C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:28:05 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:30:38 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You actually think I'm going to turn down a free car, insurance, and gas
>>>>- when I drive 100+ miles a day for work - because of a philosophical
>>>>difference of opinion with an auto mfgr.?
>>>
>>>If you thought it was a safety hazard of the magnitude DS and JR
>>>postulate, you would.
>>
>>You make no sense.
>
>
>>Clueless people driving a DRL equipped car are a danger because they're
>>not visibile from behind in fog or rain.
>
>
> If your speed is adjusted to conditions you will not have any problem
> stopping even behind a stopped car with no taillights (not even taking
> into account that a stopped car usually has its brakelights on because
> otherwise it will roll forward due to the AT). According to every state's
> vehicle code you have to adjust your speed so you can stop safely if an
> unlighted obstacle is in your lane. A car moving in the same direction as
> you are at a slower speed thus is not a problem unless you are speeding
> (i.e. driving too fast for conditions).


You are very good at unrealistic theory. Imagine torrential rain
on the interstate. It is bright but visibility is poor, so automatic
lights dont kick in. You cant go too slow, because you'll be tailgated
by the retard behind you. Imagine coming upon a slow granny running only
DRLs, no taillights. You may end up hitting her.

>
> Because if he is smart he won't drive a car he deems dangerous.

Nonsense.