[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: the TRUTH about Daytime Running Lights !!!!!!
-
Subject: Re: the TRUTH about Daytime Running Lights !!!!!!
-
From: Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com>
-
Date: 27 Sep 1995 00:40:18 GMT
-
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
-
Organization: MindSpring: Internet Serveice @ Ga Tech Campus
-
References: <445c9j$idd@pioneer.nevada.edu> <449a9m$6hc@dg-rtp.dg.com>
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) wrote:
>I believe that your analogy is fault. The purpose of DRLs is to make
>*moving vehicles* stand out from the rest of a driver's field of vision
>-- which is dominated primarily by *inanimate objects* such as the
>road, trees, houses, sky, etc. In short, vehicle visibility is not a
>zero-sum game.
A moving vehicle itself attract MY attension. With or without DRL
>
>If every car having "notice me" lights on in front is so distracting,
>then why aren't you also opposed to tail-lights at night? After all,
>every moving vehicle is also supposed to have them on, and their only
>purpose is signal "notice me!" to other drivers.
Bob, you are comparing apple to orange here.
In the night, you don't see a car in front of you without
its rear light.
Without DRL, I still see those cars. I understand some
people don't. I consider myself lucky that I have not
been run over by those people given that I have been
driving 15 years without DRL.
If DRL is so good, here is a hardball question for you:
Why is the rear light "just a pair of small red bulb?"
Isn't a set of DRL much brighter and draw more attention?
Follow-Ups: