Daytime Running Lights Standardization Needed?

Running lights seem to be a step in the right direction for safety. You
begin to appreciate their value on open two-lane highways where these
lights help to spot oncoming traffic prior to initiating overtaking.
Without lights, opposing traffic often blends into the background making
distance judgments difficult.

One problem I have picked up on is the horizontal spacing of driving lamps
are not standardized. It is the angular spacing of the lights which gives
the eye the necessary cues to judge distance of the oncoming traffic.
Standardization of running lights will definitely improve the ability to
judge the proximity of traffic in the opposite lane and make overtaking a
safer proposition.

Theoretically, you should also be able to judge the speed of the opposing
traffic as well, by the dynamic increasing apparent spacing of the driving
lights, but that will remain problematic at the ranges where the pass
begins.

My recommendation at this point is that electrical circuitry should be
configured to operate the standard headlamps only and at partial
brightness. In the future, the spacing of the headlamps should be stated
as a min-max spec., the maximum waived for narrow bodied vehicles and
motorcycles.

 

Lack of uniform spacing between the DRLs is only one of the problems
with these ill-conceived and badly implemented things, but it's a biggy!

 

Why? The few occasions when they actually help, you can reach your hand
over and flip the switch yourself to turn on your own head lights. They
make as much sense as automatic windshield wipers. I don't see anyone
trying to force those down our throats.

Except for low light conditions, you should be able to spot cars coming
in the opposite direction and then gauge their distance. If you can't
see them, you need to get your eyes examined.

Under normal lighting conditions it is not that difficult.

What is your background that you think anyone should be listening to your
recommedations?

 

If you were right, I'd agree with you!

If I had a switch that turned on YOUR lights, so I could see YOU, I'd
agree with you.

Dan

 

DRL's are normally the cars headlamps, so spacing is not really an issue..
the Swedes have had them for years now.. Canada also subscribes..
motorcycles have no choice.. there is no doubt that DRL's make vehicles way
more visible, but that is what lights are all about.. SEE and BE SEEN.. what
should be a jailable offence is running around with one headlamp not
working..

 

If you can't see me during day light hours, then I wish I could send
you to the eye doctor to get your eyes checked out. Same logic.
Makes as much sense.

 

| Running lights seem to be a step in the right direction
for safety. You
| begin to appreciate their value on open two-lane highways
where these
| lights help to spot oncoming traffic prior to initiating
overtaking.
| Without lights, opposing traffic often blends into the
background making
| distance judgments difficult.

30+ years of driving, most without DRLs, I have always been
able to see and judge oncoming traffic distance and speed
safely enough in daytime lighting conditions to successfully
negiotiate thousands of passing maneuvers. But, really my
anecdotal results (or that of any single person) is hardly a
large enough sampling of data to draw any valid conclusions.

| One problem I have picked up on is the horizontal spacing
of driving lamps
| are not standardized. It is the angular spacing of the
lights which gives
| the eye the necessary cues to judge distance of the
oncoming traffic.
| Standardization of running lights will definitely improve
the ability to
| judge the proximity of traffic in the opposite lane and
make overtaking a
| safer proposition.

Great observation. But that's just the beginnings of the
problems with DRLs. But, I know, you're talking about the
Saturns here, and I agree. The DRLs on Saturns are so close
together that they _can_ give the false impression that the
vehicle is much further away than it actually is. Try a
pass and head-on city! It would be better (and safer) if
the DRLs were off.

| Theoretically, you should also be able to judge the speed
of the opposing
| traffic as well, by the dynamic increasing apparent
spacing of the driving
| lights, but that will remain problematic at the ranges
where the pass
| begins.

It wouldn't be "problematic" by not having them at all. One
can certainly see the entire vehicle extremely well under
natural daytime ambient lighting. Seeing the entire spacial
aspects of the car/truck (not just two spotlights) would go
a LONG way to properly judging distance/speed.

| My recommendation at this point is that electrical
circuitry should be
| configured to operate the standard headlamps only and at
partial
| brightness. In the future, the spacing of the headlamps
should be stated
| as a min-max spec., the maximum waived for narrow bodied
vehicles and
| motorcycles.

I recommend completely OFF.

