 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Hyundai Cars / January 2007Headlights going out
It seems that the Elantra’s headlights need to be replaced too often. Does anyone else have this problem? It seems that I’m replacing one every year on both mine and my Mothers. Thanks.  SignaturePosted at author's request, using http://www.AutoBoardz.com interface Articles individually verified to usenet standards. Visit URL to contact author/report abuse Thread archive: http://www.AutoBoardz.com/Headlights-ftopict203219.html > It seems that the Elantra’s headlights need to be replaced too often. > Does anyone else have this problem? It seems that I’m replacing one > every year on both mine and my Mothers. > Thanks. Yeah, they tend to eat bulbs and annual replacement seems to be about average. I've tried some higher-end bulbs (Silverstars, PIAA) and although their output is higher and whiter, their life is no better than the stock bulbs. >It seems that the Elantras headlights need to be replaced too often. >Does anyone else have this problem? It seems that Im replacing one >every year on both mine and my Mothers. >Thanks. One-year headlight bulbs is trhe norm, these days...it is not specific to one brand of car. I can't find a set of headlight bulbs that lasts more than a year in my 2003 Madza Protege either. It is the bulbs, not the cars. >>It seems that the Elantra's headlights need to be replaced too often. >>Does anyone else have this problem? It seems that I'm replacing one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > more than a year in my 2003 Madza Protege either. It is the bulbs, > not the cars. Interesting. In the past, I've had bulbs last for many years. One of my Regal lights was 15 years, the other probably 10. My LeSabre is at 6 right now and so far only one taillight was changed. These take different bulbs than most of the newer cars though. Another key is the voltage output of the alternator. that may be higher on these cars? I also suspect bulb design. Getting high output shortens life. Getting high output also sells more bulbs. What a co-incidence. h> One-year headlight bulbs is trhe norm, these days...it is not specific h> to one brand of car. I can't find a set of headlight bulbs that lasts h> more than a year in my 2003 Madza Protege either. It is the bulbs, not h> the cars. I suspect you are correct to a point. I have had good experience with my previous 2002 Elantra GT and now my 2005 Tiburon GT. Both have had bulbs that lasted longer than a year, and that brings me to my next point. Bulb life can only be measured in hours of use and not in time installed. I don't do a lot of night driving so for me the bulbs last a long time. That may not be the case for someone else who drives more it night or with their lights on. Finally touching the glass of the bulb can also shorten the life of the bulb. There are all variables that must be considered before suspecting the car. Best Regards Wayne Moses <wmoses@houston.rr.com> Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:32:47 -0600 > h> One-year headlight bulbs is trhe norm, these days...it is not specific > h> to one brand of car. I can't find a set of headlight bulbs that lasts [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3 Although I'm sure that bulb life is related to bulb use, I did not have any experience with standard headlights lasting only a year until I purchased my 2003 automobile, which is the first car I've owned that uses the the small 55 watt headlight bulb design. At first I thought that there was a problem with my car's electrical system, but after I checked around I found that most all manufacturers of these types of bulbs are only claiming a duty life of one year. My driving habits have not really changed signicantly in the last twenty years, so I can't blame the decreased bulb-life-length on more night driving, and I'm also well aware that the glass on these little bulbs should not be touched with the fingers. Check out Slyvania's website (the most common manufacturer of standard 55 watt headlight bulbs) and you will notice that their warrantiy for these types of bulbs is one year...exactly. It is not a car-related problem. h> It is not a car-related problem. You know I agreeing with you, right? Best Regards Wayne Moses <wmoses@houston.rr.com> Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:57:35 -0600 > h> It is not a car-related problem. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3 I'm not taking exception to your comments at all...they are completely valid. I just wanted to make it known to the guy that started this thread that I didn't come by my own conclusions off the cuff. They are based of my own personal experience and research. Not trying to pass myself off as a headlight expert, here...he just happened to hit on a subject that I had visited not too long ago, myself. >>It seems that the Elantras headlights need to be replaced too often. >>Does anyone else have this problem? It seems that Im replacing one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >more than a year in my 2003 Madza Protege either. It is the bulbs, >not the cars. Just my 2-cents: I drive a '98 Camry and keep the headlights on all the time for safety. The last headlight replacement I did was in 2002, November 2nd to be exact, with a standard Sylvania Bulb. The other bulb has never been changed by me - I purchased the car 'used' in September of 2002. More information: I've been driving for 33 years without a single traffic accident - the past 26 or so with my headlights turned on all the time. My two kids have been driving for a combined 16 years, without a single accident and they both use their headlights all the time. My wife has been driving for 31 years, has had four major (totaled vehicle) accidents and at least three or four minor ones and refuses (or forgets) to drive with her headlights on. Something to think about? HJS >>>It seems that the Elantras headlights need to be replaced too often. >>>Does anyone else have this problem? It seems that Im replacing one [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >HJS And I have a 92 Isuzu pickup truck that I've owned since 94 that I've never had to put a headlight in. It still has the same headlights that were in it when I bought it, and they still work fine. I believe they are also Sylvania...the old sealed-beam design. That was then, and this is now. The one-year headlight phenomenon is a very recent occurence, involving only recently manufactured headlight bulbs, and rtelatively recent model cars. Furthermore, it may even be only a factor for certain headlight designs a.k.a. small 55-watt non-sealed beam bulbs.. The older sealed-beam headlight design may in fact still be manufactured to last much longer. >snip< >>Just my 2-cents: I drive a '98 Camry and keep the headlights on all the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >55-watt non-sealed beam bulbs.. The older sealed-beam headlight >design may in fact still be manufactured to last much longer. My daughter bought a 2001 Elantra in August and I've already had to replace both headlights - although one was replaced because it appeared dimmer than the other. Strange... I guess I can look forward to seeing her at least twice a year though - a good thing. My wife's '00 Accord has never had any bulbs of any kind changed since we purchased the car new in November of '99 - although, she doesn't keep her lights on all the time. At least bulbs are easily changed - although I had to remove the battery to replace the headlight in my daughter's Elantra... Not so bad. HJS HS> My wife has HS> been driving for 31 years, has had four major (totaled vehicle) HS> accidents and at least three or four minor ones and refuses (or HS> forgets) to drive with her headlights on. Something to think about? Next car she gets should have automatic daytime running lights so she can drive for another 31 years. :-) In the meanwhile there are DRL modules you can retrofit on her car so that she is automatically protected. Back home in Canada it became law in 1990 that all new cars from that MY onwards would have DRL in recognition of this safety fact. Best Regards Wayne Moses <wmoses@houston.rr.com> Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:30:18 -0600 "Wayne Moses" <wmoses@houston.rr.com> wrote in message > In the meanwhile there are DRL modules you can retrofit on her car so that > she is automatically protected. > Back home in Canada it became law in 1990 that all new cars from that MY > onwards would have DRL in recognition of this safety fact. I'm surprised that more cars don't have them. I've had them on my last two and you always had them on especially in marginal weather. My Buick turns the headlights on when you turn the wipers on too. The "auto on" feature of my Sonata is too sensitive at times. In the early morning, they will go off and on a dozen times on one tree lined road. My GM cars never did. That auto on feature having the lights turn on multi times on a tree lined street must be very hard on light bulbs. I rarely drive at night and the bulbs in my 2000 Accent still work. They are also lower wattage DRL. > "Wayne Moses" <wmo...