day time lights

Page 5 of 11  


Day won't be a problem if you just turn them off, right? Just my two cents, it can happen at a distance or close up, additionally the affect can increase when on a turn, coming over a hill, on a two lane road or when the car is in front of you in the left turn lane.
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I really don't think saying "honest officer I was blinded by the day time running light will work". Can you say citation boys and girls?
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have decided to give this post a good read, and give my counterpoints.

If my "glare" you mean someone shining a flood-light into your eyes, then I totally agree. However, the glare from a DRL equipped car is very minimal.

How does a car with DRL's appear overly aggressive to someone in front of it?

I can see quite fine, even on a 4-lane highway, full of cars with DRL's. Nothing is masked.

For starters, this isn't true at all. For seconds, if all cars should be the same, why should DRL's be taken away? Perhaps (like in Canada) all cars should have them? Why your way?

How so? I can see motorcycles just as well as any other vehicle. When you drive, you must keep your eyes on the road. You must know who is around you, and where they are. That is called driving.

?? This one boggles my mind. If someone is so sensitive to light, that a low-powered bulb irritates them in daylight, how do they stand the sunlight?

How does the desire to have a feature, make you dangerous?

So, because I have DRL's on my car, someone who saw that will automatically think turning there high-beams on is safer? I don't think you give people much credit.

Perhaps that person likes DRL's. Maybe it's the look they give the car, I don't know.

Depends on the manufacture of the lights.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are mistaking glare for brightness. It is the momentary flash that catches the eye, and does not rely on the power or brightness of the light. The glare from DRL equipped cars in the U.S. is not minimal, especially when the DRLs are setup to use the high beam lights. I guess you would have to drive around down here to experience it. For whatever reason, you personally don't notice it in Canada, glad you don't. Some people refer to it as dazzling, it is a shining of the lights in your eyes or mirrors causing a momentary distraction. I don't know how better to describe it.

When a person is being followed by another driver, they can't always tell if that driver has their bright lights on or just DRLs. When a person is tail gating or just pulling near another car, the other driver might mistake their lights as an act of aggression and be distracted by that mistaken notion. There are people who like to use their lights to get people to pull over, so the perception is not based on a false assumption.

Yes, you cannot see all of the unlit objects on the road. Pedestrians, bicyclists, road hazards and other things that you should be seeing are not lit and do not stand out in a sea of DRL lit vehicles. It is very simple, when you add so many additional inputs into view, you will see the lights first and not see the non-lit objects or you will see them later than you would normally.

Not true, why?, based on what? All cars being the same, if you did not have DRLs, you would be able to see all road objects equally. Also, you would use less gas and would not have to replace lights as often. Simple, and it is not "my way", cars are originally designed to run without lights during the day, that is the way it is normally done in the rest of the world.

A motorcycle driving in front of the headlight of a car causes the motorcycle to be masked. When you look, you will see two lights and assume it is just one car and not see the motorcycle. Also, if a vehicle has the brighter form of DRLs, your eye might focus briefly on that car and not immediately see the motorcycle. You have to understand that Motorcycles are smaller and actually need DRLs to stand out in the landscape, whereas cars are larger and do not need lights to be seen during the day. When a car has lights, the affectiveness of motorcycle DRLs are minimized.

Well, then you will stand boggled :0. It does happen, you haven't experienced it, good for you. You refer to low powered bulbs, but you haven't addressed the fact that those bulbs are aimed down the roadway and into the eyes of other drivers, especially if the brights are used as DRLs. The biggest difference is that the sun isn't usually focused right in your line of sight down the roadway. A driver is supposed to focus on objects down the road and has to react to the lights in the line of site, you are not supposed to be looking away from the roadway, as you would from the sun. You have to understand that you cannot discount this, just because you haven't experienced it yourself.

Distraction, irritation, masking, you name it. People do many things to their car that only affects themself, but when they shine their lights at other drivers, then they are impacting others and causing hazards for others, whether real or perceived. It isn't the desire to do something, but the implementation that causes issues.

