wrote:
> "N8N" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
>>They're brighter than they need to be for their intended purpose, for
>>one thing... if nothing else it's wasteful.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> Brighter than they have to be, possibly.
> Wasteful...mathematically it is a very small number, insignificant to many
> of us.
>
> One wreck will cost you a ton more than these lights will.
>
>

It's still his car and still his choice if he wants DRLs or not.

FWIW, I have discussed this with Manitoba Public Insurance... (in Canada
DRLs became mandatory in 1990)... and they charge the same rates for
1989-90-91 Berettas and the same rates for 1989-90-91 Camaros, so it's
showing me that they don't see a decrease in collision rates for those
cars. They've referred me to the Insurance Bureau of Canada... I feel
I'm either entitled to a discount for my "safer" Beretta (1990) with
DRL's or that DRL's are going to be proven to be a non-issue for saving
lives.

And FWIW, I think DRL's on two lane highways are good. But they are
pointless in rush hour, which is where I spend 90% of my driving, so
that's why I've disabled them. I know where the headlight switch is and
I know when it needs to be used.

Ray