My Rebuttals Against
Anti-DRL Web Sites
Here are some
excerpts from Anti-DRL web pages that claim that DRLs are pure evil. Italicized
text passages are excerpts from the web site, and non-italicized text are my
words.
After
finding a web site that is chock full of anti-DRL propaganda, I sent an e-mail
to the address provided because I was simply appalled by what they had to say.
It's at http://www.lightsout.org.
__________________________________________
Although
whoever reads this will probably be annoyed with what I have to say, all I ask
is that you hear me out on my Canadian side of the DRL story.
Strangely,
the road toward DRL acceptance by government regulators has been a twisted one.
In 1987, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety proposed that the NHTSA
permit DRLs. NHTSA rejected the idea, but the Insurance Institute proposed the
concept again a year later. Still, it was rejected, and the NHTSA said that DRLs
DO NOT improve highway safety and may, in fact, INCREASE HIGHWAY HAZARDS.
I agree that
they wouldn't improve highway safety when you have two lanes of traffic going
in each direction because a driver typically looks at the tail ends of a car.
How they would INCREASE highway hazards, I'd LOVE to know.
Quite simply,
if most vehicles have DRLs, it's harder to spot those who do not.
After all my
years of driving in Canada which has a good mix of DRL and non-DRL equipped
cars I can safely say, "NO, IT ISN'T HARDER TO SPOT CARS WITHOUT
DRLs!" However, it is easier to spot the cars with DRLs, especially in
"unusual" driving situations. e.g. Foggy windows. This would be
especially true for people with cars without rear window defoggers.
NHTSA also
said glare from the DRLs of oncoming vehicles could bother some drivers.
Like the ones
who complain about anything and everything new.
... and
DRLs are an unfair government action we can combat.
Yeah, when the
government is doing something to help increase visibility of cars on the road
that's what I call "unfair government action". Not!
GM now says
all its cars will have DRLs in 1997. This will make all vehicles that don't
have them easier to miss.
Oh, look at me!
I'm crashing into non DRL-equipped cars in Canada every time I go drive to pick
up some milk! It's wreaking havoc on my insurance premiums! Not!
Unlike our
opponents, we have clear reasons for our position, some of which you've already
read:
Some clear
reasons for the "opponents" are coming up as well:
1. The original
concept for DRLs was to compensate for a lighting deficiency. We don't have
such a deficiency in the United States!
Does this mean
that there is never a dawn or dusk in the United States when people fail to
turn their headlights on? Is it always sunny?
2. Since we
have greater natural light, the auto manufacturers have increased the
intensity of their DRLs. Just what we need: Bright lights hitting your eyes
while you're trying to drive a car on a busy highway!
Contrary to
popular belief in the United States, DRLs are not that bright. Even when I go
to the United States to visit from Canada, the DRLs on cars there are the same
brightness as in Canada. Yes, they typically use the high beam light bulbs, but
they glow at only a fraction of their full intensity. When the DRL-equipped
cars in my family are parked towards a wall at night and have their DRLs on,
judging by their brightness you wouldn't be able to drive safely at night with
DRLs alone—I'd say they're about a quarter to half the brightness of regular
headlights. In other words, they aren't as bright as you make them seem.
3. Safety
features need not create hazards and, more to the point, should not be so very,
very annoying to so many people. Humans, by our very nature, tend to avoid
disturbing stimuli, thus taking our eyes off the road! Some people respond to
DRLs by avoiding looking directly at other cars on the road. Some avoid using
their rear- or side-view mirrors.
OK, I admit to
avoiding using my side-view mirrors—at night! The glare of headlights in the
sideview mirror of any car is far, far greater at night than it is during the
daytime. I’ve been driving for years and that's what real world experience—and
not unsubstantiated whining—has shown me.
Some are even
using devices which are already on the market to reduce the glare from oncoming
DRLs.
And what are
these "devices" called? Sunglasses?
4. Current
data on the safety benefits of DRLs has been misinterpreted by proponents of
DRLs. They have absolutely no positive effect on bright sunny days.
