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

Re: The fallacy of DRLs



In article <0b$m03@bug.ra> mckay_michael <a-mikem@ac.tandem.com> wrote:

>You make the classic mistake of assuming DRL is for indentification.  It is

I cant see what I said to make you think this?  I could'nt tell a Geo 
from a Porsche from the glare of it's headlights nor do I claim to do so- 
could you please clarify this point?

>What will be more dangerous is cars without DRL (if
>DRL becomes common).  People will come to expect that they can spot cars
>more easily.

This is circular logic-  You can't _expect_ people to do anything otherwise 
you WOUDLNT NEED REGULATION!  You have negated your own argument.  If 
this were correct, cars would be equiped with resistor networks that 
could activate the headlights at mid-power if and when the driver sees 
fit not whenever the key is placed into the ignition.  Sorry if this 
comes out sounding like a flame- its not-  I am just trying to get the 
point across that DRLs studies depend on variables like driving medium, 
visibility condition, road-vehicle density, direction of road (NS as 
opposed to EW where sunlight comes into play),etc...  My fear is that 
(IMHO off course) too many people doing vehicle safety studies are trying 
too hard justify their paychecks and not much attention has been paid 
to such variables and too much emphasis is being made on studies in 
Canada that just cant apply well in the US.  Additionally all this 
frivilous attention regulators are paying to DRLs is just their way at 
diverting the publics attention from real safety breakthroughs such as 
polymer-foam filled body panels, mandatory installation of right-hand side 
mirrors and rear window defoggers in all states (some states do not 
require either), collapsable steering columns with reenforced safety 
cages around vehicle occupant legs, etc...  They figure if they pass DRLs 
everyone will be happy that an issue has been dealt with and they wont 
have to worry about the next for a while.  There is more to this and you 
have to look hard to see how much of their concern for safety is curbed 
by massive lobbyist efforts from automakers- you might be getting the 
DRL but it may be a compromise to something that could do you a lot more 
good but costs the makers a bit more.

>This makes your plan to disable a good way to ADD risk. 
Absolutely not.  I will turn my headlights on when I see fit that it can 
improve my vehicles visibility to other drivers- just as I do now; 
whenever I drive in the multileveled parking lot of my office with my 
headlights on- not when I am sitting in bumper to bumper traffic in the 
beltway for one hour with cars barely moving at 1MPH.  

>you really want to study the risks involved, I suggest taking a look at the
>studies on the impact of reflectorized signs.  This is the closest parallel
>I can see to DRL (and you don't see people proposing that we get rid of
>reflectors too much any more).  

This comparison is a bit skewed as signs do not move around nor are there 
500 signs in your back mirror and another 1000 ahead.  Additionally, 
signs are passive as opposed to the headlights being an active source of 
light.  I will however follow this up: many school zones have active 
yellow flashing lights which come on during school hours and go off 
afterwards- but you do not see a flashing yellow light at every yield 
and stop sign nor do they keep them on flashing 24 hours a day as your brain 
would get desensitized to them and the effect would cancel away.


References: