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". :)
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..
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
No One You Know 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
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.
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.
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
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."
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!!!
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?
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!???
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
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
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.
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. ;-)
Will you believe Webster's dictionary? See:
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
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.
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.
"Sharon K.Cooke" < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
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.