Date:         Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:23:46 -0700
Reply-To:     Kelly Bauman <bauman@ICAN.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         Kelly Bauman <bauman@ICAN.NET>
Subject:      Re: If You're Against Mandatory Daytime Running Lights...
Comments: To: dmc@cyburban.com
Comments: cc: VANAGON@VANAGON.COM
In-Reply-To:  <36014939.CB4@cyburban.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>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