Yes, people do so. I have seen folks on the road and have read other posts by folks who clearly state that they run with their brights and/ or fogs on all day for safety. They think what they think, here in the U.S., because all they see are lights on and they think that it is safe and the brighter the better. Canada is probably different because the cars already have the lights, so you probably would not experience this.

I don't know either, every person is different :).

Yep, some are way too bright. Had a person in an 07 Escalade and they just had the regular lights on and it was as bright as a normal cars brights. I really don't understand why they have to be that way, but thankfully you can't run them as DRLs except at full power, so you don't see them during the daytime.
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

All of the DRL's I have encountered are low-powered, even the ones using the high beam lights.

So, to experience the effect of DRL's, I must leave my DRL-Mandatory country, and visit one where it's not? How does that make sense?

If that is the problem, what happens to you people at night time, when headlights are a full brightness, and shining in your mirror's and eyes?

Wow. If all it takes for someone to get aggressive, is someone having there high beams on in the daytime, that person shouldn't be driving at all. How do people with standard low-beam DRL's cause aggression?

Having been driving for many years, I disagree. The DRL's are honestly not that bright.

All I have is your claim saying people can't. I can see them fine.

I thought we had already discussed the gas issue? DRL's aren't going to bring a person's gas bill up. Certainly not more then A/C, driving with the windows open, not properly inflating tires, and so forth.

Cars used to be designed not to have seat-belts, or air bags either. Should we once again, go back to this because you think that is the "normal" way? Also, as for the "rest of the world", it isn't just Canada who uses DRL's. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and Hungary also use them.

If this is all true, why aren't DRL's mandatory on motorcycles in the US?

I discount it because it doesn't make any sense.

That is a personal opinion of yours.

Once again, this doesn't make sense.

Very true.

Here is some information you may find interesting. And, unlike all of your information, this is up-to-date (Report dated January 2007):
Q: What are the safety advantages of DRLs? A: Daytime running lights (DRLs) are a low-cost method to reduce crashes. They are especially effective in preventing daytime head-on and front-corner collisions by increasing vehicle conspicuity and making it easier to detect approaching vehicles from farther away.
Q: Where are DRLs required? A: Laws in Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden require vehicles to operate with lights on during the daytime. There are two types of laws. Canada's requires vehicles to be equipped with DRLs. The other type of law (in effect in Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) requires motorists to turn on their headlights if their vehicles do not have automatic DRLs. In 1972, Finland mandated daytime running lights in winter on rural roads and a decade later made DRLs mandatory year-round. Sweden's law took effect in 1977, Norway's in 1986, Iceland's in 1988, and Denmark's in 1990. Hungary has required drivers on rural roads to operate with vehicle lights on since 1993. Canada requires DRLs for vehicles made after December 1, 1989. No US state mandates DRLs, but some require drivers to operate vehicles with lights on in bad weather.
Q: Are DRLs available on vehicles in the United States? A:First offered on a handful of 1995 domestic and foreign model passenger cars, pickups, and SUVs, daytime running lights are becoming a more common feature. They are standard on all General Motors, Lexus, Mercedes Benz, Saab, Subaru, Suzuki, Volkswagen, and Volvo models as well as some Chrysler, Honda and Toyota models. GM offers retrofit kits for vehicles that do not already have DRLs. The kits can be used on non-GM models, too.
Q: How effective are DRLs? A: Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15 months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A 1994 Transport Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989 vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.4 In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles without DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles.6 Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal researchers, using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a 5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.8
Q: Will DRLs shorten headlamp bulb life or lower fuel economy? A: Running vehicle lights in the daytime does not significantly shorten bulb life. Systems like those on General Motors cars that use high beams are designed to operate at half their normal power during daylight hours, thereby conserving energy and reducing the effect on a vehicle's fuel economy. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that only a fraction of a mile per gallon will be lost, depending on the type of system used. GM estimates the cost to be about $3 per year for the average driver. Transport Canada estimates the extra annual fuel and bulb replacement costs to be $3-15 for systems using reduced-intensity headlights or other low-intensity lights and more than $40 a year for DRL systems using regular low-beam headlights.
Q: Will motorists be bothered by glare? A: In most countries mandating DRLs, glare has not been an issue. However, some motorists in the United States have complained that the systems here are too bright. In response to these complaints, NHTSA in 1998 proposed reducing the maximum allowable light intensity from 7,000 to 1,500 candela, a value more in line with European DRLs. There has been no action on this proposal as yet.
Q: Are motorcycles required to have DRLs? A: Federal law does not require motorcycles to have DRLs, but some states require motorcyclists to ride with their headlights on at all hours. Thus, since 1979 most manufacturers have equipped their cycles with automatic-on headlamps.
Here is the page (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, odd thing. Like that lady from Canada was saying, she didn't understand the difference. Either way, I would say it is is a great thing that they are low powered (even perceptually) and don't bother you.
I wish it was the case here. If all DRLs were low powered and worked in low light situations only, like they are supposed to, there would not be an opposition to them as much. I don't see a point to any lights, but if the lights didn't produce glare then I would just chill out and it wouldn't bother me so much.

