glassfern53

Hi,

I just had to replace the two low beam bulbs on my Hyundai Elantra.
They both went "out" at the exact same time. At a cost of $17.00 for
each bulb. It's a lot. My Elantra is a 2004. The first was easy to
replace, the second was harder... they don't make it easy do they?


Dan2754 wrote:
> It seems that the Elantra's headlights need to be replaced too often.
> Does anyone else have this problem? It seems that I'm replacing one
> every year on both mine and my Mothers.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Posted at author's request, using http://www.AutoBoardz.com interface
> Articles individually verified to usenet standards. Visit URL to contact author/report abuse
> Thread archive: http://www.AutoBoardz.com/Headlights-ftopict203219.html

google@larfx.net

Well, been driving for 22 years and have never used headlights during
the day, including the removal of DRLs on two cars that I own. I have
only had two minor accidents in 2000, one because I got distracted and
hit a car that slow down suddenly in front of me and the other when I
looked at my pager and ran a red light. In neither instance would
having lights on have made any difference.

My wife has been driving for 19 years and had DRLs for 6 years, until
she turned them off . I don't know of any accidents that she has had,
even during the 13 years that she didn't have DRLs. She only like them
because she would sometimes forget to turn them on.

My Dad has been driving for 52 years and never uses his lights, during
the day. He had a single car accident on the highway and lights weren't
a factor.

There are plenty of us that drive just fine and see just fine without
the lights. You really can't go on personal experience and quite
honestly if you have been running with your lights on for so many
years, it was illegal in most states before 1994.

Anyway, there are plenty of folks that can't stand the lights and the
fact that they are a distraction to seeing everything you need to see
to safely drive. The bottom line is that many of the DRLs produce glare
and this causes your eyes to notice one input and not see the
pedestrian, non lit car, byciclist or road hazard, due to that
momentary lapse of focus. The best thing is for all cars to be non lit
and equally seen, and for people to turn their headlights on in
inclement weather or low light conditions.

Oh, I haven't had to replace the headlights on my truck for 9 years
now.

Cheers

Edwin Pawlowski

<google@larfx.net> wrote in message
> There are plenty of us that drive just fine and see just fine without
> the lights. You really can't go on personal experience and quite
> honestly if you have been running with your lights on for so many
> years, it was illegal in most states before 1994.
>
> Anyway, there are plenty of folks that can't stand the lights and the
> fact that they are a distraction to seeing everything you need to see
> to safely drive.

The lights are not so you can see, but so you can be seen. I've had a couple
of instances where I'd see an oncoming car with DRLs before I'd see the car
in front of it with no lights. They are not a "cure" for everything, but
under certain circumstances, they helpyou spot the car with them.

A good DRL is a dim light, not a full low or high beam. Yes, high beams
during the day can still blind you at times.

google@larfx.net

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> The lights are not so you can see, but so you can be seen. I've had a couple
> of instances where I'd see an oncoming car with DRLs before I'd see the car
> in front of it with no lights. They are not a "cure" for everything, but
> under certain circumstances, they helpyou spot the car with them.
>
> A good DRL is a dim light, not a full low or high beam. Yes, high beams
> during the day can still blind you at times.

Good point on the lowered brightness. If all of the DRLs were of a
lower brightness, then glare would not be an issue.

Now, yes you did notice the car with the lights and you did notice it
before the car without them (even though that car was closer to you).
However if the car had its lights off, then you would have seen the car
in front of that car sooner and would have been able to react quicker
to what was closer to you. What about the pedestrian that you didn't
see that was between the cars (just to add to the scenario)? While your
eyes focus on the lights, it is highly possible to miss other more
important things.

Cheers

Edwin Pawlowski

<google@larfx.net> wrote in message
>
> What about the pedestrian that you didn't
> see that was between the cars (just to add to the scenario)? While your
> eyes focus on the lights, it is highly possible to miss other more
> important things.

So it is better to miss both than just one? We can always issue miner's
helmets to pedestrians to solve that problem.

The trick is to be aware of the car and not focus on the lights. I don't
know if your point is valid or not, but there are very few pedestrians on
interstates, rural country roads, and a gazillion other places so it may not
be a factor. I'm sure there are some studies done if we take the time to
look for them.

