However, think of it this way:
How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?
Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.
If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.
Surely that's a bit of Daily Mail thinking? Oh noes, the increased fuel usage due to DRL will outweigh the savings made by having less accidents. 
The increased fuel usage due to DRL is infinitesimal especially with all the other bits of electronics in modern cars. Sure over all new cars fitted with DRL it will all add up, but it's nothing to get excited about.
Do you have a reputable source that shows DRL's won't reduce accident rates?
IMHO the simple way to cause less accidents and to increase fuel economy is to fit a wooden block underneath the loud pedal on every vehicle. 
If by Daily Mail, you mean logical, then yes.
I don't think it's a case of it outweighing the cost, but how easy is it to say for sure that DRL's prevented an accident, ergo, had they not been on an accident would have occurred.
Surely saying that DRL's decrease accidents is a kin to saying speed cameras stop people speeding or that speed humps reduce accidents.... the speeds humps probably do, but the cameras...?
The basic logic is that DRL's make vehicles more visible in countries that are well inside the northern hemisphere - most of Scandanavia and Canada would be good examples; these countries have a low level of natural light during the day.
DRL's in the UK aren't really needed most of the time, sure we have days when natural light is low, but on a whole...
Yes, no doubt the fuel usage on an individual basis is quite small when compared to radios and climate control, but to quote a clever chap I know, 'that be some daily mail thinking'
You have a choice as to whether you have climate control or the radio on, but you have no choice over the DRL's.
Erm, as for reputable sources, well if you mean whitepapers...
There are several that relate to DRL's causing various types of visual distress
here Here is a quote I pulled of the same site....
“RoSPA’s view is that if cars are fitted with Daytime Running Lights, then there is much concern that the conspicuity of other road users without DRL will suffer. The risk is that when drivers are making observations and looking out for other road users, that drivers will search for the DRL on other vehicles rather than surveying the whole scene and spotting vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians.
“This is a serious concern as research has shown that ‘looked but failing to see’ errors contribute to 23 per cent of unimpaired drivers’ accidents during daylight, and a more recent report identified that 32 per cent of all accidents were caused when road users ‘failed to look properly’. Cyclists are at a risk of suffering a serious injury if hit by a car and so being spotted by other road users is important to a cyclist’s safety.
“Although the counter argument would be that DRL may make it easier for cyclists to spot cars, enabling them to plan an ‘escape route’ to prevent an accident if the car were to pull out, it does not address the issue of drivers making poor or incomplete observations and failing to spot a cyclist."
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) “Care on the Road” newsletter February 2007
The site is obviously against DRL's, so take it with a pinch of salt... but there you go.
Yup the wooden block sounds good to me....
Just to clarify,I don't think that DRL's will decrease accidents in the UK, but those beemer ones look chuffing pimp.