Question. Why would you take a lamp assembly that directs
the majority of its 55 watts of light output below
horizontal and at the ground in front of the car and say
that makes a good DRL? That setup makes a VERY POOR DRL.
IF you were going to build a DRL, you would build a separate
lamp assembly, one that directs most of it's light forward
in a wide beam pattern that is above horizontal using a ~12
(or less) watt lamp (or better yet, using long life white
LED arrays properly aimed).


May I suggest some reading homework?

First, you mentioned motorcycles. I suggest you read the
2003 Perot & Prowler study and the adverse impacts
automobile DRLs are having to the accident rates and safety
of motorcyclists. The study is on file at the NHTSA.

In general, may I suggest that you look up the 1997 DRL
study by the Highway Loss Data Institute (The 1997 HLDI
Study). Unlike GM that has a financial interest in a
certain outcome, the HLDI study is very comprehensive and
unbiased...probably one of the best ones out there. Once
you've read it and found out that accident rates with the
DRL equipped vehicles were actually 8% _higher_ that the
vehicles without DRLs, then come back and explain to us why
the DRLs are safer again. The go ahead and read GM's recent
press release. Yes, the very specific types of accidents
they cite are reduced. But what they don't tell us
(purposeful omission for the desire to deceive) is that
other accident types are increased (Rear end collisions
among others, for example). GM (and the politicians that
have passed DRL laws) cherry pick the results and only relay
the parts of the studies that make their case. Read ALL of
the material. If you still feel the way you do, then fine.
But I suggest you read up on the material, avoid "listening"
to tainted sources before you make safety claims that are
far from proven. Avoid those studies commissioned by GM,
and governments trying to prove their cases. Read only the
studies that are commissioned by unbiased entities.

Then look up insurance loss data over the past 7-8 years.
Then come back and tell us with a straight face that
"accident loss averages" with DRL equipped vehicles are
lower compared with other non-DRL vehicles.

Now, if you're interested in personal examples of problems
the general population seems to be having with DRLs, I
suggest you read through the public comments section of
Docket 4124 at the NHTSA web site at http://www.nhtsa.com/
It may open your eyes wide (if you can stand the glare of
truth!) Pun intended!

Now, do your homework and report back!

 

Submission of homework.. there are pro's and con's.. the Pro's have it..


http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-drls01.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-dll-bd.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/argumnts.htm
http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm
http://autonet.ca/AutonetStories/Stories.cfm?StoryID=10167


-- History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..

 

Those cars just need to paraphrase the sideview mirror warning on a big
sign suspended over the car: "CAUTION: THIS CAR MAY BE CLOSER THAN IT
APPEARS". Of course that message would need to be on their in five
different languages in California. A separate SUV may be needed to haul
the sign around (kind of like the "WIDE LOAD" situations), and the sign
would be designed to be aerodynamic so that the SUV will get better gas
mileage. 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Canadians drive daily without the problems that have been highlighted in
these threads.. most believe that it saves lives, and the statistics are
there to prove the point.. I have lived and driven in Europe for a time, and
I liked the headlights there.. they have cut-offs which allow for a much
better beam without the glare.. it is accepted that Euro lights are better
designed than their North American counterparts.. US DOT approved headlights
are archaic and useless.. coming back to these shores, I have realized just
how bad they are.. I will be looking to fit Euro lights to my Jeep GC soon..

The simple truth is that US citizens do not like being told what to do, even
if it is in their own interests.. reading through some of the forums, I see
stuff like "DRL's blind oncoming traffic in normal daylight".. absolute
bullshit.. the relative brightness of normal daylight is well above the
brightness of headlight systems, and all that can be seen is that the lights
are switched on.. one is more likely to be blinded by the sun reflecting off
of chrome..

If more people used their lights when they should, the DRL situation would
never have arisen.. the fact that some claimed that they could see ok
overlooked the point that others may not be able to see them.. it is not a
question of judging distances.. it is a question of being seen by others who
have to use the roads (pedestrians included).. even now, some will not use
the cars lighting system in adverse conditions on the premis that they can
see well enough.. I think that there is a good case for lighting systems
that come on automatically as the light level drops.. no doubt there will be
an outcry from the US civil liberties groups that it is anti-constitutional
to enforce drivers to use lights when they don't want to..

DRL's are here to stay.. live with it..