Jack Mehoff

On 17 Jan 2007 20:09:36 -0800, google@larfx.net wrote:

>Well, been driving for 22 years and have never used headlights during
>the day, including the removal of DRLs on two cars that I own. I have
>only had two minor accidents in 2000, one because I got distracted and
>hit a car that slow down suddenly in front of me and the other when I
>looked at my pager and ran a red light. In neither instance would
>having lights on have made any difference.

So, you buy a new car and immediately start tearing out the DRL's? Maybe
the light bulb in your head will one day tell you that not paying
attention to your driving is what causes accidents and not DRL's.....

I bet you drive while talking on your cell phone and don't wear seat
belts because you once heard that a person who wasn't wearing their seat
belt survived a fiery crash when they were thrown clear.

>My wife has been driving for 19 years and had DRLs for 6 years, until
>she turned them off . I don't know of any accidents that she has had,
>even during the 13 years that she didn't have DRLs. She only like them
>because she would sometimes forget to turn them on.

Uh-huh. That makes a lot of sense.

>My Dad has been driving for 52 years and never uses his lights, during
>the day. He had a single car accident on the highway and lights weren't
>a factor.

My Dad's been driving since 1945 and was rear-ended by a drunk driver in
1961..... I'll bet my Dad could beat your Dad in a fair fight!

>There are plenty of us that drive just fine and see just fine without
>the lights. You really can't go on personal experience and quite
>honestly if you have been running with your lights on for so many
>years, it was illegal in most states before 1994.

Not in Pennsylvania - unless you drove a pick-em-up truck with the
bulbies on all the time (pickup truck with fog lamps). BTW, DRL's aren't
for seeing, they're for being seen.

>Anyway, there are plenty of folks that can't stand the lights and the
>fact that they are a distraction to seeing everything you need to see
>to safely drive. The bottom line is that many of the DRLs produce glare
>and this causes your eyes to notice one input and not see the
>pedestrian, non lit car, byciclist or road hazard, due to that
>momentary lapse of focus. The best thing is for all cars to be non lit
>and equally seen, and for people to turn their headlights on in
>inclement weather or low light conditions.

Glare? In the daytime? This is crap. The sole reason I run with my
headlights on is so that moron drivers will take notice of my car at a
further distance than is normally possible. If you are drawn to my
headlights like a moth to a flame then you're a nitwit.

>Oh, I haven't had to replace the headlights on my truck for 9 years
>now.

Truck? I should've known......

>Cheers

google@larfx.net

Jack Mehoff wrote:

> So, you buy a new car and immediately start tearing out the DRL's?

- Yes, I disabled my DRLs when I took delivery of my used truck in
2000. I will do it to any car that I buy.

> Maybe
> the light bulb in your head will one day tell you that not paying
> attention to your driving is what causes accidents and not DRL's.....

- Yes, I was distracted in both instances. It would have happen whether
the other cars had DRLs or flashing lights or whatever. The fault was
not paying attention, you are correct and you are right that it had
nothing to do with DRLs. Thanks for verifying my point.

> I bet you drive while talking on your cell phone and don't wear seat
> belts because you once heard that a person who wasn't wearing their seat
> belt survived a fiery crash when they were thrown clear.

- I do drive while talking on my cell phone, absolutely. I always wear
my seatbelts, law or not.

By the way, with 2 accidents in 22 years, I stand by my driving. Oh,
also I drive over 30,000 miles a year, so my percentage of accidents
versus total driving is even lower.

> Not in Pennsylvania - unless you drove a pick-em-up truck with the
> bulbies on all the time (pickup truck with fog lamps). BTW, DRL's aren't
> for seeing, they're for being seen.

- Note, I said most states, that obviously does not include all states.
Yes, DRLs are for being seen, I am glad you figured that out, LOL .

> Glare? In the daytime? This is crap. The sole reason I run with my
> headlights on is so that moron drivers will take notice of my car at a
> further distance than is normally possible. If you are drawn to my
> headlights like a moth to a flame then you're a nitwit.

- Absolutely, maybe not for you, hmmm. Well anyway, if you ever have to
adjust your mirror or look away from a car during the day, it is
because of the glare. It is real, but perceptions do vary.

Quite honestly, if a person needs you to have your lights on so that
they can notice you way far away, then they shouldn't be driving. Your
car is visible without the lights, either way.

So, let me get this straigtht, you need DRLs so that people can see you
a long distance away when they aren't anywhere near you so that they
will focus on you and miss the car that is closer. I understand, LOL.

