day time lights

No Cooke - I made my comments to in order to call attention to the ludicrous claims you threw on the table. The shameful behavior here is yours - you attempt to hide behind what you consider to be a badge of honor (this DRL battleground), while you do nothing but throw out wild and outlandish claims, or equally outlandish, irrelevant references like the tanks, above. We all know there is no correlation between DRL's and the tank lights you speak of here, but you throw it out there as diversion. I believe Larry to be sincere in his position, but you are nothing but a shit-stirrer. You are classic in that regard Cooke, and it gives me pleasure to call you on it. What a shame that people like you give a bad name to movements.

Actually the only real cite was provided by Sharon, and several people pointed out that the numbers were clearly the opposit of what she was saing. She then accused everyone of cherry picking because we looked at the entire data set - and then proceeded to tell us that only a subset of those numbers were valid. Now, I ask you Larry - who is cherry picking?

For that very reason Larry. No one was making claims in favor of DRL. Most of us here were simply replying to the posts from you and Sharron. That's the way dialog goes.

Questioning and poining out weak arguments is not an attack.

I have never called you a miserable failure. Perhaps this is an indication of why you feel so persecuted...

With respect to the only information that was posted - Sharon's cite - it condemed her, not anyone here.

Larry - you have to understand that everyone is not going to always agree with you. If you consider that disagreement is a problem, then life is going to frustrate you. You have whinned about being attacked enough. No one here has attacked you. Grow some skin Larry.

I would say that could be argued that Cooke has probably been more unpleasant and anti-social than the sum total of respondents in this thread. Time to let go of the whinning.

Think what you want, Larry. The fact is, all of Sharon's "facts" have been proven to be either false, or have actually led to pro-DRL.

Oh, I pay attention Larry. I pay attention to things like you snipping text you don't want to respond too. I pay attention to the links you provide, which at times are actually pro-DRL. And, then I pay attention to you lying about them.

I was done posting to you, as you can't have a discussion without lies. As for Sharon, I felt the need to respond to her last post.

Good night, Larry.

Sorry to hear about the pain :(.

Actually, I wasn't citing the study contained by NHTSA. Only that NHSTA referenced the IIHS study from 1997. Just showing evidence that the IIHS study does exist.

Now, you have referenced NHTSA's conclusions, so I will comment on that below.

This is the same data that GM, Ford, Chrysler and other groups (see my other post with references) have not found to be reliable enough to fully stand on. If NHTSA was fully satisfied with these conclusions, DRL would be the law of the land (in my opinion).

They are unsure if this trend will continue. I don't see this as a full notice that they see that history will repeat itself with further improvements.

If all cars have DRLs and if drivers get to used to them then they cannot predict what the result would be. They don't sound too sure that it will work on a mass scale. Same thing that we have been noting that if all cars had them, then any "advantage" would be lost.

Further research is needed.

FEMA is not a anti-DRL group. They are the Federation of European Motorcyclist' Associations. You can easily see this by checking their main web site:

Look, this was a well written paper by an independent group that has DRLs as but one of a multitude of concerns. They did a strong job of putting together the information, but you ignore it. When you critiqued the NHTSA report, you didn't claim politics, weak point or anything other than "look at the conclusion". I am not understanding how you find the NHTSA findings "rock solid" but you discard this report?

Yes, however, with the regular lights on, the masking affect would be greater. I agree that checking that kind of thing in darkness probably does not have much bearing on the sunny daytime :).

withDRL'sisn't going to fix the underlying problem.

I agree, good point. Doing away with them will stop irritating folks (in the U.S. specifically) :).

I understand what you are saying, but as you are referencing with the number of signs causing confusion, having additional stimulas with DRL lights in the eyes certainly would not help with the confusion.

Cool :). Of course this is a country that rejected them outright (you knew I would point that out :).

I understand what your thought is on that, however here is a country that found it to be serious enough of an issue to ban them and think long and hard about any implementation. So, add Japan to France, plus the big three U.S. automakers, NHTSA, various other groups who all can't fully verify that DRLS work and we have a malaise here folks.

I understand, it takes awhile to research, read them and post them. I have snipped them but we have them in the previous post record for reference. Sounds fine.