I guess, I don't know how that makes sense either, they should look the same. It seems to be the thing that would make a difference, to see it first hand.

Yes, there is glare and dazzling effects at night. Especially from brights and certain HID applications and even regular beams that are out of alignment. The difference is that at night you have to have some lights on to be able to see, it is a necessary thing. The lights can still bother you just the same, but you move your mirror or flash the other person to get them to dim their lights.
During the day you should not have deal with the lights, as they are not needed in the same way as at night time. For this reason, daytime lights should be as dim as possible while still allowing for the car to be visible in low light situations. There should never be a situation when you have to look away from a car in the daytime, since it is not necessary for a car to have lights that are bright enough to irritate. Again, as noted above, if the lights did not have glare then there would be no comparison to the night-time bright light affects.
So, at night you expect the lights and deal with them accordingly because they help you see and be seen in a dark landscape. DRLs during the day do not provide the same function, since the sun is shining on the car and you don't expect to have to turn away from lights during the day.

With all of the road rage down here, it really doesn't take much to tick certain people off. Even with low beams on, if they are mis- aligned or the person is following in a position where that light is shining in the other persons mirror, then it is on. I get irritated, but I don't get mad, but other folks are just strange and fly off the handle. It can be scary, and yes they really need to seek counseling if that is what ticks them off so bad, yowsa.

<snip>
I appreciate that you are seeing the situation differently. Again, it might be a difference as to where we live. Just keep a look out and see if you notice anything that might have taken you a moment later to see. Sometimes we don't realize that we missed something because we didn't see it, kind of an oxymoron :).

It adds up over the years, no matter what. I know that I try to run without A/C, as much as possible as it has a direct impact on my gas mileage. If DRLs are just a little less than A/C then even at that smaller impact, I wouldn't want to have even worse gas mileage. The price of gas has seriously made all of us think about even small decreases in gas mileage.

Just talking about lights. No one is trying to strip cars of safety equipment. In reference only to lights, cars were not designed to have them on all day. That has been a recent thing. And yes, the majority of the world does not have DRLs.

Probably because the motorcycle manufacturers have done a solid job of putting them on all motorcycles being sold. The riders leave them on, they know that it has a direct safety benefit. With this kind of compliance, the government hasn't needed to use legislation to enforce them.

Ok fine, I tried to explain it, no worries :).

Although it is my opinion, I am not alone in that opinion. It is not strictly just an opinion, it actually does happen out there.
I can't allow it to be boiled down to simply being my opinion. I do not feel that you are the only one that only sees non-offensive low powered DRLs, so I won't boil it down to just being your opinion alone either.

Just to clarify, when a person in a non-DRL mandated country sees cars with DRLs, they think that the other car has their lights on. They talk to their friends or their insurance agent and maybe they read AARP endorsing daytime lights (they did publish articles on this) and they think, well if the low beams are safe, then the high beams have to be safer. This is a real phenomena that you don't see because everyone has their lights on up there.
<snip>

I have seen this before.

No studies cited.
<snip>

DRLs are not standard on Mercedes Benz, Toyota, Chrysler and are not on all Honda vehicles yet. This is factually innacurate.
Most Subarus have them turned off on the road, although they do come with them. By the way, Saab is owned by GM and Volvo by Ford (although Ford doesn't have DRLs).

