The dangers of DRLs 4652

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:30:47 -0400, James C. Reeves

I read the thread and read a few theoretical ideas of how DRLs could be declared dangerous. 'Military "camouflage by lighting"...

If it is no trouble you can do it and prove your point. As you are not doing it, it can only mean that it is either beyond your capabilities or the reference was just posted because you buttumed noone would go there.

You said it was simple. If it is, provide the reference. You can't, that's the problem for you. And you just hope your FUD strategy will work.

Post a reference, where experts agree on that DRLs in real traffic 'mask' the car. We are not talking some obscure lab work but real traffic, real cars, real environmental conditions. In real conditions, be it desert, mountains, countryside or the city (and I have quite some driving experience in each of the conditions) I notice how much better a car is visible with DRLs than it is without, especially with the amber DRLs some GM cars have.

Sure I did. DRLs are not 'see vs. not see' but 'see early vs. see late'.

Maybe my eyes are just so much better than yours but I have never mistaken a car for a whitewashed wall or vice versa, DRLs or not.

A background light enough to make headlights or turn signals invisible is very rare.

I like them and they improve visibility even more than headlight DRLs. As for the 'ambiguity': If you are too blind to see the difference between a steady and a flashing light or dumb enough to actually rely on turn signals it's your problem.

Turn signals are an indication of intention. Most people don't use them when they should and use them when they shouldn't (aka leave them on after the turn). The intention, if signalled correctly is clearly recognizable on both amber-DRL- and non-amber-DRL cars. Of course some people are so spectacularly stupid that they turn in front of an oncoming car just because they see a turn signal and think the car is also going to turn, but I sincerely hope you are not one of them.

Chris