to learn to proof-read that which you plagiarize. Naw, you probably came up with that one yourself.

Sharon, if I may call you Sharon, your parents could surely have chosen a more manly name for their manly, albeit homophobic, son! They say that mothers are very intuitive and your mother probably had an inkling that you would turn out to be . . . well, let's leave it at that. After all, no self respecting man says "willy-nilly".

Oh, now I understand Sharon. Motorcycle fatalities are all caused by drivers who drive after sunset with their DRL's on. You really do subscribe to the theory that "bullshit baffles brains"!!! "GM and its ilk" may have started this GM crap, but they don't hold a candle to your ability to disemminate bullshit! ;-)

Ah yes, you defended the non-existent word which you plagiarized from someone in New Zealand very well. Yes, you're a legend in your own mind Sharon! Sadly, my lack of comprehension necessitates that I once again challenge you to verify that the two cited words exist. Any well-know and accredited dictionary would suffice Sharon. That should keep you busy for a while. Although, you have clearly shown that you know how to steal other peoples' words from their websites. Meanwhile, don't get your panties in a knot Sharon. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Grayfox wrote:

Will you believe Webster's dictionary? See: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/Conspicuity

Allwords.com dictionary ; http://www.allwords.com/word-disbenefit.html BTW, "disbenefit" is a common word in Federal parlance, used a LOT by people that write about DRLs.
The DIS was emphasis on the negative aspect of the word, while further delineating its etymology,

Have you EVER read a book or hung out somewhere other that bars?

NO, you STILL don't get it. Incredible!

If you EVER figure out HOW to use a dictionary, look up the word "plagiarize", then show me where I put my name (which you really don't know) on that article. I selected THAT article because it dealt with motorcycles and used the word "conspicuity" a lot, a word that's been around in the English language for over 100 years. I guess your beer drinking friends don't read much either, eh?

See above for links to the definitions that you're too lazy or inept to research.
BTW, I'm not Sharon. My wife's name is Sharon; this is her computer that I'm using since mine is undergoing a major overhaul.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not TRUE. I have walked away from a "100" mph collision speed (FYI that means the total impact speed equals 100 mph. IE: car at 50 bike at 50) Had a broken arm and one seriously sprained ankle but I walked away, The cage driver DIED on the scene. He was not wearing a seat belt and was thrown from the car after he hit me and went into the ditch. He went out a window and took a tree to the skull.
Also know quite a few other who have made it through similar mishaps. Want to know what the FIRST thing out of the mouth of the person who hits a biker is.. "BUT I DIDN'T SEE HIM" DRLs make NO difference at all in that statement. It has been the main statement for year LONG before DRLS were ever used. The problem is really that US drivers mostly SUCK. They are too busy eating their big macs while talking on the phone and yelling at the kids in the back seat. I would LOVE to see the US make it MUCH harder to get a license and start retesting EVERY driver every 4-6 years. Vision testing by a real doctor and written and driving tests before you renew. Random drug testing and AUTOMATIC revocation for drunk/drugged driving. NO conditional licenses for drunks or repeat offenders either. Two speeding tickets in a year, you lose your paper for a year.
--
Steve Williams

"Sharon K.Cooke" < snipped-for-privacy@cox.net> wrote in message
  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.