google@larfx.net

Homer S. wrote:

Hey Homer,

There is more out there than just one link. And by the way, I do know
what I am talking about, so I have to ignore your negativity. There is
no reason for you to be so irritated over this.

Here are some links, pro, con and discussion:

I was a participant in this discussion (be aware there were some folks
that just wanted to be negative, not unlike some of the comments on
this list) :

http://www.300cforums.com/forums/gen...ighlight=larfx

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html

http://www.lightsout.org/

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl/

http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2004...-GRE-53-08e.pdf

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm

http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/

http://www.answers.com/topic/daytime-running-lamp

http://www.acrs.org.au/collegepolici...inglights.html

Another discussion, but I had no involvement in it:
http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/show...7&highlight=drl


God bless,

Larry

google@larfx.net

Homer S. wrote:

Hey Homer,

There is more out there than just one link. And by the way, I do know
what I am talking about, so I have to ignore your negativity. There is
no reason for you to be so irritated over this.

Here are some links, pro, con and discussion:

I was a participant in this discussion (be aware there were some folks
that just wanted to be negative, not unlike some of the comments on
this list) :

http://www.300cforums.com/forums/gen...ighlight=larfx

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html

http://www.lightsout.org/

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl/

http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2004/...GRE-53-08e.pdf

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm

http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/

http://www.answers.com/topic/daytime-running-lamp

http://www.acrs.org.au/collegepolici...inglights.html

Another discussion, but I had no involvement in it:
http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/showt...&highlight=drl

God bless,

Larry

google@larfx.net

Some of the links in my first reply to Homer are broken. I fixed it in
a second post and I am sorry for the multiple postings.

Thanks for your time,

Larry

Wayne Moses

Reply to message from Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> (Thu, 18
Jan 2007 21:11:18) about "Re: Headlights going out":


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

Hey Brian, this looks like a lost cause. No matter how you, Edwin and
others try you won't convince 'google' that DRLs are a service to others so
they can see people like him coming down the road when visibility is not
the best.

One thing that you proponents (and I am one also) failed to mention is the
efficacy of DRLs to the peripheral vision of other drivers when approaching
in the other lane from the rear.

Nevertheless you and others have raised excellent points so please keep up
your positive contributions to the group.

That said, I am amazed that certain opinionated and argumentative persons
in this newsgroup did not see fit to insert their inputs into this thread.
Maybe they might have been more 'convincing' one way or the other.

Best Regards
Wayne Moses <wmoses@houston.rr.com> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:29:03 -0600

=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3

PMDR

Many states have laws which say "if your wipers are on, your
headlights must be on." They do issue tickets for this in my area.

I wish my car had DRLs so I didn't have to burn my main headlights
during the day. Too many people think some Sunday driver granny is
driving my Sonata.... well at least until I blow right past them


']['unez wrote:
> 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
>

PMDR

Many states have laws which say "if your wipers are on, your
headlights must be on." They do issue tickets for this in my area.

I wish my car had DRLs so I didn't have to burn my main headlights
during the day. Too many people think some Sunday driver granny is
driving my Sonata.... well at least until I blow right past them


']['unez wrote:
> 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
>

google@larfx.net

Wayne Moses wrote:
<snip
>so
> they can see people like him coming down the road when visibility is not
> the best.

I am convinced that you should have your lights on when visibility is
not the best, otherwise known as night, dawn, dusk and inclement
weather . But we already knew all that, glad to be in agreement,
thanks for pointing that out. I already turn my lights on when
visiblity is low and I recommend that everyone else does as well.

Cheers,

Larry

Brian Nystrom

google@larfx.net wrote:
> 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.

No, that's not at all what I said. What I said is that DRLs increase the
distance at which you can see a car, which can be critical to safety
under some conditions. I cited one. Another common scenario is a dark
car driving through a shadow area. It can be very difficult or
impossible to see on its own, but DRLs make it visible.

> 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.

