From: thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:40:27 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:   
   > On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:40:24 -0800, Alan Baker    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > >On 2014-12-10 01:38:26 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:   
   > >   
   > >> 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.   
   > >   
   > >Then find your post...   
   > >   
   > >...because I think you're full of it.   
   > >   
   > >Just describe HOW an accident could be caused by DRLs for a starter.   
   >   
   > First, tell me, what kind of info would you have to see to change your   
   > mind? Further, point to the studies you are relying on that included   
   > CONTROLS and BEFORE AND AFTER analysis which showed a NET benefit to   
   > DRL's.   In addition, explain why an alleged safety benefit that   
   > accrues when ONE car out of 100 has DRL's, and is therefore spotted by   
   > EVERYONE as SPEICAL would be expected to still be there when ALL cars   
   > have DRL's and none of them are special anymore and it's all just a   
   > big sea of lights.   
      
   You want ALL CARS to be special because they are not insignificant. Missing   
   them means someone may get killed or hurt.   
      
   If you see a light, you know it means a car, and a car means a potential   
   accident. But you want to prevent accidents, not survive accidents.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)