The dangers of DRLs 4601

Documented observations indicate that DRLs exsaserbate the problem. DRL equipped cars are more likely to be driven without the lights in comparison to cars without DRLs. That is not disputed among the people that are studying this. That is simply a known documented fact. I would say that what you seem to believe is quite contrary to what id known reality.

In early 1990's the NHTSA agreed to GM's pebreastion to allow voluntary DRLs for study with the intent of making a "final rule" either making them a requirement OR not requiring them at all within ~5-years. While some benefits of DRLs have been documented since then, there are also safety-negative issues that have also been documented (The Perot & Prowler study being the most recent full study on file). Nearly 15 years have pbutted since and the NHTSA is still struggling with how to implement DRLs (or if they can be) while reducing the negative aspets of them since the negative tradeoffs basically balance out the positive aspects. Insurance loss data from the insurance loss data insbreastite also indicates that there is no overall benefit of DRL equipped cars...they simply have the same level of "loss" as a group compared to their non-DEl equipped cars. The reason may not actually be the concept of DRL's itself, but way they were implemented (yet to be determined, however). Some accident types are actually higher with DRL equipped cars (rear end accidents in particular). Others types are lower. But, it's a wash...at least so far.

And a driver not knowing that their car has DRLs or not is a good thing? So, if the driver doesn't know that the light reflecting back at them from the car in front of them is coming from their DRLs instead of their headlights, they'll intuitively believe that their headlights are on when they're not...and that's not a good thing?! This makes the very point as to why this phenomonem is so well documented. You've just described so well why it is so! In fact, better than I have, actually. Thanks for making the point!

I've provided referrences open to public access, which is far more than you have provided. All of your buttertions are from your feelings and opinions. Mine are from sources available to anyone. You are hardly are in a position to ask for more from me when what I have provided as reference sources is far more than you've provided.

I don't agree or disagree with what is on file with the NHTSA. I only state what is on file.

And you have provided such evidence from your perspective? You've not even provided a reference. At least provide counter referrence. Unlike you, I have no problem following the reference to see for myself.

Another source are the many thousands of internet traffic cameras. Find a city where it's foggy or raining and watch for yourself.

Sometimes they do...that is true. Sometimes they don't. Therefore, reliability that control will be proper is very poor.

The vehicle I had was a 2003 GM product. I doubt that a 95 Cavalier model even had auto light control, actually. Curious why the reference specifically to a Cavalier of that year?

Yes I have provided the reference. Did you forget...? It was the Op of this thread made the original claim, not me. I only referenced the same claim that myself and many others have made in the GM and other car newsgroups over the years. Seems there are a lot of observant people that have come to the same conclusion as those that have sumbitted comment to the NHTSA on this topic.

The main topic yes. The sub topic-discussion thread we were on was a divergent discussion about lighting laws specifically...I guess you missed it

It's right here in this thread...you said something that had already been said (or implied). Either you were being intentionally obtuse OR you are very slow to comprehend (one ot the other). I would think the former would actually be the better conclusion...so Daniel was actually being nice to you from that perspective. :-)

How so? You were the one that repeated that which was the obvious to the rest of us...and calling Daniel on the carpet over making a statement that auto light laws exist (which he already made obvious he was talking about general lighting laws, not automatic lighting laws). You really are that slow...huh?

Well, one can overlook ones faults once they're understood. Daniels contributions are well worth it, despite it all. And if you take the content of the statements, it's usually pretty close to the mark, even if the delivery is a bit much. :-