Yes, real-world
driving experiences have shown me that they DO have a positive effect on
"bright sunny days". Try to imagine this situation: one bright sunny
morning, the roads were wet and the sun was just above the horizon. I was at
the end of my street waiting to turn left onto another road. The sun was to my
left causing a lot of glare on the wet pavement making it difficult to see.
Also to the left, on the road that I wanted to turn onto, there is a grove of
trees making a shaded area. I proceeded to turn left, but I braked after about
6 feet when I saw two lights moving in the shaded area from my left. As it
turns out, the stimulus of moving lights created by the DRLs of the approaching
vehicle helped me see it against the shade and glare and perhaps helped prevent
an accident.
5. Of all the
myriad categories of motor vehicle crashes, DRL use is arguably associated with
improving one, maybe two types. The better solution to highway safety is
driver improvement; this would substantially and dramatically decrease
accidents of all types.
Driver
improvement? Then why do we need speedometers? People should learn to know
exactly how fast they're going just by gut feeling! And who cares about brake
lights! People should be able to clearly see that the car in front is slowing
down! What I'm getting at here is that visual aids help greatly while driving.
I also think
that if driver improvement was legislated by government, people would complain
about those costs more than what DRLs cost to install and operate! Taking a defensive
driving course put on by BMW set me back $500 CDN just for the first level
(even at that price, it's still subsidized by BMW)... should the government
require everybody to take a $500 class every five years to make sure that their
driving doesn't get sloppy over time? And if people refuse to pay the money for
the test directly, it will become hidden in your taxes anyway.
6. People
will literally die because of DRL use. By failing to institute the correct
solution to problems illustrated by DRL data -- driver error -- people will
continue to die and be injured who might otherwise have been spared from such
incidents.
I still don't
understand where you get the asinine notion that "people will literally
die because of DRL use".
7. DRLs are
an inefficient use of resources. Lights will have to be replaced more
frequently, and it will have to be done by auto service personnel.
Light bulbs running
at less than half intensity are not going to have to be replaced very often at
all. And did you ever hear the joke: "How many auto service personnel does
it take to screw in a DRL bulb? None, because the typical driver who knows how
to use a screwdriver can do it himself!" Ahahahahaha!
Gas
consumption will increase
and, although it's not much per car, it is an astronomical dollar figure when
multiplied by the millions of vehicles in this country.
If the citizens
of the United States really gave a $hit about fuel consumption, the top selling
vehicle in the U.S. wouldn't be the Ford F-Series truck. Do people really need
a big truck to look macho and tough—and to haul air around? Now THAT'S an
"inefficient use of resources"!
8. DRLs
represent stone-age technology on the eve of the 21st century. Since cars do
not need illumination at all hours, why not install sensors to activate
headlights when ambient light is insufficient? The technology exists, and
is already in use on Ford Explorers.
I've driven a car
with this "great" feature, and it doesn't work very well under real
world driving conditions. When driving in the countryside, the mix of the shade
from trees and pockets of direct sunlight made the headlights turn on and off
in a way which may distract oncoming drivers and because "humans, by our
very nature, tend to avoid disturbing stimuli, thus taking our eyes off the
road!" And when the headlights turned on automatically, the instrument
cluster's lights also turned on and the radio's display dimmed as well. The
dimmed radio display made it difficult for me to see what station was on—this
distraction made me take my eyes off the road for longer than necessary.
*Gasp!* I could have caused an accident!
9. DRLs are
insulting to our intelligence.
Perhaps you are
offended by inanimate objects a bit too easily
DRL
proponents assume that drivers are not intelligent enough to know when to turn
on their lights.
Having people
occasionally forget to turn their headlights on is inevitable as death and taxes.
Both you and I've [barely] seen people driving down the street in the middle of
the night with no headlights on. Perhaps it's an honest mistake. Or perhaps
it's a drunk driver that you would be better off seeing way ahead of time if
his car was equipped with DRLs. The idea here is that even though you wouldn't
be able to see well at night when driving a car with only DRLs on, at least the
other drivers would be able to see YOU coming.
