Daytime Running Light mod

[Fredvon4]

Bill

I want to thank you up front for your tenacity... I have not studied this hard on the subject in some time and I see you provided several good sources of info..

In Fact; I really liked reading who was behind National Motorist Foundation...My new found site with folks who think like me on subects of Speed laws, Black boxes, Trafic light radar photo, and a host of other anti American Constitution issues relating to our free use of the public roadways we pay for.

Funny, some of the arguments in one of your listed studies, actually added some credibility to MY argument against pulsating High Beam lighting on Motorcycles

One of their arguments against DRLs even at a low candella was the data that "glare" angered oncoming drivers

This has been an issue with me for a while now... Motorcycle Loud Pipes and Highbeams on during daylight pisses off people.......it does me and a lot of folks I know

I think we already have too many, wrapped too tight, folks driving the roads... deliberatly doing "in your face" things to piss em off more is a bad idea...IMO

I respect your point of view... sorry if my lenghty tome above seemed to pick on you personally

I do not think DRLs are any significant plus or minus for either group of drivers...

I think we should have the freedom to choose...

If Fredvon4 or Old smart has a history of personal experiance that convinces them that low level front lights has prevented accidents for them and their family then I think we would be rational in desiring a option to have our headlights on at low power during daylight.

I beleive generally that the notion that ALL motor vehicles should be mandated to have lights on 24/7 is NOT a good idea for three reasons;

1... obviously in 200,000,000+/- vehicles this is a large fuel consumption issue for the country at a time when we need to get serious on conserving- where practical.

2....there is no evidence to claim any group safety benifit that would warrant a National mandate

3.....the mandate would cause increase in price of the comodity that would be passed to we consumers

[JPaul]

Originally Posted by Fredvon4

[...] One of their arguments against DRLs even at a low candella was the data that "glare" angered oncoming drivers. [...]

The glare makes me want to escape. Fast! Because it hurts my eyes, and irritates me. When I'm pushed to leave in a hurry, I may be tempted to speed.
Unsafe for all, including the "glarer"!
I was a biker, and made sure to be in low beam (it was a lights on/off defeated switch, not a true DRL in those days).

[fmaxwell]

[quote=Old smart;133473]

Originally Posted by fmaxwell

... because an accident involving two cars typically results in only automotive damage and minor, if any, injuries. ... /QUOTE]

Huh?? A head-on collision only resulting in minor, if any, injuries??

You're the one who added the "head-on" part, but since that describes such a tiny percentage of accidents, it's not a valid reason for modifying cars such that more motorcyclists are killed. As it is now, far more auto drivers are killed in single-vehicle accidents than in accidents involving multiple vehicles. DRLs would have done those people no good. Also, even when there are head-on collisions, the injuries tend to be minor as the vehicle speed are usually low by the time that they impact. Seldom do vehicles collide head-on at high speeds.

Sorry, but loss of life is worse than injury -- even serious injury.

[JPaul]

The European Parliament today adopted a law making DRL mandatory on all new vehicles sold in the European Union.

Source: Les voitures devront être équipées de phares de jour dans l'UE dès 2011 - Société - Le Monde.fr

[hijinx54]

When I drove the mail van for my job back in 1976 we always had "lights on for safety". I have been driving with lights on ever since. I want people to see me.