[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The fallacy of DRLs
-
Subject: Re: The fallacy of DRLs
-
From: sorandi@wam.umd.edu (Persepolis)
-
Date: 7 Sep 1995 05:16:49 GMT
-
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,can.politics,can.general,rec.autos.misc,ca.driving,dc.driving
-
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, can.politics, can.general, rec.autos.misc, ca.driving, dc.driving
-
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
-
References: <4Zk9afg8.rEk8@rfmw.org> <EIJKHOUT.95Sep5121353@jacobi.math.ucla.edu>
-
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:85437 can.politics:86563 can.general:60851 rec.autos.misc:61046 ca.driving:20007 dc.driving:3775
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: