 2005 Tacoma Daytime Running Lights
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:25:50 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@> wrote:
>
>"Registered User" <n4jvp@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:2sesk117o1b6kk3nmlkqbpdupgl6ja7gsq@.. .
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:37:36 GMT, "Philip"
>> <1chip-state1@> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Go drive around Canada where everyone has DRLs. National funeral
>>>procession ... leaving nobody any more visible than any other. A sea of
>>>headlights. DRL works with motorcycles because they are a much smaller
>>>visual target head on.
>>>
>> Perhaps no vehicle with DRLs is more visible than any other vehicle
>> with DRLs. A vehicle with DRLs will be more visible than the same
>> vehicle in the same situation w/out DRLs. If making a vehcile more
>> visible to others is a bad idea why even have lights of any kind on an
>> automibile?
>
>Just for clarity, the point I was making is that when all vehicles have
>DRLs, they all become equally "visible" again.
Equally visible but more visible with DRLs than without.
>The reason DRLs have worked
>with motorcycles is that ONLY motorcycles have been required to have them
>here in the USA. But in a population where ALL vehicles have DRLs,
>motorcycles lose that distinct advantage.
>
No, every vehicle with DRLs gains that advantage. That all are equal
does not make any one less than equal. Substitute night for day in
your POV and there is no reason why any vehicle should have any
running lights at any time. The sea of lights you complain about will
never be a bother ever again, especially since ambient light levels
seemingly provide more than enough illumination at any time of the day
or night.
DRLs overcome minimal operator error but do not resolve all nor create
any operator error. I've had my say and I'll not argue further until
it is quantified that DRL usage increases accident rates. There are
decades of actuarial data you can research,
regards
A.G. | 
