From kevina  Sun Apr 30 15:34:51 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA04191 for kevina; Sun, 30 Apr 1995 15:34:50 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!ip029.phx.primenet.com!gribble
From: gribble@primenet.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime Running lights - The facts
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 13:33:22 MST
Organization: Primenet
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <gribble.456.015E65F7@primenet.com>
References: <gribble.357.008593BF@primenet.com> <3nlh25$86c@gradlab11.me> <26APR199519510404@vms1.tamu.edu> <Paul.R.Wallen.24.2F9FF248@tek.com> <3np0qr$hmq$1@garnet.msen.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip029.phx.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #4]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:61420 rec.autos.misc:43054 rec.autos.tech:118798
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2203
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <3np0qr$hmq$1@garnet.msen.com> Mike Pelletier <mike.pelletier@ntt.com> writes:
>From: Mike Pelletier <mike.pelletier@ntt.com>
>Subject: Re: Daytime Running lights - The facts
>Date: 27 Apr 1995 17:03:23 -0400

>In article <Paul.R.Wallen.24.2F9FF248@tek.com>,
>        Paul R. Wallen <Paul.R.Wallen@tek.com> wrote:
>>In article <26APR199519510404@vms1.tamu.edu> msw5513@vms1.tamu.edu
>         (Gumby) writes:
>>
>>>All the milliseconds add up.  Given the added warning, a few deaths may be
>>>avoided.
>>
>>I have a simpler solution.  Why not go back to simple, common sense driving 
>>habits, and allow a reasonable distance between you and the car in front??

>Because, as I've learned from observation over the last several years, 
>one should never overestimate the intelligence of America's general 
>population.  :-)

>By the way, does anyone know of a way to refit a car with daytime running 
>lights?  I'd like to have the feature on my '88 Mercury Sable (116,000 
>miles).  I've checked with my dealer, and even a Canadian dealer, but no 
>dice there...

>           -Mike Pelletier.


I can think of three ways

1) turn on the low beams

2) find a circut that is fused for 20 amps and is only on when the ignition 
is on and run a wire from that to the wire for the low beams.  Put a 10 amp 
diode in series with the new wire and that will drop the voltage 0.7 volts and 
will make the lights a bit dimmer so they don't wear out as fast.  A second 
diode in series will drop it another 0.7 volts.  This will also keep the 
lights from pumping power backward, so to speak, into the circut you have 
tapped.  Depending on what the circut is for and where you tapped in you could 
, without the diode, wind up rolling down your windows when you turn your 
headlights on.  If you put the diode in backwards it won't let any current 
thru and DRLs won't work - if that's the case just turn the diode around.

3) This is really the right way - use a relay that is controlled by a circut 
that is only on when the ignition is on and then have the relay power the low 
beams.  This will properly isolate the circuts.  You'll still need the 
diode(s) if you want reduced output on the DRLs.

From kevina  Sun Apr 30 15:35:13 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA04248 for kevina; Sun, 30 Apr 1995 15:35:11 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!merak.cc.umanitoba.ca!umchadd0
From: Rene Chaddock <umchadd0@CC.UManitoba.CA>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime Running lights - The facts
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 08:27:06 -0500
Organization: The University of Manitoba
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950429082604.1579E-100000@merak.cc.umanitoba.ca>
References: <gribble.357.008593BF@primenet.com> <3nlh25$86c@gradlab11.me> <26APR199519510404@vms1.tamu.edu> <Paul.R.Wallen.24.2F9FF248@tek.com> <3np0qr$hmq$1@garnet.msen.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: merak.cc.umanitoba.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3np0qr$hmq$1@garnet.msen.com> 
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:61507 rec.autos.misc:43129 rec.autos.tech:118851
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 531
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 27 Apr 1995, Mike Pelletier wrote:

> 
> By the way, does anyone know of a way to refit a car with daytime running 
> lights?  I'd like to have the feature on my '88 Mercury Sable (116,000 
> miles).  I've checked with my dealer, and even a Canadian dealer, but no 
> dice there...

You should just do what my volvo has (if that makes sense..which is 
doesn't..)..

Rig it up so that the headlights shut off when the ignition is off.  Then 
you just keep the light switch in the "on" position all the time.  Works 
great.

Rene

From kevina  Sun Apr 30 15:36:12 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA04531 for kevina; Sun, 30 Apr 1995 15:36:11 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!dptspd!news.tamu.edu!vms1.tamu.edu!msw5513
From: msw5513@vms1.tamu.edu (Gumby)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime Running lights - The facts
Date: 27 Apr 1995 16:31 CDT
Organization: Texas A&M University OpenVMScluster
Lines: 20
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <27APR199516312026@vms1.tamu.edu>
References: <gribble.357.008593BF@primenet.com> <3mh29g$8po@limey.mitel.com> <gribble.372.02009D20@primenet.com> <3nlh25$86c@gradlab11.me> <Paul.R.Wallen.24.2F9FF248@tek.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vms1.tamu.edu
News-Software: OpenVMS  VNEWS 1.41    
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:61276 rec.autos.misc:42922 rec.autos.tech:118690
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 821
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Paul.R.Wallen@tek.com (Paul R. Wallen) writes...
>msw5513@vms1.tamu.edu (Gumby) writes:
[third brake light...]
>>All the milliseconds add up.  Given the added warning, a few deaths may be
>>avoided.

>I have a simpler solution.  Why not go back to simple, common sense driving 
>habits, and allow a reasonable distance between you and the car in front??

What's your problem?  Personal responsibility?  Not here in the U.S., mister.
Just cut that crap out, and go live in a communist country like New Zealand.

The family of a drunk teen that ran into a retaining wall at more than twice
the speed limit sued, and won.  The city had to pay for killing the kid by
putting a wall in his obvious path of travel.

(I just NZ didn't have as tight restrictions on us foreigners, otherwise I
think I'd change residences.)

Marc

From kevina  Sun Apr 30 15:37:09 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA04836 for kevina; Sun, 30 Apr 1995 15:37:09 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news1.digex.net!usenet
From: michaelj@relay.relay.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime Running lights - The facts
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:26:30 PDT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <799003590.michaelj@relay.relay.com>
References: <gribble.357.008593BF@primenet.com> <3mh29g$8po@limey.mitel.com> <gribble.372.02009D20@primenet.com> <degennar-2604950316210001@comserv-f-26.usc.edu> <Pine.SUN.3.91.950426055128.17850A-100000@mira.cc.umanitoba.ca>,<3nlh25$86c@gradlab11.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: michaelj.relay.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:61200 rec.autos.misc:42869 rec.autos.tech:118644
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1226
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Let's try this again..

In article <3nlh25$86c@gradlab11.me>, tlcoste@mtu.edu said:
>: Wrong.  the reason teh third brake light works is not because it makes 
>: the car "different", but becaues the light coincidentally happens to be 
>: where everybody looks.
>   
>   Personally, I think the only advantage to a third brake light is that
>when some moron who doesn't take care of his car is running with a 
>burned out bulb, you won't confuse him with a motorcycle at night.  :)

I find third brake lights to be handy for this reason:

I drive a low car (a 3rd gen RX-7) and while I can often see through the
greenhouse of the car in front of me, I usually CANNOT see the brake lights
of the cars in front of them. Having the third brake light up high where I
can see it through the greenhouse of other cars means that I get much more
advanced warning that I'm going to need to slow down. This is especially
helpful if the cars in front are braking hard, because it gives you an extra
half-second or more to react, which can be especially important in congested
rush-hour traffic.

Sorry for the partial previous posting, I need to add a confirmation box to
my news posting software.

Michael Johnson
Relay Technology, Inc.

From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:25:42 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04931 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:25:42 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!usenet
From: gribble@primenet.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Daytime running lights
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 18:29:40 GMT
Organization: Primenet
Lines: 203
Message-ID: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip059.phx.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79556 rec.autos.misc:56477 rec.autos.tech:133438
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 10986
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

I was asked to repost the following info concerning Daytime Running Lights.
Last time I posted this it resulted in a thread of over 100 articles, most of
them trying to dispute the research results thru the recitation of antecdotal
reports.  MY reading of these summarys leaves me with little doubt that the
supposed benefits of DRLs are not borne out in practice and in fact DRLS may
cuase more accidents then they prevent.  Of the studies cited below (from a
literature search of anything within about the last 7 years) the most
compelling would seem to be the one from the country having had madatory DRLS
for the longest time (Norway) and as you can see, they did NOT find the
expected benefits.  The studies that did turn up some benefit were, for
example, from Canada, where DRLs are still in the novelty stage as far as the
number of cars so equiped.  It's not suprising that when only a very few cars
have DRLS that  such cars get noticed and don't get hit.  That effect can be
expected to disappear in future years as DRLs appear on all cars and my
expectatin would be that they will wind up with the same results as Norway.



642646  DA
TITLE: DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS: A REVIEW OF THEORETICAL ISSUES AND EVALUATION
STUDIES
AUTHOR(S): Theeuwes, J; Riemersma, JBJ
CORPORATE SOURCE: Institute for Perception RVO-TNO; Kampweg 5, Postbus 23;
Soesterberg ; ID; 83401; Netherlands
REPORT NUMBER: IZF-1990-A-28;TD-90-1621
JOURNAL: NTIS ALERT   Pag: 46p
PUBLICATION DATE: 901210    PUBLICATION YEAR: 1990
LANGUAGE: English      SUBFILE: HRIS
ISSN: 01631527
AVAILABILITY: National Technical Information Service; 5285 Port Royal Road
; Springfield; VA  ; 22161
ORDER NUMBER: PB93-188084/WTS
ABSTRACT: The study provides a review of the literature on the use of daytime
running lights (DRL) as a vehicle collision countermeasure. It assists in the
design of an accident study for military vehicles, once DRL has become
obligatory nationwide. In the first part of the study, possible theoretical
reasons for the supposed effectiveness of DRL are discussed. The suggested
influences of DRL on perception are primarily based on theoretical
considerations, and the relation between effects on perception and driving are
still hypothetical. In addition, the section reviews some experimental results
revealing relationships between the use of DRL and some aspects of traffic
behavior. The second part of the study examines the available evidence for the
effectiveness of DRL as a measure to reduce accidents. Studies evaluating
changes in accident rates after the introduction of DRL at a nationwide scale
as well as studies evaluating changes in accident rates after the introduction
of DRL for specific groups are discussed. The results of a study evaluating
the effects of DRL implementation in Sweden are examined in detail since the
study was conducted at a fairly large scale using a variety of accident data
and applied new statistical methods. The present review indicates that there
is no clear-cut account for the perceptual and behavioral processes underlying
DRL. In addition, the available evidence in terms of accident rates seems
equivocal as well.

