Subject: The fallacy of DRLs

From: [email-masked] (Jason Niron)
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 1995 20:02:05 GMT

On my way to work, I have to make a 0-60 left turn onto a 4 lane highway (2
each way) with a left turn lane in the middle (for waiting to turn off onto
the side roads). It is generally about half an hour to 45 minutes after dawn
when I make this turn, and everyone has their headlights on. So for the
Canadian fools who say we have never seen DRLs in the US, we're perfectly
familiar with people having headlights on in the daytime.

To the left, I have to see that there are no cars coming for about 500 feet.
To the right, I have to see about the same distance - but I also have to
know which lane the cars I am seeing are in. With the headlights on, besides
making it more difficult to judge the distance of the cars, it is also more
difficult to judge the lane position of the cars. I simply do not make the
turn until I am sure there will be no traffic coming. But I've seen people
obviously misjudge it, and end up having to accelerate in the turn lane -
often causing a near collision. (I'm sure there will eventually be a head-on
between two people doing the same thing in opposite directions).

After successfully making this turn, I am blessed with the pleasure of two
lanes of unnecessary, distracting light zooming by me for several minutes.

Luckily, I only have to deal with this for 15 minutes a day. But for those
15 minutes, I am able to imagine how horrible it must be to be a Canadian.
No wonder why they have to make up nonsense arguments and excuses about how
DRLs provide some imaginary amount of safety. Anything to ease the pain.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 14:01:49 +700

>I think you should talk it over with the dealer.  Explain to them that 
>you like the car, but you don't like the DRLs.  Depending on how far you 
>want to go, you might want to negotiate a refund, or start a 
>letterwriting campaign to the parent company.
>
>Folks, vote with your pocketbook.  If you don't like DRLs, don't buy cars 
>that have them.  Car companies are very alert when it comes to profits 
>and  voting this way will bring them to heel.

	just another comment -- I recently drove a Chevy w/DRL's (rental)
	in and around Seattle/Victoria/Vancouver for 10 days.  I find them
	annoying on the freeway (they keep drawing my attention to the
	opposing traffic, rather than concentrating on the traffic on
	my side of the road).  Anyway, there was a big discussion 
	about DRL's involving the Washington State Ferry system -- when they
	load at night, you turn your headlights off to avoid blinding
	the traffic coordinators who are involved in jockying upwards of
	200 vehicles on and off the ferry in 20 minutes or less.  A state
	official was quoted in one article saying something like they
	needed to have override switches; it was dangerous for their 
	employees.

	The other annoying part was the DRL's in my car were automatic --
	they came on when the engine came on, and they switched up to
	regular beams as needed -- I think there was a sensor on both
	ends of the car, as they wouldn't always go to normal beams
	in short tunnels.  There was the usual switch as well, but it 
	was amusing to see them going up and down one semi-cloudy
	evening (I could watch the radio display dim and brighten as 	
	the lights went on and off).

Mike
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Michael Bowers	               Internet:  [email-masked]
University of California, Davis

---

From: Jim Czirjak <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Sep 1995 12:16:00 GMT

Paul Lu <[email-masked]> wrote:
>[email-masked] (Scott Dunn) wrote:
>
>Yes! Excellent.

>snip<

This O.K. if you live in a true democracy with genuine free enterprise market like 
the US.  This solution doesn't work, however, when you live in a quasi-democratic 
country, with a government controlled market like Canada.  Canadian governments, 
federal and provincial, continually try to legislate intelligence by passing 
idiotic safety laws that just annoy everyone and marginally accomplish what is 
intended.  You simply can't buy a new car in Canada anymore that doesn't have DRLs. 
If you import a new car, you are required to have DRLs installed as part of the 
safety inspection prior to licensing the vehicle.  So they have you coming and 
going.

Yes sunshine is usually enough.  I, personally, like to travel on highways with my 
headlights on to increase the chance of visibility, particularly on two lane 
highways.  This, I believe, should be my choice.  I have yet to see conclusive 
evidence that DRLs have lowered the accident rate.

Jim

Standard Disclaimer

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Dunn)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 05:18:48 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Jan Ilavsky  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>[email-masked] (IÒigo Vicinay) wrote:
>         

>
>And I am not going to try to persuade you, that it is in your
>interest to have them - if you would like to increase your girl-friend
>chances of no-accident travel on todays roads. There might be members of
>my familly I would disconnect DRL's immediately too.... 
>

Now, in my mind (it's not very big-I can still walk through doors without 
banging my head) the issue is not whether the lights are very bright 
compared to the sun.  I would figure that in order to be effective as a 
safety device, they would have to be pretty bright compared to the sun.  
Even if they were  bright enough to be effective, people would learn to 
ignore them over time so they could concentrate on the road ahead.  