 

I am a Canadian who has driven with DRL's for a number of years, and
frankly, I wouldn't want to be without them. I find them invaluable when
attempting to spot oncoming traffic, particularly at dawn, dusk and murky
days. They really show up on a car when the setting sun is shining brightly
behind it. I recall many, many years ago (I think sometime in the 60's),
when someone had the 'bright' idea of marketing a single white light
installed on the front of the car which illuminated when the ignition switch
was activated. The idea didn't go over well then and didn't catch on, but I
thought it was super at the time, especially on 2-lane highways. I could
see that white light at least 1.5 miles away. If the manufacturers decide
to put DRL's on your new vehicles, go for it. They are really worth it. In
Canada, I believe it was done by attrition...only new cars were compelled to
have them, and older cars were exempt.

 

How in the world do you manage to see the pre-1990 cars without DRLs? is
Transport Canada going to declare all of them safety hazards and have
them taken away from their owners?

 

You just have to wait until they get closer. Sometimes you don't see
them until they are too close!

Dan

 

No, but Darwin takes over. Pre 1990 cars in the "canadian rust belt"
are getting pretty rare - and many of us who own and drive them
automatically pull the headlamp switch as soon as we start the car.
My dark blue 16 year old Chrysler is easy to see with the headlights
on.
I started driving with "daylights" in the sixties when we were
REQUIRED to drive with headlights on when rallying. Got to be second
nature.

 

Ah, you need to omit those that are commissioned by entities
that have either financial or political interest in the
outcomes.

| Submission of homework.. there are pro's and con's.. the
Pro's have it..
|
|
| http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-drls01.html
| http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-dll-bd.html
| http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm
| http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/argumnts.htm
| http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm
| http://autonet.ca/AutonetStories/Stories.cfm?StoryID=10167
|
|
| -- History is only the past if we choose to do nothing
about it..
|
| | > | > | Running lights seem to be a step in the right
direction
| > for safety. You
| > | begin to appreciate their value on open two-lane
highways
| > where these
| > | lights help to spot oncoming traffic prior to
initiating
| > overtaking.
| > | Without lights, opposing traffic often blends into the
| > background making
| > | distance judgments difficult.
| >
| > 30+ years of driving, most without DRLs, I have always
been
| > able to see and judge oncoming traffic distance and
speed
| > safely enough in daytime lighting conditions to
successfully
| > negiotiate thousands of passing maneuvers. But, really
my
| > anecdotal results (or that of any single person) is
hardly a
| > large enough sampling of data to draw any valid
conclusions.
| >
| > | One problem I have picked up on is the horizontal
spacing
| > of driving lamps
| > | are not standardized. It is the angular spacing of
the
| > lights which gives
| > | the eye the necessary cues to judge distance of the
| > oncoming traffic.
| > | Standardization of running lights will definitely
improve
| > the ability to
| > | judge the proximity of traffic in the opposite lane
and
| > make overtaking a
| > | safer proposition.
| >
| > Great observation. But that's just the beginnings of
the
| > problems with DRLs. But, I know, you're talking about
the
| > Saturns here, and I agree. The DRLs on Saturns are so
close
| > together that they _can_ give the false impression that
the
| > vehicle is much further away than it actually is. Try a
| > pass and head-on city! It would be better (and safer)
if
| > the DRLs were off.
| >
| > | Theoretically, you should also be able to judge the
speed
| > of the opposing
| > | traffic as well, by the dynamic increasing apparent
| > spacing of the driving
| > | lights, but that will remain problematic at the ranges
| > where the pass
| > | begins.
| >
| > It wouldn't be "problematic" by not having them at all.
One
| > can certainly see the entire vehicle extremely well
under
| > natural daytime ambient lighting. Seeing the entire
spacial
| > aspects of the car/truck (not just two spotlights) would
go
| > a LONG way to properly judging distance/speed.
| >
| > | My recommendation at this point is that electrical
| > circuitry should be
| > | configured to operate the standard headlamps only and
at
| > partial
| > | brightness. In the future, the spacing of the
headlamps
| > should be stated
| > | as a min-max spec., the maximum waived for narrow
bodied
| > vehicles and
| > | motorcycles.
| >
| > I recommend completely OFF.
| >
| > Question. Why would you take a lamp assembly that
directs
| > the majority of its 55 watts of light output below
| > horizontal and at the ground in front of the car and say
| > that makes a good DRL? That setup makes a VERY POOR
DRL.
| > IF you were going to build a DRL, you would build a
separate
| > lamp assembly, one that directs most of it's light
forward
| > in a wide beam pattern that is above horizontal using a
~12
| > (or less) watt lamp (or better yet, using long life
white
| > LED arrays properly aimed).
| >
| >
| > May I suggest some reading homework?
| >
| > First, you mentioned motorcycles. I suggest you read
the
| > 2003 Perot & Prowler study and the adverse impacts
| > automobile DRLs are having to the accident rates and
safety
| > of motorcyclists. The study is on file at the NHTSA.
| >
| > In general, may I suggest that you look up the 1997 DRL
| > study by the Highway Loss Data Institute (The 1997 HLDI
| > Study). Unlike GM that has a financial interest in a
| > certain outcome, the HLDI study is very comprehensive
and
| > unbiased...probably one of the best ones out there.
Once
| > you've read it and found out that accident rates with
the
| > DRL equipped vehicles were actually 8% _higher_ that the
| > vehicles without DRLs, then come back and explain to us
why
| > the DRLs are safer again. The go ahead and read GM's
recent
| > press release. Yes, the very specific types of
accidents
| > they cite are reduced. But what they don't tell us
| > (purposeful omission for the desire to deceive) is that
| > other accident types are increased (Rear end collisions
| > among others, for example). GM (and the politicians
that
| > have passed DRL laws) cherry pick the results and only
relay
| > the parts of the studies that make their case. Read ALL
of
| > the material. If you still feel the way you do, then
fine.
| > But I suggest you read up on the material, avoid
"listening"
| > to tainted sources before you make safety claims that
are
| > far from proven. Avoid those studies commissioned by
GM,
| > and governments trying to prove their cases. Read only
the
| > studies that are commissioned by unbiased entities.
| >
| > Then look up insurance loss data over the past 7-8
years.
| > Then come back and tell us with a straight face that
| > "accident loss averages" with DRL equipped vehicles are
| > lower compared with other non-DRL vehicles.
| >
| > Now, if you're interested in personal examples of
problems
| > the general population seems to be having with DRLs, I
| > suggest you read through the public comments section of
| > Docket 4124 at the NHTSA web site at
http://www.nhtsa.com/
| > It may open your eyes wide (if you can stand the glare
of
| > truth!) Pun intended!
| >
| > Now, do your homework and report back!
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|

