Re: The fallacy of DRLs

Subject: Re: The fallacy of DRLs
From: scotdun@netcom.com (Scott Dunn)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 05:18:48 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, can.politics, can.general, rec.autos.misc, ca.driving, dc.driving
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <4Zk9afg8.rEk8@rfmw.org> <42gb7q$ip9@violin.aix.calpoly.edu> <42gscj$9r3@saba.info.ucla.edu> <42i6bc$672@dove.nist.gov>
Sender: scotdun@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:85258 can.politics:86408 can.general:60691 rec.autos.misc:60877 ca.driving:19947 dc.driving:3742

In article <42i6bc$672@dove.nist.gov>,
Jan Ilavsky  <Jan.Ilavsky@nist.gov> wrote:
>riccheri@ucla.edu (Ỉigo Vicinay) wrote:
>         

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
>

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

Follow-Ups:

Re: The fallacy of DRLs

From: pittarel@niccolo.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ernie Pittarelli 301-794-2034 S833)

References:

The fallacy of DRLs

From: jniron@rfmw.org (Jason Niron)