639985  DA
TITLE: EFFECT OF AMBIENT LIGHTING AND DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHT (DRL) INTENSITY ON
PERIPHERAL DETECTION OF DRL
AUTHOR(S): Ziedman, K; Burger, W
CORPORATE SOURCE: Transportation Research Board; 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
; Washington; DC; 20418;
JOURNAL: Transportation Research Record   Issue Number: 1403   Pag: pp 28-35
PUBLICATION DATE: 930000    PUBLICATION YEAR: 1993
LANGUAGE: English      SUBFILE: HRIS
ISSN: 03611981    ISBN: 0309055512
AVAILABILITY: Transportation Research Board Business Office; 2101
Constitution Avenue, NW; Washington; DC  ; 20418
ORDER NUMBER: N/A
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES: This paper appears in Transportation Research Record No.
1403, Driver Performance: Measurement and Modeling, IVHS, Information Systems,
and Simulation.
FIGURES: 7 Fig.
REFERENCES: 29 Ref.
ABSTRACT: Daytime running lights (DRLs) have been proposed to reduce the
frequency and severity of traffic accidents by enhancing the conspicuity of
vehicles to other drivers. DRL regulations have been enacted in several
countries and are being considered in the United States. Although various
studies of DRL effectiveness have been conducted, only one has included the
range of ambient illumination conditions encountered in the United States. The
project reviewed methodologies appropriate for the study of DRL effectiveness
and conducted a study of DRL effectiveness under a wide range of ambient
illumination. A peripheral detection experiment was conducted in which
subjects responded to a DRL test vehicle approaching at a 20-deg peripheral
angle while the subjects were performing a central attention task. DRL
intensities were 0, 200, 400, 800, and 1,600 cd. Ambient illumination levels
varied from about 11,000 to more than 110,000 lx (1,000 to 10,000 fc). Only
the 1,600-cd intensity resulted in a statistically significant increased
peripheral detection distance. Improved peripheral detection distance was
limited to ambient illumination levels below 43,040 lx (4,000 fc). The mean
improvement in detection distance for 1,600-cd intensity and ambients less
than 43,040 lx (4,000 fc) was about 75 m (247 ft), or about 3 sec of driving
time at 88 km/hr (55 mph).
DESCRIPTORS: DAYTIME HEADLIGHT USE; EFFECTIVENESS; AMBIENT LIGHTING; HUMAN
SUBJECT TESTING; PERIPHERAL DETECTION DISTANCE; LUMINOUS INTENSITY
SUBJECT HEADING: H53 VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS; H52 HUMAN FACTORS; I91
VEHICLE DESIGN AND SAFETY; I83 ACCIDENTS AND THE HUMAN FACTOR


639222  DA
TITLE: THE EFFECT OF DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ON CRASHES BETWEEN TWO VEHICLES IN
SASKATCHEWAN: A STUDY OF A GOVERNMENT FLEET
AUTHOR(S): Sparks, GA; Neudorf, RD; Smith, AE; Wapman, KR; Zador, PL
CORPORATE SOURCE: Pergamon Press plc; Headington Hill Hall; Oxford OX3 0BW;
England
JOURNAL: Accident Analysis and Prevention  Vol: 25   Issue Number: 5
Pag: pp 619-625
PUBLICATION DATE: 931000    PUBLICATION YEAR: 1993
LANGUAGE: English      SUBFILE: HRIS
ISSN: 00014575
BIBLIOGRAPHIC/DATA APPENDICES: 1 App.
AVAILABILITY: Pergamon Press, Incorporated; Maxwell House, Fairview Park;
Elmsford ; NY  ; 10523
ORDER NUMBER: N/A
FIGURES: 1 Fig.   TABLES: 1 Tab.
REFERENCES: 16 Ref.
ABSTRACT: Keeping vehicle lights on to increase vehicle conspicuity during
daytime hours has been found to reduce crashes in Scandinavia and the United
States. Crashes of vehicles with and without daytime running lights owned by
the Central Vehicle Agency of the Province of Saskatchewan were compared to a
random selection of crashes drawn from provincial crash files involving
vehicles without daytime running lights for the years 1982 through 1989.
Daytime two-vehicle crashes involving vehicles approaching from the front or
side were reduced by about 28% for the daytime running-light equipped
vehicles. A 28% reduction in daytime running-light relevant daytime
two-vehicle crashes corresponds to a 15% reduction in all daytime two-vehicle
crashes.
DESCRIPTORS: MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS; RUNNING LIGHTS; DAYTIME HEADLIGHT USE ;
SASKATCHEWAN; SCANDINAVIA; UNITED STATES
SUBJECT HEADING: H51 SAFETY

639173  DA
TITLE: THE EFFECTS ON ACCIDENTS OF COMPULSORY USE OF DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS
FOR CARS IN NORWAY
AUTHOR(S): Elvik, R
CORPORATE SOURCE: Pergamon Press plc; Headington Hill Hall; Oxford OX3 0BW;
England
JOURNAL: Accident Analysis and Prevention  Vol: 25   Issue Number: 4
Pag: pp 383-398
PUBLICATION DATE: 930800    PUBLICATION YEAR: 1993
LANGUAGE: English      SUBFILE: HRIS
ISSN: 00014575
BIBLIOGRAPHIC/DATA APPENDICES: 2 App.
AVAILABILITY: Pergamon Press, Incorporated; Maxwell House, Fairview Park;
Elmsford ; NY  ; 10523
ORDER NUMBER: N/A
FIGURES: 1 Fig.   TABLES: 17 Tab.
REFERENCES: Refs.
ABSTRACT: The use of daytime running lights was made mandatory for new cars in
Norway in 1985 and for all cars in 1988. This paper examines the effectiveness
of this regulation as an accident countermeasure. The paper relies on the same
study design and method of analysis as previous studies of similar laws in
Finland and Sweden. Four hypotheses concerning the effects of daytime running
lights are tested. None of them was supported. The total number of multiparty
accidents in daylight was not reduced. Pedestrian accidents and accidents
during twiligt were not reduced. The number of rear-end collisions increased
by about 20%. Daytime running lights appear to reduce daytime multiparty
accidents only during summer (by about 15%) and only for multivehicle
accidents, excluding rear-end collisions. The possibility that confounding
factors may have influenced study results is examined. It is concluded that
such an influence can not be ruled out. The discussion of the results
highlights the difficulties of reaching clear and defensible conclusions in
nonexperimental accident research of the kind reported in this paper.
DESCRIPTORS: DAYTIME HEADLIGHT USE; RUNNING LIGHTS; NORWAY; REGULATIONS;
ACCIDENT REDUCTION; EFFECTIVENESS
SUBJECT HEADING: H51 SAFETY


TITLE: HOW TO EXPLAIN THE LARGE REDUCTION OF ACCIDENTS IN WHICH UNPROTECTED
ROAD USERS WERE INVOLVED AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS
(DRL)? A HYPOTHESIS RELATED TO ROAD USER BEHAVIOUR
AUTHOR(S): HELMERS, G
CORPORATE SOURCE: STATENS VAEG- OCH TRAFIKINSTITUT; LINKOEPING; S-58101;
SWEDEN
JOURNAL: VTI RAPPORT   Issue Number: 366A   Pag: 91-94
PUBLICATION DATE: 910000    PUBLICATION YEAR: 1991
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH      SUBFILE: IRRD
SOURCE ACCESSION NUMBER: 9203VT018E
IRRD DOCUMENT NUMBER: 847944
ISSN: 0347-6030
REFERENCES: 5
DATA SOURCE: Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)
ABSTRACT: daytime running lights were introduced in finland and sweden in the
70s. it was found that daylight accidents involving more than one vehicle were
reduced by 10% while daylight accidents between motor vehicles and unprotected
road users were reduced by 15-20%. this was unexpected since it had been
feared that greater visibility of vehicles to each other might make
unprotected road users less visible. although the detection distance of a dark
object, when driving at night on low beam, is 50 m and stopping distance about
100 m, vehicles drive at 90-100 kph because obstacles on the road are so rare
that drivers feel in full control. drivers are taught to regard children in
traffic as unreliable. it is found however that drivers do not reduce speed
when children at present, but that the 'unreliable' children take evasive
action to keep out of the way of the 'reliable' drivers. since unprotected
road users cannot rely for their safety on drivers, they must ensure that they
keep out of the way of vehicles. daytime running lights make this much easier.
for the covering abstract of the conference see irrd 847927. for comments on
this paper, see irrd 847945.
DESCRIPTORS: ACCIDENT RATE; DECREASE; DAYLIGHT; DIPPED HEADLIGHT; ROAD USER ;
BEHAVIOUR; BEFORE AND AFTER STUDY; CHILD; DETECTION; CONFERENCE; FINLAND;
SWEDEN






From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:01 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04941 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:01 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet
From: Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 8 Aug 1995 03:01:15 GMT
Organization: MindSpring: Internet Serveice @ Ga Tech Campus
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cindylu.mindspring.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2b3 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79665 rec.autos.misc:56526 rec.autos.tech:133536
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 746
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Good to hear that. Here are some response coming up:

Cons:

GM: Those report are errornious. It was faked by some country try to
    hurt GM's leading position in car manufacture. e will go to the
    house and congress asking another trade war to stop this!

Canadian American: This capitalism country is going to become hell,
    Let's move back to the north of the border where cars are safer
    because they all have DRL.

CUT


OTOH:

Some people like myself: Thank God don't have to worry about, IMHO,
STUPID DRL getting into my eyes in the day time.

Oh, I hate that stupid DRL. It's worse than the 55 mph speed limit.
Let it NOT become law! I will hold onto purchase of STS until GM
drop the push for DRL. Just me, but I am not alone.


From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:02 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04953 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:02 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!spool.mu.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!prairienet.org!gld
From: gld@prairienet.org (Gary L. Dare)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Date: 8 Aug 1995 16:03:01 GMT
Organization: Bureau 13
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4081rl$i9j@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950808082919.6231A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: firefly.prairienet.org
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79748 rec.autos.misc:56596 rec.autos.tech:133601
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 614
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dai F Toyama (borap@paul.spu.edu) wrote:

: It depends upon how the DRL is implemented.  If low beams are used,
: there's no way it gets in your eyes.  Some cars use the high beams
: with reduced brightness, which to me is a good idea too.

... especially since the high beam element isn't the one that you
worry about burning out, normally.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare                                   gld@prairienet.org
 Trust Fund Owner-Partner,           uk960@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
 Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club (NHL)      (formerly gld@columbia.edu)

From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:04 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04959 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:04 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!ftpbox!mothost!newdelph.cig.mot.com!usenet
From: Bill Horwath <horwthwp>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 8 Aug 1995 15:52:25 GMT
Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <40817p$ojp@newdelph.cig.mot.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: scampi.rtsg.mot.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m)
X-URL: news:406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79753 rec.autos.misc:56600 rec.autos.tech:133605
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 774
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

What's the big deal about DRL. This has been done in some states in the US, in
the past. I think Minnesota had a law in the 50's or 60's that stated that all 
vehicles had to drive with their lights on at all time. The stats showed that
the accidents took an initial drop, then returned to the pre-law levels. And
this was with full light intensities. The law was eventually dropped. The same
will occur here. DRL is no new idea, History seems to show that it will not
sustain the safety improvements hyped in the commercials.

Actually I think a better idea would be to have the car automatically switch on
the lights when the windshield wipers are on. (with a possible override if the
window is just being cleaned. 30 sec delay?)

-- 
       bill

(horwthwp@cig.mot.com)


From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:06 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04971 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:05 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news1.digital.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!usenet
From: Lee Shere <lnm@slip.net>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 8 Aug 1995 23:08:36 GMT
Organization: Home
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <408qpk$pdi@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <408af2$km@Mars.mcs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: g143.slac.stanford.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2b2 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79830 rec.autos.misc:56647 rec.autos.tech:133665
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 594
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

My opinion is that if a person can't see a car or truck in the
daylight then DLRs aren't going to do a bit of good.

Why not pass a law requiring HORNS to be constantly blaring
while the engine is on?!?

Personally, I believe this DRL thing is an idea of the gasoline
companies.  They'll do ANYTHING to increase sales, even if it's 
so minor as increasing the alternators drag the tiny bit required
to produce the current to run the DRLs.  A penny an hour from
millions of cars and you're talking about real money.

