"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:4VNCe.184420$xm3.115004@attbi_s21...
>
> "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.

How could having lights on in the daytime cause an accident? I'm not trying
to be a smartass but I can't concieve of any situation where a low intesity
light during daylight hours could cause an accident.

> 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
>
>