The dangers of DRLs 4603

As stated many times in this thread (and you've responded, so I know you've read it), it is documented at the NHTSA. The NHTSA has been studying these things for nearly 15 years! There is a wealth of information on the subject available there. Many studies on file, etc. Most are hundreds of pages...there is no direct link to the page. Much of this is also documented by the HLDI (Highway Loss Data Insbreastute) where their 1997 study (which is also available at the NHTSA) actuially shows a 8% *increase* in accident rates among DRL equipped cars. So, results are mixed at best, it seems.

How so? Did you check the references I provided? If you did, you would know that you are wrong. Being intentionally obtuse again, are we?

No disagreement from me on that statement!

Yes, the references have been posted several times. So you missed each one?

The source references are contained in the paragraph above that you just responded to. Being intentionally obtuse again, are we?

It is never EVER better for the driver of a vehicle to not know the status of their lights. Especially since lighting laws specifically name the driver as the person being responsible for their control. IF a lighting control system creates this situation as you claim, that is NOT a good thing.

I would say that one-eyed cars, people not turning lights on when thay should, etc. etc. represent less than 5% of the cars out there (approximately 1 car in 20). That percentage hardly qualifies as "most drivers". The skewed concept you have of what the term "most" is (hint, it is a precentage over 50%, not a precentage of 5%) explains a lot about your observations of other things, I'd say.

Mine is based on what has been documented by those studying this. Your conclusion is based on...? (been waiting for a while now for that answer). And yes I've provided references many times...which is more than you have done.

The NHTSA site is hardly a "random" site. It is the agency that governs vehicle safety. They will be the ones that establish the final rule on DRL use (or not). It's hardly a random site. It has the most comprehensive information on this topic than any other resource. It IS the site to use to research this topic.

If you don't want search for the truth, no problem in my book.

I could say the same thing back to you. But that matters not. The information is avaioable at the references I provided. So where does that leave us?

I have posted the URL link. Since you seem to mis quite a bit in your it this time?

Oh boy! Well, lets just leave it for those that are lurking (and laughing at us) to decide if they want to seek facts in the matter or not. They can follow the links I have provided (or not). When they do, they will know the truth...AND they will know if it's you that is all wet, or if it is me that is all wet. I'm perfectly fine with leaving it there at this point.

Well I'm fine with those lurking making the determinition as to who here has provided references and who hasen't. I'm perfectly fine with leaving it at that.

They aren't my findings. They are the findings of academics and others that have researched and studied this for quite a while.

Did you put on your glbuttes? ;-)

I did! I now own a 2004 Chrysler product. No DRLs. No Auto light systems. No ABS. Everything works perfectly and as expected now! ;-)

Apparently so...I still don't understand the reference. I'm certain that model had neither DRLs or auto light control. So it would be totally irrelivant to the discussion...even if the purpose was to poke fun.

And so thought several people at work when I've informed them that they pulled into the parking lot with their GM vehicles on foggy mornings with their lights off. They had no idea their lights were off (so thay claimed). "They're automatic", they claim. They thought it was "reliable" too. thay hadn't a clue! For which I've replied..obviously NOT! Same thing with my neighbor's daughter who owns a Aztek...and her dad that owns a Impala. Both has left for work on bright but foggy mornings as I watch out of the window, tail lights dark as thay go down the street. Unbelieveable! Apparently there a lot of people that need to have their GM auto light control systems serviced under warranty...yes?

So the actual words in the body just completely escaped you I take it?

Hmmm.. You stated "Auto light laws don't exist. Daniel already said that...for which he called you on the carpet by stating you were being obtuse (which you were in that excahnge). So, where in that dialog was their ANY opinion anyone could disagree with. Hint, there was no opinion expressed in that exchange, by anyone.

His exact words:

"It already is 'cast into legalese' (which seems to be your hyped way of saying "codified"), and has been since your great-grandpappy was driving his Model-T...long before automatic headlamps."

In that statement, Daniel specifically states that vehicle lighting laws existed before auto headlamps existed. Obviously the laws that exist pertain to lighting in general, not to auto systems by his very words "..long before automatic headlamps."

Yet you replied:

"Enforcement of having a manual override for automatic headlights has been codified since the Model T? I think not, back then they couldn't even imagine automatic headlights, much less override switches for them."

My reply would have been simplier than Daniels. I would have probably said; "No- DUH" (since Daniel already implied that obvious fact you apparently missed). If you look up the word Obtuse...your will see the above exchange as an example.

Speaking of lighting laws. Can you explain how GM's "auto" implementation can determine when sight distance is below 1000 feet (a requirement for lights-on in Maryland). A low-hanging fog with bright sun shining ust above creates that common condition...especially during morning hours. The answer? It can't.

One can only be insulted if they choose to be insulted. What another person says is irrelivant. Just ignore it...and certaintly respond only to the topic itself (if responding at all).

He is familiar with the same research I am (more so in fact)...It is his business, after all. I would put his contributions on this topic well above yours (or mine for that matter) since it is his business.

Don't make what the truth? That you were being Obtuse? Well, yes, actually you were. Now the part about it being intentional...well, that part may be debatable! ;-)