"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.

 

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:clrdv5$jd0$4@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>
> >The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.
>
> Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's.

In what way?

--
Brian

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have
come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance
to the first.

 

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:clrdv5$jd0$4@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>
> >The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.
>
> Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's.

In what way?

--
Brian

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have
come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance
to the first.

 

Here's my 2 cents.

I haven't really looked at the accident numbers but doesn't it make sense
that an increase in daytime lights would detract from the visibility of
motorcycles and hence be responsible for more motorcycle accidents? It used
to be when you saw lights during the day, it was either a motorcycle (or I
guess a drunk driver). Now with all the lights on everyone just blends in
with the crowd making motorcycles more hidden.

Mike H

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:L2%fd.260867$wV.229842@attbi_s54...
> The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
> good.
>
> http://www.motorists.com/stealthis/lightsoff.html
>
>
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
> news:wiOdd.23088$_u6.3811@edtnps89...
> >
> > "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
> > news:cl6b92$sid$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> >>
> >> It is stupid that an insurance company would give a discount for
> >> something
> >> that has no proven benefits. Also, high beam DRL's are stupid because
> >> the
> >> aiming of the light puts it right at eye level of other road users.
Even
> >> at reduced voltage, it is annoying.
> >
> > No proven benefits? You haven't read very much (if anything) on the
> > subject.
> > Years of testing were done in may countries, before DRLs were developed.
> >
> > --
> > Brian
> >
> > Ever stop to think... and forget to start again?
> >
> >
>
>

 

Here's my 2 cents.

I haven't really looked at the accident numbers but doesn't it make sense
that an increase in daytime lights would detract from the visibility of
motorcycles and hence be responsible for more motorcycle accidents? It used
to be when you saw lights during the day, it was either a motorcycle (or I
guess a drunk driver). Now with all the lights on everyone just blends in
with the crowd making motorcycles more hidden.

Mike H

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:L2%fd.260867$wV.229842@attbi_s54...
> The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
> good.
>
> http://www.motorists.com/stealthis/lightsoff.html
>
>
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
> news:wiOdd.23088$_u6.3811@edtnps89...
> >
> > "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
> > news:cl6b92$sid$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> >>
> >> It is stupid that an insurance company would give a discount for
> >> something
> >> that has no proven benefits. Also, high beam DRL's are stupid because
> >> the
> >> aiming of the light puts it right at eye level of other road users.
Even
> >> at reduced voltage, it is annoying.
> >
> > No proven benefits? You haven't read very much (if anything) on the
> > subject.
> > Years of testing were done in may countries, before DRLs were developed.
> >
> > --
> > Brian
> >
> > Ever stop to think... and forget to start again?
> >
> >
>
>

 

How on earth would DRL's make a bus more obvious to other drivers on the
road? Are you telling me that DRL's make it easier to see a huge bus? It
was proven that there was no reduction in accidents based on using DRL's. I
also find it true that it's harder to see someone's front turn signal
flashing when they have DRL's from a distance. The white light is brighter
than the small flashing turn signal. Just because insurance companies give
you a discount, doesn't mean that they are safer. Do you normally believe
everything your insurance company tells you?

On a side note, I can understand using them if it will save you money, but I
don't want to hear people preach about DRL's making a car safer.


"RWM" <RWM@RWMann.com> wrote in message news:4180D702.1080000@RWMann.com...
>
> 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.
>>

 

How on earth would DRL's make a bus more obvious to other drivers on the
road? Are you telling me that DRL's make it easier to see a huge bus? It
was proven that there was no reduction in accidents based on using DRL's. I
also find it true that it's harder to see someone's front turn signal
flashing when they have DRL's from a distance. The white light is brighter
than the small flashing turn signal. Just because insurance companies give
you a discount, doesn't mean that they are safer. Do you normally believe
everything your insurance company tells you?

On a side note, I can understand using them if it will save you money, but I
don't want to hear people preach about DRL's making a car safer.