10. By
implication, then, DRL proponents are saying, in effect, that the states
are licensing unqualified drivers!
Your argument
is running around in circles here because you said earlier that headlights that
turn on automatically are fine—but now you say that people who don't know when
to turn on their headlights are unqualified drivers? There is also more to bad
driving than you seem to realize. Does the act of running red lights have
anything to do with DRLs? Of course not! Tailgating? Nope! Not using turn
signals? Uh-uh.
11. Driving
is a skill. Observation is a skill. With proper experience and training,
these skills are integrated in the person of a safe driver. Both of these
skills can be nurtured or improved in every driver.
"With
proper experience and training, these skills [learning to share the road with
both DRL and non-DRL equipped cars] are integrated in the person of a safe
driver." When looking out for other cars while driving, this is what I do:
LOOK OUT FOR CARS, not lights. Driving in Canada with a mix of both DRL and
non-DRL equipped cars hasn't changed this for me. If another car has DRLs to
help me see it in unusual situations, that only makes my job of driving safer;
it doesn't make other cars less visible to me.
But, neither
skill will be enhanced in today's environment if it believes safety lies in the
gadgets and misinterpreted data.
As for the
"safety lies in the gadgets" line, here's some sarcasm: Well, it's
time to throw off those darn seat belts! Because of them, we're all driving
real sloppy because we know that we're safe in an accident, that's for shore!
Sarcasm off. As I said earlier, just like seatbelts, DRLs are just an extra
device to both aid and protect drivers.
Safety, in
reality, is nothing more than the collective responsibility of each individual
to be the best driver -- the most observant, the most cautious, the most
defensive, the most skilled -- that he or she can be.
And since the
"best driver" would sometimes find it useful to have just a little
more help while driving, we have these things called maps, road signs, and
DRLs.
12. What is
the industry's motivation? Safety? We think not. Again, follow the money trail.
Even some level heads within the automotive industry have been reluctant to
embrace DRLs. "It's not that we are against them, but we haven't seen
any real evidence of the safety benefits," said Chrysler spokesman
Jason Vines. (Automotive News, 1995.) "We are not convinced yet that
they're going to be beneficial," said Ford's manager of advance safety,
Sherman Henson. And even GM's executives have their doubts: "The research
on whether or not daytime running lights are effective is mixed," said the
company's director of legal and safety issues.
People spend
hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for car insurance every year. Spending
just a few dollars to add DRLs when assembling a car does sound like good
insurance to help prevent the occasional accident. And as for the quote,
"It's not that we are against them, but we haven't seen any real evidence
of the safety benefits"; in the real world, it's easy to for a government
agency to make statistics about how often accidents occur, but what about the
number of times they are avoided (i.e. because of DRLs)? How often do people go
the insurance company or police station to report an accident that ALMOST
happened? Not very often. What usually happens instead is that people yell or
direct rude gestures at each other, and drive off. When there is an accident,
however, some government department is gonna hear about it.
And some
suggest that GM's motivation is sales, not safety. It makes sense, in a time
when airbags, anti-lock brakes and built-in child-safety seats are all the rage
in new-car advertising.
The thing that
sets DRLs apart from airbags, ABS and child safety seats is that DRLs cost very
little to install.
There are millions
of individuals who feel as we do about DRLs, but so far we exist without an
organization to represent our views and channel our thoughts, our votes and our
purchasing power where it needs to go. We urge every individual who shares our
concern about DRLs, about government interference, about the sanctity of state
sovereignty, to join our organization. If we act in concert, they will feel our
might. Without us, so called "safety people" will engage in further
feel-good policy-making that will only justify their jobs.
How
hypocritical. The paragraph above seems to "engage in further feel-good
policy-making that will only justify their [your web site's writers']
jobs".