BTW.  That extra work that the engine is doing produces more pollution.

Lee


From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:07 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04983 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:07 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!spool.mu.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!MANSCI.watstar.uwaterloo.ca!TJNYE
From: TJNYE@MANSCI.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Tim Nye)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Message-ID: <TJNYE.1100.30279F33@MANSCI.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>
Lines: 35
Sender: news@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: watercow.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 17:30:27 GMT
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79788 rec.autos.misc:56623 rec.autos.tech:133639
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1217
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> gribble@primenet.com writes:

>I was asked to repost the following info concerning Daytime Running Lights.

Actually, in a prior post you claimed:

	"Of the studies done in countries where DRLs are pretty much the 
	norm or at least very common, the statistics show that accidents 
	have gone up, not down, since the use of DRLs began."

and I asked if you could post the studies which supported this.  

The study you mention from Norway said:

	"The total number of multiparty accidents in daylight was not 
	reduced."

"not reduced" does not mean "have gone up, not down".  I think you will also 
find that study from Finland and Sweden (which introduced DRLs quite a bit 
earlier than in Norway) says:

	"it was found that daylight accidents involving more than one 
	vehicle were reduced by 10% while daylight accidents between motor 
	vehicles and unprotected road users were reduced by 15-20%." 

Funny, this seems to contradict your claim that accidents have increased.  
Apparently you must have posted the abstracts from the wrong studies.  Could 
you post the studies which support your claim that accident rates go up when 
DRLs are commonplace?

Thanks,

Tim



From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:09 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04997 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:08 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!agora!tfoottit
From: tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: agora.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca>
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:45:21 GMT
Lines: 44
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79787 rec.autos.misc:56622 rec.autos.tech:133635
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1928
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

> I was asked to repost the following info concerning Daytime Running Lights.
> Last time I posted this it resulted in a thread of over 100 articles, most of
> them trying to dispute the research results thru the recitation of antecdotal
> reports.

Oh goody, here we go again.

<some crap snipped>
> expected benefits.  The studies that did turn up some benefit were, for
> example, from Canada, where DRLs are still in the novelty stage as far as the
> number of cars so equiped.

Yeah, the novelty stage. DRLs have been mandatory here for 5 years. GM
started selling DRL-equipped cars here since 1989. 

>  It's not suprising that when only a very few cars
> have DRLS that  such cars get noticed and don't get hit.  That effect can be
> expected to disappear in future years as DRLs appear on all cars and my
> expectatin would be that they will wind up with the same results as Norway.

You tool. If I have to repeat this argument one more time...

1) DRIVE on a Canadian highway. What are all those cars doing with
their lights on? DRLs are mandatory. Trying to dismiss the Canadian
study because "DRLS are a novelty" only makes you look like a fool.

2) DRLs increase visibility. All you have to do is drive on a 2-lane
highway in Canada to prove this. I just completed a 1000km journey
this past weekend on Ontario 2-lane highways. Odd how you can see
those DRL-equipped cars coming from farther away.

3) DRLs cost practically nothing. They do not interfere with your
driving pleasure. You won't even notice they are there. I will.

All I hear is Americans bitching about something they know nothing
about. 
Stop quoting obscure Norwiegan studies and get on the road. You'll
discover the difference soon enough.

Tom

_____________________________________________________________________
Tom Foottit                              Computer Systems Engineering
tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca                Carleton University

From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:02 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04947 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:01 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!alfa02.medio.net!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 08:33:02 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950808082919.6231A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> 
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79740 rec.autos.misc:56590 rec.autos.tech:133598
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1190
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 8 Aug 1995, Paul Lu wrote:

> Some people like myself: Thank God don't have to worry about, IMHO,
> STUPID DRL getting into my eyes in the day time.
> 

It depends upon how the DRL is implemented.  If low beams are used,
there's no way it gets in your eyes.  Some cars use the high beams
with reduced brightness, which to me is a good idea too.


> Oh, I hate that stupid DRL. It's worse than the 55 mph speed limit.
> Let it NOT become law! I will hold onto purchase of STS until GM
> drop the push for DRL. Just me, but I am not alone.
> 

Too bad, folks at GM don't seem to agree with you.  I happen to agree
with them.  BTW, you're the first one that's declared that the DRL is
worse than the 55-MPH speed limit (AFAIK). :-)

Dai


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   |  Dai F Toyama      ||  borap@paul.spu.edu          |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    |  CS Student        ||  Seattle Pacific University  |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   |  Systems Designer  ||  Hitmark Computer            |
 | |\ ||            |  Driving Maniac    ||  1992 Acura Integra GS-R     |
  by Keith Wright   *----------------------------------------------------*


From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:11 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA05017 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:11 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!usenet
From: gribble@primenet.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 21:59:11 GMT
Organization: Primenet
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <408n08$ahu@nnrp3.primenet.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip042.phx.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79809 rec.autos.misc:56632 rec.autos.tech:133651
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3301
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit) wrote:

->> I was asked to repost the following info concerning Daytime Running
Lights.
->> Last time I posted this it resulted in a thread of over 100 articles, most
of
->> them trying to dispute the research results thru the recitation of
antecdotal
->> reports.

->Oh goody, here we go again.

-><some crap snipped>
->> expected benefits.  The studies that did turn up some benefit were, for
->> example, from Canada, where DRLs are still in the novelty stage as far as
the
->> number of cars so equiped.

->Yeah, the novelty stage. DRLs have been mandatory here for 5 years. GM
->started selling DRL-equipped cars here since 1989. 

->>  It's not suprising that when only a very few cars
->> have DRLS that  such cars get noticed and don't get hit.  That effect can
be
->> expected to disappear in future years as DRLs appear on all cars and my
->> expectatin would be that they will wind up with the same results as
Norway.

->You tool. If I have to repeat this argument one more time...

->1) DRIVE on a Canadian highway. What are all those cars doing with
->their lights on? DRLs are mandatory. Trying to dismiss the Canadian
->study because "DRLS are a novelty" only makes you look like a fool.

->2) DRLs increase visibility. All you have to do is drive on a 2-lane
->highway in Canada to prove this. I just completed a 1000km journey
->this past weekend on Ontario 2-lane highways. Odd how you can see
->those DRL-equipped cars coming from farther away.

->3) DRLs cost practically nothing. They do not interfere with your
->driving pleasure. You won't even notice they are there. I will.

->All I hear is Americans bitching about something they know nothing
->about. 
->Stop quoting obscure Norwiegan studies and get on the road. You'll
->discover the difference soon enough.

Nice of you to complelety miss the point.  You are just like all the other
mindless DRL supporters.  Never mind if it works you say; who cares what the
studies show, it seems like a good idea so it must be one!!!

Just how far away can another car be from you for you to still be able to
smash into it???  Why is it some safety advantage that you can see a car with
DRLs 6000 feet away from you while only being able to see one without DRLs
when it's 4000 feet away??  Are your reaction times that slow that you need a
4000 foot advance warning??  Or to put it another way, how close does another
car have to be to you before it is within range of being a hazard?  300 feet??
Do you REALLY need a car to have it's lights on in daytime to see it when it's
300 feet away??  What has been the accident invovlement rate of motorcyles now
that they are lost in a sea of DRLs?  What has been Canada's expericance in
terms of ALL accidents, including rear-enders caused by people who's eyes were
focused on that car 3000 feet away with the pretty DRLs while they smashed
into the back of the car stopping in front of them??

The bottom line remains, DRLs have NOT be demonstrated to be of any long term
benefit.  Conversely, there IS evidence to suggest that the use of DRLs, while
not significantly lowering any accident rates actaully INCREASE the rate of
rear end collisions.

But go ahead and ignore the EVIDENCE and be guided by your intutition if that
makes you feel good.


From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:06 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04977 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:06 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!corpgate!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nott!cunews!agora!tfoottit
From: tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: agora.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <DD0CEM.4LA@cunews.carleton.ca>
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 19:49:34 GMT
Lines: 14
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79837 rec.autos.misc:56658 rec.autos.tech:133673
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 569
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Paul Lu (CindyLu@Mindspring.com) wrote:
> Some people like myself: Thank God don't have to worry about, IMHO,
> STUPID DRL getting into my eyes in the day time.

Have you ever driven on a road with DRL-equipped cars?

If you think that DRLs have too much glare, you should get the fuck
off of the road. I sure wouldn't want to run into a fool like you at night.

Tom

_____________________________________________________________________
Tom Foottit                              Computer Systems Engineering
tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca                Carleton University

From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:08 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04989 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:08 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.primenet.com!usenet
From: gribble@primenet.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 21:50:27 GMT
Organization: Primenet
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <408mfr$ahu@nnrp3.primenet.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <TJNYE.1100.30279F33@MANSCI.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip042.phx.primenet.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79804 rec.autos.misc:56628 rec.autos.tech:133649
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3469
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

TJNYE@MANSCI.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Tim Nye) wrote:

->In article <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> gribble@primenet.com writes:

->>I was asked to repost the following info concerning Daytime Running Lights.

->Actually, in a prior post you claimed:

->	"Of the studies done in countries where DRLs are pretty much the 
->	norm or at least very common, the statistics show that accidents 
->	have gone up, not down, since the use of DRLs began."

->and I asked if you could post the studies which supported this.  

->The study you mention from Norway said:

->	"The total number of multiparty accidents in daylight was not 
->	reduced."

->"not reduced" does not mean "have gone up, not down".  I think you will also

->find that study from Finland and Sweden (which introduced DRLs quite a bit 
->earlier than in Norway) says:

->	"it was found that daylight accidents involving more than one 
->	vehicle were reduced by 10% while daylight accidents between motor 
->	vehicles and unprotected road users were reduced by 15-20%." 

->Funny, this seems to contradict your claim that accidents have increased.  
->Apparently you must have posted the abstracts from the wrong studies.  Could

->you post the studies which support your claim that accident rates go up when

->DRLs are commonplace?

->Thanks,

->Tim


Thanks for taking so many things out of context.  Firstly, you only quoted the
one line about how some accidents were not reduced... why did you ignore the
other info in the abstract??  To wit...

FOUR hypotheses concerning the effects of daytime running
lights are tested. NONE of them was supported. The total number of multiparty
accidents in daylight was NOTreduced. Pedestrian accidents and accidents
during twiligt were NOT reduced. The number of rear-end collisions INCREASED
by about 20%. 

As to the Finland and Sweden Study, you are reading something into it that
does not seem to be there.  That study prefaced it's remarks with the EARLY
results, from other studies of when few cars had DRLs and there was an
apparent reduction.  It was NOT a study of the long term effects on all types
of accidents but was a study trying to find an explanation for the odd
observation that DRLs seemed to reduce the incidence of certain types of
pedestrian accidents.  It was not a study of overall accident rates.

The Norway study appears to be the most recent and most definative and does
not support the claimed value of DRLs.  It also reinforces what someone else
posted about how the use of DRLs was mandated some years ago in one of the
states with the same results, i.e., when DRLs were a novelty and made people
notice them, accidents went down but when the novelty value wore off, the
accident level returned to what it was before.  Interestingly, the same thing
seems to have happened with Busses.  About 20 years ago, some Bus Companies
started putting a single light  one the front of their busses and found that
their accident invovlement seemed to go down.  It was much ballyhooed when
they started using them.  Little was said thought when within 2 years they
stopped using them.  Since one would surmise that in a profit driven
environment they would have continued using them if there continued to be
benefit one can further surmise that once the novelty of the single DRL on the
busses wore off their accident rates went back up.  Of course, no one issues
press releases saying how something doesn't work so those DRLs simply faded
away. 


