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

Re: the TRUTH about Daytime Running Lights !!!!!!



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: