Daytime Running Lights Standardization Needed?

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?

---------------- Alex

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.

------------------ Alex

None of that makes you an expert on lighting systems.

good reason for a motorcyle, yes, but not for a car.

I hope those countries don't allow the stupid implimentations that are allowed here in the US.

When I am on a two lane road I don't need other vehicles to have their lights on to know when it is safe to pass. If the car is so far away that I have trouble making it out, I know I have plenty to time to pass. It also helps to have plenty of power, and more importantly be willing to use it, to complete a safe pass.

I see. You want me to prove your theory. Studies have show minimal, if any, benefits. They have also shown that the poor implementation of many car companies add unecessary glare.

No worries on my part. I won't be jumping on the lame brained idea. When it is necessary, my existing lights are more than adequate to do the job.

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

may open your eyes wide (if you can stand the glare of truth!) Pun intended! :-)

Now, do your homework and report back!

Before you start calling names and rudely criticizing, why are you suddenly starting to talk about driving lights? The comments you are responding to are discussing daytime running lights, not driving lights. Daytime running lights and driving lights are completely different animals.

Daytime running lights frequently use lower power (possibly by connecting the two bulbs in series) but unfortunately many implementations use the high beam bulb, which is aimed up. Even at reduced intensity it can be dazzling.

But bad implementations of DRLs are never excellent ideas. They cause excessive glare, especially with the aimed-high high beam bulb jobs and can even make it harder to see the turn signals. Saturns are particularly bad, IMHO. Other DRLs, such as the amber DRLS are fine.

But causing excessive glare by shining high beams bulbs (that are aimed high), even at reduced intensity, is not helping such geriatic drivers. In fact the eye becomes more susceptible to glare as it ages.

Before you resort to lowly name calling, how are you arriving at your numbers? I assume by running lights you mean parking lihghts. If I can see 1/4 mile down the road at night, merely putting my parking lights on will not allow me to see 1/2 mile.

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

-- 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.

anti-constitutional

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. :-)

| > 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

| > It may open your eyes wide (if you can stand the glare of | > truth!) Pun intended! :-) | >

| > Now, do your homework and report back! | >

| >

| >

| >

| |

You just remember to do it. A bit more difficult now that my every day driver has automatic headlights - so I need to pay attention when driving the wife's car.

Well, I had my '89 Aerostar untill 1994 - replaced one set of sealed beams with Hella H4 units, and replaced one bulb in them. Then I got the 90 Aerostar - with DRL, and replaced 2 headlamps between then ansd when I sold it in 2002. They were the originals when I bought it from my dad. I've owned the 88 New Yorker for 10 years - replaced one set of low beams and one high beam when the front end got pushed in by my daughter. I've had my Trans Sport a year and a half now - have not replaced any bulbs - no idea when the last one was changed - no record of bulb changes in the maintenance record I got with the van from the original owner. Over 300,000 KM on it now.

"Mike Hall" snipped-for-privacy@sympatico.ca wrote in message news:JYFDb.3367$ snipped-for-privacy@news20.bellglobal.com... | 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!