This all sounds great, but there are no notations of how to go and view the studies. However, there are many studies that say the opposite. Many of these studies might be based on false assumptions, but without the source of the information, I don't know what to think about it. Generally the pro and con studies are not as conclusive as the above information would lead you to believe.

Misleading, you only have to look at how many vehicles are running around with one light out to know that this is not the case. There have been multiple postings in user groups complaining on the short life of their bulbs. How they expect people to believe that the service life of a bulb is not affected by running the lights all day is spurious, at best.
I don't want to lose a fraction of a mile per gallon for an unproven safety feature. Add up all of those costs over millions of vehicles, hmmm.

Yes, obviously glare is a legitimate issue, this paragraph verifies this. Thus IIHS backs up the "opinion" that there is glare. NHSTA has allowed the issue to grow old, despite multiple anti glare comments on their own dockets. The only known reason is that GM does not want separate standards for Canadian and U.S. cars and has been fighting the reduction (GM is the reason we have them in the first place).
<snip>
You have to consider the source, the IIHS is an Insurance entity and have a vested interest in DRLs. Their page is from an intentional pro perspective and is not neutral on the issue.
Thanks,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If you are speaking of the post from the other day, I do not recall anything saying she was from Canada.

But, here is my question: Why should States, or Provinces, or entire countries change laws to ban something that not everyone can see? You say you see glare from DRL's. I say I don't. One of us has to be more correct then the other, in order for the law to be what it is.

I'm not totally sure what you are trying to say here. No offence intended.

So, why not adapt, like you admittedly do during night time?

Unfortunately, road-rage is a fact of life for many.

As I have said, I have been driving for many years, and manage to see traffic.

A car headlight, even on full brightness uses *much* less gasoline then running the A/C. If you want to get to basics, even using your radio could change your mileage.

DRL's are safety equipment.

Things evolve, including cars. Seatbelts, air-bags, ABS, traction control, power options...None of these were designed into the first cars. Hell, the first cars didn't have headlights at all. Does that mean we get rid of them too? Who are you to say "cars were not designed to have them (lights) on all day"? What about the person saying seatbelts weren't made to be in cars?

I don't buy that in the slightest. If motorcycles are so dangerous without lights on, surely the government would mandate this. Why have they not?

You are absolutely correct. Opinions aren't facts. However, the *fact* is in Canada, as well as several other countries, and some US States, DRL's are mandatory. Why would they be if they are not needed, or worse, are dangerous?

If that were the case, then it would make sense for DRL's to be mandatory on all vehicles.

Uhh...Skip to quesion 4...

Mercedes Benz: Please post proof. As for Toyota and Chrysler, it doesn't say that. It says *some*. See what I mean about you seeing what you wish too?

What is your point?

Uh huh.

Here you go again. That paragraph isn't "misleading" in the slightest. It doesn't say the bulb is not affected. It says it is only affected minimally. You are seeing what you wish to again.

Unproven in your eyes.

You are reading what you want to, again. "In most countries mandating DRLs, glare has not been an issue. However, some motorists in the United States have complained.." That is what is says. It doesn't say it is a proven fact.

Please post proof of GM's position on DRL's.

??
And yet, "The Association of Drivers Against Daytime Running Lights" (a site provided by you, where you get most of your information) *is* neutral? Larry, I think we both need "agree to disagree", as you can't seem to provide fact's, or even tell the truth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, her email address is a .ca address and she posts in Canadian related threads: http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=ZydrnR4AAABQLPYBI2Ys4n-pDhSHkj9aBxb0125_Z_q7DmeNtP17aw

The fact is that people, in the U.S. do see the glare (see below links). We can't base things on whether or not you see it. No, neither perspective is more correct, just the fact that it does bother people is sufficient. The lights are too bright, as referenced by NHSTA's proposals, it doesn't take opinions to verify that fact.
When you have an activity or function that irritates others and has no verified benefit, you normally get rid of it. The fact that many states have laws on the books that make daytime lights illegal is testament that no laws need to be changed, just that a regulatory body (NHSTA) needs to get out the way of the rule of law. All we need is to go back to the laws that are already on the books.

None taken.

