[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Daytime running lights
> 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
Follow-Ups:
References: