day time lights

You know, the situations where you should have your lights on would be better served by automatic headlights or just turning them on the old fashioned way. You don't need DRLs to address the lighting needs you mentioned.

We don't run around with our hazards on because we might encounter one, we don't have our horn honked over and over because we might need to honk our horn, so why would we want or need lights on during daylight in case we might need them when it gets darker. It has never made any sense to me.

Cheers,

Larry

snipped

Oh, I see, you are one of them paranoid kind of people.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. You are saying that in broad daylight, DRLs can cause someone else to be so blinded by glare that they can't see what's on the road (what about sunlight reflecting off of the windows and shiny surfaces of other vehicles - doesn't that cause a problem?). I've only been driving for 48 years, in Canada, the USA and Europe and I have never seen, nor heard, of such a thing. Sounds to me like a piddly assed excuse for driver inattention

It might be worthwhile for some drivers to avail themselves of a safe driving course and become aware of the blind spots in everyone's vision when they look slightly to the left or right.

Hobo

Duhhhh, it's not for you to see, it's for others to see you. Do much two lane highway driving?

Hobo

You don't know many Canadian's then. When we are pissed, we complain. And one thing we don't fear is our Government.

Maybe you should stick to flying your B-25's then, cause you don't seem to have the mental capacity to have a driver's license. That is the most pitiful excuse for not having DRL's that I have ever heard. Shall we turn the sun down as well?

on Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:55 pm, someone posing as Larfx took a rock and etched into the cave:

Mine be amber!

I personally really like DRLs. They help out a lot in attracting attention to others.

on Wednesday 29 August 2007 10:44 am, someone posing as Sharon Cooke took a rock and etched into the cave:

I would suggest maybe the idiots riding between lanes at 75+ MPH, riding with no hands while doing wheelies, riding between lanes at stoplights then taking off just before green, riding in the carpool lanes where they don't belong...

...I dunno. You tell me. I've seen accidents as a result of all the above.

I think they make it easier to see on coming traffic. I base that on my eyes. I did do a little research and found the Postal Service reduced accidents by 35% with vehicles that have DRL. And we all know school bus's run with lights on.

Regards what anyone else thinks I want to use them.

Excellent points all. There is increasing evidence that DRLs are far less effective than once believed, and can actually be detrimental to road safety, for drivers AND pedestrians. Here's a paper on the subject from the UK:

Of course, DADRL in the USA has been up in arms about these things for years. See: I urge everyone that believes these things (DRLs) are just claptrap designed to play to manufactured fears of road collisions to join the lightsout.org and make their voices heard in Congress. As far as the DRL believers go, I hope they are buckled up (a REAL safety device) tight if they have a daytime collision with another DRL-equipped vehicle, so they can live to enjoy an epiphany (in case it DOES trigger one).

From

What's bad about DRLs?

1. You lose critical traffic signaling methods. Flashing your headlights is a) the accepted signal to a trucker that it is safe to change lanes b) a signal to alert drivers that have forgotten to turn on their headlights c) a signal at a 4-way stop or in a parking lot to let the other driver go first d) a signal to other vehicles that you are traveling with that you need to stop.

2.You can't turn off your lights when a) they are glaring into another vehicle b) they are shining into a house at the end of a cul-de-sac or tee intersection c) they are shining at a pedestrian. d) You are sitting with the engine running on the side of the road, in someone's driveway, etc. e) you want to be able to see outside your side windows.

1. There are places where you need to drive with only your parking lights, i.e. drive-in movie parking lots, astronomical gatherings, military bases, etc.

1. Drivers with DRLs often forget to turn on their low beam headlights in rain or fog and at dusk or dawn. This is especially dangerous because the taillights do not come on until the low beams are turned on. Many drivers believe that in rain or fog the DRLs are sufficient and fail to turn on their low beams to activate their tail lights. When it is dark, the lack of dashboard lights is an indicator that the low beams and tail lights are not on, but in daytime conditions where the low beams should be used there is no indication that the DRLs, not the lowbeams, are on.