And of course, no one has even suggested that when the concept is new, it
will introduce a false sense of safety.  I think complacency is a better
word.  Sure, for awhile, the accident rate might dip.  But again, after
people get used to them, the accident rate will climb again. 

The issue that I see as paramount is control.  Who's going to have it?  
The big powerful automobile corporations?  Or the purchaser?  What if I 
like to turn my lights off during the day?  Am I going to be out of 
luck?  Is some socialist (commonly known today as a "social engineer") 
going to tell me how to run my car one more time, in one more way?

While reducing accidents might be the overt reason for DRLs, I think
control is the covert reason for the DRLs.  It's just one more reason for
us not to think about what we're doing when we're driving. 

>Thanks, Jan
>
>BTW: does anyone know, if I can add DRL's on my Mazda Protege 95? 
>Is there some kit or so, how much does it cost? My wife drives it and
>I still love her... Thnx.

Awww.  That's really cute.  And that's the way it should be done.  DRLs
should be optional, not standard or required as the socialists might
think. 

-- 
Scott Dunn : [email-masked] : FOIA/PA researcher, tutor 
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  If you're unhappy about the way 
things are in this country, read the laws!

---

From: [email-masked] (Ernie Pittarelli 301-794-2034 S833)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 19:46:20 GMT

DRLs would not be necessary IF people would use their lights in the rain and
bad weather conditions.  In the D.C. area, I would guesstimate that *maybe*
25% of drivers turn their lights on to increase their visibility in rain and
snow.

(Followups directed to rec.autos.driving to confine this endless thread to
1 newsgroup instead of 6!)

--Ernie P.

---

From: Eric Bin <[email-masked]>
Date: 5 Sep 1995 18:51:26 GMT

Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked]
>(Kenneth E. Long) writes:
>
>>I hate DRLs.
>
>Lots of people do.  When they see me driving with my headlights on in
>the daytime, they gesticulate and madly wave towards me, trying to
>persuade me to switch them off.  Sometimes they go so crazy they crash
>into somebody else.  But they never crash into me!  :-)
>-- 
>Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
>"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

Being a Canadian driver I find DRL very effective.  I find that I notice 
cars better and from a further distance too.  I don't understand why 
people are so bothered by seeing a pair of headlights on.  In some cases 
the DRL's aren't even headlights like in the case of the new minivans 
which only have the marker lights on.  Anyways I like 'em.

Eric Bin
[email-masked]
"Boy, these pretzels are making me thirsty."

---

From: [email-masked] (Kenneth E. Long)
Date: 5 Sep 1995 15:54:18 -0700

>which only have the marker lights on.  Anyways I like 'em.

Yes, maybe, just MAYBE you can notice a car on a two-lane country road 
from a mile away instead of 3/4 of a mile away.  SO WHAT?  Try driving 
where I live, in Downtown San Luis Obispo, having a bunch of those dang 
DRLs coming down crowded, narrow downtown streets.  Can't you people 
understand that the effects of extra, unnecessary light sources on the 
road are CUMULATIVE?  The sun is all you need!  These extra lights just 
add extra distractions.  I've seen these things so bright that they can 
literally be eyesores.

---

From: [email-masked] (Marty Bose)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 10:13:20 -0700

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Isaac Wong) wrote:

(snip)
->
->DRLs are supposed to be reduced-brightness low beams. They should not cause
->unnecessary distractions.

That's interesting; all of the new small Chevy trucks that I've seen with
DRL's seem to be reduced brightness high beams.  Very annoying, since they
are usually aimed high enough to be in your eyes.

Marty

-- 
A relevant signature is an oxymoron.

---

From: [email-masked] (Isaac Wong)
Date: 6 Sep 1995 17:36:53 GMT

[email-masked] (Marty Bose) writes:
|> In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Isaac Wong) wrote:
|> ->DRLs are supposed to be reduced-brightness low beams. They should not cause
|> ->unnecessary distractions.
|> 
|> That's interesting; all of the new small Chevy trucks that I've seen with
|> DRL's seem to be reduced brightness high beams.  Very annoying, since they
|> are usually aimed high enough to be in your eyes.

