You have to be one of the most incompetent posters I have ever seen. Sure,
there are people out there who don't want the DRL's. What about the people
who *do* want them? Do they not count?
Also, I find it amusing how you "pick-and-choose" as to what comments you
wish to respond too. You have lost, Larry. Get over it.
The people who want DRLs have a voice and there have been reasoned
postings by those folks. They do count, absolutely. Pick and choose,
hmmm, you know the failure is for you to stay on topic. What you think
is picking and choosing is not responding to reasoned statements that
have relevance on their own. You are mistaken in that you don't
realize that it is you that have created this situation, only you to
blame, the rest of us were trying to have a discussion and you
interrupted into a topic that you don't care about.
Anyway, I didn't know this was a win or lose situation, is there a
medal that you win on this thread? The winners are not those that
scream the loudest, like you. The winners are those that can carry out
a reasoned discussion.
Your opinions, just like mine, are not the be all and end all. The
ideas presented are and you are standing in the way of the information
flow. I am sorry that you don't understand how this works :(.
"The rest of us were trying to have a discussion". Who are they? The voices
in your head? All you have done is give bad points, and annoy people. And
yes, you do pick and choose as to what to reply too.
And now you try and make everyone feel sorry for you. How pitiful. If you
knew how to have a real debate, this may have been interesting. And you are
correct, this isn't a "win or loose" situation. However, I don't believe it
is fair for you to say DRL's should be taken off all markets, only because
*you* don't like them.
Did you just admit that other (even pro-DRL) opinions count? If so, we
might be getting somewhere.
I am standing in the way of nothing. I am telling you what I think of the
information you have presented.
"However, I don't believe it
is fair for you to say DRL's should be taken off all markets, only
*you* don't like them. "
Hey Knight, greetings there. I am only addressing the U.S. market
specifically. Sharon referenced the different elevation and ambient
light differences and I agree with that assessment. Things are
different down here and the discussion is mainly about the U.S. I am
sorry that you did not realize this.
"Did you just admit that other (even pro-DRL) opinions count? If so,
might be getting somewhere. "
Duh, why you didn't realize this from the start???
Thanks for chiming in :),
The problem is that there is a decided lack of studies on the subject.
The U.S. is in a malaise on the issue, with the on but no officially
endorsed stance. However, Europe and Australia were in the midst of
following in the footsteps of Canada and it stirred up debate and more
studies. I really wish there was more data available that would shed
more light on the subject.
Yeah, we all do it. And, of course we have a tendency to look on with
the filter of our own perspectives, as well.
With so little studies done, I am surprised you are so adamant about making
I have no agenda. My car has DRL's, and I don't have a problem with that.
If it didn't have them, I would be equally as happy. I read the facts, that
is all. You are the one who sees what you wish too.
They were illegal in 22 states (including mine) prior to 1994. I want
the state laws to apply again. So, yes, I believe in states rights and
that a government agency should not have been able to overturn the
laws in those states. I would just like for things to return back to
normal when we didn't have the glare and the police would stop you and
remind you to turn your lights off. It was better then.
No problem with that, we all have our perspectives and opinions.
Talking about stuff freely helped people to understand each other. I
see the facts differently ;). We all see things as we wish to, not
So - it's safe to say that this is more of an issue of state's rights for
you, and that the DRL issue is just a banner to wave in that battle? Well
guess what - I'm 100% with you on the issue of state's rights. I'm not with
you on the DRL issue, but I am on the state's rights issue.
I personally dislike the lights, that is obvious. But the states
rights thing does burn me in a big way. I do feel that the individual
states should be able to regulate their own affairs within the rights
afforded to them in the Constitution. A good example is how the
federal government has the states over the proverbial barrel on the
basis of highway funds, grant or other public payouts that they
threaten to with-hold if the state does not comply. Even when a rule
makes sense, it still should be up to the states. I big example was
the 55 national speed limit. Other examples are seatbelt laws,
drinking age, drunk driving BAC levels, and so forth. The Feds step in
and use a form of blackmail to force them to pass the legislation they
want. Anyway, thanks for mentioning that :).
For starters, I have never, ever heard of a Police Officer stopping someone
to ask them to turn there lights off. Has this happened to you? As for
your position, I see no difference between DRL's and seatbelts. Once, both
were unheard of, now, not so.
Therein lies the problem. You see the DRL issue exactly have you wish too.
You can't separate fact from fiction, and you are determined to have them
banned. And yet, you haven't posted any solid proof as to why they should
I understand, it used to happen around here on a regular basis. In
fact, regular citizens used to remind other to turn their lights off
during the day. That changed in 94.
You don't see a difference, fine. However, seatbelts clearly save
lives and you wearing your seatbelt has no impact on other drivers.
DRLs are not proven as a safety feature and impact others. I can't put
them together as equals.
This is all your opinion, as far as I know I have presented plenty of
information on the subject. But, since you have two disparate
viewpoints on this, then we have to agree to disagree. I don't deal
with fiction in my life, do you?
That is easy for you to determine the differance. For one, seat belts are
INSIDE the car and DRL are OUTSIDE, just look at the car and you can tell
the difference at a glance LOL
wrote in message>> They were illegal in 22 states (including mine) prior to 1994. I want
Yes, the differences between seat belts and DRLs is obvious: the seat
belts are a PROVEN life-saving device and bother no one else on the
road. OTOH, the DRLs are an unnecessary distraction that bothers many
people and may even CAUSE loss of life (as in motorcycle riders).
Remember," The freedom for you to swing your arm ends where my nose
begins", and this principle applies quite handily to DRLs. :)
The howler monkeys and their self-imagined "wit" can chime in any time
on this commentary.
Stats have been cited over & over again, so I suggest that you remove
your head from its usual resting place and look around. What lies? As
far as sanity goes, I'm not the one that believes motor vehicles should
have their lights on in broad daylight in order to be seen by other
drivers. To me, THAT concept smacks of insanity. :)
Just like people believe the world is round and people can actually stand on
the bottom of it and not fall off. How about that you can push electricity
through a solid wire. Those concepts smack of insanity also.
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.