Larry

Below is what I have found to be comments in favor of DRL, from this actual thread. Mike M., your comment from 9/4 is included as a matter of fairness, however I have not seen any evidence that you have been fighting for the pro or con position. True to your word, you are actually pushing for explanations and not taking a stand on the issue (still irritating to those being pushed, but nevertheless you are not actually arguing for or against DRLs :).

------------------------------------ From: "Tim" Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:01:26 -0500

"I have a 96 Buick LeSabre and would like to add daytime running lights."

------------------------------------

From: Sharon Cooke Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:57:12 -0500

"I believe that '96 was the year that year that GM started putting DRLs on ALL it's vehicles, so your car probably has them, but they were disabled by a previous owner. If not, GM will be happy to sell you a DRL lighting module for $50 or so."

------------------------------------

From: "80 Knight" Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:23:10 -0400

"Here in Canada, the DRL's have been used for years, and no one I know has a problem with them. I am curious to know how the accident you were in was caused by the DRL's. Care to share?"

------------------------------------

"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. "

------------------------------------

Hobo 8/29 8:09PM

"That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. You are saying that in broad daylight, DRLs can cause someone else to be so blinded by glare that they can't see what's on the road (what about sunlight reflecting off of the windows and shiny surfaces of other vehicles - doesn't that cause a problem?). I've only been driving for 48 years, in Canada, the USA and Europe and I have never seen, nor heard, of such a thing. Sounds to me like a piddly assed excuse for driver inattention "

------------------------------------

Hobo 8/29 8:11PM

"Duhhhh, it's not for you to see, it's for others to see you. Do much two lane highway driving?"

-------------------------------------

Tim 8/29 10:13PM

"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."

-------------------------------------

PerfectReign 8/29 9:48PM

"Mine be amber!

-------------------------------------

Tim 8/29 11:18PM

Posted the contents of

-------------------------------------

Scott Buchanan 8/30 12:42AM

"What are the hazards presented by DRL's?

The only problem that I know of is when one approaches a military guard post they want you to turn off your head lights. "

-------------------------------------

"Like I said, here in Canada, they have been used for many years, and I never hear anyone complaining. "

-------------------------------------

Lee Richardson 8/30 7:55AM

"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."

-------------------------------------

Tim 8/31 11:06 and 11:12AM

"Glare? from a reduced voltage head lamp you better get your eyes checked "

"You did not read down about the good points of DRL. "

--------------------------------------

Sudy Nim 8/31 1:38PM

"Personally I would rather see all cars with DRLs rather than not see one coming at me out of a rainstorm, a fog or from around a sharp two-lane highway curve in overcast without any lights, which they "forgot" to turn on! I can send you a copy of the accident and hospital reports to verify the results if you would like? "

--------------------------------------

Tim 8/31 3:41PM

"I feel DRL are safer and I could give a S*** less what others feel. Of course I also feel seatbelts and helmet safe lives and have always used them. "

---------------------------------------

Edwin Pawlowski 8/31 6:50PM

"Could be, but I've never been distracted by them, harmed by them or any other bad thing. Nor have I seen a "mountain of bodies" on the road since they became standard of GM cars. "

-----------------------------------------

"I have seen no evidence that my use of DRL's affect's other drivers. No one I know of has complained about them, and (as I have stated, here in Canada, they are mandatory), I see them every day, and also have no complaints about them. "

-----------------------------------------

"If my "glare" you mean someone shining a flood-light into your eyes, then I totally agree. However, the glare from a DRL equipped car is very minimal. "

"I can see quite fine, even on a 4-lane highway, full of cars with DRL's. Nothing is masked. "

------------------------------------------

"If DRL's are so dangerous, why do some States, and Canada use them?"

------------------------------------------

"If DRL's are so unsafe, why hasn't the US Government outlawed them, like you want? "

---------------------------------------------

"The problem is, not everyone is bothered by this "glare"."

