[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: The fallacy of DRLs



In article <NEWTNews.810364261.5219.cbaltzer@WS.NSX.COM>,
Craig Baltzer  <cbaltzer@nsx.com> wrote:
>Anyway, government regulation is needed for important things. Screwing around 
>with whether or not my lights come on when I start my car is not one of them. 
>Want to save lives and reduce accident injuries, get better enforcement of the 
>seatbelt laws, drunk driving laws and raise driver education requirements. 
>Likewise, getting worked into a total lather about "never owning a car with 
>DRL" is just as assinine.

Seatbelt laws should not be in place, let alone enforced. The government has
no right and certainly no duty to attempt to protect people from themselves.
If your own stupidity endangers noone but yourself, that is your right.

Better driver education is a good idea. I took driver's ed, and it's crap.
(never taken defensive driving, though).

I'd like to see the written test be *much* harder. A 5 year old's knowledge
of traffic and driving could pass him one on that test. And that seems to be
one of the biggest problems (right below inattentiveness/carelessness) - you
can get a license anywhere in the US without knowing what a yield sign means
or what the left lane is for or that you're supposed to signal lane changes.
Chances are, you could get away without knowing when to make a left turn
after a light changes (depends on your road test and whether you hit a light
if it has one, and whether there is traffic for you to yield to).

DRL is a poor excuse for a safety feature. The only reason cars are being
sold in the US with them (and not even as an option, but as something you
must have with that car) is because makers of cheap deathtraps like the Geo
Metro can say it's safe, and because makers of cars sold in countries where
DRL is mandated can reduce the number of differences they have to deal with.


Follow-Ups: References: