I like that. It was the short and sweet of what I said to him but i wanted him to know why each of his comments made no sense.

(this is incredible) With all due respect, if your condition requires you to wear
something that degrades your vision, then I suggest that you shouldn’t
be driving. That’s one of the requirememts for being a competent driver:
you must be able to SEE.

You still lack any valid points for DRLs and I will explain below.

“I am required to wear sunglasses because of the heart medicine I take. On shady sections of the road, the DRL give me an idea of what is ahead.”

You have to wear sunglasses even in low light conditions?? Isn’t that a little bit questionable?

“At dusk, when a lot of drivers do not put on their lights as required, the DRLs give you some measure of the road ahead.”

Again, sounds like the local police NOT doing their jobs! Also in some drivers having lights on actually distorts depth perception making some drivers more leary and not able to determine how far away you really are. This in turn poses a danger to you if you are using daytime lights.

“Since DRL lights have been on motorcycles for a lot longer time, they should have been included in the study. I searched for “motorcycle” and didn’t get a hit.”

You raise an interesting point there. Have you ever heard of the “Start seeing Motorcycles” campaign? Several states have it and it to raise awareness of motorcycles. This however is kind of odd because as you mention above, motorcycles have had daytime lights for years and years. So, if daytime lights actually work why do we always have motorcycle safety campaigns?

“My opinion is that the study is flawed”

The only “flawed” part of the study is that even after seeing this people like you STILL think daytime lights actually do save lives!

“I think they are great and all cars should have them.”

Why should we all have to pay for your questionable condition while driving? We do NOT need lights on our cars they have NO proven benefits and may even pose a danger to pedestrians and other drivers.

Since DRL lights have been on motorcycles for a lot longer time, they should have been included in the study. I searched for “motorcycle” and didn’t get a hit. My opinion is that the study is flawed

I think they are great and all cars should have them.

>Pete:
>But there was a problem at times because of >the fact that when 2 or 3 cars with DRLS >followed by a car without DRLS and then >another car with DRLS it gave the >appearence of a vacant area between them.
Right. That was the fault of the DRLs. It’s like being in a room of polite people, everyone speaking at a moderate conversational level. Some loud, boorish people arrive and thereafter the polite people can’t hear each other.

That does sound like a low light situation. Does it make a viable case for having lights on 24/7? NO it absolutely does not! It does how ever show that the local police do not enforce a law that is already in effect. Sorry Pete but there is absolutely no reason to have lights on 24/7 I mean, DRLs sorry about that.

I couldnt agree with you more!!!

Jeff

I’m still trying to find your point laying around here some where. As for Fleet Admirals comment I would not be opposed to a 5 watt bulb IF and ONLY IF there were regulations against using ANY other type of light during daylight hours witht he exception of bad weather.