---------------------------------------------

"All of the DRL's I have encountered are low-powered, even the ones using the high beam lights. "

"Having been driving for many years, I disagree. The DRL's are honestly not that bright. "

"All I have is your claim saying people can't. I can see them fine. "

"I thought we had already discussed the gas issue? DRL's aren't going to bring a person's gas bill up. Certainly not more then A/C, driving with the windows open, not properly inflating tires, and so forth. "

Posted IIHS page citing Pro DRL stance:

-----------------------------------------------

Mike Marlow 9/4 3:20PM

"I'm not with you on the DRL issue, but I am on the state's rights issue. "

-----------------------------------------------

Indrek Aavisto 9/4 3:25PM

"DRL's work effectively and are well received in Canada, where 90% of the population lives within 200 miles of the US border. "

"These instances are then seized upon to support the notion that the initiatives should be abandoned despite ample evidence of their effectiveness in most situations. "

-----------------------------------------------

Tim 9/4 7:34PM

"THIS thread started with a question can I hook up the DRL on my 96 Buick. "

------------------------------------------------

"You say you see glare from DRL's. I say I don't. "

"A car headlight, even on full brightness uses *much* less gasoline then running the A/C. If you want to get to basics, even using your radio could change your mileage. "

"DRL's are safety equipment. "

"Who are you to say "cars were not designed to have them (lights) on all day"?"

"If motorcycles are so dangerous without lights on, surely the government would mandate this. "

"However, the *fact* is in Canada, as well as several other countries, and some US States, DRL's are mandatory. Why would they be if they are not needed, or worse, are dangerous? "

"If that were the case, then it would make sense for DRL's to be mandatory on all vehicles. "

------------------------------------------------

Tim 9/8 8:20AM

"DRL do reduce accidents. It is proven and not just a personal oppion.

----------------------------------------------------

"Arizona has many 2-lane highways. Some, arrow-straight, with some dips and rises.

The oncoming view is often distorted by heatwaves, but there's no mistaking an approaching vehicle with headlights

Many Arizona highways require headlights at all times.

It IS safer ! "

-----------------------------------------------------

It can be perceived as such by those on the receiving end. Of course what each person determines to be a weak argument is subjective.

Thanks, I don't feel persecuted, just a perception of being attacked. Obviously, I believe in what I am saying and when prodded I will be compelled to respond.

I understand what you are saying here. In re-reading the threads, I did note that you did focus in on that.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. I didn't respond to every post that was positive for DRLs, I know that people have different opinions. The difference is when people engage with questions or direct pot shots, then there will be a further discussion. I am not here to change everyones minds (that is not realistic), just allow for more thoughtful consideration of the issue in total.

I can't concur, obviously :). I don't want to attack Sharon, as I understand where you and others are coming from, however I did not see any reason to be so harsh with her. I obviously agreed with her in many areas and I appreciate her being bold enough to speak her mind on the subject. I know you disagree with me on this, but I won't be negative in her direction.

Thanks,

Larry

Everyone snips comments, you can't keep the whole thread in each posting. You also cannot be expected to respond to every single thing in every single post. I appreciate your commenting, however I don't appreciate being called a liar, that is not appropriate.

Thanks for your time,

Larry

Cut the crap, Larry. How can you expect people to have honest debates with you, when you can't even tell the truth? And, yes. Snipping happens, but it's not appropriate to snip information, only because you don't want to respond to it. You know what? It's been fun. I came into this thread not caring weather cars have DRL's or not. I figured, my car has them, but your's doesn't. So what? I gave your side a chance, yet you can't keep your facts straight, and the only reason I call you a liar is because you are one. Or, at least you are on Usenet. What you are in real life, I honestly don't know.

Ignore it???? What in the world are you talking about?

I did not critique the NHTSA report in any way Larry. I took no stand on it. I merely pointed out that it was not supportive of you position. I pasted in the conclusion to demonstrate that.

Rock solid??? I made no such statements.

Then you see my point - this becomes a distraction. A tactic to distract from a losing argument. Cars with head lights on at night present no correlation to cars with DRL's on. As a distraction, this tactic is dispicable.

But - there is not an overwhelming voice crying out that they are irritated in the US. That makes the anti platform more noise than anything else,

As a driver, I would not say that DRL's have ever contributed to visual clutter for me. I cannot be used a evidence if US dislike for DRL. I spoke only of road signs and I do not find DRL's to add to the visual clutter presented by signs. Driving a car requires a certain amount of active awareness on the part of the driver - an acceptance of visual stimuli, I'm actually fine with visual stimuli.