To clarify, it is not a "moth to a flame" it is a momentary visual
distraction that briefly pauses your gaze on a single object and allows
you to miss other objects that you should be seeing.

Nice name calling, LOL .

> Truck? I should've known......

- Yep, a truck. You should have known, because that is what I said.

I only replied to you because you "tried" to talk about stuff. However,
you are just spouting off about certain things and calling names. That
type of activity adds nothing to the discussion. You need to do a
better job of not characterizing and belittling others. Your
condescending tone and stereotyping are noted.

Cheers

Brian Nystrom

google@larfx.net wrote:
> Jack Mehoff wrote:
>
>> So, you buy a new car and immediately start tearing out the DRL's?
>
> - Yes, I disabled my DRLs when I took delivery of my used truck in
> 2000. I will do it to any car that I buy.

I almost hate to be the one to say it, but that's just plain stupid and
utterly pointless. Do you disconnect the airbags, too?

>> Glare? In the daytime? This is crap. The sole reason I run with my
>> headlights on is so that moron drivers will take notice of my car at a
>> further distance than is normally possible. If you are drawn to my
>> headlights like a moth to a flame then you're a nitwit.
>
> - Absolutely, maybe not for you, hmmm. Well anyway, if you ever have to
> adjust your mirror or look away from a car during the day, it is
> because of the glare. It is real, but perceptions do vary.
>
> Quite honestly, if a person needs you to have your lights on so that
> they can notice you way far away, then they shouldn't be driving. Your
> car is visible without the lights, either way.

You really don't get it, do you. Several people have already said it,
but I'll reiterate: DRLs are not so the driver can see, they're so the
vehicle is easier for OTHERS to see at a distance. What is so hard to
understand about that. A good example is that a silver car on a gray
highway on an overcast day is difficult to separate from the background
at any distance, unless it has it's lights on, in which case it stands
out clearly.

Brian Nystrom

glassfern53 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just had to replace the two low beam bulbs on my Hyundai Elantra.
> They both went "out" at the exact same time. At a cost of $17.00 for
> each bulb. It's a lot. My Elantra is a 2004. The first was easy to
> replace, the second was harder... they don't make it easy do they?

Time to learn to shop. You can get bulbs a lot cheaper than that. Even
better quality bulbs like Sylvania Silverstars can be had for $25/pair
online.

google@larfx.net

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> I almost hate to be the one to say it, but that's just plain stupid and
> utterly pointless. Do you disconnect the airbags, too?

- What is utterly pointless is the comment you just made. And it would
have been pointless to have my lights on during the day, just a waste.
I didn't disconnect the Airbags, but I wouldn't mind if they were .
Now, can you reply without calling someone stupid, please grace us with
some intelligent conversation, next time.

> You really don't get it, do you. Several people have already said it,
> but I'll reiterate: DRLs are not so the driver can see, they're so the
> vehicle is easier for OTHERS to see at a distance. What is so hard to
> understand about that. A good example is that a silver car on a gray
> highway on an overcast day is difficult to separate from the background
> at any distance, unless it has it's lights on, in which case it stands
> out clearly.

- Why you people keep trying to correct me, is not making any sense. I
never said that DRLs are to help the driver see forward from out of
their car, that is plain silly, why do you think that? I do know that
DRLs are supposed to help others see you, but in fact they just keep
you from seeing all of the inputs that you need to see to drive
properly in the daylight.

You wish to see cars at a distance, that have no relevance to your
current driving position. They are far enough way that they don't even
need to be considered by you. In fact, if you are having to strain to
see a car in the daylight, then either you can't see or the car is so
far away that you shouldn't be noticing it. All you people keep saying
is that you want to see cars in the distance, well you already could,
but you want to see them farther and farther away, I suppose. So, it is
so important that you see cars that are miles away from you that they
need to have their lights on in broad daylight, yeah sure, ROTFLOL.

Look, all I have said that we need to be able to see all traffic,
pedestrians, byciclists and other hazards equally and the only way to
do this is to leave the lights off during the day. The answer is not to
doubly concentrate to overcome the visual distraction of the lights.
The answer is not to see cars that are miles away. The answer is not to
call people stupid and make up silly things that were never said. And
finally the answer is not to run around with our lights on during the
day like a bunch of people with poor eyesight.