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message > > In the meanwhile there are DRL modules you can retrofit on her car so that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > morning, they will go off and on a dozen times on one tree lined road. My > GM cars never did. EP> The "auto on" feature of my Sonata is too sensitive at times. In the EP> early morning, they will go off and on a dozen times on one tree lined EP> road. My GM cars never did. That would irritate me I am sure. I think the regular auto-on is better even if it means more worn out bulbs. I rather be seen than worry about bulbs. One thing some manufacturers do is have reduced intensity DRLs. These look kind of foolish but bulbs last longer. Best Regards Wayne Moses <wmoses@houston.rr.com> Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:03:51 -0600 Hi, I just had to replace the two low beam bulbs on my Hyundai Elantra. They both went "out" at the exact same time. At a cost of $17.00 for each bulb. It's a lot. My Elantra is a 2004. The first was easy to replace, the second was harder... they don't make it easy do they? > It seems that the Elantra's headlights need to be replaced too often. > Does anyone else have this problem? It seems that I'm replacing one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Articles individually verified to usenet standards. Visit URL to contact author/report abuse > Thread archive: http://www.AutoBoardz.com/Headlights-ftopict203219.html Well, been driving for 22 years and have never used headlights during the day, including the removal of DRLs on two cars that I own. I have only had two minor accidents in 2000, one because I got distracted and hit a car that slow down suddenly in front of me and the other when I looked at my pager and ran a red light. In neither instance would having lights on have made any difference. My wife has been driving for 19 years and had DRLs for 6 years, until she turned them off :). I don't know of any accidents that she has had, even during the 13 years that she didn't have DRLs. She only like them because she would sometimes forget to turn them on. My Dad has been driving for 52 years and never uses his lights, during the day. He had a single car accident on the highway and lights weren't a factor. There are plenty of us that drive just fine and see just fine without the lights. You really can't go on personal experience and quite honestly if you have been running with your lights on for so many years, it was illegal in most states before 1994. Anyway, there are plenty of folks that can't stand the lights and the fact that they are a distraction to seeing everything you need to see to safely drive. The bottom line is that many of the DRLs produce glare and this causes your eyes to notice one input and not see the pedestrian, non lit car, byciclist or road hazard, due to that momentary lapse of focus. The best thing is for all cars to be non lit and equally seen, and for people to turn their headlights on in inclement weather or low light conditions. Oh, I haven't had to replace the headlights on my truck for 9 years now. Cheers <google@larfx.net> wrote in message > There are plenty of us that drive just fine and see just fine without > the lights. You really can't go on personal experience and quite [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fact that they are a distraction to seeing everything you need to see > to safely drive. The lights are not so you can see, but so you can be seen. I've had a couple of instances where I'd see an oncoming car with DRLs before I'd see the car in front of it with no lights. They are not a "cure" for everything, but under certain circumstances, they helpyou spot the car with them. A good DRL is a dim light, not a full low or high beam. Yes, high beams during the day can still blind you at times. > The lights are not so you can see, but so you can be seen. I've had a couple > of instances where I'd see an oncoming car with DRLs before I'd see the car [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A good DRL is a dim light, not a full low or high beam. Yes, high beams > during the day can still blind you at times. Good point on the lowered brightness. If all of the DRLs were of a lower brightness, then glare would not be an issue. Now, yes you did notice the car with the lights and you did notice it before the car without them (even though that car was closer to you). However if the car had its lights off, then you would have seen the car in front of that car sooner and would have been able to react quicker to what was closer to you. What about the pedestrian that you didn't see that was between the cars (just to add to the scenario)? While your eyes focus on the lights, it is highly possible to miss other more important things. Cheers <google@larfx.net> wrote in message > What about the pedestrian that you didn't > see that was between the cars (just to add to the scenario)? While your > eyes focus on the lights, it is highly possible to miss other more > important things. So it is better to miss both than just one? We can always issue miner's helmets to pedestrians to solve that problem. The trick is to be aware of the car and not focus on the lights. I don't know if your point is valid or not, but there are very few pedestrians on interstates, rural country roads, and a gazillion other places so it may not be a factor. I'm sure there are some studies done if we take the time to look for them. >Well, been driving for 22 years and have never used headlights during >the day, including the removal of DRLs on two cars that I own. I have >only had two minor accidents in 2000, one because I got distracted and >hit a car that slow down suddenly in front of me and the other when I >looked at my pager and ran a red light. In neither instance would >having lights on have made any difference. So, you buy a new car and immediately start tearing out the DRL's? Maybe the light bulb in your head will one day tell you that not paying attention to your driving is what causes accidents and not DRL's..... I bet you drive while talking on your cell phone and don't wear seat belts because you once heard that a person who wasn't wearing their seat belt survived a fiery crash when they were thrown clear. >My wife has been driving for 19 years and had DRLs for 6 years, until >she turned them off :). I don't know of any accidents that she has had, >even during the 13 years that she didn't have DRLs. She only like them >because she would sometimes forget to turn them on. Uh-huh. That makes a lot of sense. >My Dad has been driving for 52 years and never uses his lights, during >the day. He had a single car accident on the highway and lights weren't >a factor. My Dad's been driving since 1945 and was rear-ended by a drunk driver in 1961..... I'll bet my Dad could beat your Dad in a fair fight! >There are plenty of us that drive just fine and see just fine without >the lights. You really can't go on personal experience and quite >honestly if you have been running with your lights on for so many >years, it was illegal in most states before 1994. Not in Pennsylvania - unless you drove a pick-em-up truck with the bulbies on all the time (pickup truck with fog lamps). BTW, DRL's aren't for seeing, they're for being seen. >Anyway, there are plenty of folks that can't stand the lights and the >fact that they are a distraction to seeing everything you need to see [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and equally seen, and for people to turn their headlights on in >inclement weather or low light conditions. Glare? In