From: thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:44:33 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 07:03:41 -0800, Alan Baker
> wrote:
>
> >On 2014-12-07 20:06:29 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:
> >
> >>>>> After seeing a car without lights at night, it's a clear advantage to
> >>>>> have the lights always on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It has happened to me. You sometimes forget to turn on the lights, and
> >>>>> at least you have some lights on.
> >>>>
> >>>> The answer for drivers who are too stupid to turn on the lights when
> >>>> it's dark is to stop them driving, not to make it easier for idiots to
> >>>> drive.
> >>>
> >>> Well, we all know there are too many idiots driving anyway.
> >>>
> >>> In this particular case, though, it seems this happens to anyone at one
> >>> time or another. It's better to prevent the accident first and then
> >>> take care of the idiots.
> >>
> >> For every accident a DRL prevents it creates another one. There is NO
> >> NET safety benefit to them.
> >
> >Ummm...
> >
> >What accidents have daytime running lights EVER created?
> >
> >Name me one accident which was actually CAUSED by DRLs.
>
> Lots of them. Studies have been done and documented the effects. I
> posted it all a couple years ago and I'm not going to bother doing the
> research again for people who have already made up their minds. There
> is a reason the US doesn't mandate them. It's not for lack of
> lobbying to try and get them, it's because the research, taken in
> total, does NOT support any NET benefit. If you don't believe it
> that's fine, the facts remain what they are.
There's a difference between having no net benefits and being detrimental to
road safety.
We may be dumb not to adopt them, but we can can not create evidence that they
are unsafe.
We are still waiting for that evidence.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
