"marx404" > wrote in message
...
> The idea is not so YOU can see, the idea is OTHERS can see you. Simply
> put,
> it is a proven fact that having some form of DRL's (any kind) helps to
> prevent accidents by aiding other drivers to see you, (ex: oncoming
> drivers
> and at intersections).

Care to share the "proof." All the studies I've seen that show a safety
advantage were in far northern counties (like Finland, Norway, Sweden) and
even then they were often flawed. Data from more southernly climates is not
conclusive. Since GM (and some others) have been installing DRLs on cars in
the US for sometime while Ford, Chrysler, and others have not, it should be
possible to collect good data for US conditions (DRLs vs no DRLs). I have
not seem a complete study that does this. But maybe you have.

http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm - old data (nothing as new as
1995)
http://www.autointell-news.com/News-...r-29-03-p7.htm
(this is a GM study. They only included crashes in the study where DRLs
might be beneficial. They ignored the possibility that other sorts of
accidents might be increased as a result of DRLs. It is essentially a study
designed by GM to "prove" DRL are good).
http://www.motorists.com/issues/drl/DRL_petition.html (Rabid anti-DRL group)
http://www.lightsout.org/studies.html (more rabid anti-DRL information)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...pages/TRD.html
(check out the line that says "None of these results were statistically
significant" - the actual study is in the next reference)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...0/DRL7_RPT.pdf - This
the best study I can find and it does not make a good case for DRLs.

Ed