From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:10 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA05004 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:09 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.cloud9.net!cloud9.net!firebug
From: firebug@cloud9.net (firebug)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 8 Aug 1995 21:23:01 GMT
Organization: Cloud 9 Internet, White Plains, New York, USA
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <408kjl$r7t@news.cloud9.net>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cloud9.net
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79841 rec.autos.misc:56661 rec.autos.tech:133676
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 325
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca>,
Tom Foottit <tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>2) DRLs increase visibility. All you have to do is drive on a 2-lane

If people are so inattentive that cars in broad daylight need to have their
lights on to be seen, there is a MUCH more serious problem than can be
solved by DRLs.

From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:05 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA04965 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:05 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!not-for-mail
From: fuzzy@MCS.COM (Chris Matthaei)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 8 Aug 1995 13:29:54 -0500
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <408af2$km@Mars.mcs.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mars.mcs.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79807 rec.autos.misc:56631 rec.autos.tech:133650
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 399
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com> writes:

>Oh, I hate that stupid DRL. It's worse than the 55 mph speed limit.
>Let it NOT become law! I will hold onto purchase of STS until GM
>drop the push for DRL. Just me, but I am not alone.

Oh my god! Those daytime running lights are burning my eyes out! They're so
bright! I can't see!!! HELP, I'M BLIND!!!!! Oh, wait, that's the sun I'm
staring at. Shit.


From kevina  Wed Aug  9 05:26:10 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id FAA05011 for kevina; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:26:10 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!usenet
From: smarties@helix.net (Ed Smart)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 9 Aug 1995 03:50:32 GMT
Organization: Helix Internet
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <409ba8$fch@sulla.cyberstore.ca>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca> <408kjl$r7t@news.cloud9.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.244.111.136
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.5
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79864 rec.autos.misc:56674 rec.autos.tech:133683
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 958
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <408kjl$r7t@news.cloud9.net>, firebug@cloud9.net (firebug) says:
>
>In article <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca>,
>Tom Foottit <tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>2) DRLs increase visibility. All you have to do is drive on a 2-lane
>
>If people are so inattentive that cars in broad daylight need to have their
>lights on to be seen, there is a MUCH more serious problem than can be
>solved by DRLs.

Sorry but I must agree with Foottit:
I drive over 45,000km a year in all sorts of weather on mountainous 
Canadian highways with lots of trees and shadows around. Brightly 
colored cars stand out, dark ones don't. With DTRL's they all stand 
out from the background
The extra margin of visibility is and has been a life saver on several 
occasions when passing B-trains or "Rocky Mountain Specials "on two 
lane uphills with my econo station wagon. 
Even when I'm using my 100 watt lights, I disconnect the DTRL's and
drive with the low beams on.

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:50:11 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA25908 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:50:10 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!emory!metro.atlanta.com!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.ios.com!village.ios.com!plogan
From: plogan@village.ios.com (Philip Logan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime Running lights - The facts
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Date: 7 Aug 1995 19:49:19 GMT
Organization: Internet Online Services
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <405qnv$egk@news.ios.com>
References: <26APR199519510404@vms1.tamu.edu> <Paul.R.Wallen.27.0078FD68@tek.com> <SAHIRNS.95May9160358@cslab4.stevens-tech.edu> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950512205325.2822E-100000@paul.spu.edu> <3p29t2$18dg@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: village.ios.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79623 rec.autos.misc:56506 rec.autos.tech:133502
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2619
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

I think many things like DRL's are a mandatory substitute for good 
driving practice. 

How many people have been driving along and there's a guy approaching 
that's totally blinding you. You flash him to dip his beams and he blasts 
you away with an additional billion candelas ?  People don't understand 
that high beams can be terribly dangerous in wet weather and fog. Lots of 
people don't understand that lights can be equally useful to enhance 
visibility in poor conditions. That's why the DRL laws have come into 
force, but it seems to me that they ignore the fact that there's a 
balance required and clearly, at 80% of full beam, there are situations 
where they will do far more harm than good ?

There are many factors that govern road safety. One is the ability to 
see, and another is the ability of other drivers to see you (and the 
road). If you can see everything for 100 miles, including the blinded 
driver that's just about to collide with you head-on, you're doing no 
good at all. You'd be better running dark.

Here's a variation on the theme. New Jerseyand other states are talking 
about a law that states that, if you've got your wipers on, you've got to 
have your lights on. Now that's all very well, but I use one of these 
water-repellent coatings on my screen, and I often find wipers 
distracting. In fact, with these coatings, if you've got a shallow 
windshield angle as I have, there are many occasions where visibility is far 
superior without wipers, because the water runs off far faster than the 
wipers can displace it. 

Does that mean that, in the same conditions, I don't need lights ?
I always used dipped headlights in such conditions, but you see my point 
: Much legislation is useful, but ill-considered -- I think DRL's at 80% 
of high beam fall into this category.

Much of the problem lies with the enforcement of traffic regulations. 
If you've ever driven the Cross Bronx Expressway, or the Henry Hudson 
Parkway at night, you'll get idiots, obviously in stolen cars (Mercs, 
BMWs etc), running dark or with hazards only, in excess of 100mph, 
weaving through traffic. You NEVER see a cop on their tail. YOU get a 
ticket at 26mph in a 25 zone, or at 70 on a clear 55 highway. And that 
git that's been jumping tailgates and changing lanes with 2 inches 
clearance without signals, playing hide and seek with police radar 
doesn't get stopped either. Who is the greater hazard ?

It's time that real drivers spoke out against stupid regulations and 
against traffic tickets targeted at the average Joe for revenue generation 
rather than road safety.

Phil Logan

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:50:54 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26064 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:50:53 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!lfsserv1.lfs.loral.com!news-owego.endicott.ibm.com!news.manassas.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!eclipse!usenet
From: jgoss@torolab.vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Goss)
Subject: Re: Daytime Running lights - The facts
Sender: usenet@eclipse.torolab.ibm.com (eclipse sysadm)
Message-ID: <JGOSS.95Aug9101948@vision.torolab.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: plogan@village.ios.com's message of 7 Aug 1995 19:49:19 GMT
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 14:19:48 GMT
Lines: 45
References: <26APR199519510404@vms1.tamu.edu> <Paul.R.Wallen.27.0078FD68@tek.com>
	<SAHIRNS.95May9160358@cslab4.stevens-tech.edu>
	<Pine.OSF.3.91.950512205325.2822E-100000@paul.spu.edu>
	<3p29t2$18dg@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <405qnv$egk@news.ios.com>
Organization: IBM Toronto Lab
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80129 rec.autos.misc:56877 rec.autos.tech:133944
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2068
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

>>>>> "P" == Philip Logan <plogan@village.ios.com> writes:

P> I think many things like DRL's are a mandatory substitute for good 
P> driving practice. 

P> How many people have been driving along and there's a guy approaching 
P> that's totally blinding you. You flash him to dip his beams and he blasts 
P> you away with an additional billion candelas ?  People don't understand 
P> that high beams can be terribly dangerous in wet weather and fog. Lots of 
P> people don't understand that lights can be equally useful to enhance 
P> visibility in poor conditions. That's why the DRL laws have come into 
P> force, but it seems to me that they ignore the fact that there's a 
P> balance required and clearly, at 80% of full beam, there are situations 
P> where they will do far more harm than good ?

In the 5 years since DRL came into effect, I've not found one yet.  I
think the main thing is to make sure the legislation is tight enough
to give you the correct DRL - using the high beam element just doesn't
make sense.  My car uses low beams at 90%, and turns on all other park
lights as well.

P> There are many factors that govern road safety. One is the ability to 
P> see, and another is the ability of other drivers to see you (and the 
P> road). If you can see everything for 100 miles, including the blinded 
P> driver that's just about to collide with you head-on, you're doing no 
P> good at all. You'd be better running dark.

I've never yet been blinded by DRL headlights.  Maybe others are drawn
like a stupid deer into staring directly at a bright light, I don't
know. 

<stuff deleted>

P> It's time that real drivers spoke out against stupid regulations and 
P> against traffic tickets targeted at the average Joe for revenue generation 
P> rather than road safety.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with DRL?  It's the manufacturer
that is responsible for DRL, not the driver.  Pre DRL cars don't have
DRL, period.  That may make it a longer switchover in the south where
there are many more old cars on the roads.

P> Phil Logan

Jeff Goss

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:51:40 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26250 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:51:39 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet
From: Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 9 Aug 1995 02:39:21 GMT
Organization: MindSpring: Internet Serveice @ Ga Tech Campus
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <40974p$vku@firehose.mindspring.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <40817p$ojp@newdelph.cig.mot.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cindylu.mindspring.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2b3 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79896 rec.autos.misc:56696 rec.autos.tech:133708
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 322
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Bill Horwath <horwthwp> wrote:
>What's the big deal about DRL.
>
>Actually I think a better idea would be to have the car automatically switch on
>the lights when the windshield wipers are on. (with a possible override if the
>window is just being cleaned. 30 sec delay?)

IMHO, just do that.

Not the fulltime daylight.


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:51:42 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26271 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:51:42 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!alfa02.medio.net!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 15:37:56 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950809153627.1392A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <40817p$ojp@newdelph.cig.mot.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <40817p$ojp@newdelph.cig.mot.com> 
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80019 rec.autos.misc:56803 rec.autos.tech:133832
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 869
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 8 Aug 1995, Bill Horwath wrote:

> Actually I think a better idea would be to have the car automatically 
> switch on the lights when the windshield wipers are on. (with a 
> possible override if the window is just being cleaned. 30 sec delay?)
> 
> (horwthwp@cig.mot.com)
> 

It sounds like a resonable solution, except that turning your lights on
is often desirable (IMHO) when it's cloudy but not rainy.

Dai



      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   |  Dai F Toyama      ||  borap@paul.spu.edu          |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    |  CS Student        ||  Seattle Pacific University  |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   |  Systems Designer  ||  Hitmark Computer            |
 | |\ ||            |  Driving Maniac    ||  1992 Acura Integra GS-R     |
  by Keith Wright   *----------------------------------------------------*


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:51:44 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26282 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:51:43 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!lfsserv1.lfs.loral.com!news-owego.endicott.ibm.com!news.manassas.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!eclipse!usenet
From: jgoss@torolab.vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Goss)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Sender: usenet@eclipse.torolab.ibm.com (eclipse sysadm)
Message-ID: <JGOSS.95Aug9101314@vision.torolab.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: Lee Shere's message of 8 Aug 1995 23:08:36 GMT
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 14:13:14 GMT
Lines: 17
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com>
	<408af2$km@Mars.mcs.com> <408qpk$pdi@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: IBM Toronto Lab
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80128 rec.autos.misc:56876 rec.autos.tech:133943
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 554
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

>>>>> "L" == Lee Shere <lnm@slip.net> writes:

L> My opinion is that if a person can't see a car or truck in the
L> daylight then DLRs aren't going to do a bit of good.

Come up and try it sometime.  Your opinion obviously has no basis in
experience.  Basically, it works best outside of major metro areas,
where you actually deal with oncoming traffic, winding roads, soft or
no shoulders, etc.  In the city, about the only use is on poor
visibility days when some idiots refuse to turn their lights on
themselves.