Because there is no reason to do so. Lights are not needed during the day and do not have a verified impact on safety (see below links). Other drivers should not have to be adjusting their driving habits because another driver interferes with their lights on.

Yes, sadly :(.

Excellent, I have as well. I see all cars just fine without lights, most people do.

Already discussed all of this.
The radio provides information, helps keep you awake, etc.. and it can be turned off. It serves a purpose, but DRLs don't. Yes, you can turn off all of your accessories to increase your gas mileage, but you won't. However, you can eliminate a gas waster that has no benefit, and that is DRLs.

That has not been conclusively proven (see below links). That leaves us to opinions and I haven't seen any proof that they do anything for safety. All I have seen is an irritant that is detrimental to safety.

Already discussed, you are missing the point. Cars, including all of the safety items you mentioned still are safer without DRLs. The point is that cars are normally designed and used without daytime lights, that is reality. My discussion was in reference to adding DRLs to a vehicle that is already safe, it is not a needed activity and the car was fine without them and will be fine to continue to not have DRLs. Anyway, I think that you will probably have to twist this back to trying to equate getting rid of DRLs as the same thing as getting rid of seatbelts, etc.. but that is not the case.

I already discussed this in an earlier post.

DRLs are not mandatory in any U.S. State, by the way.
The short answer is that yes there is a difference in the light makeup in northern countries and this lead to DRL use. Is there truly a need for that, debatable, but nevertheless there is some justification for that. But, the main reason that countries do this sort of thing is to feel good that they made an attempt for safety and garner votes. It is something they can do that doesn't require them to improve the roads or do something different to solve the problems. It is easier to just turn the lights and feel smug about being "safe", while the after affects may or may not live up to the promises. Of course, I am sure that there are other motivations, as this is just my opinion :).

No, the DRLs should not have been on in the first place. People wouldn't have had the bad example to "improve upon" then.
<snip>

Mercedes does not have them as standard equipment. You only have to look at the cars on the road in the U.S. to know that.
Toyota has them as standard on a few vehicle trim packages. Chrysler does not have DRLs as standard on any of their U.S. vehicles. So, it says some, but none of the Chrysler vehicles have standard DRLs in the U.S.
No, I don't see what you mean, what they posted was not true.
<snip>

Affected minimally equals having to replace the bulb more than normal. The bulbs are on all day, they will burn out sooner. The mere use of minimal is misleading, as anyone who has to replace their lights on a modern car can tell you that one extra time is one too many. They want to make it not sound so bad that you will have to go through the added expense and time.

Not just my eyes. Major carmakers and governments don't want them or do not promote them (see below links). It is not just me and my opinions.