the daytime? This is crap. The sole reason I run with my headlights on is so that moron drivers will take notice of my car at a further distance than is normally possible. If you are drawn to my headlights like a moth to a flame then you're a nitwit. >Oh, I haven't had to replace the headlights on my truck for 9 years >now. Truck? I should've known...... >Cheers > So, you buy a new car and immediately start tearing out the DRL's? - Yes, I disabled my DRLs when I took delivery of my used truck in 2000. I will do it to any car that I buy. > Maybe > the light bulb in your head will one day tell you that not paying > attention to your driving is what causes accidents and not DRL's..... - Yes, I was distracted in both instances. It would have happen whether the other cars had DRLs or flashing lights or whatever. The fault was not paying attention, you are correct and you are right that it had nothing to do with DRLs. Thanks for verifying my point. > I bet you drive while talking on your cell phone and don't wear seat > belts because you once heard that a person who wasn't wearing their seat > belt survived a fiery crash when they were thrown clear. - I do drive while talking on my cell phone, absolutely. I always wear my seatbelts, law or not. By the way, with 2 accidents in 22 years, I stand by my driving. Oh, also I drive over 30,000 miles a year, so my percentage of accidents versus total driving is even lower. > Not in Pennsylvania - unless you drove a pick-em-up truck with the > bulbies on all the time (pickup truck with fog lamps). BTW, DRL's aren't > for seeing, they're for being seen. - Note, I said most states, that obviously does not include all states. Yes, DRLs are for being seen, I am glad you figured that out, LOL :). > Glare? In the daytime? This is crap. The sole reason I run with my > headlights on is so that moron drivers will take notice of my car at a > further distance than is normally possible. If you are drawn to my > headlights like a moth to a flame then you're a nitwit. - Absolutely, maybe not for you, hmmm. Well anyway, if you ever have to adjust your mirror or look away from a car during the day, it is because of the glare. It is real, but perceptions do vary. Quite honestly, if a person needs you to have your lights on so that they can notice you way far away, then they shouldn't be driving. Your car is visible without the lights, either way. So, let me get this straigtht, you need DRLs so that people can see you a long distance away when they aren't anywhere near you so that they will focus on you and miss the car that is closer. I understand, LOL. To clarify, it is not a "moth to a flame" it is a momentary visual distraction that briefly pauses your gaze on a single object and allows you to miss other objects that you should be seeing. Nice name calling, LOL :). > Truck? I should've known...... - Yep, a truck. You should have known, because that is what I said. I only replied to you because you "tried" to talk about stuff. However, you are just spouting off about certain things and calling names. That type of activity adds nothing to the discussion. You need to do a better job of not characterizing and belittling others. Your condescending tone and stereotyping are noted. Cheers >> So, you buy a new car and immediately start tearing out the DRL's? > > - Yes, I disabled my DRLs when I took delivery of my used truck in > 2000. I will do it to any car that I buy. I almost hate to be the one to say it, but that's just plain stupid and utterly pointless. Do you disconnect the airbags, too? >> Glare? In the daytime? This is crap. The sole reason I run with my >> headlights on is so that moron drivers will take notice of my car at a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they can notice you way far away, then they shouldn't be driving. Your > car is visible without the lights, either way. You really don't get it, do you. Several people have already said it, but I'll reiterate: DRLs are not so the driver can see, they're so the vehicle is easier for OTHERS to see at a distance. What is so hard to understand about that. A good example is that a silver car on a gray highway on an overcast day is difficult to separate from the background at any distance, unless it has it's lights on, in which case it stands out clearly. > I almost hate to be the one to say it, but that's just plain stupid and > utterly pointless. Do you disconnect the airbags, too? - What is utterly pointless is the comment you just made. And it would have been pointless to have my lights on during the day, just a waste. I didn't disconnect the Airbags, but I wouldn't mind if they were :). Now, can you reply without calling someone stupid, please grace us with some intelligent conversation, next time. > You really don't get it, do you. Several people have already said it, > but I'll reiterate: DRLs are not so the driver can see, they're so the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at any distance, unless it has it's lights on, in which case it stands > out clearly. - Why you people keep trying to correct me, is not making any sense. I never said that DRLs are to help the driver see forward from out of their car, that is plain silly, why do you think that? I do know that DRLs are supposed to help others see you, but in fact they just keep you from seeing all of the inputs that you need to see to drive properly in the daylight. You wish to see cars at a distance, that have no relevance to your current driving position. They are far enough way that they don't even need to be considered by you. In fact, if you are having to strain to see a car in the daylight, then either you can't see or the car is so far away that you shouldn't be noticing it. All you people keep saying is that you want to see cars in the distance, well you already could, but you want to see them farther and farther away, I suppose. So, it is so important that you see cars that are miles away from you that they need to have their lights on in broad daylight, yeah sure, ROTFLOL. Look, all I have said that we need to be able to see all traffic, pedestrians, byciclists and other hazards equally and the only way to do this is to leave the lights off during the day. The answer is not to doubly concentrate to overcome the visual distraction of the lights. The answer is not to see cars that are miles away. The answer is not to call people stupid and make up silly things that were never said. And finally the answer is not to run around with our lights on during the day like a bunch of people with poor eyesight. If you would stop just blindly accepting the next "safety innovation" as a type of gospel and actually use your God given brains, you would understand that people could see other cars before DRLs and they will be able to see the cars just fine after we finally stop shining lights in peoples faces. What has been accomplished here is that you and others of your ilk, have proven that all you can do is poke and prod and call people names. This isn't a little schoolyard, so can you people please stop talking like you are in elementary school and get on with some real conversation. I don't know whether to laugh or cry over you comments, they range between a comedy and a tragedy. Enough of this, either come up with something substantial to say or don't say anything. The collective intellect of this list is creeping downward with your posts, LOL :). God bless, Larry >> I almost hate to be the one to say it, but that's just plain stupid and >> utterly pointless. Do you disconnect the airbags, too? