C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:34:35 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:23:07 -0700, N8N wrote:
> >>
> >> > But the driver without DRLs is actually more likely to realize his
> >> > error, as he won't be able to see.
> >>
> >> We are talking about rain and fog, where the light does not serve vision
> >> but visibility. And as long as they see they won't worry about switching
> >> on their lights.
> >
> > Which is true for all drivers, whether they have DRLs or not.
>
> Thanks for making my point, Nate.

Um, you don't HAVE a point.

> The difference is that in DRL equipped
> cars you at least see the headlights (i.e. oncoming traffic) early,
> whereas you are responsible to adjust your speed to seeing the traffic
> going your way in time anyway. If you guys really have to rely on the
> car's taillights to tell whether there is an obstacle or not, you are much
> too fast for conditions.

I don't "rely" on taillights, but surely even you have to admit that
they're nice to have?

>
> >> No, it's self evident that the DRLs don't influence their behavior, but
> >> make their cars at least visible from the more dangerous side and thus
> >> have a beneficial effect on safety.
> >>
> > How do you figure that any side is "more dangerous" than any other? I
> > don't particularly want to run into any of them.
>
> 1) Closing speed is much higher in oncoming traffic (v_x + v_y instead of
> v_x - v_y).

Yeah, and you're also much less likely to be in the path of oncoming
traffic. So what?

>
> 2) You have no influence on the speed of the oncoming car, whereas you
> have total control on adjusting your speed to conditions in the proper way
> (i.e. being able to stop if an unlighted obstacle is in your path), be it
> a branch, a person or a car without taillights on.
>

yeah, whatever. If that were the solution to all problems there
wouldn't be an issue driving around with no lights on at all.

nate