2. They make your bulbs wear out a little faster; not a big deal if they really provided a safety advantage.

1. They decrease your gas mileage slightly. See:
   formatting link
   The decrease in mileage due to the increased load on the alternator is very small, but it is still measurable. One one of the biggest proponents of DRLs, GM, asked for and received permission to disconnect DRLs when doing tests for their fuel economy ratings.

2. They annoy other drivers. This is a biggie. "In 1998, after receiving hundreds of complaints, NHTSA acknowledged that the intensity limits were too high and proposed reductions in DRL intensity. NHTSA cited a study by Kirkpatrick, et. al. (1989), that said that at 2000cd, the glare from DRLs was rated at no worse than "just unacceptable" in 80% of the responses. At

4000cd, the glare was rated no worse than "disturbing" in 80% of the responses. These subjective ratings are based on the DeBoer scale. Corresponding to these ratings, they found that at 4000cd the probability that the rearview mirror would be dimmed was about 70%. At 2000cd the dimming probability was 40%. At 1000cd, the dimming probability dropped to 10%." The NHTSA has now proposed that the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted. Expect the automakers to oppose this since it would add cost to do DRLs properly.

1. The people in favor of DRLs are so dimwitted and have such weak positions that DRLs must really be bad. Yeah, no one should be against something just because some really stupid people are in favor of it, but doesn't it make you uneasy to support something when someone else is supporting the same thing based on inaccurate and misleading "data?" In California, the way the majority of voters determine how to vote on ballot measures is by looking at the groups and people that support and/or oppose the measure, because it's very difficult for a layman to figure out what the ballot measure really means when each side is claiming that it will be better for the children if it passes or fails.

What's good about DRLs?

1. They are proven to reduce head-on collisions on two lane roads, especially at dawn and dusk. This is what they were designed to do, and if they were implemented just to do this then you wouldn't see much opposition to them. You often see signs on roads in California proclaiming "Daylight Safety Test Section -- Turn on Headlights." These are the places where DRLs would be useful. Sadly, instead of coming up with a way to use DRLs only when appropriate, certain parties would like them to be on all the time. Why? Money. It's cheaper to implement a lame system than a well-designed system.

1. They counteract the lack of common sense of dimwitted drivers that fail to turn on their headlights when it's foggy, rainy, or dark. Of course this is only a positive because these drivers are not doing the proper thing and turning on their headlights AND taillights. If the presence of DRLs causes drivers, who would normally turn on their regular lights in these conditions, to not turn on their regular lights, then this is a negative. A better solution to this problem would be sensors that trigger a warning to the driver to turn on their lights.

2. Some of the cars bought by the worst drivers come with DRLs, i.e. Saturns and Volvos. Thus the presence of a DRL equipped vehicle is a warning to other drivers to be careful.

Good information and resources, Tim and Sharon.

Why would people want to do something that is a distraction and irritation to other drivers. We shouldn't be doing things that are detrmental to the safety of others. The folks that support DRLs don't realize what their lights are doing because they simply aren't looking out for the real impact of their lights on others and would rather "feel good" about being "so safe".

DRLs are an answer to a problem that really doesn't exist. Go down any highway in broad daylight and tell me that you can't seriously see a non-lit vehicle way down the road. If a person can't see cars without their lights on, then they seriously need their eyes checked. There are only a few exceptions where DRLs seem to work, as noted by Tim, but they aren't enough to justify lights on 24/7/365.

The folks on this thread that are pro DRL are using the typical tactic when there is nothing more to say to shore up their side of the argument. They resort to name calling and belittling others, well that doesn't stand up and makes them look silly.

I did see one reference, in this thread, to some kind of study, but no citation. Lightsout has studies for review at:

you will want to check out the U.K. site and other sitesincluding a good explanation at NMA . One last thing, Sharon spoke about the masking affect, it is very real and makes it hard to see motorcycles, pedestrians, byciclists and road hazards because our eyes focus briefly on the extra light pollution from DRLs. U.K. Dadrl has more information on that and links to pedestrian and cycle groups. The European Union stopped their plans to implement DRLs based on outcries from advocate groups, so there is precedence to stopping the DRL progression in its tracks.

