Yours are anecdotes that fit in the 20% portion of the distribution table. The
80% that I quoted is from gov't stats gathered from several thousand
Once again, as the DRLs increase in number, so do the motorcycle fatalities,
running about a 10% increase per year for the last 5 years. Curiously, that
increase happens to have a strong correlation with the number of 2-track
vehicles equipped with DRLs that are being added to the number of US
road-registered vehicles annually. Of course, that COULD be just a coincidence.
99% of that increase is due to IDIOT squids riding bikes well beyond
their ability to handle them. Look at the age statistics not just the
numbers. Notice that the majority who die are under 30? Want a recipe
for disaster. Take a 100+ HP bike. Put a kid who has never ridden before
on it (happens A LOT, seems these kids think that having a race bike
makes them superman) Now turn him loose to do the stunts that are so
common now (well ever since these stupid "reality" shows have been on,
and movies like fast and furious and others showing bikes/cars doing
tricks) things like 60 MPH "stoppies" and 70 mph "wheelies" and other
dumb crap. Think the fact that this type of event has had any effect?
Ever got to pick body parts from some 20 year old out of guide rails
when he lost control while wearing his flip flops and T-shirt and doing
80 in a 45 zone? DRLs have nothing to do with that increase. Maybe if
driver training was actually required in the US you would see the
You ranting for DRLs says more about you than the Senates
decision to not make DRLs mandatory in the US. Why do you think
they should be standard equipment? Do you believe the average
driver has a vision problem that they can't
see a two ton vehicle, in broad daylight, unless it has DRLs?
Talk about inability to judge distance ;)
You might want to do some research on the human eye, lights and
perception. Why do you think magicians use strong lighting, in
broad daylight, when the want to create an illusion?
The military uses lights as camouflage as well. In some lighting conditions
(common in the desert southwest, by the way) a dark silhouette against a
light background (like sand/snow/sky) is more visible that a lighted vehicle
that then blends in with it's background. In WWII, the military used lights
on bombers to make them disappear (or nearly disappear) in the daytime sky.
Lighting is a very tricky science. GM only tells half the story about the
effects of daytime illumination. Unless they can make them with variable
intensity system that "auto-senses" the background/foreground lighting
conditions, they will mask a vehicle on some occasions. Perhaps their
engineers aught to study the masking effects of lighting that had been known
Position has nothing to do with the confusing distance
perception. It is the difference in intensity of the two types of
lighting and the fact that many drivers of DRL equipped vehicles
operate illegally under those conditions by not tuning on their
headlamps as required by law.
Do you understand now? If not I suggest you search the
Congressional Record for the reports to the US Senate from the
engineering departments of the universities that did the study.
They came to the conclusion that DRLs cause more accidents than
they prevent. That is the reason DRLs are not standard equipment
in the US
Of course if you just want continue to post you personal opinion
on the subject I guess you could do that instead.
Steve Mackie wrote:
That is perhaps the dumbest thing you have ever spewed forth! Do you
think that all vehicle headlights have the same intensity? Do you think
that all DRL's have the same intensity. I doubt that neither you nor
anybody else could consistantly tell the difference between DRL's and
headlights. If you judge distance to an approaching vehicles by the
intensity of their lights, man you are in for a world of hurt! And I
thought that you were a car guy!
Wasn't it research groups at the universities that said thalidomide was
safe? Yep, if a university research group says it is true, it must be
so. Beam me up Scotty!
Do you remember the name Ralph Nader? Did you believe him too?
That is the reason DRLs are not standard equipment
You seem to be suggesting that you formed your personal opinion on what
appears to be suspect junk science. Hey, but that's okay. Wanna buy my
'52 Chev for only $45,000? Some appraiser said it's worth $50,000.00!
I did not spew anything. I merely quoted from the report to the
US Senate. It is available in the Congressional Record for you
to read as well if you wish to be enlightened.
You are free to believe whatever you wish, I could not care less
about you opinion. I prefer to believe the engineering schools
of two of the best engineering schools in the country, as did the
Senate, rather than your personal opinion, however.
So much for "professors" and their book knowledge.
How about insurance companies? They offer discounts for cars with DRLs. If
they put their money on the line I will go with them.
I know someone who brought a Dodge to the U.S. from Canada. He had to prove
to his insurance company that he had DRLs to get a discount.
So I guess if you disable your DRLs you had better notify your insurance
company. If you have an accident with them disabled they might not pay off.
Avis car rental reported a 64% reduction in car damages with cars equiped
You are driving at a time of low visibility, dusk, dawn, fog
etc. You assume the approaching vehicle is being operated with
headlamps, as required by state law. You think you have
sufficient distance to pass or enter unto the highway safely.
Unfortunatly you have a collision because you misjudged the
distance. The approaching vehicle was in fact being operated
illegally, with DRLs rather than headlamps, and was actually much
Steve Mackie wrote:
OK, well from all the flames, I guess I should've added that the lights
still automatically come on in dark/low light conditions (that means all of
them, headlights, taillights, etc), AUTOMATICALLY, so here's to the kind
words from some of you!!
Nothing wrong with automatic lighting; I've had it on all my cars for the last
20 years or so and I think it's GREAT. Imagine, lighting when it's NEEDED.
However, DRLs still suck to the MAX and the PTB that still want to perpetuate
this travesty knowing the DISbenefits (negative safety factors) involved should
be jailed (at least).
I've had auto light controls too. I have found that auto lights aren't
always reliable in turning on headlights as required when it's foggy or
snowing (during the daytime hours). So I don't agree with this statement.
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.