If you would stop just blindly accepting the next "safety innovation"
as a type of gospel and actually use your God given brains, you would
understand that people could see other cars before DRLs and they will
be able to see the cars just fine after we finally stop shining lights
in peoples faces.

What has been accomplished here is that you and others of your ilk,
have proven that all you can do is poke and prod and call people names.
This isn't a little schoolyard, so can you people please stop talking
like you are in elementary school and get on with some real
conversation.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry over you comments, they range
between a comedy and a tragedy.

Enough of this, either come up with something substantial to say or
don't say anything. The collective intellect of this list is creeping
downward with your posts, LOL .

God bless,

Larry

Brian Nystrom

google@larfx.net wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> I almost hate to be the one to say it, but that's just plain stupid and
>> utterly pointless. Do you disconnect the airbags, too?
>
> - What is utterly pointless is the comment you just made. And it would
> have been pointless to have my lights on during the day, just a waste.
> I didn't disconnect the Airbags, but I wouldn't mind if they were .
> Now, can you reply without calling someone stupid, please grace us with
> some intelligent conversation, next time.

I didn't call you stupid, I called what you're doing stupid. Infer
whatever you want from it.

>> You really don't get it, do you. Several people have already said it,
>> but I'll reiterate: DRLs are not so the driver can see, they're so the
>> vehicle is easier for OTHERS to see at a distance. What is so hard to
>> understand about that. A good example is that a silver car on a gray
>> highway on an overcast day is difficult to separate from the background
>> at any distance, unless it has it's lights on, in which case it stands
>> out clearly.
>
> - Why you people keep trying to correct me, is not making any sense. I
> never said that DRLs are to help the driver see forward from out of
> their car, that is plain silly, why do you think that?

Because if you go back and read your own words, you'll see that's
exactly what you said several times.

> I do know that
> DRLs are supposed to help others see you, but in fact they just keep
> you from seeing all of the inputs that you need to see to drive
> properly in the daylight.

Nonsense. Perhaps you're different from the rest of us, but I can see
just fine when other cars have DRLs on and I can see them at longer
distances, which is precisely what the DRLs are designed to do. FWIW, my
eyes are particularly sensitive to glare and bright lights, but I have
no problems with DRLs on other cars.

> You wish to see cars at a distance, that have no relevance to your
> current driving position. They are far enough way that they don't even
> need to be considered by you. In fact, if you are having to strain to
> see a car in the daylight, then either you can't see or the car is so
> far away that you shouldn't be noticing it. All you people keep saying
> is that you want to see cars in the distance, well you already could,
> but you want to see them farther and farther away, I suppose. So, it is
> so important that you see cars that are miles away from you that they
> need to have their lights on in broad daylight, yeah sure, ROTFLOL.

Exaggeration is not going to help your case. Of course there are
situations where DRLs aren't necessary, no one is disputing that.
Seatbelts, airbags, rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety
features aren't necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that
they should all be removed, too?

DRLs help one see the "big picture". Perhaps the vehicle in question is
not close enough to need to be actively dealt with, but if it's heading
toward you, it may be soon. Additionally, most input when driving is
processed on the subconscious level and automatically
filtered/prioritized by the brain based on need.

> Look, all I have said that we need to be able to see all traffic,
> pedestrians, byciclists and other hazards equally and the only way to
> do this is to leave the lights off during the day.

Again, that's nonsense. DRLs have nothing to do with one's ability to
see other things in one's environment.

> The answer is not to
> doubly concentrate to overcome the visual distraction of the lights.

Perhaps YOU find them to be a visual distraction, but that's probably
because you don't like them, for whatever reason, so you consciously
notice them. I don't find them distracting at all.

> The answer is not to see cars that are miles away.

No one said that. It's just a red herring that you threw into the
discussion.

> The answer is not to
> call people stupid and make up silly things that were never said.

As I said above, I didn't call you stupid and you need to go back and
read what YOU wrote.

> And
> finally the answer is not to run around with our lights on during the
> day like a bunch of people with poor eyesight.

There you go again. DRLs have nothing to do with drivers' eyesight. They
have everything to do with making vehicles more visible to everyone,
regardless of their visual acuity.