You are forgetting that NHSTA proposed reducing the power from 7K to 1.5K, but they got pushback from GM and other car makers. A regulatory agency does not put that kind of information out there just because people complain. If there wasn't glare and if DRLs were a true safety enhancement, they would not attempt to reduce the power of the lights. It wasn't just "some" motorists complaining.
Some more info, figured you would want to read other comments, not just mine ;):
-----------------------------------
"In the US the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a preliminary assessment of DRL effectiveness in June, 2000 as well as a followup in 2004. NHTSA's FARS data found "no statistically significant benefit" for DRLs in two vehicle fatal crashes"
- from lightsout.org
-----------------------------------
Ron Zarella from GM:
"The automaker now offers daytime running lights, or DRLs, in all vehicles sold in the U.S. and Canada. While Zarrella acknowledged "theres very little real world data," he said theres enough evidence to suggest DRLs "have reduced relevant crashes by 5 percent, or 15,000 crashes" in the U.S. alone." http://www.autotrader.com/research/shared/article.jsp?article_id=2496&refpage=safetyinfo&restype=used
Comment: No real world data but he can "suggest" the result?
http://www.autotrader.com/research/shared/article.jsp?article_id=2496&refpage=safetyinfo&restype=used
-----------------------------------
United States
"General Motors, interested in reducing the build variations of cars for the North American market, began lobbying the DOT (United States Department of Transportation) to permit DRL in the United States shortly after Canada required them. A prolonged regulatory battle was fought, with the DOT objecting on grounds of potential safety drawbacks and glare issues. Eventually, however, these objections were set aside and DRL of the same types allowed in Canada (save for fog lamp DRLs) were legalized (but not mandated) effective with the 1995 model year. General Motors immediately equipped most (and, in following years, all) of its vehicles with DRL beginning with the Chevrolet Corsica. Saab, Volkswagen and Subaru gradually introduced DRL in the U.S. market beginning in 1995. In recent years, Lexus has installed high-beam or turn signal based DRL on US models. Some Toyota models come with DRL as standard or optional equipment, and with a driver-controllable on/off switch. Starting in the 2006 model year, Honda equipped both the Accord and new Civic with DRL.
Public reaction to DRL, generally neutral to positive in Canada, is decidedly mixed in the U.S. (where motorcycles have since 1976 been wired so that low beam headlamp is on whenever the engine is running- not as a matter of law, but by voluntary industry action). Thousands of complaints regarding glare from DRL were lodged with the DOT shortly after DRLs were permitted on cars, and there was also concern that headlamp-based DRLs reduce the conspicuity of motorcycles, and that DRL based on front turn signals introduce ambiguity into the turn signal system. In 1997, in response to these complaints and after measuring actual DRL intensity well above the 7,000 cd limit on vehicles in use, DOT proposed changes to the DRL specification that would have capped axial intensity at 1,500 candela, a level nearly identical to the European 1,200 cd and identical to the initially- proposed Canadian limit. During the open comment period, thousands of public comments were received by DOT in support of lowering the intensity (or advocating the complete elimination of DRL from U.S. roads). Automaker sentiment generally ran along predictable lines, with European automakers experienced at complying with European DRL requirements voicing no objection to the proposal, and North American automakers vociferously repeating the same objections they raised in response to Canada's initial proposal. The DOT proposal for DRL intensity reduction was rescinded in 2004.[1][2]
Motorcyclists have objected that DRL on autos will reduce the conspicuity of motorcycles; proposals have been made to permit the use of a flashing DRL during daylight hours."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp
-----------------------------------
"(Detroit-AP, Dec. 20, 2001) _ General Motors Corp. has asked the federal government to require daytime running lights on all vehicles sold in the United States, the company said Thursday."
" Ford Motor Co. does not install the lights on its U.S. products, spokeswoman Sara Tatchio said. She said the company was waiting for the results of federal glare studies before taking a definitive position on the issue.
The Chrysler Group of DaimlerChrysler AG installs the lights in some U.S. fleet vehicles and all Canadian vehicles, spokeswoman Angela Ford said. The company was awaiting more federal research before deciding whether to mandate them, she said."
" Referring to federal studies, Lange said the lights have reduced daytime collisions by 5 percent, and daytime, single-vehicle pedestrian fatalities by 28 percent.
Tyson called the research limited so far and said further study was needed."
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=594336
-----------------------------------
Also look at: http://www.dadrl.org.uk/whatsnew.html Just another comment from another person with "opinions": http://www.autotechdaily.com/blogs.php Some more comments: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-drlnma.html
-----------------------------------
Rise in Motorcycle and Pedestrian Deaths Led to Increase in Overall Highway Fatality Rate in 2005 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.f2217bee37fb302f6d7c121046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=cfd8aeeb8212d010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard&pressReleaseYearSelect=2006
-----------------------------------
Comment: Just wanted you to see that I am not the only one saying these things, there are more articles out there, this is just what I have thrown together.