That's probably their headlights are improperly aimed. Or maybe they have
a high ground clearance, and you are sitting low in your passenger car.
You might feel that they are using highbeams, but they actually might not.

-- 
Isaac Wong                | Protel Compiler Group
[email-masked]    | Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
[email-masked] | Dept. of Systems and Computer Engineering
TEL: (613) 763-6127       | Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

---

From: [email-masked] (Marty Bose)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 11:09:45 -0700

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Isaac Wong) wrote:

-> [email-masked] (Marty Bose) writes:
->|> In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Isaac Wong) wrote:
->|> ->DRLs are supposed to be reduced-brightness low beams. They should
not cause
->|> ->unnecessary distractions.
->|> 
->|> That's interesting; all of the new small Chevy trucks that I've seen with
->|> DRL's seem to be reduced brightness high beams.  Very annoying, since they
->|> are usually aimed high enough to be in your eyes.
->
->That's probably their headlights are improperly aimed. Or maybe they have
->a high ground clearance, and you are sitting low in your passenger car.
->You might feel that they are using highbeams, but they actually might not.

I don't think so; the inboard bulbs are lit.  When driving at night the
outer bulbs are low beam, the inner ones are high beam.

Marty

---

From: [email-masked] (Victor Eijkhout)
Date: 05 Sep 1995 19:13:53 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]> writes:

> When they see me driving with my headlights on in
> persuade me to switch them off.

Otoh, i wish more people would switch on their lights when the
sun is low in the late afternoon. Seeing a car looking straight
into the sun, either directly or in the rear view mirror, can
be next to impossible.
-- 
Victor Eijkhout
405 Hilgard Ave .............................. `We must brush aside the ACLU
Department of Mathematics, UCLA ................. and others who want to get
Los Angeles CA 90024 ..................... hung up on constitutional rights.'
phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ............................... [Senator Exon]
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout/

---

From: [email-masked] (Persepolis)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 05:16:49 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> mckay_michael <[email-masked]> wrote:

>You make the classic mistake of assuming DRL is for indentification.  It is

I cant see what I said to make you think this?  I could'nt tell a Geo 
from a Porsche from the glare of it's headlights nor do I claim to do so- 
could you please clarify this point?

>What will be more dangerous is cars without DRL (if
>DRL becomes common).  People will come to expect that they can spot cars
>more easily.

This is circular logic-  You can't _expect_ people to do anything otherwise 
you WOUDLNT NEED REGULATION!  You have negated your own argument.  If 
this were correct, cars would be equiped with resistor networks that 
could activate the headlights at mid-power if and when the driver sees 
fit not whenever the key is placed into the ignition.  Sorry if this 
comes out sounding like a flame- its not-  I am just trying to get the 
point across that DRLs studies depend on variables like driving medium, 
visibility condition, road-vehicle density, direction of road (NS as 
opposed to EW where sunlight comes into play),etc...  My fear is that 
(IMHO off course) too many people doing vehicle safety studies are trying 
too hard justify their paychecks and not much attention has been paid 
to such variables and too much emphasis is being made on studies in 
Canada that just cant apply well in the US.  Additionally all this 
frivilous attention regulators are paying to DRLs is just their way at 
diverting the publics attention from real safety breakthroughs such as 
polymer-foam filled body panels, mandatory installation of right-hand side 
mirrors and rear window defoggers in all states (some states do not 
require either), collapsable steering columns with reenforced safety 
cages around vehicle occupant legs, etc...  They figure if they pass DRLs 
everyone will be happy that an issue has been dealt with and they wont 
have to worry about the next for a while.  There is more to this and you 
have to look hard to see how much of their concern for safety is curbed 
by massive lobbyist efforts from automakers- you might be getting the 
DRL but it may be a compromise to something that could do you a lot more 
good but costs the makers a bit more.

>This makes your plan to disable a good way to ADD risk. 
Absolutely not.  I will turn my headlights on when I see fit that it can 
improve my vehicles visibility to other drivers- just as I do now; 
whenever I drive in the multileveled parking lot of my office with my 
headlights on- not when I am sitting in bumper to bumper traffic in the 
beltway for one hour with cars barely moving at 1MPH.  

>you really want to study the risks involved, I suggest taking a look at the
>studies on the impact of reflectorized signs.  This is the closest parallel
>I can see to DRL (and you don't see people proposing that we get rid of
>reflectors too much any more).  