> If you would stop just blindly accepting the next "safety innovation"
> as a type of gospel

I don't. I specifically eschew "features" that try to be smarter than
the driver or substitute technology for driver skill. That's why my car
doesn't have ABS or TCS. I prefer to learn how to handle my car in low
traction situations than to rely on technologies that work best when you
don't need them and are least effective when they're most necessary. I
also drive a manual transmission, for similar reasons.

> and actually use your God given brains, you would
> understand that people could see other cars before DRLs and they will
> be able to see the cars just fine after we finally stop shining lights
> in peoples faces.

And if you would quit obsessing over something as innocuous as DRLs, we
could have avoided this whole silly debate.

> What has been accomplished here is that you and others of your ilk,
> have proven that all you can do is poke and prod and call people names.
> This isn't a little schoolyard, so can you people please stop talking
> like you are in elementary school and get on with some real
> conversation.

Oh, brother! Let me guess, next you'll say that you're taking your ball
and going home.

What you've proven is that you have your opinions engraved in stone and
you're completely unwilling to listen to reason. Given that, why bother
to even have a discussion?

> I don't know whether to laugh or cry over you comments, they range
> between a comedy and a tragedy.

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

> Enough of this, either come up with something substantial to say or
> don't say anything. The collective intellect of this list is creeping
> downward with your posts, LOL .

Sorry Larry, but you don't get to control the discussion. You have the
choice to participate or not, but that's it. You obviously have no
interest in what anyone else has to say, so why are you here? Your
opinion has been discredited, so you try to demean the whole group in in
order to divert attention from the discussion. It seems to me that
you're the only one with a problem here. Stay or go as you wish, but
don't expect people to agree with you just because you tell them that
you're smarter than they are.

BTW, I love the way you insult people, then tack on a blessing at the
end. How very Christian of you. Is that supposed to make it all better?

Homer S.

>SNIP>

>I don't know whether to laugh or cry over you comments, they range
>between a comedy and a tragedy.
>
>Enough of this, either come up with something substantial to say or
>don't say anything. The collective intellect of this list is creeping
>downward with your posts, LOL .
>God bless,
>
>Larry

Your wish is my command.
Read: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html

I'm not saying that there should be laws designed to force everyone to
drive with their headlights or DRL's on in the daytime. I can't stand
when the f%)!@%! government trys to tell me what to do. What is annoying
is when people who have no idea what they're talking about tell me that
something I'm doing is either annoying or dangerous. And, especially
someone who has had at least two major accidents caused by not paying
attention to the road - you do realize that you could've been
responsible for the death of a human being through your inattentiveness.
And still, you're proud to say that you drive while talking on a cell
phone - real responsible.... I honestly don't give a what you think
about DRL's or that you disconnect yours for whatever reason. It's a
free country and it is NOT illegal to drive with or without headlights
on in the daytime - so, I'll continue to do so no matter what you think.
If that annoys you, then all the better. I think this is done.

HJS

Edwin Pawlowski

<google@larfx.net> wrote in message
>
> - What is utterly pointless is the comment you just made. And it would
> have been pointless to have my lights on during the day, just a waste.

What is being wasted? The bulbs are u sually low powered highbeams and last
a long time that way. It is n ot a strain on the alternator or battery.
Cost over 20 years may be two bucks?



> - I do know that
> DRLs are supposed to help others see you, but in fact they just keep
> you from seeing all of the inputs that you need to see to drive
> properly in the daylight.


Perhaps you are distracted by them, but I've never heard that complaint from
anyone else. Taking your position, that standout distraction is magnified
even more at night so perhaps we should not use light at night either. Ig
you can show me a situation where thee was an accident cause by DRL on
another car, I'll believe you.

Meantime, take a look here for some interesting studies.
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm
Summary of the Studies
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol.
110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995).
In summary, although the studies of DRLs have differed in design, analysis
techniques, and outcome measures, the later studies are largely in
accordance with the earlier ones, indicating that the overall effect of DRLs
on motor vehicle crashes is positive.

