Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website.

The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and
published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the
insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results;
vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar
vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was
strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights,
waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or don't
have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on
accident reduction is zero or worse.

http://www.motorists.com/stealthis/lightsoff.html


"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:cl61tu$gv6$5@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> In article <41764E33.1000505@RWMann.com>, RWM@RWMann.com says...
>>Is there an OEM relay, say from a Canadian spec CR-V, that can enable a
>>DRL function on a US spec car?
>>How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage
>>as DRLs?
>
> The obvious question is why bother? When the conditions warrant it, you
> can
> reach over and turn on your low beams. High beams are reduced voltage are
> a very stupid idea.
> ---------------
> Alex
>
>

 

Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website.

The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and
published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the
insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results;
vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar
vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was
strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights,
waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or don't
have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on
accident reduction is zero or worse.

http://www.motorists.com/stealthis/lightsoff.html


"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:cl61tu$gv6$5@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> In article <41764E33.1000505@RWMann.com>, RWM@RWMann.com says...
>>Is there an OEM relay, say from a Canadian spec CR-V, that can enable a
>>DRL function on a US spec car?
>>How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage
>>as DRLs?
>
> The obvious question is why bother? When the conditions warrant it, you
> can
> reach over and turn on your low beams. High beams are reduced voltage are
> a very stupid idea.
> ---------------
> Alex
>
>

 

For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs,
see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm

Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think
about it.


me wrote:

>The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
>good.
>
>

 

For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs,
see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm

Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think
about it.


me wrote:

>The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
>good.
>
>

 

For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs,
see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm

Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think
about it.


me wrote:

>Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website.
>
>The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and
>published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the
>insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results;
>vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar
>vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was
>strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights,
>waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or don't
>have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on
>accident reduction is zero or worse.
>

 

For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs,
see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm

Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think
about it.


me wrote:

>Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website.
>
>The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and
>published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the
>insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results;
>vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar
>vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was
>strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights,
>waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or don't
>have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on
>accident reduction is zero or worse.
>

 

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news5%fd.260877$wV.29450@attbi_s54...
> Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website.
>
> The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed
and
> published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the
> insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results;
> vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar
> vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was
> strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional
lights,
> waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or
don't
> have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect
on
> accident reduction is zero or worse.

That's a crock!

 

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news5%fd.260877$wV.29450@attbi_s54...
> Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website.
>
> The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed
and
> published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the
> insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results;
> vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar
> vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was
> strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional
lights,
> waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or
don't
> have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect
on
> accident reduction is zero or worse.

That's a crock!

 

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:L2%fd.260867$wV.229842@attbi_s54...
> The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
> good.

The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.

 

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:L2%fd.260867$wV.229842@attbi_s54...
> The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
> good.

The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.

 

In article <4180D772.2080007@RWMann.com>, RWM@RWMann.com says...

>For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs,
>see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm
>Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think
>about it.

Read the part about reducing light out put to European levels. Also it
seems that only GM is stupid enough to use high beams as DRL's. Another
really stupid idea that is not addressed. The only folks in the US pushing
for DRL's is GM. DRL's also do nothing that a smart driver can't do on
their own. DRL's that use high beams do bother other motorists on the road.
And as I mentioned before, it will cause a lot of stupid drivers to drive
around at night without turning on their lights, which means they are blacked
out to the rear, because they thinkg DRL's are ok to drive with at night.
The IIHS is biased. They are fully funded by insurance companies, so all
their data always supports what is in the insurance companies best interest.
-------------
Alex

 

In article <4180D772.2080007@RWMann.com>, RWM@RWMann.com says...

>For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs,
>see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm
>Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think
>about it.

Read the part about reducing light out put to European levels. Also it
seems that only GM is stupid enough to use high beams as DRL's. Another
really stupid idea that is not addressed. The only folks in the US pushing
for DRL's is GM. DRL's also do nothing that a smart driver can't do on
their own. DRL's that use high beams do bother other motorists on the road.
And as I mentioned before, it will cause a lot of stupid drivers to drive
around at night without turning on their lights, which means they are blacked
out to the rear, because they thinkg DRL's are ok to drive with at night.
The IIHS is biased. They are fully funded by insurance companies, so all
their data always supports what is in the insurance companies best interest.
-------------
Alex

 

In article <z_4gd.12724$df2.10198@edtnps89>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada says...

>"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
>news:L2%fd.260867$wV.229842@attbi_s54...
>> The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
>> good.
>The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.

Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's.
------------
Alex

 

In article <z_4gd.12724$df2.10198@edtnps89>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada says...

>"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
>news:L2%fd.260867$wV.229842@attbi_s54...
>> The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
>> good.
>The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.

Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's.
------------
Alex

 

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:clrdtn$jd0$3@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>
> Read the part about reducing light out put to European levels. Also it
> seems that only GM is stupid enough to use high beams as DRL's.

Honda uses the high beam lights (at reduced wattage) for their DRLs.

>Another
> really stupid idea that is not addressed. The only folks in the US
pushing
> for DRL's is GM. DRL's also do nothing that a smart driver can't do on
> their own. DRL's that use high beams do bother other motorists on the
road.

Not true.

> And as I mentioned before, it will cause a lot of stupid drivers to drive
> around at night without turning on their lights, which means they are
blacked
> out to the rear, because they thinkg DRL's are ok to drive with at night.

Nothing is going to help stupid drivers {;^)


--
Brian

A balanced diet is a chocolate chip cookie in each hand.