This comparison is a bit skewed as signs do not move around nor are there 
500 signs in your back mirror and another 1000 ahead.  Additionally, 
signs are passive as opposed to the headlights being an active source of 
light.  I will however follow this up: many school zones have active 
yellow flashing lights which come on during school hours and go off 
afterwards- but you do not see a flashing yellow light at every yield 
and stop sign nor do they keep them on flashing 24 hours a day as your brain 
would get desensitized to them and the effect would cancel away.

---

From: [email-masked] (Persepolis)
Date: 5 Sep 1995 03:14:36 GMT

Craig Baltzer ([email-masked]) wrote:

: sun is a real drag as well. And all those flashing signs on the edge of the 
: road... Ahhhhhhh, must just make you want to scream... Maybe try driving with 
: your eyes closed...

I personally think DRL's are based on a tainted study.  While a car with 
its lights on [during the daytime while other cars dont have their 
lights on] will stand out and reduce it's chances of getting into an 
accident, once regulation goes into effect and every car has them the 
result will disappear.  I think they would have done much more good if 
marker lights were set to go on during daytime rather than the 
headlights.  Headlights will waste far too much energy and can easily be 
confused for glare in bright background light. (BTW, the energy usage 
estimates are +1-2% I believe based on studies- while it doesnt seem like 
much it is a REALLY big number considering how much gas is consumed every 
year).

I too will probably bypass the resistor network and disable the DRL relay 
on my next car.

---

From: Craig Baltzer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 95 23:36:48 PDT

> result will disappear.  

Nope. The idea is to make the car(s) standout from the background, not other 
cars. So the argument that argument won't wash. 

> I think they would have done much more good if 
> confused for glare in bright background light. 

Do you mean the "parking" lights?? These would be next to useless as they 
would definately be invisible during normal daylight lighting conditions. 
Using "driving lights" or fog lights mounted low on the car seem to work quite 
well.

> (BTW, the energy usage 

I would think that you'd want to bypass the resistor network on everyone elses 
car. Guess disabling yours will make you feel better, but don't help your own 
situation at all (in terms of the coping with the DRL on the road, however the 
massive 1-2% energy savings will be a big plus.). If we're concerned about 
energy conservation, there are better things to worry about than DRLs...

Anyway, I agree about the government regulation stuff (i.e. too much 
regulation is a pain), but find the DRL handy on rural roads (i.e. 2 lanes) as 
they allow oncoming cars to be picked up easier. I can't see any real 
advantage or disadvantage around town or on multi-lane highways though... 

Craig

---

From: Craig Baltzer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 95 21:55:36 PDT

> 
> Craig Baltzer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> So, what good does it make to mandate EVERY car
> to turn the DRL on ALL the time while most of
> the time it is useless?
> 

I wasn't arguing for or against. What I was pointing out was the argument 
being put forward on why they shouldn't be used and we all should boycott cars 
with them was irrational. Just because your side of the argument was shown to 
be crap doesn't mean that the person pointing it out is automatically *for* 
the other side of the argument. 

So far we've had the against arguments saying that 1) they cause accidents as 
they blind drivers, causing them to rear-end cars in the same lane, 2) they 
are a part of a large conspiracy by the automobile industry to sell more light 
bulbs and 3) they are bad as they will waste an immense amount of energy.

1) is absolute crap, as if a driver is are distracted by oncoming headlights 
to the point of having an accident in broad daylight, he/she has no business 
driving.

2) well, I just don't subscribe to most conspiracy theories. Sell more light 
bulbs, well maybe an extra set or 2 (at about $30 a set) over the average life 
of the car (5-7 years). Not a large ticket maintenance item, and hardly one 
I'll loose sleep over.

3) For those concerned with energy waste, remove the right side mirror, mud 
flaps or rear spoiler. Or drive with the windows up.

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.

Craig

---

From: [email-masked] (firebug)
Date: 6 Sep 1995 19:08:41 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>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.

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Sep 1995 22:34:50 GMT

>no right and certainly no duty to attempt to protect people from themselves.

This is what I could call a 'half-statement', i.e., it's an argument that
needs a partner argument that is missing here.  The corrected version is:

   - seatbelt laws should not be in place
   - injuries caused to motorists in an accident, that would have been
     preventable if seatbelts were worn, shall not give said motorists
     standing to sue another party

The reason I want the *other* guy to be forced to wear a seatbelt
(despite my strong libertarian leanings) is because making him do so
decreases *my* liability under current law.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

---

From: Craig Baltzer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 95 22:23:41 PDT

> If your own stupidity endangers noone but yourself, that is your right.