I'm sure none of this will change your mind though. I only know what I can
see myselft and I've nver been distracted by a DRL. This is not to say that
a few idiots that hae their high bemas on (an entirely different situation)
will n ot give you some glare in daylight, just as at night.
>

']['unez

OK guys I think this has really gone to the end.....time to turn it over to
" Mythbusters " let them finger it out.
Besides if I can throw in my 2 cents, wernt DRL's really designed at first
for the Northeast when some states passsed laws that you had to turn on your
headlights when it was raining ??? I remember a firend getting a ticket when
involved in an accident because he didnt have his lights on when it was
raining.
Just my 2 cents

']['unez
"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Zk4sh.2$gS1.1@trndny01...
> google@larfx.net wrote:
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> I almost hate to be the one to say it, but that's just plain stupid and
>>> utterly pointless. Do you disconnect the airbags, too?
>>
>> - What is utterly pointless is the comment you just made. And it would
>> have been pointless to have my lights on during the day, just a waste.
>> I didn't disconnect the Airbags, but I wouldn't mind if they were .
>> Now, can you reply without calling someone stupid, please grace us with
>> some intelligent conversation, next time.
>
> I didn't call you stupid, I called what you're doing stupid. Infer
> whatever you want from it.
>
>>> You really don't get it, do you. Several people have already said it,
>>> but I'll reiterate: DRLs are not so the driver can see, they're so the
>>> vehicle is easier for OTHERS to see at a distance. What is so hard to
>>> understand about that. A good example is that a silver car on a gray
>>> highway on an overcast day is difficult to separate from the background
>>> at any distance, unless it has it's lights on, in which case it stands
>>> out clearly.
>>
>> - Why you people keep trying to correct me, is not making any sense. I
>> never said that DRLs are to help the driver see forward from out of
>> their car, that is plain silly, why do you think that?
>
> Because if you go back and read your own words, you'll see that's exactly
> what you said several times.
>
>> I do know that
>> DRLs are supposed to help others see you, but in fact they just keep
>> you from seeing all of the inputs that you need to see to drive
>> properly in the daylight.
>
> Nonsense. Perhaps you're different from the rest of us, but I can see just
> fine when other cars have DRLs on and I can see them at longer distances,
> which is precisely what the DRLs are designed to do. FWIW, my eyes are
> particularly sensitive to glare and bright lights, but I have no problems
> with DRLs on other cars.
>
>> You wish to see cars at a distance, that have no relevance to your
>> current driving position. They are far enough way that they don't even
>> need to be considered by you. In fact, if you are having to strain to
>> see a car in the daylight, then either you can't see or the car is so
>> far away that you shouldn't be noticing it. All you people keep saying
>> is that you want to see cars in the distance, well you already could,
>> but you want to see them farther and farther away, I suppose. So, it is
>> so important that you see cars that are miles away from you that they
>> need to have their lights on in broad daylight, yeah sure, ROTFLOL.
>
> Exaggeration is not going to help your case. Of course there are
> situations where DRLs aren't necessary, no one is disputing that.
> Seatbelts, airbags, rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety
> features aren't necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that
> they should all be removed, too?
>
> DRLs help one see the "big picture". Perhaps the vehicle in question is
> not close enough to need to be actively dealt with, but if it's heading
> toward you, it may be soon. Additionally, most input when driving is
> processed on the subconscious level and automatically filtered/prioritized
> by the brain based on need.
>
>> Look, all I have said that we need to be able to see all traffic,
>> pedestrians, byciclists and other hazards equally and the only way to
>> do this is to leave the lights off during the day.
>
> Again, that's nonsense. DRLs have nothing to do with one's ability to see
> other things in one's environment.
>
>> The answer is not to
>> doubly concentrate to overcome the visual distraction of the lights.
>
> Perhaps YOU find them to be a visual distraction, but that's probably
> because you don't like them, for whatever reason, so you consciously
> notice them. I don't find them distracting at all.
>
>> The answer is not to see cars that are miles away.
>
> No one said that. It's just a red herring that you threw into the
> discussion.
>
>> The answer is not to
>> call people stupid and make up silly things that were never said.
>
> As I said above, I didn't call you stupid and you need to go back and read
> what YOU wrote.
>
>> And
>> finally the answer is not to run around with our lights on during the
>> day like a bunch of people with poor eyesight.
>
> There you go again. DRLs have nothing to do with drivers' eyesight. They
> have everything to do with making vehicles more visible to everyone,
> regardless of their visual acuity.
>
>> If you would stop just blindly accepting the next "safety innovation"
>> as a type of gospel
>
> I don't. I specifically eschew "features" that try to be smarter than the
> driver or substitute technology for driver skill. That's why my car
> doesn't have ABS or TCS. I prefer to learn how to handle my car in low
> traction situations than to rely on technologies that work best when you
> don't need them and are least effective when they're most necessary. I
> also drive a manual transmission, for similar reasons.
>
>> and actually use your God given brains, you would
>> understand that people could see other cars before DRLs and they will
>> be able to see the cars just fine after we finally stop shining lights
>> in peoples faces.
>
> And if you would quit obsessing over something as innocuous as DRLs, we
> could have avoided this whole silly debate.
>
>> What has been accomplished here is that you and others of your ilk,
>> have proven that all you can do is poke and prod and call people names.
>> This isn't a little schoolyard, so can you people please stop talking
>> like you are in elementary school and get on with some real
>> conversation.
>
> Oh, brother! Let me guess, next you'll say that you're taking your ball
> and going home.
>
> What you've proven is that you have your opinions engraved in stone and
> you're completely unwilling to listen to reason. Given that, why bother to
> even have a discussion?
>
>> I don't know whether to laugh or cry over you comments, they range
>> between a comedy and a tragedy.
>
> Whatever that's supposed to mean.
>
>> Enough of this, either come up with something substantial to say or
>> don't say anything. The collective intellect of this list is creeping
>> downward with your posts, LOL .
>
> Sorry Larry, but you don't get to control the discussion. You have the
> choice to participate or not, but that's it. You obviously have no
> interest in what anyone else has to say, so why are you here? Your opinion
> has been discredited, so you try to demean the whole group in in order to
> divert attention from the discussion. It seems to me that you're the only
> one with a problem here. Stay or go as you wish, but don't expect people
> to agree with you just because you tell them that you're smarter than they
> are.
>
> BTW, I love the way you insult people, then tack on a blessing at the end.
> How very Christian of you. Is that supposed to make it all better?