<blather deleted>

L> Lee

Jeff Goss

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:51:46 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26291 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:51:45 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!agora!tfoottit
From: tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: agora.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <DD259u.H22@cunews.carleton.ca>
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <408af2$km@Mars.mcs.com> <408qpk$pdi@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 19:10:42 GMT
Lines: 25
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80025 rec.autos.misc:56811 rec.autos.tech:133847
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1072
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Lee Shere (lnm@slip.net) wrote:
> My opinion is that if a person can't see a car or truck in the
> daylight then DLRs aren't going to do a bit of good.

"Your opinion"? Have you ever driven on a road with many DRL-equipped
cars? You really have no idea at all.

> Personally, I believe this DRL thing is an idea of the gasoline
> companies.  They'll do ANYTHING to increase sales, even if it's 
> so minor as increasing the alternators drag the tiny bit required
> to produce the current to run the DRLs.  A penny an hour from
> millions of cars and you're talking about real money.
> BTW.  That extra work that the engine is doing produces more pollution.

Yeah, that's it. It's all a big conspiracy, started by the oil
companies. Just like the big conspiracy they started in the 1980s by
promoting power acessories. 
So what's you theory on who shot JFK? Idiot.

Tom


_____________________________________________________________________
Tom Foottit                              Computer Systems Engineering
tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca                Carleton University

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:51:48 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26301 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:51:48 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!alfa02.medio.net!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 17:11:19 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950809170316.5660B-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <408af2$km@Mars.mcs.com> <408qpk$pdi@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <408qpk$pdi@nntp.Stanford.EDU> 
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80059 rec.autos.misc:56844 rec.autos.tech:133879
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1523
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 8 Aug 1995, Lee Shere wrote:

> My opinion is that if a person can't see a car or truck in the
> daylight then DLRs aren't going to do a bit of good.
>

My experience tells me otherwise.  Of course (hopefully) one can
see cars and lorries w/out their lights on in daylight.  The DRLs
enhance the (already good, shall I say) visibility.  I see no prob-
lem with that.  Do you?

 
> [little snip]
>
> Personally, I believe this DRL thing is an idea of the gasoline
> companies.  They'll do ANYTHING to increase sales, even if it's 
> so minor as increasing the alternators drag the tiny bit required
> to produce the current to run the DRLs.  A penny an hour from
> millions of cars and you're talking about real money.
> 

Congratulations to all the fuel companies in Sweden and Canada!
They must be laughing hard now.


> BTW.  That extra work that the engine is doing produces more pollution.
> 
> Lee
> 

So a little more pollution produced by DRLs concerns you that much, huh. 
I bet you drive a Geo Metro or a Civic VX (or whatever fuel-saver VTEC-E
model).

Dai


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   |  Dai F Toyama      ||  borap@paul.spu.edu          |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    |  CS Student        ||  Seattle Pacific University  |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   |  Systems Designer  ||  Hitmark Computer            |
 | |\ ||            |  Driving Maniac    ||  1992 Acura Integra GS-R     |
  by Keith Wright   *----------------------------------------------------*


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:51:55 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26333 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:51:53 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!agora!tfoottit
From: tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: agora.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <DD25zJ.J60@cunews.carleton.ca>
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <408af2$km@Mars.mcs.com> <40addm$kcs@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 19:26:07 GMT
Lines: 19
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79982 rec.autos.misc:56766 rec.autos.tech:133798
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 830
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Alain Southiere (asouthie@volvox.qc.ca) wrote:
>    More seriously, living in Canada, where DRL have been mandatory for
> a few years now, they usually are not that bad. But some manufaturers
> uses the hi-beams as DRL and that can be very annoying at dawn, at
> dusk or on days where there's a very thick layer of clouds.

At dusk or dawn, you must have your low-beams on BY LAW. 

When it is cloudy out, DRLs help you see oncoming cars sooner as well.
Esp. those little grey Tercels and such.

BTW, other manufacturers use the orange parking light as a DRL. The
Mazda Miata and the new Chrysler Minivan are two examples.

Tom

_____________________________________________________________________
Tom Foottit                              Computer Systems Engineering
tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca                Carleton University

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:51:51 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26315 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:51:50 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!usenet
From: asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 9 Aug 1995 13:32:38 GMT
Organization: Centre de recherche VOLVOX inc.
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <40addm$kcs@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <408af2$km@Mars.mcs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.19.209.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79953 rec.autos.misc:56748 rec.autos.tech:133773
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1503
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <408af2$km@Mars.mcs.com>, fuzzy@MCS.COM says...
>
>Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com> writes:
>
>>Oh, I hate that stupid DRL. It's worse than the 55 mph speed limit.
>>Let it NOT become law! I will hold onto purchase of STS until GM
>>drop the push for DRL. Just me, but I am not alone.
>
>Oh my god! Those daytime running lights are burning my eyes out! They're so
>bright! I can't see!!! HELP, I'M BLIND!!!!! Oh, wait, that's the sun I'm
>staring at. Shit.

   More seriously, living in Canada, where DRL have been mandatory for
a few years now, they usually are not that bad. But some manufaturers
uses the hi-beams as DRL and that can be very annoying at dawn, at
dusk or on days where there's a very thick layer of clouds.

   On a sunny day though, you see cars with DRL much sooner. When DRL
were introduced, the effect was quite noticable. on a 4 or 6 lanes
freeway, it's very noticable when an oncoming car don't have DRL. When
it's side to side with a DRL equiped cars, you notice it a few seconds
later.

   Now, if they could only desing a DLR system that's less annoying when
ambiant light is low...

   BTW, Saturn uses bright front parking light as DRL. I think it's a
better idea since they're less annoying (they're yellowish) and at
least as much noticeable.

-- 
Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
alsouth@cam.org (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.
 


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:05 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26393 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:04 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!spool.mu.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!matterbe.uwaterloo.ca!EMLAM
From: EMLAM@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Eric M Lam)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Message-ID: <EMLAM.806.30299BE4@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>
Lines: 42
Sender: news@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: matterbe.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <DD0CEM.4LA@cunews.carleton.ca> <4095mv$vku@firehose.mindspring.com> <DD25K7.Hup@cunews.carleton.ca> <40bq85$mf4@news.mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 05:40:53 GMT
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80091 rec.autos.misc:56856 rec.autos.tech:133921
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1708
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <40bq85$mf4@news.mindspring.com> Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com> writes:
>From: Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
>Date: 10 Aug 1995 02:17:41 GMT

>>If you think DRLs are "blinding" during the day, get off the road. I
>>wouldn't want to pass you at night, you might swerve and hit me. Hell,
>>maybe we sould ban headlights altogether. Fool. 

>Smart Tom, we are talking about Daylight as in DRL. What does night
>have to do with it?

>Garbage! Tom, you are just garbage. Stay in Canada and don't come down
>south! I don't want to cross with you both Internet and public road.
>My worst canadian collegue are better than you!

Proves that you ARE stupid.

He's talking about the fact that you claimed that DRL are "blinding", even 
in DAYLIGHT.

In night time, the headlights of cars have a GREAT contrast relative to 
the immediate surroundings. It doesn't in daylight. The DRLs are just 
visible from a far distance (usually around 90% of the low beams).

Now if you claim that 90% of the low beams is "blinding" in DAYLIGHT, then 
with 100% in nighttime, the "blinding" effects of the lights will even be 
MORE PRONOUNCED.

Thus he is saying that if you can't even handle the light in DAY then you 
should not be driving at night.

Now is that too hard for you to understand?

Hey, straight out of my Ergonomics course notes! =) never knew that they 
could be so useful =)
        
        ## Eric M Lam                    94 Altima SE   ##
        ## University of Waterloo        93 Camry LE    ##
        ## Department of Systems Design  93 Camry V6 LE ##
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things 
 not seen" Hebrews 11:1

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:07 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26409 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:06 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet
From: Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 11 Aug 1995 02:57:51 GMT
Organization: MindSpring: Internet Serveice @ Ga Tech Campus
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <40egvf$1986@firehose.mindspring.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <DD0CEM.4LA@cunews.carleton.ca> <4095mv$vku@firehose.mindspring.com> <DD25K7.Hup@cunews.carleton.ca> <40bq85$mf4@news.mindspring.com> <EMLAM.806.30299BE4@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cindylu.mindspring.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2b3 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80180 rec.autos.misc:56944 rec.autos.tech:133996
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 1547
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

EMLAM@HELIX.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Eric M Lam) wrote:
>In article <40bq85$mf4@news.mindspring.com> Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com> writes:
>>From: Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com>
>>Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
>>Date: 10 Aug 1995 02:17:41 GMT
>
>>>If you think DRLs are "blinding" during the day, get off the road. I
>>>wouldn't want to pass you at night, you might swerve and hit me. Hell,
>>>maybe we sould ban headlights altogether. Fool. 
>
>>Smart Tom, we are talking about Daylight as in DRL. What does night
>>have to do with it?
>
>>Garbage! Tom, you are just garbage. Stay in Canada and don't come down
>>south! I don't want to cross with you both Internet and public road.
>>My worst canadian collegue are better than you!
>
>Proves that you ARE stupid.

Just strong opinion. You don't have a good proof here. See below.

>
>He's talking about the fact that you claimed that DRL are "blinding", even 
>in DAYLIGHT.

Check the quoted text carefully, Eric. Tom said "if" "blinding" not me. You and
Tom can draw any conclusion, but keep for yourselves.

>
>Thus he is saying that if you can't even handle the light in DAY then you 
>should not be driving at night.

Please remember this is HE THINKS.

>
>Now is that too hard for you to understand?

I have no problem knowing what happened here. Do the same, will you!


BTW, next time, quote carefully. You left out Tom's title - all the
lines that has ">>>". You are excused even if you did this intensionally.
I caught this one, so even if I am stupid, I am not worse than you.


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:10 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26423 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:09 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!alfa02.medio.net!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 17:29:24 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950809172651.5660G-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <DD0CEM.4LA@cunews.carleton.ca> <4095mv$vku@firehose.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4095mv$vku@firehose.mindspring.com> 
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80069 rec.autos.misc:56850 rec.autos.tech:133886
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 864
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 9 Aug 1995, Paul Lu wrote:

> >Paul Lu (CindyLu@Mindspring.com) wrote:
> >> Some people like myself: Thank God don't have to worry about, IMHO,
> >> STUPID DRL getting into my eyes in the day time.
>
> I meant not to get involve in DRL war again. But...

If you really didn't mean to get involved in flame war over DRLs, you
should have been more careful than making a blatant statement as above.
(IMO)

Dai


      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   |  Dai F Toyama      ||  borap@paul.spu.edu          |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    |  CS Student        ||  Seattle Pacific University  |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   |  Systems Designer  ||  Hitmark Computer            |
 | |\ ||            |  Driving Maniac    ||  1992 Acura Integra GS-R     |
  by Keith Wright   *----------------------------------------------------*


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:51:59 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26361 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:51:58 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!news.erinet.com!ragnarok.oar.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!corpgate!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nott!cunews!agora!tfoottit
From: tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: agora.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <DD25K7.Hup@cunews.carleton.ca>
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <DD0CEM.4LA@cunews.carleton.ca> <4095mv$vku@firehose.mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 19:16:55 GMT
Lines: 23
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80032 rec.autos.misc:56818 rec.autos.tech:133850
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 945
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Paul Lu (CindyLu@Mindspring.com) wrote:
> >Have you ever driven on a road with DRL-equipped cars?