Unless I'm paying the tab for your stupidity in *almost* killing yourself 
through higher taxes or medical insurance costs. If you don't wear seatbelts, 
either don't get hurt or have the curtesy to the rest of us to fully exercise 
your right of choice and kill yourself.

> if it has one, and whether there is traffic for you to yield to).

Well, the written test is a place to start, but I'm more concerned about the 
level of actual training. Current driver ed programs should be called 
"non-taxing coast around the block courses". Some teach "paper" defensive 
driving, but most don't teach any hands on defensive driving techniques. One 
thing which I think would be valuable is something along the lines of the 2 
day course put on by Skip Barber's Driving school teaching emergency 
maneuvers, skid control and high performance driving techniques. Graduated 
licenses may also be a good idea, and would help get the Interstates up to a 
reasonable speed by keeping inexperienced drivers off them. Also mandatory 
testing for the elderly after a certain age.

Craig

---

From: [email-masked] (Persepolis)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 03:30:05 GMT

Craig Baltzer ([email-masked]) wrote:
: level of actual training. Current driver ed programs should be called 
: "non-taxing coast around the block courses". Some teach "paper" defensive 

The sad part of the roadtest (NY edition) I took in 1987 was that it was
archaic.  They empahsize things like using hand signals (during which I 
almost got my hand mowed off by a car that turned into the opposing lane 
of the street I was on) while skipping important merging techniques, 
highway driving skills and safety concerns during bad weather.  Before I 
got my license my dad took me to a deserted parking lot early on a 
wintery sunday afternoon- for the next 3 hours we accelerated the car 
into a spin and recovered.  I remember that we went through a half a tank 
of gas by the time he felt comfortable with my skill.  On the other hand, 
I gave them what they wanted to see for my road test: driving at 18 MPH (so 
the car shifts into second and you dont get failed for improper shifting 
of the automatic staying in first) and I drove around like a goofball 
using my hand signals while cars blew around me going 80.  The old lady who 
was the procter even commented with a "I really like your driving 
technique" afterwards that put a cringe in my spine.

---

From: [email-masked] (Gumby)
Date: 6 Sep 1995 23:04 CDT

Craig Baltzer <[email-masked]> writes...
[attribution lost due to previous edit]

>your right of choice and kill yourself.

The taxpayers foot the hospital bill for those who injure themselves and end
up on a slab with an unpaid $10000 bill for medical services trying to save
them from their own suicidal tendencies.  They raise liability for drivers
unfortunate enough to hit them.

I think if a person refuses to engage an active safety device, or
deactivates a passive one, they waive all rights to collect in an accident.

>> (never taken defensive driving, though).

Defensive driving can be just watching 6 hours of tape of accidents, with an
answer session and someone says "Don't let this happen to you!"

>> I'd like to see the written test be *much* harder.

>testing for the elderly after a certain age.

There is a place on the liscence for restrictinos.  Instead of the DMV
having the burden of proof to put a restriction on, the applicant should
have to pettition to get the restrictino removed.  There are lots of
codes that could go on: Cannot exceeg 45 mph, no freeway driving,
no nightime driving, power steering only, automatic transmission,
applicable prosthetic devices, etc.

If you want to drive at night, you have to take the test at night.
In my driving test, I never exceeded 45mph.  In fact, I was not on
a road with a limit above 25 for more than 100ft.  If you had
highway entrance and exit part of the test, a greater number fould fail,
and the roads would be safer, if not just populated by am increased
number of people without liscences.

How much is the Skip Barber school?  I would like to take a real driving
class, but I get the idea it would be prohibitively expensive.

Marc

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles Day)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 18:01:39 GMT

> no right and certainly no duty to attempt to protect people from themselves.

Whether you like it or not, Firebug, the government does have the right to 
pass laws to protect people from themselves. It's set out in the Constitution.

But you really agree with me, since you advocate changing the law to make
it harder to obtain a driving license. Surely this amounts to protecting 
people from themselves: someone who claims he's a safe driver might be
denied a license if he fails your new, harder test. He would thus be 
protected from sharing his inadequate driving skills with other road users.

Charles Day

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 7 Sep 1995 17:09:29 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Charles Day <[email-masked]> wrote:
}In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (firebug) wrote:
}
}> 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.
}
}Whether you like it or not, Firebug, the government does have the right to 
}pass laws to protect people from themselves. It's set out in the Constitution.

Only if you abuse one of the general welfare clauses in a way
specifically anticipated and denied in the Federalist Papers.

}But you really agree with me, since you advocate changing the law to make
}it harder to obtain a driving license.

He might, but I don't.  IMO, the idea that people need the
government's permission to use public roads is repugnant.  The only
reason the government managed to do it is because the novelty of the
automobile gave them the opportunity.  Can you imagine people in the
19th century accepting that they get the government's permission
before driving their carriages?

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto      [email-masked]     [email-masked]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

---

From: [email-masked] (Isaac Wong)
Date: 5 Sep 1995 16:55:50 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Persepolis) writes:
|> I personally think DRL's are based on a tainted study.  While a car with 
|> its lights on [during the daytime while other cars dont have their 
|> lights on] will stand out and reduce it's chances of getting into an 
|> accident, once regulation goes into effect and every car has them the 
|> result will disappear.  I think they would have done much more good if 
|> marker lights were set to go on during daytime rather than the 
|> headlights.  Headlights will waste far too much energy and can easily be 
|> confused for glare in bright background light. (BTW, the energy usage 
|> estimates are +1-2% I believe based on studies- while it doesnt seem like 
|> much it is a REALLY big number considering how much gas is consumed every 
|> year).
|> 
|> I too will probably bypass the resistor network and disable the DRL relay 
|> on my next car.

bypass your A/C, stereo, power steering, power brakes, power locks, etc. If
you can, deactivate your ABS also. Don't use your power controlled mirrors,
and don't use any heat during winter, wear adequate clothing. This will
probably save some more gas.

---

From: [email-masked] (Persepolis)
Date: 6 Sep 1995 05:41:15 GMT

Isaac Wong ([email-masked]) wrote:
: bypass your A/C, stereo, power steering, power brakes, power locks, etc. If
: you can, deactivate your ABS also. Don't use your power controlled mirrors,
: and don't use any heat during winter, wear adequate clothing. This will
: probably save some more gas.

This one is too easy :-) but I will take it!

You prove my point exactly!  How would you like it if the government 
announced tomorrow that your AC will come on REGARDLESS of wether you 
want it or not everytime you get in the car?  Also: EVERY SYSTEM YOU 
HAVE LISTED IS OPTIONAL (with the exception of the heater)!  You may soon 
not have choice with your DR headlights! Your argument makes no sense/point 
here!  To rephrase this, one can buy a car without AC, PS, PB,PL,etc... 
but in a couple of years you probably wont have a choice on DRLs.

Regarding energy concerns. This one is a two tier argument: 1st) DRLs are 
not exactly like Airbags and Seatbelts- DRLs are very active in operation 
and have questionable benefit in most possible driving conditions 2nd) 
You can shut your AC off, the PS (if you CHOOSE to get it) has variable 
assist and shuts off at cruising speeds, PB use residual vacuum pressure 
generated by the engine during it's normal operation, power mirrors (if 
you CHOOSE to get it) are an intermittant passive system which do not 
need any energy as long as you dont use them and use VERY little if you 
do, and the heating system utilizes excess heat generated by the engine 
during it's normal operation that would have been vented off at normal 
operating temperature.

I am not an expert in safety aspects of DRLs but I simply feel that 
living/working/going to school in the Washington DC/Metro area I will 
probably never be caught next to a shady mountain a rural area, and if I 
do I will use my head and turn my headlights on (just as I do during dark 
hours of dusk/or when it is raining)- no need for spoon fed regulations for 
me.  A little driver education in this area can do alot more than alot of 
government regulation.  You have DRL's right now: its called a headlight 
switch- and its up to your discretion to use them.

---

From: [email-masked] (Isaac Wong)
Date: 6 Sep 1995 15:52:09 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Persepolis) writes:
|> I am not an expert in safety aspects of DRLs but I simply feel that 
|> living/working/going to school in the Washington DC/Metro area I will 
|> probably never be caught next to a shady mountain a rural area, and if I 
|> do I will use my head and turn my headlights on (just as I do during dark 
|> hours of dusk/or when it is raining)- no need for spoon fed regulations for 
|> me.  A little driver education in this area can do alot more than alot of 
|> government regulation.  You have DRL's right now: its called a headlight 
|> switch- and its up to your discretion to use them.

You don't know what is a DRL. If you simply use low-beams during daytime as
a substitute, it will be too bright. DRL is reduced-brightness low-beams.
They don't cause unnecessary distractions, but still let other drivers
see you if you have DRL on. Some of the people who posts from the US find
that DRLs irritating. Maybe they are not seeing DRLs. They might be seeing
actual full-intensity low-beams. Who knows? Did those people stop and ask
all the drivers who have their headlights on to check whether they have
DRLs or real headlights?