Some final
notes:
If you're
already whining about the government and its laws, you'd might as well go join
your anti-government militia friends. And just think: all of the guns in the
U.S. are a far greater threat to peoples' lives than some lights mounted on the
front of a car. YOU'VE got a constitutional RIGHT to bear arms! Isn't that nice!
Guns "represent stone-age technology on the eve of the 21st century!"
Americans don't seem to mind that!
A few months
ago, I watched a TV show/documentary about auto safety. When seatbelts were
first introduced in cars, people didn't wear them because they already felt
safe surrounded by thousands of pounds of steel. When the government passed
laws REQUIRING their use, people resented having the government telling them
what to do, because they couldn't adapt to change and they thought that they
knew everything. Twenty years later, most people grew a brain and now realize
that wearing a seatbelt is a good idea.
Hmmmm. Your web
site seems to be based on the same sort of thinking as what early anti-seatbelt
pioneers had. Perhaps DRLs are in fact a good idea, even in the United States?
__________________________________________
And as for the
reply I got back for my e-mail? Here it is,
the ultimate display of human stupidity.
Here are some
excerpts from a web page called Pros
and Cons of Daytime Running Lights (DRLs), done by some electrical
engineer:
1. You lose
critical traffic signaling methods. Flashing your headlights is
a) the accepted signal to a trucker that it is safe to change lanes
b) a signal to alert drivers that have forgotten to turn on their headlights
c) a signal at a 4-way stop or in a parking lot to let the other driver go
first
d) a signal to other vehicles that you are traveling with that you need to
stop.
News flash! You
can still flick your high beams on temporarily when you have DRLs! Yes, the
temporary flash is brighter than DRLs, thus leading to a noticeable flashing
effect. Yes!
2.You can't
turn off your lights when
a) they are glaring into another vehicle
b) they are shining into a house at the end of a cul-de-sac or tee intersection
c) they are shining at a pedestrian.
d) You are sitting with the engine running on the side of the road, in
someone's driveway, etc.
e) you want to be able to see outside your side windows.
What lame
excuses. I won't even give point a) the dignity of a reply. As for b), when a
car's DRLs are pointing at my house during the day, I don't notice any beam of
light on my house. And if there was one, who cares? Point c) is as lame as a) and
b). With d), Having a light on while parked is not is not really a big deal. Whoopty-ding.
As for e), what is this guy talking about??? It's as though when a car with
DRLs approaches, the side windows of your car become opaque? Huh?
3. There are
places where you need to drive with only your parking lights, i.e. drive-in
movie parking lots, astronomical gatherings, military bases, etc.
As I mentioned
before, DRL lights do not really light up the surrounding area at night very
well. I don't think that the light from DRLs will cause the view of the
constellations above to be washed out.
4. Drivers
with DRLs often forget to turn on their low beam headlights in rain or fog and
at dusk or dawn. This is especially dangerous because the taillights do not
come on until the low beams are turned on. Many drivers believe that in rain or
fog the DRLs are sufficient and fail to turn on their low beams to activate
their tail lights. When it is dark, the lack of dashboard lights is an
indicator that the low beams and tail lights are not on, but in daytime
conditions where the low beams should be used there is no indication that the
DRLs, not the lowbeams, are on.
Not turning on
headlights is the driver's fault, not the car manufacturer's fault. It's like
blaming the auto manufacturer when drivers don't wear their seatbelts properly.
So then why bash DRLs? Why doesn't he also start a web site bashing people who
don't turn on their headlight in rain or fog?
5. They make
your bulbs wear out faster.
Oh yeah, a bulb
running at half its regular voltage/brightness is really going to burn
out fast!
6. They
decrease your gas mileage slightly. See:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/cd9402.pdf. The decrease in mileage due to
the increased load on the alternator is very small, but it is still measurable.
One one of the biggest proponents of DRLs, GM, asked for and received
permission to disconnect DRLs when doing tests for their fuel economy ratings.
If people
really cared about fuel economy down to the point of measuring inches and feet
lost per mile because of DRLs, gas-hog pickup trucks and SUVs wouldn't be on
the road in such great numbers.
