Honda Car Forum

For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs,
see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm

Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think
about it.


me wrote:

>Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website.
>
>The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and
>published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the
>insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results;
>vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar
>vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was
>strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights,
>waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or don't
>have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on
>accident reduction is zero or worse.
>

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news5%fd.260877$wV.29450@attbi_s54...
> Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website.
>
> The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed
and
> published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the
> insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results;
> vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar
> vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was
> strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional
lights,
> waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or
don't
> have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect
on
> accident reduction is zero or worse.

That's a crock!

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:L2%fd.260867$wV.229842@attbi_s54...
> The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
> good.

The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.

In article <4180D772.2080007@RWMann.com>, RWM@RWMann.com says...

>For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs,
>see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm
>Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think
>about it.

Read the part about reducing light out put to European levels. Also it
seems that only GM is stupid enough to use high beams as DRL's. Another
really stupid idea that is not addressed. The only folks in the US pushing
for DRL's is GM. DRL's also do nothing that a smart driver can't do on
their own. DRL's that use high beams do bother other motorists on the road.
And as I mentioned before, it will cause a lot of stupid drivers to drive
around at night without turning on their lights, which means they are blacked
out to the rear, because they thinkg DRL's are ok to drive with at night.
The IIHS is biased. They are fully funded by insurance companies, so all
their data always supports what is in the insurance companies best interest.
-------------
Alex

In article <z_4gd.12724$df2.10198@edtnps89>, Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada says...

>"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
>news:L2%fd.260867$wV.229842@attbi_s54...
>> The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
>> good.
>The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.

Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's.
------------
Alex

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:clrdtn$jd0$3@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>
> Read the part about reducing light out put to European levels. Also it
> seems that only GM is stupid enough to use high beams as DRL's.

Honda uses the high beam lights (at reduced wattage) for their DRLs.

>Another
> really stupid idea that is not addressed. The only folks in the US
pushing
> for DRL's is GM. DRL's also do nothing that a smart driver can't do on
> their own. DRL's that use high beams do bother other motorists on the
road.

Not true.

> And as I mentioned before, it will cause a lot of stupid drivers to drive
> around at night without turning on their lights, which means they are
blacked
> out to the rear, because they thinkg DRL's are ok to drive with at night.

Nothing is going to help stupid drivers {;^)


--
Brian

A balanced diet is a chocolate chip cookie in each hand.

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:clrdv5$jd0$4@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
>
> >The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true.
>
> Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's.

In what way?

--
Brian

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have
come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance
to the first.

Here's my 2 cents.

I haven't really looked at the accident numbers but doesn't it make sense
that an increase in daytime lights would detract from the visibility of
motorcycles and hence be responsible for more motorcycle accidents? It used
to be when you saw lights during the day, it was either a motorcycle (or I
guess a drunk driver). Now with all the lights on everyone just blends in
with the crowd making motorcycles more hidden.

Mike H

"me" <me@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:L2%fd.260867$wV.229842@attbi_s54...
> The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
> good.
>
> http://www.motorists.com/stealthis/lightsoff.html
>
>
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
> news:wiOdd.23088$_u6.3811@edtnps89...
> >
> > "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
> > news:cl6b92$sid$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> >>
> >> It is stupid that an insurance company would give a discount for
> >> something
> >> that has no proven benefits. Also, high beam DRL's are stupid because
> >> the
> >> aiming of the light puts it right at eye level of other road users.
Even
> >> at reduced voltage, it is annoying.
> >
> > No proven benefits? You haven't read very much (if anything) on the
> > subject.
> > Years of testing were done in may countries, before DRLs were developed.
> >
> > --
> > Brian
> >
> > Ever stop to think... and forget to start again?
> >
> >
>
>

How on earth would DRL's make a bus more obvious to other drivers on the
road? Are you telling me that DRL's make it easier to see a huge bus? It
was proven that there was no reduction in accidents based on using DRL's. I
also find it true that it's harder to see someone's front turn signal
flashing when they have DRL's from a distance. The white light is brighter
than the small flashing turn signal. Just because insurance companies give
you a discount, doesn't mean that they are safer. Do you normally believe
everything your insurance company tells you?

On a side note, I can understand using them if it will save you money, but I
don't want to hear people preach about DRL's making a car safer.


"RWM" <RWM@RWMann.com> wrote in message news:4180D702.1080000@RWMann.com...
>
> For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs, see:
> http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm
>
> Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think about
> it.
>
>
> me wrote:
>
>>The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any
>>good.
>>

It's a good thing you backed up your statements with facts. Thanks for
setting that website straight. You obviously provided some wonderful
sources for your insightful input.

Keep up the good work.

"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:x_4gd.12723$df2.689@edtnps89...

>
> That's a crock!
>
>