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles Day)
Date: 6 Sep 1995 18:22:26 GMT

Some of the arguments against DRLs sound like the ones applied, in
Britain, against making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. The 
law passed because it saves lives. Lots of them. The same criterion 
should be applied to DRLs.

I agree that the US has some absurdly over-protective laws which
prevent marignally dangerous threats. Cheese made from unpasteurised
milk, for example, is banned in the US; twenty-year-olds can't buy
beer. Yet forcing drivers to wear seat belts or to drive with DRLs 
doesn't seem to me to be in the same league. Sometimes people must 
be coerced into acting responsibly.

Charles Day

---

From: [email-masked] (Mike Dahmus)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 21:19:30 GMT

>all the drivers who have their headlights on to check whether they have

Don't assume he hasn't seen DRLs. Here in South Florida, there are Canadians
by the thousands every winter - I know what DRLs look like, and like the
original poster, find them incredibly annoying.

(Usually people flash their brights at the poor Canuck until they see the
Ontario plates)

---
Mike Dahmus                                        mail: [email-masked]
Workplace OS Device IO                Disclaimer: Not an official IBM spokesman

---

From: [email-masked] (Persepolis)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 03:09:46 GMT

Isaac Wong ([email-masked]) wrote:
: You don't know what is a DRL. If you simply use low-beams during daytime as

Actually I think I do.  It took me and a friend about 2 hours to track 
the resistor network down in his Volks Wagen Rabbit (Canadian edition, 
brought to the US) and disable [remove] it.

: a substitute, it will be too bright. DRL is reduced-brightness low-beams.

The reason they are reduced brightness is because the regulation wouldnt 
even get close to the politicians hands knowning the energy use increase 
not because a vehicle is "safer" at a particular luminance level.

: They don't cause unnecessary distractions, but still let other drivers
: see you if you have DRL on. Some of the people who posts from the US find

My point had nothing about distraction of the drivers (though some of the 
other messages had this in their content)- My point is that once everyone 
has them [especially in highly congested areas] their brains will simply 
filter out this feature as background noise.  You can put flashing blue 
lights, plaid coloring and neon paint all over a car and it STILL will 
not compensate for the incompetancy of the unsafe driver who's accidents 
this is trying to prevent.  Government regulation will simply give 
everyone a nice warm glow inside that once cars have their DRLs all 
head-on collisions will disappear.  Here is a personal case and point: I 
have been wearing my seatbelt ever since I learned what they are back 
when I was 8-9 years old. I have been wearing them since and did not 
need government regulation to tell me to do so as I am aware of safety 
issues in my vehicle.

: actual full-intensity low-beams. Who knows? Did those people stop and ask

BTW, I think the high beam filament is used for DRLs- The low beams are 
located shallower in most assemblies and use the upper reflector surface 
which would make them difficult to see even in full-power 
during the daytime as their operation is primarily designed for 
illuminating the road surface-  The high beams on the other hand use the 
lower reflective surface in the housing making them visible for a 
distance.

---

From: [email-masked] (Daryl M. Krzewinski)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 12:58:27 GMT

>all the drivers who have their headlights on to check whether they have

For a Canadian chap who claims to know more about DRL than his American
neighbors, you disappoint a lot Isaac. I am an American, and I know for a
fact that by your own Canadian laws, you are wrong.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, there are many different 
possible configurations for DRL. These range anywhere from very high-intensity 
parking lamps, to full-intensity low beams, to high beams at 80% intensity. 
Of course, there are dozens of median possibilities too. All are legal within
Canada, and VW has consistently used the 80% intensity high beam for several
years.

This information comes directly from a reprint of the Canadian DRL spec which
is sitting before me. It's not my opinion or observation, so don't even bother
to dispute it. I suggest you best stick with the argument as to whether or not 
you believe DRL to be effective and cease pointing the finger with "you don't 
even know what it is", when you seem to be unaware of what is legally defined 
yourself.

Daryl

===============================================================================
                              Rockwell Automation       
                             Allen-Bradley Company 
                      A division of Rockwell International
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                        
Daryl M. Krzewinski                               
Recipient, Rockwell Chairman's Team Award 1994 for Flex I/O Phase I development
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Logic Engineering                        
Industrial Control and Communications Group      email: [email-masked]           
Cleveland, Ohio                                             phone: 216-646-3960
===============================================================================
Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of A-B, myself, or anyone else
for that matter.