> Yes, on your Canadian road. Very stupid!

Very Stupid? How so? They increase visibility. What's stupid about
that? And how many kms have you driven on Canadian roads? Two lane
highways? 

> Clean up your dirty mind! Can you discuss anything without using that
> four letter word? I meant not to get involve in DRL war again. But,
> Don't want to put up with garbage like you, Tom! You should not drive
> at night! Neither should you use internet!

If you think DRLs are "blinding" during the day, get off the road. I
wouldn't want to pass you at night, you might swerve and hit me. Hell,
maybe we sould ban headlights altogether. Fool. 

Tom

_____________________________________________________________________
Tom Foottit                              Computer Systems Engineering
tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca                Carleton University

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:19 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26461 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:17 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.ios.com!village.ios.com!plogan
From: plogan@village.ios.com (Philip Logan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 10 Aug 1995 09:23:55 GMT
Organization: Internet Online Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <40cj7b$ar5@news.ios.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <DD0CEM.4LA@cunews.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: village.ios.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80102 rec.autos.misc:56858 rec.autos.tech:133928
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1513
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Tom Foottit (tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
: If you think that DRLs have too much glare, you should get the fuck
: off of the road. I sure wouldn't want to run into a fool like you at night.
: Tom

In dry conditions, no. But in wet conditions improperly set or high beams 
can be really hazardous and the glare can be extreme. And contact lens 
wearers are especially prone to glare from lights at night. Not all 
people have perfect vision.

I've never driven in dark, wet conditions with a DRL equipped car in 
front or behind so I can't say how bad DRL may or may not be. But I have 
been all but blinded by assholes driving on high on dark, wet roads. 
Understand the concern.

One of the major reasons for mandating DRL's is because loads of drivers 
are idiots who won't switch on their headlights at all in conditions 
where they radically improve visibility. 

In general, I see no major objection to DRL's but good drivers see it 
as an unnecessary law, and they are rightly concerned about glare in 
SPECIFIC driving conditions.

If your experience suggests that there are NO conditions where this is a 
mattter of concern, then the burden of proof is on you. While many 
objections are laughable, don't rubbish genuine concern.

I, for one, find people who use those low-slung halogens during daylight 
hours to be distracting. My eyes are drawn far too much to the rear-view 
mirror. It's unconscious, but it's an unneccessary distraction. My 
concern is that DRL's will be similarly distracting.

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:15 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26439 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:13 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: villeke@aol.com (Villeke)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 10 Aug 1995 01:48:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 20
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <40c6ij$o4h@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950809172651.5660G-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1225
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Gee people, lighten up (hint, hint). I see two sides screamin' to each
others face. And for what reason? Some american car companies are trying
to market a new safety device, DRL. The libertarian, rugged individuals,
who despise such a wimpy device should not waste their breath here. Just
go buy a car that does NOT offer this feature. You vote with your dollars.
My guess (and we have seen the deveolpment in some other more progressive
countries that USA seems to follow) is that DRL will be the standard in
2-5 years whether you like it or not. So stop whining about it. Also this
is not a hard thing to bypass if you have such a problem with it. I am
sure there will be a sizable after market folr you out there who do not
want put up such a minor effort in order to increse the safety on the
road. 
Lets have some common sense here and use our precious brains for some
other issue like the seat belts, child seats, crumple zones and drinking
and driving. 
Villeke@aol.com
PS. This isssues is a non.issue to people who live in rainy areas,
smog-infested cities, snow zones and northerly latitudes. But I was once
saved by DRL in the middle of the Arizon desert. And it was not me hwo
used them then! Thank you stranger.

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:30 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26518 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:27 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!olivea!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!torn!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!bcarh8ab.bnr.ca!protmp1
From: protmp1@bnr.ca (Isaac Wong)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 10 Aug 1995 14:49:01 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Lines: 24
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <40d68t$d6q@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <DD0CEM.4LA@cunews.carleton.ca> <40cj7b$ar5@news.ios.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bcarhfbe.bnr.ca
Originator: protmp1@bcarhfbe
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80146 rec.autos.misc:56891 rec.autos.tech:133956
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1271
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


In article <40cj7b$ar5@news.ios.com>, plogan@village.ios.com (Philip Logan) writes:
|> I, for one, find people who use those low-slung halogens during daylight 
|> hours to be distracting. My eyes are drawn far too much to the rear-view 
|> mirror. It's unconscious, but it's an unneccessary distraction. My 
|> concern is that DRL's will be similarly distracting.

DRLs are supposed to be low beams with reduced brightness. It shouldn't
bother anyone unless someone has vision problems and should not be allowed
to drive on public roads. However, the DRLs are bright enough so that even
under sunny days, DRL equipped cars can be seen farther away than their
counterparts. DRL has been implemented here in Canada for about 5 years now,
it may be strange for newcomers, but I appreciate this law and the DRLs 
don't bother me at all.

For all those Americans who have not had any experience about DRLs should
shut up and listen to what the Canadians say. Stop bashing DRLs if you have
not driven on Canadian highways before.

-- 
Isaac Wong | Protel Compiler Group | Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Dept. of Systems and Computer Engineering | Carleton University
TEL: (613) 763-6127 | email: iwong@chat.carleton.ca
*** The opinions are my own, not BNR's, not Carleton's ***

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:23 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26483 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:21 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!gatech!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!usenet
From: asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 10 Aug 1995 13:00:53 GMT
Organization: Centre de recherche VOLVOX inc.
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <40cvu5$pvm@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <DD0CEM.4LA@cunews.carleton.ca> <40cj7b$ar5@news.ios.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.19.209.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80134 rec.autos.misc:56881 rec.autos.tech:133948
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2794
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <40cj7b$ar5@news.ios.com>, plogan@village.ios.com says...

[snip]

>One of the major reasons for mandating DRL's is because loads of drivers 
>are idiots who won't switch on their headlights at all in conditions 
>where they radically improve visibility. 

   Driving in Canada, where most card have DRL now, I can assure you that
they increase visibility even on the most beautiful day, not only in
some conditions. The problem with DRL is that some idiot forget to turn
on their headlights when it's getting darker, so they run on DRL at
dusk, dawn and even at night. Since DRL often run from hi beams, that's
really annoying.

   I think there's more to DRL than just increase visibility in some
conditions. The problem currently is that DRL are often badly designed
(eg, running of hi beam). There should also be some kind of warning
in the car for all idiots who run on DRL when it's getting dark.

>In general, I see no major objection to DRL's but good drivers see it 
>as an unnecessary law, and they are rightly concerned about glare in 
>SPECIFIC driving conditions.

   I have to agree with you on this one, but glare could be greatly
reduced and even eliminated if DRL were designed better. I'll mention
again the Saturn, which uses hi-power parking lights as DRL. I've
found it's the best system so far. Since DRL don't run from hi-beam,
they're not as annoying as many other systems. Since they run from
the parking lights, they emit a yellowish light, which I find to be
as visible, but less annoying (glare, etc) than normal DRL.

>If your experience suggests that there are NO conditions where this is a 
>mattter of concern, then the burden of proof is on you. While many 
>objections are laughable, don't rubbish genuine concern.

   Again you're right. But most concerns are due primarly to badly
designed DRL. Look at my description of the Saturn DRL system above,
you'll find that many incovenients od DRL are not present on this car.

>I, for one, find people who use those low-slung halogens during daylight 
>hours to be distracting. My eyes are drawn far too much to the rear-view 
>mirror. It's unconscious, but it's an unneccessary distraction. My 
>concern is that DRL's will be similarly distracting.

   I guess it's a matter of getting used to it. I too found DRL distracting
at first, but once they became more widespread, I got used to them and
mostly think they're a good thing. Of course, as I mentionned in this posts
and on other posts in this thread, there are still problems to be worked
out with DRL. They're not perfect :-)

-- 
Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
alsouth@cam.org (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.
 


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:34 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26561 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:33 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!fonorola!news.synapse.net!usenet
From: phill@chromat.synapse.net (Phil Lachance)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 06:06:44 GMT
Organization: Chromatic Consulting
Lines: 18
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <409jbt$md6@sentinel.synapse.net>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: violin-03.synapse.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99.82
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79904 rec.autos.misc:56702 rec.autos.tech:133717
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 777
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com> wrote:

>Some people like myself: Thank God don't have to worry about, IMHO,
>STUPID DRL getting into my eyes in the day time.

>Oh, I hate that stupid DRL. It's worse than the 55 mph speed limit.
>Let it NOT become law! I will hold onto purchase of STS until GM
>drop the push for DRL. Just me, but I am not alone.

Not to debate whether it is actually safer with running lights but I
don't recall seeing any figures saying if safety has improved.

Some idiots here in Canada drive at night with only the daytime
running lights on.  They see that their lights are on and seem to
think the headlights are on, in reality only the running lights are on
and nothing else.  So they see less, and other cars don't see them!!!
Really alot safer... 


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:37 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26584 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:36 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!lfsserv1.lfs.loral.com!news-owego.endicott.ibm.com!news.manassas.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!eclipse!usenet
From: jgoss@torolab.vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Goss)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Sender: usenet@eclipse.torolab.ibm.com (eclipse sysadm)
Message-ID: <JGOSS.95Aug9131339@vision.torolab.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: phill@chromat.synapse.net's message of Wed, 09 Aug 1995 06:06:44 GMT
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 17:13:39 GMT
Lines: 47
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com>
	<409jbt$md6@sentinel.synapse.net>
Organization: IBM Toronto Lab
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80133 rec.autos.misc:56879 rec.autos.tech:133945
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2495
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

>>>>> "P" == Phil Lachance <phill@chromat.synapse.net> writes:

P> Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Some people like myself: Thank God don't have to worry about, IMHO,
>> STUPID DRL getting into my eyes in the day time.

>> Oh, I hate that stupid DRL. It's worse than the 55 mph speed limit.
>> Let it NOT become law! I will hold onto purchase of STS until GM
>> drop the push for DRL. Just me, but I am not alone.

P> Not to debate whether it is actually safer with running lights but I
P> don't recall seeing any figures saying if safety has improved.

P> Some idiots here in Canada drive at night with only the daytime
P> running lights on.  They see that their lights are on and seem to
P> think the headlights are on, in reality only the running lights are on
P> and nothing else.  So they see less, and other cars don't see them!!!
P> Really alot safer... 

Some idiots drive with no lights on.  This cannot be helped.  Well,
actually on my car, all running lights also come on, and the DRL is
the low beam at 90%, and the dash lights are on, so I guess it can be
helped.  Those people with no running lights will also have no dash
lights, so they don't usually do that for long.  In the city, you
don't normally notice your own lights anyway, unless you are on a
sidestreet, as teh ambient light is too strong. You are also assuming
that their electrical system is functioning (I've told two people
within the last couple of months that brake lights were
non-functional, for instance).

I believe that Transport Canada has numbers, and so does the Swedish
counterpart.  Of course, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, so
your opinion may vary unless you know their testing procedure.  5
years of first hand experience tells me it works, more so in some
situations than others.  Of course, there are still a good number of
cars without DRL (89 and before) on the road, so you can't expect
every car to drive with headlights on.  What it does do is give you an
earlier indication of a car's presence than you might otherwise have
had.  I've found them quite useful for spotting oncoming traffic in
cottage country in various lighting conditions.  So far, it has just
reduced the drama in those situations.  In the city, they don't really
provide much benefit.  Since a great percentage of Americans live in
cities, the effect of the DRL changeover may be less, plus the fact
that the southern states tends to have a lot of cars on the road for a
lot longer time.