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now, can you reply without calling someone stupid, please grace us with > some intelligent conversation, next time. I didn't call you stupid, I called what you're doing stupid. Infer whatever you want from it. >> You really don't get it, do you. Several people have already said it, >> but I'll reiterate: DRLs are not so the driver can see, they're so the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > never said that DRLs are to help the driver see forward from out of > their car, that is plain silly, why do you think that? Because if you go back and read your own words, you'll see that's exactly what you said several times. > I do know that > DRLs are supposed to help others see you, but in fact they just keep > you from seeing all of the inputs that you need to see to drive > properly in the daylight. Nonsense. Perhaps you're different from the rest of us, but I can see just fine when other cars have DRLs on and I can see them at longer distances, which is precisely what the DRLs are designed to do. FWIW, my eyes are particularly sensitive to glare and bright lights, but I have no problems with DRLs on other cars. > You wish to see cars at a distance, that have no relevance to your > current driving position. They are far enough way that they don't even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so important that you see cars that are miles away from you that they > need to have their lights on in broad daylight, yeah sure, ROTFLOL. Exaggeration is not going to help your case. Of course there are situations where DRLs aren't necessary, no one is disputing that. Seatbelts, airbags, rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety features aren't necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that they should all be removed, too? DRLs help one see the "big picture". Perhaps the vehicle in question is not close enough to need to be actively dealt with, but if it's heading toward you, it may be soon. Additionally, most input when driving is processed on the subconscious level and automatically filtered/prioritized by the brain based on need. > Look, all I have said that we need to be able to see all traffic, > pedestrians, byciclists and other hazards equally and the only way to > do this is to leave the lights off during the day. Again, that's nonsense. DRLs have nothing to do with one's ability to see other things in one's environment. > The answer is not to > doubly concentrate to overcome the visual distraction of the lights. Perhaps YOU find them to be a visual distraction, but that's probably because you don't like them, for whatever reason, so you consciously notice them. I don't find them distracting at all. > The answer is not to see cars that are miles away. No one said that. It's just a red herring that you threw into the discussion. > The answer is not to > call people stupid and make up silly things that were never said. As I said above, I didn't call you stupid and you need to go back and read what YOU wrote. > And > finally the answer is not to run around with our lights on during the > day like a bunch of people with poor eyesight. There you go again. DRLs have nothing to do with drivers' eyesight. They have everything to do with making vehicles more visible to everyone, regardless of their visual acuity. > If you would stop just blindly accepting the next "safety innovation" > as a type of gospel I don't. I specifically eschew "features" that try to be smarter than the driver or substitute technology for driver skill. That's why my car doesn't have ABS or TCS. I prefer to learn how to handle my car in low traction situations than to rely on technologies that work best when you don't need them and are least effective when they're most necessary. I also drive a manual transmission, for similar reasons. > and actually use your God given brains, you would > understand that people could see other cars before DRLs and they will > be able to see the cars just fine after we finally stop shining lights > in peoples faces. And if you would quit obsessing over something as innocuous as DRLs, we could have avoided this whole silly debate. > What has been accomplished here is that you and others of your ilk, > have proven that all you can do is poke and prod and call people names. > This isn't a little schoolyard, so can you people please stop talking > like you are in elementary school and get on with some real > conversation. Oh, brother! Let me guess, next you'll say that you're taking your ball and going home. What you've proven is that you have your opinions engraved in stone and you're completely unwilling to listen to reason. Given that, why bother to even have a discussion? > I don't know whether to laugh or cry over you comments, they range > between a comedy and a tragedy. Whatever that's supposed to mean. > Enough of this, either come up with something substantial to say or > don't say anything. The collective intellect of this list is creeping > downward with your posts, LOL :). Sorry Larry, but you don't get to control the discussion. You have the choice to participate or not, but that's it. You obviously have no interest in what anyone else has to say, so why are you here? Your opinion has been discredited, so you try to demean the whole group in in order to divert attention from the discussion. It seems to me that you're the only one with a problem here. Stay or go as you wish, but don't expect people to agree with you just because you tell them that you're smarter than they are. BTW, I love the way you insult people, then tack on a blessing at the end. How very Christian of you. Is that supposed to make it all better? OK guys I think this has really gone to the end.....time to turn it over to " Mythbusters " let them finger it out. Besides if I can throw in my 2 cents, wernt DRL's really designed at first for the Northeast when some states passsed laws that you had to turn on your headlights when it was raining ??? I remember a firend getting a ticket when involved in an accident because he didnt have his lights on when it was raining. Just my 2 cents ']['unez >>> I almost hate to be the one to say it, but that's just plain stupid and >>> utterly pointless. Do you disconnect the airbags, too? [quoted text clipped - 140 lines] > BTW, I love the way you insult people, then tack on a blessing at the end. > How very Christian of you. Is that supposed to make it all better? Many states have laws which say "if your wipers are on, your headlights must be on." They do issue tickets for this in my area. I wish my car had DRLs so I didn't have to burn my main headlights during the day. Too many people think some Sunday driver granny is driving my Sonata.... well at least until I blow right past them :) > Besides if I can throw in my 2 cents, wernt DRL's really designed at first > for the Northeast when some states passsed laws that you had to turn on your > headlights when it was raining ??? I remember a firend getting a ticket when > involved in an accident because he didnt have his lights on when it was > raining. > Just my 2 cents Many states have laws which say "if your wipers are on, your headlights must be on." They do issue tickets for this in my area. I wish my car had DRLs so I didn't have to burn my main headlights during the day. Too many people think some Sunday driver granny is driving my Sonata.... well at least until I blow right past them :) > Besides if I can throw in my 2 cents, wernt DRL's really designed at first > for the Northeast when some states passsed laws that you had to turn on your > headlights when it was raining ??? I remember a firend getting a ticket when > involved in an accident because he didnt have his lights on when it was > raining. > Just my 2 cents > Exaggeration is not going to help your case. Of course there are > situations where DRLs aren't necessary, no one is disputing that. > Seatbelts, airbags, rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety > features aren't necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that > they should all be removed, too? - The exaggeration is all yours. You have repeatedly spoken about seeing cars at a long distance, that was what you wanted to talk about. You haven't addressed the fact that you can see just fine and drive safely if the cars don't have their lights on. You keep wanting to talk about everything but DRLs, why is that. You can't provide anything that actually supports their use and even acknowledge that, with the exception of long distance, that there are times that DRLs are not necessary, hmmm. Look, you are curious, so I will indulge you: Seatbelts - necessary / airbags - can cause injury to certain passengers, but overall are a safety item, but can be done without based on preference / rollover protection - necessary / CHMSL - necessary. All of these items have a proven safety record, however DRLs do not. So, what is your point, I like them (although I am not a huge fan of airbags, but I haven't been in any rush to get rid of them either). The bottom line is that DRLs are not needed for safety and there are plenty of cars manufactured without them. It is a perfectly normal thing to fix that