John Dirks Jr Posted February 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 I love number 8 > The people in favor of DRLs are so dimwitted and have such weak positions that DRLs must really be bad. Wow, some scientific effort must have gone into that article! You do understand it's hyperbole, don't you? He could have phrased it better, and he did go on to explain what he meant with a correlation. You didn't take that personally, did you? The article is out dated and many of it's claims do not apply to the specific (add on ) DRL's I installed. Outdated? It's seven years newer than the one you posted, plus it's written with US based references. That article is mostly junk in my opinion. I thought it was pretty good, with him laying his case out pretty solidly. Of course, if your mind is already made up the other way ....... No, I did not take it personally. I did think it was a poor way to add to a case. The general attitude causes less credibility in my opinion. The article assumes that a DRL system uses the main headlights and just makes them come on when ever the engine is running. Nowadays, DRL's are stand alone (separate lights) in many cases so many of the points in that article do not apply. I can't say that just because it references US sources that it's better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dirks Jr Posted February 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Tell me why it is that you now see a resurgence of LED DRL's on newer higher end vehicles. Is this a resurgence of the "dimwits" ? Do you know how many useless features are are packed into high end vehicles? That's how they sell a Toyota for the price of a Lexus. While a feature could be useless to one person, it could be essential to another. I don't agree that engineers and designers have a habit of packing useless features into cars. It's a matter of opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'd suggest that it's a more a matter of what sells. When the feds says a feature is needed for safety, it's then a matter of complying with the law, not even then is it a matter of safety. A lot in this society can be explained by understanding the influence of the dollar. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtblum Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 A lot in this society can be explained by understanding the influence of the dollar. Yup. Insurance providers. I don't agree that engineers and designers have a habit of packing useless features into cars. Ever heard of antilock brakes? Useless and arguably more dangerous in snow country. It's ok though. Most of us have learned how to out drive them and stop when we need to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Morrison Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Sam Harris published an interesting, tangentially related article a few weeks back. People like to cling to their beliefs. If you are truly attached to the belief that your headlights keep you safer, then no amount of reason will dissuade you from that notion. Wood fires are another example: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtblum Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Let me throw this one in, too. Because You're too stupid to think for yourself. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/0 ... rs-in-2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.