Before you go and call me names and tell me how stupid I and others are, go and educate yourself beyond your own feelings and stop shining your lights in our eyes (we could already can see your car, but I am more concerned about that kid on the bicycle).

Cheers,

Larry

What are the hazards presented by DRL's?

The only problem that I know of is when one approaches a military guard post they want you to turn off your head lights.

Briefly and just a representative sample off the top of my head:

1. Glare in the eyes of others causes a momentary distraction that takes the other drivers eyes off of other inputs such as other cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, objects in the road and the road itself.
2. When a DRL car is behind another car, in addition to the distraction, that driver can be perceived as being overly aggressive (especially if tailgating). Road Rage, anyone?
3. Masking of other objects to where you can't see them
4. Causing an inequality in the viewing of multiple cars on the roadway. A lit or non-lit car might stand out more, but the inequity causes one to be seen more than the other, when in fact all should be seen equally for proper road safety.
5. Motorcycles do not stand out like they should, another example of masking by the lights
6. The extra lights cause irritation to drivers more sensitive to light
7. Added confusion with drivers over what is actually a safety feature as opposed to a fad. This leads to folks driving around with DRLs, fog lights, brights and even fogs and brights because they think more is safer, more aggressive, more cool or whatever inane reason (I just read a post on another list of someone who wanted to run with their headlights and DRLs on at all times, why?). Don't get me started on HID lights, geeeze.

Cheers,

Larry

My car has a feature that let's me turn the high beams on and off with the pulling of a switch.

Gee, do you turn your headlights off at night time when they are glaring into another vehicle?

A lot of vehicles allow you to disable the DRL's by applying the parking brake.

This is about the only 'reason' I can partly agree with. Even though a lot of vehicles have auto headlights these days, there are still some people who don't bother to use there headlights at the correct times. However, this isn't due to the DRL's, it's the driver.

And pumping gasoline to my injectors makes my fuel pump wear out faster. What's your point?

I bet GM (and all the rest) don't run the air-conditioner when testing either. Once again, what's your point?

Like I said, here in Canada, they have been used for many years, and I never hear anyone complaining.

You post this "information", and then accuse US of having weak positions?

So, you want a button to turn the DRL's on and off? Yeah, that will work...

What about the drivers who don't have DRL's, and yet still can't manage to turn there headlights on in the rain, fog, etc.?

So, now not only are DRL's bad, but so are people who drive Saturn's and Volvo's? Me thinks you're tin hat needs adjusting...

I would highly suggest you begin to wear sunglasses whenever driving a vehicle. Or, better yet. Don't drive at all. I don't want someone driving behind me who is distracted by "shiny things".

Oh stop it 80 Knight. Clearly this woman knows what she's talking about. After all, how many of us here realized the B-25's and Abrams tanks used their DRL's to "mask" their location before she enlightened us.

My mistake. I admit, I was clearly outmatched by someone with such vast intelligence.

Wow :). Already have sunglasses and know how to use them, I also have an auto dimming mirror and drive 30K miles a year.

At least I am not driving around with my lights on in broad daylight, LOL, get real. Anyway, I can't believe that you are so adamant to actually want to do that all the time.

-------------------------------

Some more reasons to add to my hazards list:

1. Funerals - People have gotten to the point where they can't tell which cars are in the funeral procession. Just recently a motorcycle escort rider was killed when a car attempted to dart through a procession and ran him over.
2. People driving with their lights on during the day look stupid, seriously. A hazard to your image, LOL.
3. Emergency vehicles have to compete with all the added lights, leading to times when a person might not realize that they are there. Obviously this can cause a delay in response or in the worst case an accident.
4. Many DRLs will look like a turn signal when glanced at by another driver, leading to issues with lane changes and manuevers that could be detrimental

Mike and Knight, all you can come up with is to tell people to wear sunglasses and try to act as if Sharon is an idiot. You guys are out of steam and the conversation was just getting good. It is not looking good for you here.

