| Jimmy, I see that you've finally emerged from hibernation and you're | you're still bitching about the same old crap.
Thanks for noticing Richie! What is one person's crap is another's treasure. We all have to be passionate about something silly to champion in our lives, don't we? BTW: I didn't bring up the DRL topic. A post by "ORV" did (wanting to know how to disconnect them...hmm at least two of us!). :-) The discussion/debate came from that.
| I know one guy in my area that wishes he had DRL's on | his car. His wife drove with NO lghts on and was | struck head-on by a large truck that was turning onto | the street.
I'm very sorry to hear that. Even if she had DRLs, had she been turned in a different direction she would likely have been rear ended or side-swiped by the truck instead (no tail/side lights with DRLs).
Curious, why was the truck on he wrong side of the street? If the truck driver was intoxicated or something, lights _may_ not have helped much anyway.
| If people driving through dark tunnels, at night, in shade and in heavy | rain would turn their lights on, DRL's might not be necesary.
Since side marker and tail lights are not lit with DRL systems, DRLs are not the solution to those issues. And the shade/tunnel situations are what, 1% of total drive time at best? Lighting laws in most states deal with the rain/fog/snow/night scenario. I've known people to get tickets for not having their lights on before...give out more tickets. All lights need to be on in those cases...DRL isn't enough. DRL _may_ actually _promote_ driving without lights for some people out there based on increased rear-end collision data for DRL-equipped cars.
| But, you have idiots that will not turn on their lights as long | as they can see their hand in front of their face.
No arguement here, a true statement. I would argue that the better solution is to give out frequent citations in those cases. It would train them to think and take personal responsibility to use their lights correctly OR face the consequences of fines, points and increased insurance costs. Auto systems & DRLs make people _not_ think and are like mommy cleaning up for little Billy so Billy never learns to clean up for himself. Do we REALLY want to create a environment that will produce even more idiots out there then already exist? OR would we want to reinforce responsibility by better driver training and enforcement of the laws?
| If Canada had not made DRL's mandatory, GM may not | have put them on their vehicles.
GM statements seem to imply it was all their idea in the name of safety. :-). But, I'm sure you are correct since GM save's money by making one product set for the two different countries.
| After all, DRL's DO prevent accidents (and save lives), regardless of anything you or | your anti-DRL organization might say.
Yes, that is a factual statement, but it is incomplete. Yes, certan types/categories of accidents statistically show a reduction in cars outfitted with DRLs (and lives saved?). However, it is also true that other types of accidents statistically show a increase (maybe caused) by DRLs (and lives lost?). The net effect across all accident categories, at least if you believe the 1997 HLDI study, is a 8% increased risk overall of accident with DRL-equipped cars.
Have you ever wondered why GM and the politicians only "cherry pick" the studies and cite specific accident categories (the ones that indicate benefit of DRL) and never, ever cite _overall_ statistics across _all_ accident categories? Why don't you ask them? Don't be a lemming...probe and question. Don't accept the opinions of entities that have a conflicting profit motive. I know the answer. It is because doing so is far less favorable (indeed detrimental in my opinion) to their position.
| Incidently, I'm still installing DRL's on cars for the | countless numbers of people that see the true | benefits of them.
People follow the pack...it's human nature to be in the "trendy" crowd, although no one will admit it! :-) As I stated before and will again, I defend individual choice. If a individual wants DRLs for what ever reason, then fine. I thought it was clear that the beef is with a corporate entity like GM insinuating themselves into what should be personal choice (the NHTSA rule says DRL use is to be "voluntary").
However, since you appear from your last statement to have a profit motive (installer of DRLs) your support of them, although very likely genuine...I'm not saying it isn't, is tainted...just like many of the pro-DRL studies funded by entities like GM. One can rightfully ask if your support of DRL is because you believe in them, or because you make money from them. It's the same quandary GM is in.