See above.
<snip>

Sorry, not neutral, I quote:
"The Association of Drivers Against Daytime Running Lights - DADRL - is actively working to stop governments and manufacturers from installing Daytime Running Lights (DRLs) on motor vehicles. There is no conclusive evidence to show that DRLs are effective at reducing crashes. Rather, there are a number of safety-negative side effects of DRLs on automobiles, including emitting excessive glare to other drivers, masking of other vulnerable road users, and increased energy consumption. Please browse our pages to learn more about how DRLs are an ill-conceived safety gimmick and how you can help us to combat them."
- from Lightsout.org
I don't get most of my information from DADRL, sorry.
I am fine with agreeing to disagree, you are "neutral" so since you could care less then please do so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is the best opinion you've posted yet Larry - and that's because it doesn't attempt to leverage weak or non-existant data/issues in order to support it. As an opinion, it stands on its own and is as valid as any other opinion on the topic. As well, (IMHO) no reason is just as valid of an argument as a real reason.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Search the Congressional Record for the Senate report for the information you seek, WBMA.
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your car is in great shape, please leave the DRLs off. The Buick's usually use the high beams at lower wattage but are still brilliant enough to be annoying and a distraction to driving. Just wanted to say that there are many of us that would really rather you don't enable DRL's.
Cheers
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some people feel this way.
Some of us dont. If people drove, and used their lights, as they should, then it would become less of an issue, perhaps.
My big complaint is that, here, in low light situations, rain, etc (where the law says you are to turn on your lights), I have estimated that 1-2 out of three drivers never turn them on. DRL's often dont help either, as they may illuminate from the front, but not from the back.
Our previous Buick, and our present Avalon, had automatic lights so that this was not the case.
Daniel Stern used to post a lot on here, and he had strong feelings about DRLs, particularly in the way they are normally implemented.
I have driven with them for years in Europe where they are mandated, and never found them to be distracting or annoying.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hls wrote:

You won't see any "reduced intensity" HIGH beams in Europe either. That's about half the problem with DRLs in the USA; "reduced intensity" high beams are still HIGH BEAMS and cause annoying (maybe even disabling) glare, and also causes copycat drivers to turn the FULL high beams on. The auto makers that did this (mostly GM, to save a few bucks a car with a common US/Canada wiring harness) high beam DRL business should be forced to recall every one of these death makers. The idea of DRLs is pretty nonsensical below 45 N. latitude (all of US except AK) anyway, with abundant daytime lighting for most of the year, and the things seem to CAUSE accidents as a result of distraction, masking, and hiding motorcycles that actually benefit from the use of daytime lighting to increase conspicuity, while I have a hard time believing that a 3-ton SUV requires DRLs AT ALL to be seen "better".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

The lamps in Europe ARE different from the American ones. They use a sort of shrouded bulb...dont remember the designation.
I have seen no evidence that DRLs "seem to cause accidents" here in the lower 48. If you have some hard data, or links, please post them.
It is a complex question, and there are even challenges to the European data showing that they reduce accidents. I am accustomed to them, and like them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Search the Congressional Record for a list of the many negative aspect of DRLs, discovered by the US Senate investigation, when they turned down GMs request to make them mandatory in the US several years ago, WBMA.
mike
.
wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hls wrote:

I personally have been involved in an accident as the result of daytime lights, plus several "nearlys", so I just flat-out HATE the damned things. As far as hard data goes, it's not possible to prove causality directly (just like proving the benefits of DRLS), but motorcycle accidents in the Continental US have been climbing at a steady rate of about 7% per year for at least the last 8 years; if the cause isn't DRLs, what then? The US government (DOT/NHTSA) KNOWS what the cause of the increased motorcycle accident rate is, but theyre saying the matter requires further study. Ask any motorcycle association or ask any member of same what THEY think about DRLs, and youll hear a lot thats contrary to your apparent belief regarding DRLs. Better yet, go here: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm Then input 4124 for the Docket Number to read some opinions and a few facts about these godawful things that you think are so wonderful.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Here in Canada, the DRL's have been used for years, and no one I know has a problem with them. I am curious to know how the accident you were in was caused by the DRL's. Care to share?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks, Knight. My question as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
80 Knight wrote:

I have read of Canadians complaining about them, but they always want to "remain anonymous", as if they are afraid of saying anything bad about their Big Brother, Transport Canada.
As far as the accident goes, I actually had my headlights on (due to a slight overcast), heading north, and a woman heading south turned left, directly into the side of my car. She said she didnt see me. A few days after the accident, I went back to the scene and saw cars with headlights on causing multiple reflections off of all the reflective signs near the intersection, the cars becoming LESS noticeable at certain locations than if they had their lights off. Its called masking; if itll HIDE the exact location of a B-25 bomber in the clouds over Germany, or an Abrams tank outside of Baghdad, why do think it will make your vehicle more noticeable?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sharon Cooke wrote:
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.