If you weren't so lazy - or afraid of having your flawed premise blown
out of the water - you could have found an abundance of information
supporting the use of DRLs with a quick Google search. Here are just the
first three that came up when I searched on "effects of daytime running
lights:

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsa...l_20060727.pdf
http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-97-36.PDF

> 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).

Once more, you're absolutely wrong. Do the research.

> 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.

I don't see them as a defect and apparently neither do the agencies that
study and regulate vehicle safety.

>> 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.

Not at all. What DRLs do is increase the visibility of objects in your
field of view. There is no need to concentrate on anything. The brain
processes the input subconsciously

>> 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.

Perhaps you're limited in how much information you can process, but I
don't find it to be a problem at all.

> 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.

Of course they do, but the way you're phrasing things sounds like your
claiming that they aid the vision of the person in the DRL equipped
vehicle, which they don't except perhaps in conditions where one should
really have their headlights on. If that's not what you mean, fine, but
I'm not the only one here that concluded that's what you meant from what
you wrote.

>> 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.

Hmmm. I don't see anyone here jumping to your defense. I guess that
makes you the minority, doesn't it?

>> 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.

No, that's not what I said. You know that, but you keep harping on it
pointlessly anyway.

>> 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.

No, poor visibility and/or low contrast conditions can limit the visual
range of someone with excellent eyesight, as in the examples I cited. It
has nothing specific to do with the visual acuity of drivers, though it
does have the side effect of making things more visible for those with
less than ideal eyesight. Whether they should be driving or not is a
separate issue.

>> 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?"

No, you're misinterpreting what I said. ABS and TCS were options on my
car and I chose not to add them. I prefer skill to technology in these
areas and I'm willing to work on the necessary skills through practice.
There are studies that show that a skilled driver can outperform these
systems in many situations. For the average driver, they're well worthwhile.

>> 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.

No, once again you missed the mark by a country mile. Read the reasearch.

>> Oh, brother! Let me guess, next you'll say that you're taking your ball
>> and going home.
>
> - No, I wish you would .

No kidding? Don't hold your breath.

>> 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.

Who are you to speak for "we all"? Obviously, the data suggests otherwise.

> 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.

Which is why I don't use fog lights or high beams on when they're not
necessary, such as on clear nights when glare can be a significant
problem. During the day, it's not an issue, except apparently for you.

> 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.

I don't know about where you live, but it's perfectly legal here. In
fact, there are stretches of road where daytime headlight use is
mandated. Apparently, it helps to prevent accidents in those areas.

> 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 .

Read the research.

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

Then don't tell people to shut up, just because they don't agree with you.

> <snip> > Your opinion has been discredited,
>
> - Discredited by what, you haven't actually said anything substantial.

Read the research.
>
>> 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.

Then you must have spent as much time reading this board as you have
reading research on DRL effectiveness.

> You can't
> accept that there are different opinions and you keep coming time and
> again.

Of course I can, but I don't suffer fools. Sometimes it's necessary to
agree to disagree and that's fine, but in some cases, people post
information that is clearly wrong and it should be pointed out. There's
also a difference between stating and opinion and stating something as
fact. You've offered a lot of opinions here, but no facts to back them
up. The studies indicate that you're wrong.

> 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.

It's an open forum, Larry. You have no control over who reads it or who
responds. That's just the nature of Usenet. As for facts, once more,
read the research. The facts do not support your opinions.

Brian Nystrom

Wayne Moses wrote:
> Reply to message from Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> (Thu, 18
> Jan 2007 21:11:18) about "Re: Headlights going out":
>
>
> BN> Time to learn to shop. You can get bulbs a lot cheaper than that. Even
> BN> better quality bulbs like Sylvania Silverstars can be had for $25/pair
> BN> online.
>
> Hey Brian, this looks like a lost cause. No matter how you, Edwin and
> others try you won't convince 'google' that DRLs are a service to others so
> they can see people like him coming down the road when visibility is not
> the best.

Yeah, I know what you mean. The most important thing is to present the
case strongly enough so that others who may read this know the facts.
You can't save everyone from themselves, but you can help others avoid
making potentially serious mistakes.

