>At 13:00 18-09-98 -0400, James Wagner wrote:
>>What about the color a car has been painted?  Before making expensive and
>>energy wasting attempts to solve the problem of low visibility........
>
>The claims in this debate are getting very humourous.  How much do you
>figure this technology costs?  DRLs use existing ignition and headlight
>switches, existing headlights and existing wiring.  I don't know the
>particulars but I am guessing there is an extra component or two of extra
>electrical hardware that makes an ordinary vehicle into a DRL vehicle.
>When applied to every vehicle produced, how much do you figure this adds to
>the cost?  I would bet we are talking a dollar or two.  The outrageous
>expense argument is right up there with the glare argument and the "until
>everyone drives perfectly..." argument in being utterly ridiculous.  As for
>painting all cars white, I am just going to leave this one alone.:-)

How is this humorous.  Color is the least expensive, most-practical solution
to the problems of visibility.  There is no additional cost to use different
colors.  The facilities already exist to implement this.  If this solution
somehow seems humorous, then the whole problem is humorous.  It's like
complaining that you can't hear someone talking a mile away.  It's simply a
human limit and is not a problem unless the limit is not recognized.

If you really want to compare costs, try looking a bit closer at how much
research and design goes into every part of an automobile.  I worked on a
project with Ford where they wanted to eliminate a spring that costs less
than a dollar.  Quite a bit of man power and research time went into trying
to do so.  And then add the effect on neighborhoods.  Light Pollution is
certainly a reality.  I live on a fairly busy street where my room gets
illuminated by passing traffic, high beams or not.  Mandating DRL's is going
to create many new problems and will not necessarily make anything better.

James Wagner