 

| Canadians drive daily without the problems that have been
highlighted in
| these threads.. most believe that it saves lives, and the
statistics are
| there to prove the point..

Hmmm... One statistic originally mentioned years ago to
"prove the point" (but isn't mentioned much any more since
it's been widely debunked) is that Canada had a 8% (or 9%, I
can't remember) reduction in accident rates the year after
DRLs were mandated by law. But across the border for the
same two years the US had a 12% (I think it was) reduction
in accidents by doing nothing. Obviously there were other
factors that year (weather patterns perhaps) that had a
impact on the number of accidents. One could argue that
given those facts, Canada actually may have lost ground in
the matter.

| I have lived and driven in Europe for a time, and
| I liked the headlights there.. they have cut-offs which
allow for a much
| better beam without the glare.. it is accepted that Euro
lights are better
| designed than their North American counterparts.. US DOT
approved headlights
| are archaic and useless.. coming back to these shores, I
have realized just
| how bad they are.. I will be looking to fit Euro lights to
my Jeep GC soon..

I would agree with your statement that a better design
exists on european headlamps. But then they would be even
less effective as DRLs if 90+% of the light were aimed at
the street in the daytime...what a waste of energy (and
cause of unnecessary associated pollution)!

| The simple truth is that US citizens do not like being
told what to do, even
| if it is in their own interests..

No doubt...and that is somehow now become a bad thing? One
test of liberty is for one to make ones own cost-benefit
analysis with as little government imposition as possible.
Even if some politician can somehow claim (real or not
doesn't matter) that something is for ones own good, should
a law imposing that persons "view" be accepted by the
masses? One _should_ be able to make a decision that X
marginal benefit is worth X cost? Yes/No OR, does X
marginal benefit really exist in the 1st place? Maybe
Canadians want to be told what to do, but you are correct
that those in the US cringe at that very idea (for good
historical reasons).

You don't see a danger in the premise of government
imposition in these marginal matters with many examples in
history?

My guess is that Canada isn't as proactive in getting public
comment from it's citizens is more the reasons why less of
this is heard from those citizens. I see that as a very bad
thing.

| reading through some of the forums, I see
| stuff like "DRL's blind oncoming traffic in normal
daylight".. absolute
| bullshit..

Many people, especially aging people (which we all will be
some day) have light sensative eyeballs. What seems
acceptable to you can be quite painful for someone else.
Why do you doubt what people claim are personal experience?
I'm curious why you wouldn't believe them. I don't have
glare "pain", (well at least not serious pain), but I
believe those that say they do.

| the relative brightness of normal daylight is well above
the
| brightness of headlight systems, and all that can be seen
is that the lights
| are switched on.. one is more likely to be blinded by the
sun reflecting off
| of chrome..

Bingo, the glare of the sun at high noon off of shiny
vehicle surfaces certainly make a vehicle VERY visable
without lights. You've figured out the truth...I'm happy
for you! In some cases I've noticed, in situations you
mention, you can hardly tell the cars with DRLs from the
ones without. BUT the high beam DRL on a truck behind you
even in the daytime can be quite bright in the rear mirror
at a stoplight in other daylight situations. Not sure why
one has to deal with high beams in their mirrors when
sitting completely still waiting at a traffic light, but
that is a sad rediculous reality these days!

When you were a kid...did you ever shine a 2 D-cell
flashlight into your grandma's eyes in the daytime. I
have...she winced terribly over the pain (and yelled at me
quite loudly!). And that is a light source of 3-5 watts
(vs. 55 watts). Some people experience pain from focused
light sources...it's simply is a fact.

| If more people used their lights when they should, the DRL
situation would
| never have arisen..

Perhaps. Poor reason, however.

| the fact that some claimed that they could see ok
| overlooked the point that others may not be able to see
them.. it is not a
| question of judging distances.. it is a question of being
seen by others who
| have to use the roads (pedestrians included)..

Do you really believe this? Why would a normal person have
any trouble whatsoever seeing something in broad daylight?
It is a such a rediculous assertion it is simply not to be
believed. How in the world did we ever get by during the
previous 100 years of driving? Now, if you're speaking of
someone with a vision imparement, then I would agree light
may help them...but I wouldn't want them driving at all.

| even now, some will not use
| the cars lighting system in adverse conditions on the
premis that they can
| see well enough..

No question, I would agree. Give them a ticket, fine and
points on their license. Better yet driver training would
also be helpful. It's better to make people smarter not
even more "dumbed down".

| I think that there is a good case for lighting systems
| that come on automatically as the light level drops..

Absolutely NOT. I had a car with a "auto" light control
system. It almost never would turn the lights on when it
was foggy or snowing during the day. OR it would turn them
on when I left the house on a foggy morning commute (from
shade from trees in the yard), then somewhere on the way to
work the car would turn my lights off (and it was still
foggy out) without the benefit of my informed consent.
Several people I know with GM's auto system have the same
problem. Others I've told that their lights were off when
they arrived at the office, didn't even now it. How
wonderful auto systems are....NOT! Plus, with the DRLs
providing a false visual queue that the lights are still on,
they can't always tell for sure if their real lights are on
or not (or if their real lights went off without their
knowledge). The "auto" idea sounds good, but in practice
rarely does it work correctly or reliably (except only for
night use, which is probably only half of the time ALL
lights are legally required). All state laws specifically
identify the "operator" as the responsible party for control
of the vehicles lighting systems NOT the manufacturer. A
useless "auto" system based solely on outdoor ambient light
levels that can't apply proper cognative decision processes
to know when there is "limited sight distance below 1000
feet" (from Maryland vehicle lighting code), is not a
reasonable solution. It promotes incorrect behavior...just
the oposite of what should be promoted. The solution is to
give citations and/or driver training as part of
relicensing, NOT implement something that makes lighting
even more confusing (or non-thinking) for the average
person.

By the way, rear end collisions are a accident category that
occur at a greater rate with DRL equipped vehicles. I'm
open to your thoughts as to why that is.

| no doubt there will be
| an outcry from the US civil liberties groups that it is
anti-constitutional
| to enforce drivers to use lights when they don't want to..

Laws DO exist requireing lighting for certain ambient or
incliment weather conditions and one can be ticketed for not
complying with the law. That is different then what you're
suggesting...which is to take the decision process away from
the operator/driver. Yes, some of us would have a problem
with that, I think.

| DRL's are here to stay.. live with it..