7. They annoy
other drivers. “In 1998, after receiving hundreds of complaints, NHTSA
acknowledged that the intensity limits were too high and proposed
reductions in DRL intensity. NHTSA cited a study by Kirkpatrick, et. al.
(1989), that said that at 2000cd, the glare from DRLs was rated at no worse
than "just unacceptable" in 80% of the responses. At 4000cd,
the glare was rated no worse than "disturbing" in 80% of the
responses. These subjective ratings are based on the DeBoer scale.
Corresponding to these ratings, they found that at 4000cd the probability
that the rearview mirror would be dimmed was about 70%. At 2000cd the
dimming probability was 40%. At 1000cd, the dimming probability dropped to 10%.” The NHTSA has now proposed that the European
standard for DRL brightness be adopted, see
http://auto.com/autowire/qlights6.htm . Expect the automakers to oppose this
since it would add cost to do DRLs properly.
Here goes
somebody with all sorts of statistics to make a point. Statistics and news stories
can be twisted in favour or against anything. What's with this 1000, 2000,
4000cd, percentage, and DeBoer scale crap? This is my real-word experience
which is not based on some statistics from a propaganda book: After having DRLs
in Canada for over ten years, I can honestly say that DRLs are NOT disturbing!
8. The people in favor of DRLs are so dimwitted and
have such weak positions that DRLs must really be bad. ... For a not so polite,
but amusing and very poorly done website on DRLs, click over to:
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/7840/drlsgoodnotbad.html .
It’s difficult to read because of the poor background, but the
individual that did that site clearly lacks the logic that he claims to be
promoting. He has many outright errors on his site, including his statement
that DRLs usually use high beams and usually operate at 50% intensity, but
the convoluted logic in some of his statements and examples left me rolling
on the floor laughing. Don't they teach logic and the language of argument in
Canada? At one point he blames the lack of DRLs for the death of someone who
was hit by a stolen car that had no lights on. What really is amusing is
that his site claims to be "the home of logical driving," but the guy
is a prime example of the idiots you see on the road that lack any common
sense.
He's referring
to my so-called poorly done web site that has received many e-mail compliments
from other people. Anyway, the poor background he was referring to was caused
either by viewing the web page on an older web browser which caused text to
shift too far to the left (and over the black road graphic), and/or a change of
fonts I did at one time; these problems have now been fixed. At least my
web page doesn't consist of small black text on a yellow background! Oh, how
creative... if he added a bit of red, it would look like a hotdog stand!
As for the
"outright error" of my stating that DRLs usually use high beams at 50%
brightness, I don't know what planet this guy comes from, but it's obvious that
HE'S wrong. Let's take my DRL-equipped car for example: the DRL light source is
from one set of bulbs. When I turn the regular headlights on, the DRL bulbs
turn off and a different set of bulbs turn on. When I turn on my high beams,
the regular headlight bulbs turn off and the same set of bulbs as what's used
for DRLs turns on—with much greater brightness than when the DRLs are on. I've
noticed this behaviour with my car and many others on the road that I have
observed and driven. I've even observed similar behaviour with configurations
where one bulb contains both the high- and low-beam light filaments. I can't
explain it any more simply. So, can
somebody please tell me how I am wrong?
This guy also
claimed that I merely blamed the death of somebody due to the fact that the
stolen car he was hit by did not have DRLs. Just like with his so-called
"unarguable" statistics—he twisted the facts and left out important
points that I had stated—just to make me look bad. Even though I mentioned it
on my web site, he's the one who failed to mention that the crash
occurred at night. In this situation, I was implying that DRLs are useful to
protect the public from idiots who drive at night with no lights on because a
car with at least DRLs on at night can be seen approaching. Thus, it can be
argued that DRLs are beneficial at night as well. Click here to view to the
paragraph in question.
And, by the
way, the "convoluted logic" on my web site that he is referring to is
actually sarcasm. It makes for interesting reading. I guess electrical
engineers don't know what sarcasm is if it bit them on the ass. :-)
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Homepage