The dangers of DRLs 4599

That is a incorrect statement. Training by conditioning is a effective training means and has been for decades. IF something happens automatically (or one buttumes it does), one "conditionally" is trained to ignore that which is already being done for them. That is just a well known thing that happens to normal ordanary human beings under those sutuations. A auto light system is a textbook example of a conditional training device. There are a small percentage of people that are not trained-trainable (I would say *untrainied* in this case) that way. Perhaps you are one of them...and so am I actually.

Some would, that is true. Others wouldn't. There are documented cases on file at the NHTSA that dispells your statement. DRL equipped cars are less likely to have their main lights on in situations of rain-fog-snow compared with non-DRL equipped cars. It is just a documented fact. It's all on fiile at the NHTSA. Even most of the experts in the field don't disagree with that (not sure why you do). Add in the auto system that only works reliably at night or when it's fairly dark, and that makes the situation even worse than before from the conditional training aspect of the driver.

Of course, perhaps you have another explanation as to why more GM cars have lights off in these weather conditions compared to vehicles made by other manufacturers?

That discussion thread was not about a opinion, it was about lighting laws that existed before auto light controls did. Your contributions to that side-thread was indeed obtuse since you made a really rediculous statement that auto light laws didn't exist before there was auto controls. (Something already understood and actually Danial already said).

The behavior was admittedly a bit over the top...but it's Daniel, after all.