"RWM" <RWM@RWMann.com> wrote in message news:4180D702.1080000@RWMann.com...
>
> 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.
>>

 

It's a good thing you backed up your statements with facts. Thanks for
setting that website straight. You obviously provided some wonderful
sources for your insightful input.

Keep up the good work.

"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:x_4gd.12723$df2.689@edtnps89...

>
> That's a crock!
>
>

 

It's a good thing you backed up your statements with facts. Thanks for
setting that website straight. You obviously provided some wonderful
sources for your insightful input.

Keep up the good work.

"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:x_4gd.12723$df2.689@edtnps89...

>
> That's a crock!
>
>

 

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:IDhgd.436436$mD.152342@attbi_s02...
> It's a good thing you backed up your statements with facts. Thanks for
> setting that website straight. You obviously provided some wonderful
> sources for your insightful input.
>
> Keep up the good work.

I should have said that you're a crock, I guess {;^)

I have read many things over the years about DRLs and none of them were on
the Internet. You might try a Library it's the old fashioned (but effective
way) of doing research. That and the fact that, I was brought up being told
if you want something, do it yourself.

--
Brian

Ever stop to think... and forget to start again?

 

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:IDhgd.436436$mD.152342@attbi_s02...
> It's a good thing you backed up your statements with facts. Thanks for
> setting that website straight. You obviously provided some wonderful
> sources for your insightful input.
>
> Keep up the good work.

I should have said that you're a crock, I guess {;^)

I have read many things over the years about DRLs and none of them were on
the Internet. You might try a Library it's the old fashioned (but effective
way) of doing research. That and the fact that, I was brought up being told
if you want something, do it yourself.

--
Brian

Ever stop to think... and forget to start again?

 

In article <%rbgd.14998$df2.2016@edtnps89>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada says...
>"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>news:clrdtn$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.

Huh? I know I don't like other cars shining their high beams in face. I'm
sure I am not the only person who feels this way.

>> 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 {;^)

True, but we should try to not complicate things for them. Without DRL's
they will realize they need to turn out their lights when the road in front
of them is dark.
-----------------
Alex

 

In article <%rbgd.14998$df2.2016@edtnps89>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada says...
>"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>news:clrdtn$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.

Huh? I know I don't like other cars shining their high beams in face. I'm
sure I am not the only person who feels this way.

>> 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 {;^)

True, but we should try to not complicate things for them. Without DRL's
they will realize they need to turn out their lights when the road in front
of them is dark.
-----------------
Alex

 

In article <Isbgd.15001$df2.8703@edtnps89>,
Brian Smith <Halifax@Novascotia.Canada> wrote:
>"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>news:clrdv5$jd0$4@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>>
>> >The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.
>>
>> Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's.
>
>In what way?

In many other countries, optional or mandatory DRLs must be white, and
have a narrowly defined range of light intensity, in order to be effective
as DRLs without creating too much glare in low light conditions.

In the US and Canada, high beams which create too much glare in low light
conditions (e.g. in the evening if the driver forgets to turn on the
regular low beam headlamps) and turn signals which can give false signals
if glanced at briefly (e.g. if the glance occurs when the signaling side
is in the off phase) are commonly used as DRLs.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

 

In article <Isbgd.15001$df2.8703@edtnps89>,
Brian Smith <Halifax@Novascotia.Canada> wrote:
>"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
>news:clrdv5$jd0$4@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>>
>> >The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.
>>
>> Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's.
>
>In what way?

In many other countries, optional or mandatory DRLs must be white, and
have a narrowly defined range of light intensity, in order to be effective
as DRLs without creating too much glare in low light conditions.

In the US and Canada, high beams which create too much glare in low light
conditions (e.g. in the evening if the driver forgets to turn on the
regular low beam headlamps) and turn signals which can give false signals
if glanced at briefly (e.g. if the glance occurs when the signaling side
is in the off phase) are commonly used as DRLs.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.