> One thing that you proponents (and I am one also) failed to mention is the
> efficacy of DRLs to the peripheral vision of other drivers when approaching
> in the other lane from the rear.

Good point.

> Nevertheless you and others have raised excellent points so please keep up
> your positive contributions to the group.
>
> That said, I am amazed that certain opinionated and argumentative persons
> in this newsgroup did not see fit to insert their inputs into this thread.
> Maybe they might have been more 'convincing' one way or the other.

Well, the fact that some of us disagree strongly on some issues doesn't
mean that we disagree on them all. I certainly wouldn't argue with
someone I thought was correct, simply to have an argument.

google@larfx.net

Brian Nystrom wrote:

<snip>

Brian,

You could argue with a paper sack, apparently. You won't be quiet, you
keep ranting on an on about research this and that I am wrong about
that. I haven't seen anything in your postings that merit any further
replies or even anything that supports your position. You have based
everything on your personal perception and continue to try to read into
my comments things that were never said. You have ignored what I
actually said (pro and con links, actual discussion and even agreement
with others) and have continued to fight. I don't know why you are
fighting and I don't want to know. By the way, this isn't a contest of
who can yell the loudest. There are people on here that can talk
without attacking others, you could learn allot from these people.

I have made the case against DRLs, you have done something, but I am
not quite sure, ha ha. You can agree or disagree with me, I really
don't care. I am glad to have riled you up, because that shows that
this subject really gets under your skin and you have to fight for an
idea that you know is flaky, oh well .

Cheers,

Larry

google@larfx.net

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Yeah, I know what you mean. The most important thing is to present the
> case strongly enough so that others who may read this know the facts.
> You can't save everyone from themselves, but you can help others avoid
> making potentially serious mistakes.

- That is great, but you haven't presented a case. Was it somewhere in
between calling everyone that disagreed with you an idiot and making
stuff up about people? Oh yeah, it was the case for seeing cars a long
way away, just remembered, LOL .

<snip>

> Well, the fact that some of us disagree strongly on some issues doesn't
> mean that we disagree on them all. I certainly wouldn't argue with
> someone I thought was correct, simply to have an argument.

- Well, you simply do argue and it seems to be all you are capable of
doing. You certainly are not gifted with honest discussion and can't
seem to take the time to pin down any true rational to your comments.

You are a curiosity that I found interesting for a brief period, you
have presented an adequate case study of what happens when people type
before they think .

Have a good one and God bless,

Larry

Brian Nystrom

google@larfx.net wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Brian,
>
> You could argue with a paper sack, apparently. You won't be quiet, you
> keep ranting on an on about research this and that I am wrong about
> that. I haven't seen anything in your postings that merit any further
> replies or even anything that supports your position. You have based
> everything on your personal perception and continue to try to read into
> my comments things that were never said. You have ignored what I
> actually said (pro and con links, actual discussion and even agreement
> with others) and have continued to fight. I don't know why you are
> fighting and I don't want to know. By the way, this isn't a contest of
> who can yell the loudest. There are people on here that can talk
> without attacking others, you could learn allot from these people.
>
> I have made the case against DRLs, you have done something, but I am
> not quite sure, ha ha. You can agree or disagree with me, I really
> don't care. I am glad to have riled you up, because that shows that
> this subject really gets under your skin and you have to fight for an
> idea that you know is flaky, oh well .

Sorry to disappoint you Larry, but I'm not "riled up" as you hoped, nor
do I have any particular concern about DRLs. What I do care about is
that the information here is accurate or at least that both sides of an
issue get presented, so that others reading it can make informed
decisions. If you want to continue to post your bizarre opinions on this
subject as fact, I'll continue to point out your errors. Your
closed-mindedness is evident and your silly diversionary ploys don't
work. If you expect people to feel sorry for you or to accept your
opinions simply because you keep repeating them, you have a few things
to learn about Usenet.