defect and make the car operate normally. > DRLs help one see the "big picture". Perhaps the vehicle in question is > not close enough to need to be actively dealt with, but if it's heading > toward you, it may be soon. Additionally, most input when driving is > processed on the subconscious level and automatically > filtered/prioritized by the brain based on need. - No, DRLs help one focus on a single car for a moment, to the exclusion of the big picture. If that car in the distance is catching your eye, it shouldn't, you should be scanning the immediate area for things that impact your current drive and not where you will be later. Quite honestly, if you are not having to deal with that car in the distance, it will probably be gone by the time you get there, but the car in front of you is there and you should be looking at it. > Again, that's nonsense. DRLs have nothing to do with one's ability to > see other things in one's environment. - No, not "nonsense", it is a basic fundamental of driving. You are to be alert and scan the area to be ready for any possible hazard or change in the driving condition. People driving with lights on their cars add a stimulant distraction that harms your ability to process all inputs during the moment your eyes focus on the extra input. The mere fact that a persons lights are in the environment that you are viewing makes DRLs play a role in seeing things since you have see the lights along with everything else. > Perhaps YOU find them to be a visual distraction, but that's probably > because you don't like them, for whatever reason, so you consciously > notice them. I don't find them distracting at all. - Good for you, but you are not me. Nor are you the many other people that feel the same. There are plenty of folks turning their lights off, and car companies like Toyota that are, as well, they must all be mistaken then. You can't base the impact of your lights, solely on your own perspective. > No one said that. It's just a red herring that you threw into the > discussion. - No, you want to see cars that are far away. For some strange reason, you focus in on that as the only positive reason to have DRLs. <snip> > There you go again. DRLs have nothing to do with drivers' eyesight. They > have everything to do with making vehicles more visible to everyone, > regardless of their visual acuity. - Ok, so since we can see the cars just fine without the lights. The only reason you would need to add additional stimuli would be because other persons have poor vision. It goes hand in hand. "Visible" is related directly to sight. > I don't. I specifically eschew "features" that try to be smarter than > the driver or substitute technology for driver skill. That's why my car > doesn't have ABS or TCS. I prefer to learn how to handle my car in low > traction situations than to rely on technologies that work best when you > don't need them and are least effective when they're most necessary. I > also drive a manual transmission, for similar reasons. - So, you hate ABS or TCS and want to disable them, even though they do make your driving safer. Hmmm, you must hate everything, just following your line of reasoning from above. How about this: "Seatbelts, airbags, rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety features aren't necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that they should all be removed, too?" What you have just said applies directly to DRLs. They are not affective in the majority of situations and they are placed on certain vehicles and the driver does not always have a choice if they are on or not. You would disable your ABS because you want control over your vehicle for a feature that you don't have to have to drive safely and you know that to be true. How is this unlike removing DRLs when you know full well that they do not enhance your safety, hmmm. You can't be thinking it is stupid for a person to remove something from their car for a similar reason while you doing the same is "smart", sounds pretty hypocritical to me. > And if you would quit obsessing over something as innocuous as DRLs, we > could have avoided this whole silly debate. - The only one obsessing is you. I made some comments, but you got so irritated that you had to call what I said stupid and argue with me. The only reason that I am speaking with you right now is because for whatever reason you want to defend your right to see cars a long way off while irritating others in closer range. You are so adamant that the far off cars need to be lit that you would carry on this kind of conversation with a perfect stranger. I really think that deep down you know that the lights are not helping you and that many people don't like them. You just can't stand it if someone takes exception to what you are doing. > Oh, brother! Let me guess, next you'll say that you're taking your ball > and going home. - No, I wish you would :). > What you've proven is that you have your opinions engraved in stone and > you're completely unwilling to listen to reason. Given that, why bother > to even have a discussion? - No, actually they aren't. However I do know that we can all drive safely without the lights, that hasn't changed. I understand that there are people out there that will do whatever they want to without paying attention to reason or the impact on others. Quite honestly, if people would stop using their headlights as DRLs or drive around with their brights on then it would not be as big a deal. I have no control over what you do, but I do expect you to look at your car and see if it is possible that your lights could be glaring and have some consideration for others. I see no reason for lights during the day, you do. It is fine to disagree. It is not illegal to use your lights during the day, so go for it, but do so with consideration of how your lights will impact others. Reason, wow it would be nice if you were exhibiting some. In general, you haven't added anything to the discussion, other than lighting far away cars :). <snip> > Sorry Larry, but you don't get to control the discussion. - Don't care to :). <snip> > Your opinion has been discredited, - Discredited by what, you haven't actually said anything substantial. > so you try to demean the whole group in in > order to divert attention from the discussion. It seems to me that > you're the only one with a problem here. - This has been what you have been doing. I haven't seen you do anything but be demeaning and stereotyping on this list. You can't accept that there are different opinions and you keep coming time and again. I don't ever remember addressing you in my original comments. You came out of left field to take me head on in a vain attempt to discredit me, not with facts or reasoned opinions, but with comments about things being "stupid" and trying to put words in my mouth. Your actions are clear. > Stay or go as you wish, but > don't expect people to agree with you just because you tell them that type them or > you're smarter than they are. - Same to you, and don't expect people to shut up because you call them stupid or attempt to stereotype or verbally beat them into submission, LOL. > BTW, I love the way you insult people, then tack on a blessing at the > end. How very Christian of you. Is that supposed to make it all better? - I never insulted you, that is your department. I do believe in God and fully believe in honest debate. So, God bless, Larry >> Exaggeration is not going to help your case. Of course there are >> situations where DRLs aren't necessary, no one is disputing that. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You haven't addressed the fact that you can see just fine and drive > safely if the cars don't have their lights on. No, that's not at all what I said. What I said is that DRLs increase the distance at which you can see a car, which can be critical to safety under some conditions. I cited one. Another common scenario is a dark car driving through a shadow area. It can be very difficult or impossible to see on its own, but DRLs make it visible. > You keep wanting to talk about everything but DRLs, why is that. You > can't provide anything that actually supports their use and even > acknowledge that, with the exception of long distance, that there are > times that DRLs are not necessary, hmmm. If you weren't so lazy - or afraid of having your flawed premise blown out of the water - you could have found an abundance of information supporting the use of DRLs with a quick Google search. Here are just the first three that came up when I searched on "effects of daytime running lights: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/library/consultations/consultation_pape r_drl_20060727.pdf http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-97-36.PDF > Look, you are curious, so I will indulge you: Seatbelts - necessary / > airbags - can cause injury to certain passengers, but overall are a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like them (although I am not a huge fan of airbags, but I haven't been > in any rush to get rid of them either). Once more, you're absolutely wrong. Do the research. > The bottom line is that DRLs are not needed for safety and there are > plenty of cars manufactured without them. It is a perfectly normal > thing to fix that defect and make the car operate normally. I don't see them as a defect and apparently neither do the agencies that study and regulate vehicle safety. >> DRLs help one see the "big picture". Perhaps the vehicle in question is >> not close enough to need to be actively dealt with, but if it's heading [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > distance, it will probably be gone by the time you get there, but the > car in front of you is there and you should be looking at it. Not at all. What DRLs do is increase the visibility of objects in your field of view. There is no need to concentrate on anything. The brain processes the input subconsciously >> Again, that's nonsense. DRLs have nothing to do with one's ability to >> see other things in one's environment. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cars add a stimulant distraction that harms your ability to process all > inputs during the moment your eyes focus on the extra input. Perhaps you're limited in how much information you can process, but I don't find it to be a problem at all. > The mere fact that a persons lights are in the environment that you are > viewing makes DRLs play a role in seeing things since you have see the > lights along with everything else. Of course they do, but the way you're phrasing things sounds like your claiming that they aid the vision of the person in the DRL equipped vehicle, which they don't except perhaps in conditions where one should really have their headlights on. If that's not what you mean, fine, but I'm not the only one here that concluded that's what you meant from what you wrote. >> Perhaps YOU find them to be a visual distraction, but that's probably >> because you don't like them, for whatever reason, so you consciously [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mistaken then. You can't base the impact of your lights, solely on your > own perspective. Hmmm. I don't see anyone here jumping to your defense. I guess that makes you the minority, doesn't it? >> No one said that. It's just a red herring that you threw into the >> discussion. > > - No, you want to see cars that are far away. For some strange reason, > you focus in on that as the only positive reason to have DRLs. No, that's not what I said. You know that, but you keep harping on it pointlessly anyway. >> There you go again. DRLs have nothing to do with drivers' eyesight. They >> have everything to do with making vehicles more visible to everyone, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other persons have poor vision. It goes hand in hand. "Visible" is > related directly to sight. No, poor visibility and/or low contrast conditions can limit the visual range of someone with excellent eyesight, as in the examples I cited. It has nothing specific to do with the visual acuity of drivers, though it does have the side effect of making things more visible for those with less than ideal eyesight. Whether they should be driving or not is a separate issue. >> I don't. I specifically eschew "features" that try to be smarter than >> the driver or substitute technology for driver skill. That's why my car [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that they should > all be removed, too?" No, you're misinterpreting what I said. ABS and TCS were options on my car and I chose not to add them. I prefer skill to technology in these areas and I'm willing to work on the necessary skills through practice. There are studies that show that a skilled driver can outperform these systems in many situations. For the average driver, they're well worthwhile. >> And if you would quit obsessing over something as innocuous as DRLs, we >> could have avoided this whole silly debate. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > like them. You just can't stand it if someone takes exception to what > you are doing. No, once again you missed the mark by a country mile. Read the reasearch. >> Oh, brother! Let me guess, next you'll say that you're taking your ball >> and going home. > > - No, I wish you would :). No kidding? Don't hold your breath. >> What you've proven is that you have your opinions engraved in stone and >> you're completely unwilling to listen to reason. Given that, why bother >> to even have a discussion? > > - No, actually they aren't. However I do know that we can all drive > safely without the lights, that hasn't changed. Who are you to speak for "we all"? Obviously, the data suggests otherwise. > I understand that there > are people out there that will do whatever they want to without paying [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > possible that your lights could be glaring and have some consideration > for others. Which is why I don't use fog lights or high beams on when they're not necessary, such as on clear nights when glare can be a significant problem. During the day, it's not an issue, except apparently for you. > I see no reason for lights during the day, you do. It is fine to > disagree. It is not illegal to use your lights during the day, so go > for it, but do so with consideration of how your lights will impact > others. I don't know about where you live, but it's perfectly legal here. In fact, there are stretches of road where daytime headlight use is mandated. Apparently, it helps to prevent accidents in those areas. > Reason, wow it would be nice if you were exhibiting some. In general, > you haven't added anything to the discussion, other than lighting far > away cars :). Read the research. >> Sorry Larry, but you don't get to control the discussion. > > - Don't care to :). Then don't tell people to shut up, just because they don't agree with you. > <snip> > Your opinion has been discredited, > > - Discredited by what, you haven't actually said anything substantial. Read the research. >> so you try to demean the whole group in in >> order to divert attention from the discussion. It seems to me that >> you're the only one with a problem here. > > - This has been what you have been doing. I haven't seen you do > anything but be demeaning and stereotyping on this list. Then you must have spent as much time reading this board as you have reading research on DRL effectiveness. > You can't > accept that there are different opinions and you keep coming time and > again. Of course I can, but I don't suffer fools. Sometimes it's necessary to agree to disagree and that's fine, but in some cases, people post information that is clearly wrong and it should be pointed out. There's also a difference between stating and opinion and stating something as fact. You've offered a lot of opinions here, but no facts to back them up. The studies indicate that you're wrong. > I don't ever remember addressing you in my original comments. > You came out of left field to take me head on in a vain attempt to > discredit me, not with facts or reasoned opinions, but with comments > about things being "stupid" and trying to put words in my mouth. Your > actions are clear. It's an open forum, Larry. You have no control over who reads it or who responds. That's just the nature of Usenet. As for facts, once more, read the research. The facts do not support your opinions. <snip> Brian, You could argue with a paper sack, apparently. You won't be quiet, you keep ranting on an on about research this and that I am wrong about that. I haven't seen anything in your postings that merit any further replies or even anything that supports your position. You have based everything on your