google@larfx.net

Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Exaggeration is not going to help your case. Of course there are
> situations where DRLs aren't necessary, no one is disputing that.
> Seatbelts, airbags, rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety
> features aren't necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that
> they should all be removed, too?

- The exaggeration is all yours. You have repeatedly spoken about
seeing cars at a long distance, that was what you wanted to talk about.
You haven't addressed the fact that you can see just fine and drive
safely if the cars don't have their lights on.

You keep wanting to talk about everything but DRLs, why is that. You
can't provide anything that actually supports their use and even
acknowledge that, with the exception of long distance, that there are
times that DRLs are not necessary, hmmm.

Look, you are curious, so I will indulge you: Seatbelts - necessary /
airbags - can cause injury to certain passengers, but overall are a
safety item, but can be done without based on preference / rollover
protection - necessary / CHMSL - necessary. All of these items have a
proven safety record, however DRLs do not. So, what is your point, I
like them (although I am not a huge fan of airbags, but I haven't been
in any rush to get rid of them either).

The bottom line is that DRLs are not needed for safety and there are
plenty of cars manufactured without them. It is a perfectly normal
thing to fix that defect and make the car operate normally.

> DRLs help one see the "big picture". Perhaps the vehicle in question is
> not close enough to need to be actively dealt with, but if it's heading
> toward you, it may be soon. Additionally, most input when driving is
> processed on the subconscious level and automatically
> filtered/prioritized by the brain based on need.

- No, DRLs help one focus on a single car for a moment, to the
exclusion of the big picture. If that car in the distance is catching
your eye, it shouldn't, you should be scanning the immediate area for
things that impact your current drive and not where you will be later.
Quite honestly, if you are not having to deal with that car in the
distance, it will probably be gone by the time you get there, but the
car in front of you is there and you should be looking at it.

> Again, that's nonsense. DRLs have nothing to do with one's ability to
> see other things in one's environment.

- No, not "nonsense", it is a basic fundamental of driving. You are to
be alert and scan the area to be ready for any possible hazard or
change in the driving condition. People driving with lights on their
cars add a stimulant distraction that harms your ability to process all
inputs during the moment your eyes focus on the extra input.

The mere fact that a persons lights are in the environment that you are
viewing makes DRLs play a role in seeing things since you have see the
lights along with everything else.

> Perhaps YOU find them to be a visual distraction, but that's probably
> because you don't like them, for whatever reason, so you consciously
> notice them. I don't find them distracting at all.

- Good for you, but you are not me. Nor are you the many other people
that feel the same. There are plenty of folks turning their lights off,
and car companies like Toyota that are, as well, they must all be
mistaken then. You can't base the impact of your lights, solely on your
own perspective.