Jeff Goss

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:41 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26605 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:40 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!news.onramp.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!agora!tfoottit
From: tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: agora.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <DD25rJ.IF4@cunews.carleton.ca>
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <409jbt$md6@sentinel.synapse.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 19:21:19 GMT
Lines: 16
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80037 rec.autos.misc:56824 rec.autos.tech:133857
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 755
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Phil Lachance (phill@chromat.synapse.net) wrote:
> Some idiots here in Canada drive at night with only the daytime
> running lights on.  They see that their lights are on and seem to
> think the headlights are on, in reality only the running lights are on
> and nothing else.  So they see less, and other cars don't see them!!!
> Really alot safer... 

When your DRLs are on, the dash is NOT lit up. If you are driving
around at night, and don't notice that you can't see any of your
instrumentation, you have a much bigger problem then just DRLs.

Tom

_____________________________________________________________________
Tom Foottit                              Computer Systems Engineering
tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca                Carleton University

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:44 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26628 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:43 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.tamu.edu!news.utdallas.edu!corpgate!bcarh189.bnr.ca!bcarh8ab.bnr.ca!protmp1
From: protmp1@bnr.ca (Isaac Wong)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 10 Aug 1995 14:57:30 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Lines: 24
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <40d6oq$doi@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <409jbt$md6@sentinel.synapse.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bcarhfbe.bnr.ca
Originator: protmp1@bcarhfbe
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80149 rec.autos.misc:56894 rec.autos.tech:133961
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1057
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


In article <409jbt$md6@sentinel.synapse.net>, phill@chromat.synapse.net (Phil Lachance) writes:
|> Some idiots here in Canada drive at night with only the daytime
|> running lights on.  They see that their lights are on and seem to
|> think the headlights are on, in reality only the running lights are on
|> and nothing else.  So they see less, and other cars don't see them!!!
|> Really alot safer... 

Yeah, but the interior instrumentation won't lit if he only has DRL on but
not regular headlights. If he won't check his instrumentation gauges then
he has a serious problem in driving... 

Another stupid bashing of DRLs... If you don't have any experience with DRLs
then shut up and listen...

I wish YOU ARE EQUIPPED WITH DRL on this info superhighway so that I can see
ahead your posts and avoid them.


-- 
Isaac Wong | Protel Compiler Group | Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Dept. of Systems and Computer Engineering | Carleton University
TEL: (613) 763-6127 | email: iwong@chat.carleton.ca
*** The opinions are my own, not BNR's, not Carleton's ***

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:47 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26650 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:46 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!newsfeed.acns.nwu.edu!movietone.ils.nwu.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!glibm16.cen.uiuc.edu!ca3155
From: ca3155@glibm16.cen.uiuc.edu (Chintan Kiran Amin)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 10 Aug 1995 15:30:43 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <40d8n3$713@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <409jbt$md6@sentinel.synapse.net> <40d6oq$doi@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: glibm16.cen.uiuc.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80159 rec.autos.misc:56903 rec.autos.tech:133973
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 410
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

protmp1@bnr.ca (Isaac Wong) writes:

>I wish YOU ARE EQUIPPED WITH DRL on this info superhighway so that I can see
>ahead your posts and avoid them.


	Uhhhhhhh.  You can.  It is called a kill file.  Use it.



-- 
Chintan Amin    http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/llama   mailto:llama@uiuc.edu
	My opinions are my own... At least that's what they tell me.

	   Orioles CFLs Tar Heels Capitals Bullets Illini Jaguars

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:51 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26678 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:50 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!umrybak
From: umrybak@cc.umanitoba.ca (Michael Edward Rybak)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 9 Aug 1995 15:27:21 GMT
Organization: The University of Manitoba
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <40ak4q$h8j@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca> <408kjl$r7t@news.cloud9.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: orwell.cc.umanitoba.ca
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79926 rec.autos.misc:56719 rec.autos.tech:133743
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1947
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In <408kjl$r7t@news.cloud9.net> firebug@cloud9.net (firebug) writes:

>In article <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca>,
>Tom Foottit <tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>2) DRLs increase visibility. All you have to do is drive on a 2-lane

>If people are so inattentive that cars in broad daylight need to have their
>lights on to be seen, there is a MUCH more serious problem than can be
>solved by DRLs.

  Point being, though that there unfortunately are inattentive drivers out 
there, in addition to the stubborn motorists who refuse to turn on their 
own lights when driving.  Of course a car is easy to see in broad 
daylight - DRL's simply act as a convienient and practical means of 
making an automobile even more visible for both the attentive driver as 
well as the inattentive. 
  And for those who are "blinded" by DRL's, there rests the MUCH more 
serious problem.  Anyone who is blinded by a highbeam at a fraction of it's 
full intensity in broad daylight when the pupil is at minimal dialation, 
but can drive without discomfort at night when the pupil is dialated and low 
beams are being used has a problem that can't be solved by DRL's, or 
even surgery for that matter.  Try walking.
  And finally, for the "statistics" showing that these tools are SO 
detremental to the motorist, let's have some sources, please.  I myself 
would like to view these statistics personally, rather than wade through 
some reactionary commentary fueled by ignorance.
  DRL's assist in judging distance and more importantly, position of 
oncoming traffic - an invaluable tool in driving, especially on two-lane 
roads.  Cripes, that's just terrible.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Michael Edward Rybak                   Madness will take it's toll...
  umrybak@cc.umanitoba.ca                Please have exact change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:55 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26694 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:53 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!alfa02.medio.net!netnews.nwnet.net!news.spu.edu!paul.spu.edu!borap
From: Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 16:53:41 -0700
Organization: Seattle Pacific University
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950809165219.5660A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca> <408kjl$r7t@news.cloud9.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: paul.spu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <408kjl$r7t@news.cloud9.net> 
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80056 rec.autos.misc:56841 rec.autos.tech:133877
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 961
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 8 Aug 1995, firebug wrote:

> In article <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca>,
> Tom Foottit <tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >2) DRLs increase visibility. All you have to do is drive on a 2-lane
> 
> If people are so inattentive that cars in broad daylight need to have their
> lights on to be seen, there is a MUCH more serious problem than can be
> solved by DRLs.
> 

That could be true.  At the same time, having DRLs in bright daylight
would probably be more helpful than not having DRLs at all.

Dai

      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
 |)=+||       _/|   |  Dai F Toyama      ||  borap@paul.spu.edu          |
 |==+||__-~~~~_/    |  CS Student        ||  Seattle Pacific University  |
 +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   |  Systems Designer  ||  Hitmark Computer            |
 | |\ ||            |  Driving Maniac    ||  1992 Acura Integra GS-R     |
  by Keith Wright   *----------------------------------------------------*


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:59 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26722 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:58 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!meibm29.cen.uiuc.edu!ca3155
From: ca3155@meibm29.cen.uiuc.edu (Chintan Kiran Amin)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 10 Aug 1995 13:05:36 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <40d070$lb9@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca> <408kjl$r7t@news.cloud9.net> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950809165219.5660A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: meibm29.cen.uiuc.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80135 rec.autos.misc:56882 rec.autos.tech:133949
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1601
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu> writes:

>On 8 Aug 1995, firebug wrote:

>> In article <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca>,
>> Tom Foottit <tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>> >2) DRLs increase visibility. All you have to do is drive on a 2-lane
>> 
>> If people are so inattentive that cars in broad daylight need to have their
>> lights on to be seen, there is a MUCH more serious problem than can be
>> solved by DRLs.
>> 

>That could be true.  At the same time, having DRLs in bright daylight
>would probably be more helpful than not having DRLs at all.

	Today, while driving in to work (I head directly east in the morning
and west at night), I noticed that about every 4th car had it's headlights on.
These cars were much more noticeable in the glare of the TX sun.  It was
easy to pick out the individual cars rather than a mass of shadow or dark in
the brightness.

	I've always believed in DRLs, but this really stuck with me.


>Dai

>      |~~~~~~~~\    *----------------------------------------------------*
> |)=+||       _/|   |  Dai F Toyama      ||  borap@paul.spu.edu          |
> |==+||__-~~~~_/    |  CS Student        ||  Seattle Pacific University  |
> +-\\||__-~~~~ ||   |  Systems Designer  ||  Hitmark Computer            |
> | |\ ||            |  Driving Maniac    ||  1992 Acura Integra GS-R     |
>  by Keith Wright   *----------------------------------------------------*

-- 
Chintan Amin    http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/llama   mailto:llama@uiuc.edu
	My opinions are my own... At least that's what they tell me.

	   Orioles CFLs Tar Heels Capitals Bullets Illini Jaguars

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:53:02 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26737 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:53:01 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!infoseek.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!agora!tfoottit
From: tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit)
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: agora.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <DD253E.GFp@cunews.carleton.ca>
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca> <408n08$ahu@nnrp3.primenet.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 19:06:50 GMT
Lines: 25
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80024 rec.autos.misc:56810 rec.autos.tech:133846
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1198
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

gribble@primenet.com wrote:
> Nice of you to complelety miss the point.  You are just like all the other
> mindless DRL supporters.  Never mind if it works you say; who cares what the
> studies show, it seems like a good idea so it must be one!!!

Gee, I drive in Canada. The only Canadian study you quoted seemed to
indicate that there was an improvement shown. As for the other studies
- are they statistically significant? What are the sources of the
data? Do you know anything about statistics?
You quote data from unknown Scandanavian sources, and then try to
pretend like that is the "be-all and end-all" of the issue.

As I suspected, this thread is filling up with Americans who really
know nothing about DRLs at all. 
Get out on the road and experience driving with DRLs before you make
such snap judgements. Listen to what myself and other Canadians have
to say about DRLs. Reading some Norwiegan study from the late 80s
doesn't make you some kind of instant expert on the issue.

Tom


_____________________________________________________________________
Tom Foottit                              Computer Systems Engineering
tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca                Carleton University

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:53:06 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26757 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:53:05 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!wupost!news.utdallas.edu!corpgate!bcarh189.bnr.ca!bcarh8ab.bnr.ca!protmp1
From: protmp1@bnr.ca (Isaac Wong)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 9 Aug 1995 19:25:36 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Lines: 43
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <40b23g$s3o@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca> <408n08$ahu@nnrp3.primenet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bcarhfbe.bnr.ca
Originator: protmp1@bcarhfbe
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80010 rec.autos.misc:56797 rec.autos.tech:133825
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2469
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 


In article <408n08$ahu@nnrp3.primenet.com>, gribble@primenet.com writes:
|> Nice of you to complelety miss the point.  You are just like all the other
|> mindless DRL supporters.  Never mind if it works you say; who cares what the
|> studies show, it seems like a good idea so it must be one!!!
|> 
|> Just how far away can another car be from you for you to still be able to
|> smash into it???  Why is it some safety advantage that you can see a car with
|> DRLs 6000 feet away from you while only being able to see one without DRLs
|> when it's 4000 feet away??  Are your reaction times that slow that you need a
|> 4000 foot advance warning??  Or to put it another way, how close does another
|> car have to be to you before it is within range of being a hazard?  300 feet??
|> Do you REALLY need a car to have it's lights on in daytime to see it when it's
|> 300 feet away??  What has been the accident invovlement rate of motorcyles now
|> that they are lost in a sea of DRLs?  What has been Canada's expericance in
|> terms of ALL accidents, including rear-enders caused by people who's eyes were
|> focused on that car 3000 feet away with the pretty DRLs while they smashed
|> into the back of the car stopping in front of them??
|> 
|> The bottom line remains, DRLs have NOT be demonstrated to be of any long term
|> benefit.  Conversely, there IS evidence to suggest that the use of DRLs, while
|> not significantly lowering any accident rates actaully INCREASE the rate of
|> rear end collisions.
|> 
|> But go ahead and ignore the EVIDENCE and be guided by your intutition if that
|> makes you feel good.