People got excited over the pet rock too, proclaiming they
were here to stay. If so, why is the NHTSA taking 9 years
to make a final rule? Don't be a lemming and buy into the
marketing stuff. GM and the politicians just want you to
buy their cars or vote for them under a myrad of false
premis. This is just one of them. It's all out there to
sucker you in...don't let it for Pete's sake!

 

you won't find a gm car in my drive way and it's because the say the lites
have to be on at all times
it's my right to choose that option not theirs

 

[SNIP]

| They really show up on a car when the setting sun is
shining brightly
| behind it.

A dark unlit object in silhouette in front of a bright
background in much more visible than a object illuminated to
near the same level as the background . In World War II
pilots used variable-intensity floodlights on airplanes for
the purpose of _masking_ their approach on a target. Your
assertion is simply proven as incorrect decades ago.

 

... and here we have the real reason for the problem with DRL's.. the
arguments about them being unsafe are a smoke screen.. the truth is that US
motorists want control of when they use headlights.. yet another case when
wording in the 1st Amendment is used to allow people to do whatever they
want, regardless of the effects that their actions may have on others..
hardly in the true spirit of the Amendment but words are words, I am told..

 

and for the record, I have a problem driving at night in North America..
continually blinded by poorly adjusted and badly designed headlamps.. I hate
driving at night for that reason..

Re. DRL's being less effective in Euro form.. this is simply not true..
DRL's do not drive their effectiveness by the beams being aligned 'line of
sight'.. DRL's are probably most effective where pedestrians both young and
old are concerned.. I would be interested to hear your views on child safety
and the road..

Re. Cost of using DRL's.. lol.. Boeing claim that it is cheaper to pay
lawsuits than to change design to make airplanes safer.. that is how much US
companies and people value the lives of others.. using DRL's doesn't lead to
yearly failure of headlight bulbs, or anything close.. bulbs are maybe
US$6.00 each.. that will hardly break the bank even if it was a yearly
replacement cost.. and all to make it safer for kids..

Canadians are as proactive as anybody else, but they do not extend the
wording in any constitution to the detriment of the masses.. I think that
anybody who uses the wording of the first Amendment to bypass safety issues
is doing a disservice to the people that wrote it up..

Shining a flashlight into Grandma's eyes at point blank range?.. lol..
hardly in the same category as an approaching car with DRL's activated..

Auto headlight systems are designed to work in low level lighting..
fog/falling snow does not fall into the category of low light level.. if you
take a manual slr camera out into fog and operate the light meter, you will
find that closing the aperture of the lens is necessary to get a pic..
ambient light levels in fog are actually quite high even tho visibilty may
be impaired.. Canadian vehicles have DRL's on permanently, so the auto
function, if fitted, will work when light levels fall, ie dusk onwards.. it
is the responsibilty of the vehicle user to ensure that ALL running lights
are switched on and maintained properly, cleaned and operational, for the
benefit of ALL other road users.. please note that it is not just vehicles
that use the roads.. pedestrians are out there too..

That GM have chosen to use high beam as DRL's is an issue to be taken up
with them.. It is unfair to blame Canada for it.. but in your own words, GM
have opted to standardise the DRL function in alignment with Canada
presumably for COST reasons, but that is their right, right?..

US DOT must do something about headlamps generally.. they will not want to
take the Euro route because the French are part of Euro and no way will they
do anything that the French do.. even if it is in the general safety
interests of US citizens.. here we are back at the Boeing thing.. better to
stumble forwards with old practices rather than address a safety issue that
will require many $$$ to fix..

It irks me to think that the lives of my two kids are not even worth
US$12.00 to somebody else.. I wonder what kind of lawsuit I would face if I
were to take the same attitude with somebody else's kids.. I can just see
the look on the parents face as I tell the judge that $12.00 was more than I
thought reasonable to pay such that my vehicle could be seen..

As for the argument that flashing main beam to warn others becomes
impossible with DRL's, tell me this.. if a driver flashes main beam, is it
indicate 1. get the f&%k out of the way, I am coming thru.. 2. By all means
take precedence over my progress.. 3. oops, I meant to use the wash/wipe on
my bug-laden windshield, but still get the f&%k out of the way.. 4. Hey
Grandma, remember the flashlight?.. 5. the cops have radar down the road
aways, back it on down.. 6. this one is a French practice.. flash main beam
on highways to indicate that one is about to pass the vehicle in front.. 7.
Yes, big wheeler, it is ok to pull back into the lane..