personal perception and continue to try to read into my comments things that were never said. You have ignored what I actually said (pro and con links, actual discussion and even agreement with others) and have continued to fight. I don't know why you are fighting and I don't want to know. By the way, this isn't a contest of who can yell the loudest. There are people on here that can talk without attacking others, you could learn allot from these people. I have made the case against DRLs, you have done something, but I am not quite sure, ha ha. You can agree or disagree with me, I really don't care. I am glad to have riled you up, because that shows that this subject really gets under your skin and you have to fight for an idea that you know is flaky, oh well :). Cheers, Larry > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > this subject really gets under your skin and you have to fight for an > idea that you know is flaky, oh well :). Sorry to disappoint you Larry, but I'm not "riled up" as you hoped, nor do I have any particular concern about DRLs. What I do care about is that the information here is accurate or at least that both sides of an issue get presented, so that others reading it can make informed decisions. If you want to continue to post your bizarre opinions on this subject as fact, I'll continue to point out your errors. Your closed-mindedness is evident and your silly diversionary ploys don't work. If you expect people to feel sorry for you or to accept your opinions simply because you keep repeating them, you have a few things to learn about Usenet. > Sorry to disappoint you Larry, but I'm not "riled up" as you hoped, nor > do I have any particular concern about DRLs. What I do care about is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > opinions simply because you keep repeating them, you have a few things > to learn about Usenet. - Sounds like the one who needs to learn about Usenet, is you. The way that you presented your argument has failed, just admit it and go on. The proof of you being affected by this subject is very obvious. The evidence is the lack of clear reasoning in your discussions and the distinct lack of facts, as well. You post fast and fail to make sense, this is because this subject affects you. If you were just simply having a discussion, you would not have carried out such a tirade. You are for DRLs, wonderful, but you haven't made one distinctive point that even supports them. You are grasping at straws and I don't know why you even bother responding. Look, I don't want to know what your issues are, but your response to me shows that you have something going on that causes you to continue this. I really wish that I could help you, but apparently you are beyond assistance. God bless, Larry >> Sorry to disappoint you Larry, but I'm not "riled up" as you hoped, nor >> do I have any particular concern about DRLs. What I do care about is [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I really wish that I could help you, but apparently you are beyond > assistance. Larry, I don't need your help, but perhaps you should seek out professional counsel. You have ignored everything others have presented here and blindly stuck to your opinion, despite the evidence against it. You are in complete denial of the truth, for some strange reason. I tired of arguing with some who acts like an obstinate child. Everyone here can see what you're doing and no one is supporting you or your position. You're wrong. Get over it. Move on. > Larry, I don't need your help, but perhaps you should seek out > professional counsel. You have ignored everything others have presented [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > here can see what you're doing and no one is supporting you or your > position. You're wrong. Get over it. Move on. - You are still being affected by this subject, why? I still don't know, LOL. It would have been nice if you did have some evidence or a line of reasoning, still haven't seen that. Now, buzz off and go play with your friends, ROTFLOL. Cheers, Larry >SNIP> >I don't know whether to laugh or cry over you comments, they range >between a comedy and a tragedy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Larry Your wish is my command. Read: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html I'm not saying that there should be laws designed to force everyone to drive with their headlights or DRL's on in the daytime. I can't stand when the f%)!@%! government trys to tell me what to do. What is annoying is when people who have no idea what they're talking about tell me that something I'm doing is either annoying or dangerous. And, especially someone who has had at least two major accidents caused by not paying attention to the road - you do realize that you could've been responsible for the death of a human being through your inattentiveness. And still, you're proud to say that you drive while talking on a cell phone - real responsible.... I honestly don't give a sh.t what you think about DRL's or that you disconnect yours for whatever reason. It's a free country and it is NOT illegal to drive with or without headlights on in the daytime - so, I'll continue to do so no matter what you think. If that annoys you, then all the better. I think this is done. HJS Hey Homer, There is more out there than just one link. And by the way, I do know what I am talking about, so I have to ignore your negativity. There is no reason for you to be so irritated over this. Here are some links, pro, con and discussion: I was a participant in this discussion (be aware there were some folks that just wanted to be negative, not unlike some of the comments on this list) : http://www.300cforums.com/forums/general-discussion/29156-daytime-running-lights -dlr.html?highlight=larfx http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html http://www.lightsout.org/ http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl/ http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2004...-GRE-53-08e.pdf http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/ http://www.answers.com/topic/daytime-running-lamp http://www.acrs.org.au/collegepolicies/vehicles/daytimerunninglights.html Another discussion, but I had no involvement in it: http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/show...7&highlight=drl God bless, Larry Some of the links in my first reply to Homer are broken. I fixed it in a second post and I am sorry for the multiple postings. Thanks for your time, Larry Hey Homer, There is more out there than just one link. And by the way, I do know what I am talking about, so I have to ignore your negativity. There is no reason for you to be so irritated over this. Here are some links, pro, con and discussion: I was a participant in this discussion (be aware there were some folks that just wanted to be negative, not unlike some of the comments on this list) : http://www.300cforums.com/forums/general-discussion/29156-daytime-running-lights -dlr.html?highlight=larfx http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html http://www.lightsout.org/ http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl/ http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2004/wp29gre/TRANS-WP29-GRE-53-08e.pdf http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/ http://www.answers.com/topic/daytime-running-lamp http://www.acrs.org.au/collegepolicies/vehicles/daytimerunninglights.html Another discussion, but I had no involvement in it: http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4127&highlight=drl God bless, Larry <google@larfx.net> wrote in message > - What is utterly pointless is the comment you just made. And it would > have been pointless to have my lights on during the day, just a waste. What is being wasted? The bulbs are u sually low powered highbeams and last a long time that way. It is n ot a strain on the alternator or battery. Cost over 20 years may be two bucks? > - I do know that > DRLs are supposed to help others see you, but in fact they just keep > you from seeing all of the inputs that you need to see to drive > properly in the daylight. Perhaps you are distracted by them, but I've never heard that complaint from anyone else. Taking your position, that standout distraction is magnified even more at night so perhaps we should not use light at night either. Ig you can show me a situation where