Brian Nystrom

google@larfx.net wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I know what you mean. The most important thing is to present the
>> case strongly enough so that others who may read this know the facts.
>> You can't save everyone from themselves, but you can help others avoid
>> making potentially serious mistakes.
>
> - That is great, but you haven't presented a case. Was it somewhere in
> between calling everyone that disagreed with you an idiot and making
> stuff up about people? Oh yeah, it was the case for seeing cars a long
> way away, just remembered, LOL .
>
>> Well, the fact that some of us disagree strongly on some issues doesn't
>> mean that we disagree on them all. I certainly wouldn't argue with
>> someone I thought was correct, simply to have an argument.
>
> - Well, you simply do argue and it seems to be all you are capable of
> doing. You certainly are not gifted with honest discussion and can't
> seem to take the time to pin down any true rational to your comments.
>
> You are a curiosity that I found interesting for a brief period, you
> have presented an adequate case study of what happens when people type
> before they think .

And the silliness continues...<yawn>

You still haven't figured out that you're a lone voice crying in the
wind, have you?

Larry, all you've done is present your OPINIONS, which are not supported
by the research on the subject. Claiming something is true doesn't make
it so, no matter how many times you do it.

google@larfx.net

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Sorry to disappoint you Larry, but I'm not "riled up" as you hoped, nor
> do I have any particular concern about DRLs. What I do care about is
> that the information here is accurate or at least that both sides of an
> issue get presented, so that others reading it can make informed
> decisions. If you want to continue to post your bizarre opinions on this
> subject as fact, I'll continue to point out your errors. Your
> closed-mindedness is evident and your silly diversionary ploys don't
> work. If you expect people to feel sorry for you or to accept your
> opinions simply because you keep repeating them, you have a few things
> to learn about Usenet.

- Sounds like the one who needs to learn about Usenet, is you. The way
that you presented your argument has failed, just admit it and go on.

The proof of you being affected by this subject is very obvious. The
evidence is the lack of clear reasoning in your discussions and the
distinct lack of facts, as well. You post fast and fail to make sense,
this is because this subject affects you. If you were just simply
having a discussion, you would not have carried out such a tirade.

You are for DRLs, wonderful, but you haven't made one distinctive point
that even supports them. You are grasping at straws and I don't know
why you even bother responding.

Look, I don't want to know what your issues are, but your response to
me shows that you have something going on that causes you to continue
this.

I really wish that I could help you, but apparently you are beyond
assistance.

God bless,

Larry

google@larfx.net

Brian Nystrom wrote:
<snip>

> Larry, all you've done is present your OPINIONS, which are not supported
> by the research on the subject. Claiming something is true doesn't make
> it so, no matter how many times you do it.

- No, I presented actual links and actual observances of more than just
my own. Go back and open your eyes to what I have posted. Yes, I did
present my opinions, as well, duh.

See if you can show that you presented nothing more than your opinions,
I don't remember you actually proving any facts in defense of your
assertion that people need their lights on in broad daylight. What is
next, you will be supporting Daylight Running Horns to alert people to
your presence, oh yes I am sure that you could "make a case" for that,
as well.

Look, you have your opinions, I have mine. I have shown that we went
for many many years without DRLs and would do just fine without them.
But you seem to think that we need to see cars in the next county, LOL,
you can't be serious.

I have the history of use of lights during the day, the fact that many
states had it as illegal before NHSTA allowed it, the fact that the
majority of manufacturers see no reason to have them, that there is no
direct evidence of DRLs being an actual safety feature and that there
are studies that indicate that DRLs are actually detrimental to safety.
I have offered up reasoned opinions on masking and the focus of
distraction of the lights.

You, however only talk about long distance usage to see a car far off
and that in your opinion anyone that disagrees with your opinions is an
idiot. In your defense, I think that you might have referenced one
fact?? Anyway, you need to learn how to debate.

I am still laughing at you and enjoying the fact that you continue to
respond. It is as if you just can't help yourself.

I wonder if you could care less about this subject, but go around
picking fights, hmmm.

Cheers,

Larry