> No one said that. It's just a red herring that you threw into the
> discussion.

- No, you want to see cars that are far away. For some strange reason,
you focus in on that as the only positive reason to have DRLs.

<snip>

> There you go again. DRLs have nothing to do with drivers' eyesight. They
> have everything to do with making vehicles more visible to everyone,
> regardless of their visual acuity.

- Ok, so since we can see the cars just fine without the lights. The
only reason you would need to add additional stimuli would be because
other persons have poor vision. It goes hand in hand. "Visible" is
related directly to sight.

> I don't. I specifically eschew "features" that try to be smarter than
> the driver or substitute technology for driver skill. That's why my car
> doesn't have ABS or TCS. I prefer to learn how to handle my car in low
> traction situations than to rely on technologies that work best when you
> don't need them and are least effective when they're most necessary. I
> also drive a manual transmission, for similar reasons.

- So, you hate ABS or TCS and want to disable them, even though they do
make your driving safer. Hmmm, you must hate everything, just following
your line of reasoning from above. How about this: "Seatbelts, airbags,
rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety features aren't
necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that they should
all be removed, too?"

What you have just said applies directly to DRLs. They are not
affective in the majority of situations and they are placed on certain
vehicles and the driver does not always have a choice if they are on or
not. You would disable your ABS because you want control over your
vehicle for a feature that you don't have to have to drive safely and
you know that to be true. How is this unlike removing DRLs when you
know full well that they do not enhance your safety, hmmm. You can't be
thinking it is stupid for a person to remove something from their car
for a similar reason while you doing the same is "smart", sounds pretty
hypocritical to me.

> And if you would quit obsessing over something as innocuous as DRLs, we
> could have avoided this whole silly debate.

- The only one obsessing is you. I made some comments, but you got so
irritated that you had to call what I said stupid and argue with me.
The only reason that I am speaking with you right now is because for
whatever reason you want to defend your right to see cars a long way
off while irritating others in closer range. You are so adamant that
the far off cars need to be lit that you would carry on this kind of
conversation with a perfect stranger. I really think that deep down you
know that the lights are not helping you and that many people don't
like them. You just can't stand it if someone takes exception to what
you are doing.

> Oh, brother! Let me guess, next you'll say that you're taking your ball
> and going home.

- No, I wish you would .

> What you've proven is that you have your opinions engraved in stone and
> you're completely unwilling to listen to reason. Given that, why bother
> to even have a discussion?

- No, actually they aren't. However I do know that we can all drive
safely without the lights, that hasn't changed. I understand that there
are people out there that will do whatever they want to without paying
attention to reason or the impact on others. Quite honestly, if people
would stop using their headlights as DRLs or drive around with their
brights on then it would not be as big a deal. I have no control over
what you do, but I do expect you to look at your car and see if it is
possible that your lights could be glaring and have some consideration
for others.

I see no reason for lights during the day, you do. It is fine to
disagree. It is not illegal to use your lights during the day, so go
for it, but do so with consideration of how your lights will impact
others.

Reason, wow it would be nice if you were exhibiting some. In general,
you haven't added anything to the discussion, other than lighting far
away cars .

<snip>

> Sorry Larry, but you don't get to control the discussion.

- Don't care to .

<snip> > Your opinion has been discredited,

- Discredited by what, you haven't actually said anything substantial.

> so you try to demean the whole group in in
> order to divert attention from the discussion. It seems to me that
> you're the only one with a problem here.

- This has been what you have been doing. I haven't seen you do
anything but be demeaning and stereotyping on this list. You can't
accept that there are different opinions and you keep coming time and
again. I don't ever remember addressing you in my original comments.
You came out of left field to take me head on in a vain attempt to
discredit me, not with facts or reasoned opinions, but with comments
about things being "stupid" and trying to put words in my mouth. Your
actions are clear.

> Stay or go as you wish, but
> don't expect people to agree with you just because you tell them that type them or
> you're smarter than they are.

- Same to you, and don't expect people to shut up because you call them
stupid or attempt to stereotype or verbally beat them into submission,
LOL.

> BTW, I love the way you insult people, then tack on a blessing at the
> end. How very Christian of you. Is that supposed to make it all better?

- I never insulted you, that is your department. I do believe in God
and fully believe in honest debate.

So, God bless,

Larry