To whom it may concern:
 You guys really blew it this time. Where did you get the idea for these ill conceived
DRL lights? The factory installed ones are bad enough, but the morons who think that this is
a "safety Device" run their high beams in traffic, thinking that if a little is good, then more
must be better.  Every time I go to work, I'm blasted by these blinding lights. People I have
spoken to either condemn them as a stupid idea, or tell me that they stop scanning the road
when they are faced with them. Anybody that I have asked who was running their lights
during the day say that "they" say it is safer. Nobody knows who "they" are. I propose that this
mysterious "they" are is G.M. The fact that the petition to get these lights made legal came
from IIHS backed by G.M. and their money. This is one of the most flagrant examples of the
"Golden Rule" ( he with the gold makes the rules) since Bill Clinton debauched the office of
the Presidency! You guys need to drive your own cars in traffic and see the hell you have
wrought!
 Improper, annoying and aggressive use of lights is one of the P.C.C.s of road rage! I
know, that after my commute, I am often so angry by the lack of common courtesy and
intelligence of my fellow "drivers" that I can hardly contain it!

Here are my main reasons for rejecting the proposal:

1.  NHTSA has admitted they could prove NO benefit to the
use of DRLs.  By allowing them as an option they are in no way
stopping others from marketing them as safety features.  This
needs to stop, otherwise more people will be misled into
believing they are a safety feature and ultimately it will be
easier to make them mandatory.

2.  By choosing the path of DRLs,  NHTSA is inadvertently
diverting money, time and energy from the pursuit of true
safety features at the expense of untold deaths and injuries
that could have been prevented. Teaching people to drive in
a more competent manner and improving law enforcement
are the two things that you never seem to even consider!
 
3.  NHTSA has completely ignored concerns over the possible
negative effects of DRLs.  Most obvious is the Highway Loss
Data Institutes finding that in 1995 and 1996, there was a
net increase in injury claims in the US since DRLs were
instituted.  DRLs must be considered a possible cause for this.
Is this going to be the same kind of circus caused by the AIR BAG?

4.  The possible negative effects on MOTORCYCLISTS,
PEDESTRIANS and BICYCLISTS who will become lost in a
sea of glare, visual clutter and distraction. Older people don't recover from
glare as quickly as do younger people. There are lots of older drivers in the
real world.

5.  We should also question NHTSA why they consider DRLs
intuitively beneficial and ask if it is proper to base
safety policy on intuition that is not supported by proper
verification that the policy is indeed beneficial.  We have
only to look at the airbag issue to realize that NHTSA still
does not get it. You guys need a complaint department! Your totalitarian
enactments are contrary to the constitution of the Country. We threw out
 an oppressive government in 1776 for this kind of behavior
 
6.  NHTSA has not recalled or banned the use of high- beam
based DRLs.  They have just made it more expensive for high
beam based lights to be used than low beam DRLs at the lower
intensities to be used in the future. The northern European countries
 recommend only parking lights of 200 candle power.

 So what is next? Helmets in Cars, or should we just all take Public Transportation?

                    Thomas F. Lane
       ABATE of Wisconsin
       R.R. 5, Box 19
       Sparta, WI. 54656

A copy of this letter has been posted on the internet at:
http://geocities.datacellar.net/Heartland/Valley/5923