---

From: [email-masked] (Isaac Wong)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 16:32:07 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Daryl M. Krzewinski) writes:
|> In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Isaac Wong) says:
|> 
|> >You don't know what is a DRL. If you simply use low-beams during daytime as
|> >a substitute, it will be too bright. DRL is reduced-brightness low-beams.
|> >They don't cause unnecessary distractions, but still let other drivers
|> >see you if you have DRL on. Some of the people who posts from the US find
|> >that DRLs irritating. Maybe they are not seeing DRLs. They might be seeing
|> >actual full-intensity low-beams. Who knows? Did those people stop and ask
|> >all the drivers who have their headlights on to check whether they have
|> >DRLs or real headlights?
|> 
|> For a Canadian chap who claims to know more about DRL than his American
|> neighbors, you disappoint a lot Isaac. I am an American, and I know for a
|> fact that by your own Canadian laws, you are wrong.
|> 
|> I've said this before, and I'll say it again, there are many different 
|> possible configurations for DRL. These range anywhere from very high-intensity 
|> parking lamps, to full-intensity low beams, to high beams at 80% intensity. 
|> Of course, there are dozens of median possibilities too. All are legal within
|> Canada, and VW has consistently used the 80% intensity high beam for several
|> years.
|> 
|> This information comes directly from a reprint of the Canadian DRL spec which
|> is sitting before me. It's not my opinion or observation, so don't even bother
|> to dispute it. I suggest you best stick with the argument as to whether or not 
|> you believe DRL to be effective and cease pointing the finger with "you don't 
|> even know what it is", when you seem to be unaware of what is legally defined 
|> yourself.

I am not trying to speak for my Government or anything. I am just speaking for
my *OWN* experiences on the road everyday. I see cars with reduced-brightness
low beams as DRLs all the time, with a few exceptions use amber lights,
e.g. Saturn, Miata or fog lights (??), e.g. Toyota Celica. There is a 
difference between what the Government permits and what the manufacturers
choose to implement. You are right that some manufacturers would choose a
reduced-intensity high beams, but I don't think lots of them do that. In
fact if they do, I don't find them distracting either.

I am not disputing your legal document right beside you, but I doubt many
manufacturers went to the high beam direction. You cannot speak for those
who really don't know what DRL is, if you know it pretty well.

---

From: Paul Lu <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Sep 1995 01:58:47 GMT

---

From: Paul Lu <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Sep 1995 03:13:47 GMT

[email-masked] (Jason Niron) wrote:
*>So for the
*>Canadian fools who say we have never seen DRLs in the US, we're perfectly
*>familiar with people having headlights on in the daytime.
*>
*>To the left, I have to see that there are no cars coming for about 500 feet.
*>To the right, I have to see about the same distance - but I also have to
*>know which lane the cars I am seeing are in. With the headlights on, besides
*>making it more difficult to judge the distance of the cars, it is also more
*>difficult to judge the lane position of the cars. I simply do not make the
*>turn until I am sure there will be no traffic coming. But I've seen people
*>obviously misjudge it, and end up having to accelerate in the turn lane -
*>often causing a near collision. (I'm sure there will eventually be a head-on
*>between two people doing the same thing in opposite directions).

Oh, IMHO, that's exactly what DRL is designed for: to encourage your
low key solution and discourage the NORMAL driving habbit with intelligence
like figuring out distance and speed. I worked for Canadian company
before, thus seen and heard from my Canadian collegue that their road
are small and some part of the contry they use STOP sign intensively.
You know, safety is the most important thing when it come to transportation.
Traffic flow and capacity is a relatively unimportant issue as compared
to safety.

---

From: [email-masked] (Isaac Wong)
Date: 6 Sep 1995 15:36:20 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Kenneth E. Long) writes:
|> Yes, maybe, just MAYBE you can notice a car on a two-lane country road 
|> from a mile away instead of 3/4 of a mile away.  SO WHAT?  Try driving 
|> where I live, in Downtown San Luis Obispo, having a bunch of those dang 
|> DRLs coming down crowded, narrow downtown streets.  Can't you people 
|> understand that the effects of extra, unnecessary light sources on the 
|> road are CUMULATIVE?

DRLs are supposed to be reduced-brightness low beams. They should not cause
unnecessary distractions.

|>The sun is all you need!

Sometimes too much. Ever had the sun shining just in front of you?