thee was an accident cause by DRL on another car, I'll believe you. Meantime, take a look here for some interesting studies. http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm Summary of the Studies U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). In summary, although the studies of DRLs have differed in design, analysis techniques, and outcome measures, the later studies are largely in accordance with the earlier ones, indicating that the overall effect of DRLs on motor vehicle crashes is positive. I'm sure none of this will change your mind though. I only know what I can see myselft and I've nver been distracted by a DRL. This is not to say that a few idiots that hae their high bemas on (an entirely different situation) will n ot give you some glare in daylight, just as at night. > Hi, > > I just had to replace the two low beam bulbs on my Hyundai Elantra. > They both went "out" at the exact same time. At a cost of $17.00 for > each bulb. It's a lot. My Elantra is a 2004. The first was easy to > replace, the second was harder... they don't make it easy do they? Time to learn to shop. You can get bulbs a lot cheaper than that. Even better quality bulbs like Sylvania Silverstars can be had for $25/pair online. BN> Time to learn to shop. You can get bulbs a lot cheaper than that. Even BN> better quality bulbs like Sylvania Silverstars can be had for $25/pair BN> online. Hey Brian, this looks like a lost cause. No matter how you, Edwin and others try you won't convince 'google' that DRLs are a service to others so they can see people like him coming down the road when visibility is not the best. One thing that you proponents (and I am one also) failed to mention is the efficacy of DRLs to the peripheral vision of other drivers when approaching in the other lane from the rear. Nevertheless you and others have raised excellent points so please keep up your positive contributions to the group. That said, I am amazed that certain opinionated and argumentative persons in this newsgroup did not see fit to insert their inputs into this thread. Maybe they might have been more 'convincing' one way or the other. Best Regards Wayne Moses <wmoses@houston.rr.com> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:29:03 -0600 <snip >so > they can see people like him coming down the road when visibility is not > the best. I am convinced that you should have your lights on when visibility is not the best, otherwise known as night, dawn, dusk and inclement weather :). But we already knew all that, glad to be in agreement, thanks for pointing that out. I already turn my lights on when visiblity is low and I recommend that everyone else does as well. Cheers, Larry > BN> Time to learn to shop. You can get bulbs a lot cheaper than that. Even > BN> better quality bulbs like Sylvania Silverstars can be had for $25/pair [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they can see people like him coming down the road when visibility is not > the best. Yeah, I know what you mean. The most important thing is to present the case strongly enough so that others who may read this know the facts. You can't save everyone from themselves, but you can help others avoid making potentially serious mistakes. > One thing that you proponents (and I am one also) failed to mention is the > efficacy of DRLs to the peripheral vision of other drivers when approaching > in the other lane from the rear. Good point. > Nevertheless you and others have raised excellent points so please keep up > your positive contributions to the group. > > That said, I am amazed that certain opinionated and argumentative persons > in this newsgroup did not see fit to insert their inputs into this thread. > Maybe they might have been more 'convincing' one way or the other. Well, the fact that some of us disagree strongly on some issues doesn't mean that we disagree on them all. I certainly wouldn't argue with someone I thought was correct, simply to have an argument. > Yeah, I know what you mean. The most important thing is to present the > case strongly enough so that others who may read this know the facts. > You can't save everyone from themselves, but you can help others avoid > making potentially serious mistakes. - That is great, but you haven't presented a case. Was it somewhere in between calling everyone that disagreed with you an idiot and making stuff up about people? Oh yeah, it was the case for seeing cars a long way away, just remembered, LOL :). <snip> > Well, the fact that some of us disagree strongly on some issues doesn't > mean that we disagree on them all. I certainly wouldn't argue with > someone I thought was correct, simply to have an argument. - Well, you simply do argue and it seems to be all you are capable of doing. You certainly are not gifted with honest discussion and can't seem to take the time to pin down any true rational to your comments. You are a curiosity that I found interesting for a brief period, you have presented an adequate case study of what happens when people type before they think :). Have a good one and God bless, Larry >> Yeah, I know what you mean. The most important thing is to present the >> case strongly enough so that others who may read this know the facts. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > have presented an adequate case study of what happens when people type > before they think :). And the silliness continues...<yawn> You still haven't figured out that you're a lone voice crying in the wind, have you? Larry, all you've done is present your OPINIONS, which are not supported by the research on the subject. Claiming something is true doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you do it. <snip> > Larry, all you've done is present your OPINIONS, which are not supported > by the research on the subject. Claiming something is true doesn't make > it so, no matter how many times you do it. - No, I presented actual links and actual observances of more than just my own. Go back and open your eyes to what I have posted. Yes, I did present my opinions, as well, duh. See if you can show that you presented nothing more than your opinions, I don't remember you actually proving any facts in defense of your assertion that people need their lights on in broad daylight. What is next, you will be supporting Daylight Running Horns to alert people to your presence, oh yes I am sure that you could "make a case" for that, as well. Look, you have your opinions, I have mine. I have shown that we went for many many years without DRLs and would do just fine without them. But you seem to think that we need to see cars in the next county, LOL, you can't be serious. I have the history of use of lights during the day, the fact that many states had it as illegal before NHSTA allowed it, the fact that the majority of manufacturers see no reason to have them, that there is no direct evidence of DRLs being an actual safety feature and that there are studies that indicate that DRLs are actually detrimental to safety. I have offered up reasoned opinions on masking and the focus of distraction of the lights. You, however only talk about long distance usage to see a car far off and that in your opinion anyone that disagrees with your opinions is an idiot. In your defense, I think that you might have referenced one fact?? Anyway, you need to learn how to debate. I am still laughing at you and enjoying the fact that you continue to respond. It is as if you just can't help yourself. I wonder if you could care less about this subject, but go around picking fights, hmmm. Cheers, Larry ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Larry > I am still laughing at you and enjoying the fact that you continue to > respond. So finally you reveal your true character and intentions. You're just another pathetic troll. Shame on me for not realizing that sooner. > So finally you reveal your true character and intentions. You're just > another pathetic troll. Shame on me for not realizing that sooner. - By the way, there are not any Trolls on Usenet, I figured you would have known that. Especially since there is not any membership requirements, hmmm. Yes, I laugh at you. I laugh at anyone who calls people names and spouts off with no facts. You keep doing it over and over. The point of your continued posting is what? :), Larry |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.