HAVE YOU EVER DRIVEN ON A CANADIAN HIGHWAY WITH MOST OF THE CARS EQUIPPED WITH
DRLs? Have you ever driven on a 2-lane highway where you have to occupy the
on-coming traffic lane to overtake? Have you ever encountered some jerks who
forgets to turn on their head lights at night?

If your answer to these 3 questions are YES, then I don't understand why you
would disagree with the introduction of DRL. Especially the 3rd question 
above, if someone drives a car equipped with DRL, even if he forgets to turn
on his headlights, he still has a dimmed version of headlights so other
drivers can see his car.

-- 
Isaac Wong | Protel Compiler Group | Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Dept. of Systems and Computer Engineering | Carleton University
TEL: (613) 763-6127 | email: iwong@chat.carleton.ca
*** The opinions are my own, not BNR's, not Carleton's ***

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:53:10 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26773 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:53:09 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.cloud9.net!cloud9.net!firebug
From: firebug@cloud9.net (firebug)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 9 Aug 1995 21:38:24 GMT
Organization: Cloud 9 Internet, White Plains, New York, USA
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <40b9sg$441@news.cloud9.net>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca> <408n08$ahu@nnrp3.primenet.com> <40b23g$s3o@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cloud9.net
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79991 rec.autos.misc:56779 rec.autos.tech:133807
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 813
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <40b23g$s3o@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>, Isaac Wong <protmp1@bnr.ca> wrote:
>HAVE YOU EVER DRIVEN ON A CANADIAN HIGHWAY WITH MOST OF THE CARS EQUIPPED WITH
>DRLs? Have you ever driven on a 2-lane highway where you have to occupy the
>on-coming traffic lane to overtake? Have you ever encountered some jerks who
>forgets to turn on their head lights at night?

If DRLs are going to save you from a head-on while passing, you shouldn't be
passing at that point. If there's any question at all that you MIGHT come
CLOSE to having a head-on, then it's a bad idea.

Not turning your headlights on at night is both dangerous and illegal. Laws
forcing people to drive safely are good. Laws forcing people to always do
things which will only rarely increase safety (and when the proper times are
quite apparant) are bad.

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:53:28 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26860 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:53:27 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!usenet
From: asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (Alain Southiere)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 9 Aug 1995 13:19:41 GMT
Organization: Centre de recherche VOLVOX inc.
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <40acld$kcs@rcogate.rco.qc.ca>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.19.209.72
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79918 rec.autos.misc:56712 rec.autos.tech:133738
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1059
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com>, gribble@primenet.com says...

[snip]

>The studies that did turn up some benefit were, for
>example, from Canada, where DRLs are still in the novelty stage as far as the
>number of cars so equiped.  It's not suprising that when only a very few cars
>have DRLS that  such cars get noticed and don't get hit.  That effect can be
>expected to disappear in future years as DRLs appear on all cars and my
>expectatin would be that they will wind up with the same results as Norway.

   Since I live in Canada (Montreal, to be more precise), I'd just like to
say that while DRL are still relatively new here (they've been mandatory for
about 5 years), my estimate is that 85%+ cars on the road have them. They're
not as uncommon as you seem to think. Of course, this might be different in
other regions.

-- 
Alain Southiere              | My employers couldn't care less about what
asouthie@volvox.qc.ca (work) | I write here. Even if they did, they'd
alsouth@cam.org (home)       | probably wouldn't share my views.
 


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:53:17 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26808 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:53:15 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet
From: Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 11 Aug 1995 02:45:24 GMT
Organization: MindSpring: Internet Serveice @ Ga Tech Campus
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <40eg84$1hrk@firehose.mindspring.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <DD0C7L.3uo@cunews.carleton.ca>	<408n08$ahu@nnrp3.primenet.com> <40b23g$s3o@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>	<40b9sg$441@news.cloud9.net> <JGOSS.95Aug10093855@vision.torolab.vnet.ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cindylu.mindspring.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2b3 (Windows; I; 16bit)
To: jgoss@torolab.vnet.ibm.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80179 rec.autos.misc:56943 rec.autos.tech:133995
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 688
Status: O
X-Status: 

jgoss@torolab.vnet.ibm.com (Jeff Goss) wrote:
>The law in Canada applies to vehicles (which don't complain) rather
>than people.  Pre-DRL cars don't have daytime lights, newer ones do.
>Since you don't have to do anything at all, I can't see how you are
>being forced to do anything.  Is the DRL proposal aimed at all cars in
>the US, not just newer ones with the equipment to handle it
>automatically?  If so, your lawmakers are the defect, not the DRL
>concept.
>
>Jeff Goss


Excellent, Jeff.


If extra attension is needed, drivers do have the option of turning
the headlight on. Such condition including:

Night driving
Rain
Tunnel where vision is bad
Passing on 2 lane country road

From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:52:02 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26377 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:52:01 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet
From: Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 10 Aug 1995 02:17:41 GMT
Organization: MindSpring: Internet Serveice @ Ga Tech Campus
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <40bq85$mf4@news.mindspring.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <DD0CEM.4LA@cunews.carleton.ca> <4095mv$vku@firehose.mindspring.com> <DD25K7.Hup@cunews.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cindylu.mindspring.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2b3 (Windows; I; 16bit)
To: tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80108 rec.autos.misc:56861 rec.autos.tech:133930
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 769
Status: O
X-Status: 

tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit) wrote:
>Paul Lu (CindyLu@Mindspring.com) wrote:
>> >Have you ever driven on a road with DRL-equipped cars?
>
>> Yes, on your Canadian road. Very stupid!
>
>Very Stupid? How so?

I feel so. However smart you are doesnot qualify you to comprehend
my feeling!

>If you think DRLs are "blinding" during the day, get off the road. I
>wouldn't want to pass you at night, you might swerve and hit me. Hell,
>maybe we sould ban headlights altogether. Fool. 

Smart Tom, we are talking about Daylight as in DRL. What does night
have to do with it?

Garbage! Tom, you are just garbage. Stay in Canada and don't come down
south! I don't want to cross with you both Internet and public road.
My worst canadian collegue are better than you!


From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:51:57 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26351 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:51:56 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet
From: Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 9 Aug 1995 02:14:55 GMT
Organization: MindSpring: Internet Serveice @ Ga Tech Campus
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4095mv$vku@firehose.mindspring.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <DD0CEM.4LA@cunews.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cindylu.mindspring.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2b3 (Windows; I; 16bit)
To: tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:80060 rec.autos.misc:56846 rec.autos.tech:133883
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 928
Status: O
X-Status: 

tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit) wrote:
>Paul Lu (CindyLu@Mindspring.com) wrote:
>> Some people like myself: Thank God don't have to worry about, IMHO,
>> STUPID DRL getting into my eyes in the day time.
>
>Have you ever driven on a road with DRL-equipped cars?

Yes, on your Canadian road. Very stupid!

>
>If you think that DRLs have too much glare, you should get the fuck
>off of the road. I sure wouldn't want to run into a fool like you at night.

Clean up your dirty mind! Can you discuss anything without using that
four letter word? I meant not to get involve in DRL war again. But,
Don't want to put up with garbage like you, Tom! You should not drive
at night! Neither should you use internet!

>
>Tom
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>Tom Foottit                              Computer Systems Engineering
>tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca                Carleton University



From kevina  Thu Aug 10 23:51:38 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id XAA26243 for kevina; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:51:37 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet
From: Paul Lu <CindyLu@Mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
Date: 9 Aug 1995 02:36:39 GMT
Organization: MindSpring: Internet Serveice @ Ga Tech Campus
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4096vn$vku@firehose.mindspring.com>
References: <405mb7$1cs@nnrp2.primenet.com> <406k1r$m66@news.mindspring.com> <Pine.OSF.3.91.950808082919.6231A-100000@paul.spu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cindylu.mindspring.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2b3 (Windows; I; 16bit)
To: borap@paul.spu.edu
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:79895 rec.autos.misc:56695 rec.autos.tech:133707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 746
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dai F Toyama <borap@paul.spu.edu> wrote:
>On 8 Aug 1995, Paul Lu wrote:
>
>> STUPID DRL getting into my eyes in the day time.
>It depends upon how the DRL is implemented.
CUT

Nothing to do with how they are implemented. I see them in my back mirror.

>Too bad, folks at GM don't seem to agree with you.  I happen to agree

:-) I don't agree with them. Drove many GM cars on business trip. I
HAVE NOT bought any of those cars and will not. They build cars their
way, I spend my money buying cars my way. No mutual opinion can be
found here.

>with them.  BTW, you're the first one that's declared that the DRL is
>worse than the 55-MPH speed limit (AFAIK). :-)

What does AFAIK mean? However, DRL is as annoying to me as the 55mph
speed limit.



From kevina  Sun Oct 15 18:40:09 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id SAA04627 for kevina; Sun, 15 Oct 1995 18:40:08 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!news.cais.net!news.cais.com!news
From: Joe.Freeman
Newsgroups: dc.driving
Subject: Re: Daytime Running Lights... The issue on my web site!
Date: 14 Oct 1995 21:48:22 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470
Lines: 54
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <45pb76$cjo@news.cais.com>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951009003842.7468A-100000@osiris>
Reply-To: joe@FreemanSoft.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: jfreeman.cais.com
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1918
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: 

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951009003842.7468A-100000@osiris> Nick Bassett  
<nbassett@osiris> writes:
> 
> Here are the PROs and CONs
A pretty weak list.

> PRO
> - people don't have to remember to turn on their headlights everytime it 
> gets dark.

I rented a car last week which had those daylight running lights.  The  
great thing about them is that they lit up the dash without turning on the  
rear lights.  So there I was, several times, driving down the street with  
the drl's on but no other lights.   Personally, I think that system is more  
of a menace that an aid.

> - no danger of people trying to save their bulbs by driving with just 
> their parking lights on at dusk.

Like anyone really does this?

> - lower insurance rates.
valid

> CON
> - drunk drivers will no longer be characterized by cars travelling in the 
> dark.
I assume this one is a joke.  Even if it isn't , it would seem that drunks  
at night with no tailights would be noticed and even more importantly that  
the drunk with any kind of lights is better than one with none.

> - people who STILL think they can save bulbs will diffuse their DRL 
> system and possibly forget to put the fuse back in at night.
This one must be a joke also.

> - if you do all your driving in bright, sunny conditions, the only effect 
> on you will be having to change your headlights more often!
It probably also means more light bulbs are out on cars because they will  
go out more often, in calendar days.

> - undermines common sense.
I'm not sure we can afford that given the current level.

> - if mandated, insurance bonuses will come to an end anyway.
true


--
Joe Freeman		Joe@FreemanSoft.com (NeXT,MIME,ASCII Mail)
FreemanSoft Inc.	A NEXTSTEP software and consulting company in MD.

Opinions expressed do represent those of FreemanSoft Inc and not NeXT Inc.
Yes, I do work for NeXT and they are not half as suprised about it as I am.