Cheers,

Larry

And therein lies part of the problem. Supposedly knowledgeable and experienced drivers do not always have their lights on when they should, and no automatic system is capable of doing so. For example, many people and automatic systems would assume the lights are only needed at night, or in heavy rain, fog, or other conditions where visibility is limited. But the sad fact is they are needed on even the clearest, brightest days. For example, on a sunny day, -your- car, or worse yet, motorcycle, can be hard to see if it is in an area shaded by trees, buildings or other obstructions.

Let's take an example of someone trying to pass a car travelling west on a typical 2 lane state road on a sunny afternoon. Let's say we are approaching these two cars head on, travelling east. If the section of roadway we are on is shaded for any reason, the oncoming cars may not be able to see us, resulting in a dangerous situation. Meanwhile, with the sun to our backs, we wonder why the "idiot" trying to pass did not see us, since we have no trouble seeing him at all.

Sceptics can prove the value of DRLs to themselves, even if their cars are not equipped. Try driving for 1 week with the headlights on at all times, low beams are fine. If you are like the typical driver, you may well notice less people pulling out in front of you all the time when driving. In my own experience, idiots will still occaisionally pull out, but it seems to reduce the frequency of it happening.

I for one do not like more governmental intrusion into personal lives. For example, I do not believe in seat belt laws, helmet laws, prohibition from riding in the open beds of pickup trucks, etc. But just because I do not believe they should be forced on us by governments or manufacturers does not mean that some of them are not good ideas. In a perfect world, more folks would know the difference on their own without being forced.

Lee Richardson Mech-Tech

Lee Richardson wrote:

Motorcycles have had hard-wired DRLs (low beams, actually) from the factory since the 1970s. This was a voluntary effort of motorcycle makers to make the bikes more conspicuous, considered desirable for a single-track vehicle, due to its small frontal profile, so seeing lit motorcycles in the shade isn?t a problem. The 22 US States that had laws AGAINST running a two-track (car, truck) with lights on in clear daytime weather specifically allowed this daytime lighting thing ONLY for single-track vehicles, since studies were done in these states back in the 1940s thru 1960s indicating that if all vehicles were allowed to run daytime lights, it would create DANGEROUS visibility problems for all, since if all vehicles had their lights on the daytime, there would be distraction, glare, and yes, masking of other vehicles and pedestrians. After all, if EVERYONE has DRLs on their vehicles, it?s the same as if NO ONE has DRLs, but with the added annoyance of the constant lighting everywhere and the added expenses of more frequent bulb changes and increased fuel consumption (and indirect support of mid-east TERRORISTS) with its attendant air pollution. In 1990 or so, the US Congress passed a crap piece of legislation wresting control from the several states regarding road lighting laws and said in effect, ?DOT/NHTSA now will tell you what the lighting laws are in the US, and if any of you states have any differences of opinion, tough? (I?m sure there?s a 10th Amendment issue in there somewhere). This legislation came about largely as a result of lobbying efforts by GM, so it could use the same wiring harnesses in all its vehicles for the US and Canada, to save a few bucks per vehicle. The DRLs are mandatory in Canada, but not in the USA. Below

45º N. Latitude, with its abundant daylight sunny conditions for most of the year, I (and many others) believe that DRLs are nothing more than a promotional stunt created by GM to increase its corporate bottom line. I believe people get emotional about the mandatory use of DRLs because it?s ?intuitive? that cars with lights on are easier to see, and more visibility?s better, like some people refuse to buckle up in their vehicles because that way, they?ll be ?thrown clear? in the event of a collision, or that the SRS air bags will save them (about a 50-50 on that, without being belted). As far as driving with headlights on to prove the worth of DRLs, that?s what I was doing 7 years ago when the other driver?s vehicle turned left and plowed into the driver?s side of my car. I?ve had my epiphany, so no DRLs for me. Excuse me now; I have to start writing letters to my congress people, requesting that they pass laws AGAINST DRLs in this country, to help save lives. :)