| Canadians drive daily without the problems that have been
highlighted in
| these threads.. most believe that it saves lives, and the
statistics are
| there to prove the point..
Hmmm... One statistic originally mentioned years ago to
"prove the point" (but isn't mentioned much any more since
it's been widely debunked) is that Canada had a 8% (or 9%, I
can't remember) reduction in accident rates the year after
DRLs were mandated by law. But across the border for the
same two years the US had a 12% (I think it was) reduction
in accidents by doing nothing. Obviously there were other
factors that year (weather patterns perhaps) that had a
impact on the number of accidents. One could argue that
given those facts, Canada actually may have lost ground in
the matter.
| I have lived and driven in Europe for a time, and
| I liked the headlights there.. they have cut-offs which
allow for a much
| better beam without the glare.. it is accepted that Euro
lights are better
| designed than their North American counterparts.. US DOT
approved headlights
| are archaic and useless.. coming back to these shores, I
have realized just
| how bad they are.. I will be looking to fit Euro lights to
my Jeep GC soon..
I would agree with your statement that a better design
exists on european headlamps. But then they would be even
less effective as DRLs if 90+% of the light were aimed at
the street in the daytime...what a waste of energy (and
cause of unnecessary associated pollution)!
| The simple truth is that US citizens do not like being
told what to do, even
| if it is in their own interests..
No doubt...and that is somehow now become a bad thing? One
test of liberty is for one to make ones own cost-benefit
analysis with as little government imposition as possible.
Even if some politician can somehow claim (real or not
doesn't matter) that something is for ones own good, should
a law imposing that persons "view" be accepted by the
masses? One _should_ be able to make a decision that X
marginal benefit is worth X cost? Yes/No OR, does X
marginal benefit really exist in the 1st place? Maybe
Canadians want to be told what to do, but you are correct
that those in the US cringe at that very idea (for good
historical reasons).
You don't see a danger in the premise of government
imposition in these marginal matters with many examples in
history?
My guess is that Canada isn't as proactive in getting public
comment from it's citizens is more the reasons why less of
this is heard from those citizens. I see that as a very bad
thing.
| reading through some of the forums, I see
| stuff like "DRL's blind oncoming traffic in normal
daylight".. absolute
| bullshit..
Many people, especially aging people (which we all will be
some day) have light sensative eyeballs. What seems
acceptable to you can be quite painful for someone else.
Why do you doubt what people claim are personal experience?
I'm curious why you wouldn't believe them. I don't have
glare "pain", (well at least not serious pain), but I
believe those that say they do.
| the relative brightness of normal daylight is well above
the
| brightness of headlight systems, and all that can be seen
is that the lights
| are switched on.. one is more likely to be blinded by the
sun reflecting off
| of chrome..
Bingo, the glare of the sun at high noon off of shiny
vehicle surfaces certainly make a vehicle VERY visable
without lights. You've figured out the truth...I'm happy
for you!
In some cases I've noticed, in situations you
mention, you can hardly tell the cars with DRLs from the
ones without. BUT the high beam DRL on a truck behind you
even in the daytime can be quite bright in the rear mirror
at a stoplight in other daylight situations. Not sure why
one has to deal with high beams in their mirrors when
sitting completely still waiting at a traffic light, but
that is a sad rediculous reality these days!
When you were a kid...did you ever shine a 2 D-cell
flashlight into your grandma's eyes in the daytime. I
have...she winced terribly over the pain (and yelled at me
quite loudly!). And that is a light source of 3-5 watts
(vs. 55 watts). Some people experience pain from focused
light sources...it's simply is a fact.
| If more people used their lights when they should, the DRL
situation would
| never have arisen..
Perhaps. Poor reason, however.
| the fact that some claimed that they could see ok
| overlooked the point that others may not be able to see
them.. it is not a
| question of judging distances.. it is a question of being
seen by others who
| have to use the roads (pedestrians included)..
Do you really believe this? Why would a normal person have
any trouble whatsoever seeing something in broad daylight?
It is a such a rediculous assertion it is simply not to be
believed. How in the world did we ever get by during the
previous 100 years of driving? Now, if you're speaking of
someone with a vision imparement, then I would agree light
may help them...but I wouldn't want them driving at all.
| even now, some will not use
| the cars lighting system in adverse conditions on the
premis that they can
| see well enough..
No question, I would agree. Give them a ticket, fine and
points on their license. Better yet driver training would
also be helpful. It's better to make people smarter not
even more "dumbed down".
| I think that there is a good case for lighting systems
| that come on automatically as the light level drops..
Absolutely NOT. I had a car with a "auto" light control
system. It almost never would turn the lights on when it
was foggy or snowing during the day. OR it would turn them
on when I left the house on a foggy morning commute (from
shade from trees in the yard), then somewhere on the way to
work the car would turn my lights off (and it was still
foggy out) without the benefit of my informed consent.
Several people I know with GM's auto system have the same
problem. Others I've told that their lights were off when
they arrived at the office, didn't even now it. How
wonderful auto systems are....NOT! Plus, with the DRLs
providing a false visual queue that the lights are still on,
they can't always tell for sure if their real lights are on
or not (or if their real lights went off without their
knowledge). The "auto" idea sounds good, but in practice
rarely does it work correctly or reliably (except only for
night use, which is probably only half of the time ALL
lights are legally required). All state laws specifically
identify the "operator" as the responsible party for control
of the vehicles lighting systems NOT the manufacturer. A
useless "auto" system based solely on outdoor ambient light
levels that can't apply proper cognative decision processes
to know when there is "limited sight distance below 1000
feet" (from Maryland vehicle lighting code), is not a
reasonable solution. It promotes incorrect behavior...just
the oposite of what should be promoted. The solution is to
give citations and/or driver training as part of
relicensing, NOT implement something that makes lighting
even more confusing (or non-thinking) for the average
person.
By the way, rear end collisions are a accident category that
occur at a greater rate with DRL equipped vehicles. I'm
open to your thoughts as to why that is.
| no doubt there will be
| an outcry from the US civil liberties groups that it is
anti-constitutional
| to enforce drivers to use lights when they don't want to..
Laws DO exist requireing lighting for certain ambient or
incliment weather conditions and one can be ticketed for not
complying with the law. That is different then what you're
suggesting...which is to take the decision process away from
the operator/driver. Yes, some of us would have a problem
with that, I think.
| DRL's are here to stay.. live with it..
People got excited over the pet rock too, proclaiming they
were here to stay. If so, why is the NHTSA taking 9 years
to make a final rule? Don't be a lemming and buy into the
marketing stuff. GM and the politicians just want you to
buy their cars or vote for them under a myrad of false
premis. This is just one of them. It's all out there to
sucker you in...don't let it for Pete's sake!