Which pretty much places us where I've been all along on this matter. Some like 'em, some don't. The evidence on either side has never been compelling enough to convince a majority across a larger stage. Attempting to make a larger case out of weak evidence does not work. So in the end, so go one way and some go another. Does not matter to me. It's just not one of the bigger battles in life.

Knight, obviously, you don't understand that you are clearly pro DRL, you can view your comments that I posted above. You are on record with multiple comments in support of DRLs. You claim to not care and to be neutral, that doesn't seem to be the case.

You can call me whatever you want, it doesn't make it true. I know how you have acted and that is all I need to know.

God bless,

Larry

Ignore might not be the correct word. It is correct that you didn't ignore the paper, as you did comment on it. "Discount the information" might be a better take. Essentially you threw out their paper as politically motivated weak arguments and when it came to the NHTSA paper, you pointed to their conclusions. Anyway, I just noticed that you treated the different papers in a different manner.

Critique = review and comment. You pointed to the conclusion of the report to refute what I had mentioned. You let it stand and did not say anything bad about their information like you did with the FEMA information.

You did not call their data into question, you endorsed their conclusion directly as a refute to me. Yes, you didn't say "rock solid" specifically there, I pulled that from your other comment to emphasize that you were looking for "rock solid" data and your lack of negative comments about the NHTSA paper did imply that you considered it to be a strong paper, thus the "rock solid" comment.

Absolutely, yes, I don't see the point with them doing any analysis at night, in reference to DRLs.

But, that is not true. There are multi thousands of comments on the NHTSA dockets. We are having this conversation here and folks do talk about this. The main reason that GM hasn't been able to push through DRLs involves the instance that the facts just aren't there to support DRLs and that a vast and varied group of citizens have complained about them. I can't tell you the percentage of the population, but it isn't just a few people.

I understand your point on this. I was simply noting that the signs, lights and other items in your field of view all add up to more "data" for your eyes to process at any given time. I just don't see how it can be good to add more "data" that you have to process in order to make timely driving decisions or reactions.

I appreciate your even keeled concept here. Obviously, I don't see the "weak evidence" on the anti side ;). But, I appreciate how you are trying to approach this.

Cheers,

Larry

Being for or against DRL's is very different from calling the info you site BS. I could not possibly care less if cars have DRL's or not. All I am saying is your arguments don't usually match up. Some of them don't even make any sense. If you call that "Pro-DRL", then you are going to find a

So, you know that I have not lied, and you have. Good for you, Larry. And you don't need me saying you have lied to prove it. Just re-read your posts.

Oye! I'm getting a headache dealing with you interpretation of things Larry. I explained to you that it seemed odd that you would post aink that was contrary to your position, provided the conclusion as evidence of my thoughts, and you're going off on some tangent about this. Unreal.

I quit Larry. You see yourself as such a victim in this world - it's no wonder thw assault of DRL's is such a big thing for you. You sir are going to find your walk through life to be one attack upon you after another. What a shame.

It is clear where your loyalties are, you cannot hide that anymore.

I don't know if, in your own mind, you actually believe that you are reasonable, and at this point I don't care. I didn't call you a liar, you called me that. I am simply calling you out for what you stated so clearly in multiple postings, live with it.

I won't be called a liar by you especially. I see no point in continuing to include you in this conversation.

CYA,

Larry

Mike,

I have appreciated talking with you, it has been a pleasure, seriously. I am sorry that you still think that I am somehow a "victim", that is not the case. Yes things bother me, that is correct, but as a Christian I know that God is in control and the travails of this life are really no big deal. Seriously, I am sorry that you have a wrong impression of me.

Nevertheless, thanks for the conversation. You truly did back up your position as neutral and unlike others you did work to having a conversation instead of a school yard brawl.

God bless and thanks again,

Larry

Grab a clue, Larry. I couldn't care less about DRL's. Some have them, some don't. I only wanted to point out how pathetic your "evidence" actually is.

I can live with it, Larry. You are the one who can't seem to grasp the fact that you have lied.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Haven't gone anywhere. I appreciate your concern :).