>Kelly Bauman wrote: >> Why would you be against DRLs? Unless of course you are also opposed seat >> belts, air bags, turn signals, brake lights, side impact beams, etc. >> At 13:39 17-09-98 -0400, David-M wrote: >Because they give no provable benefit and they are a pain in the neck! >There is only a benefit when just a few vehicles have them, then they >stick out. But once EVERY vehicle has them you are back to where you >started, except everyone has headaches from the glare. David, the benefit has been proven in private fleets including Greyhound in the US and in several of the countries where DRLs are mandatory. To paraphrase a post from List member YauMan Chan, like it or not, the statistics are in favour of DRLs. The benefit does not diminish when all vehicles use them and arguments of glare are specious. The improvement in visibilty, especially on undivided highways, is remarkable. The issue seems to be one of anti-legislation/anti-government sentiment, not the true impact of DRLs.
Kelly Bauman Delta, BC '91 Westy |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.