The people who want DRLs have a voice and there have been reasoned postings by those folks. They do count, absolutely. Pick and choose, hmmm, you know the failure is for you to stay on topic. What you think is picking and choosing is not responding to reasoned statements that have relevance on their own. You are mistaken in that you don't realize that it is you that have created this situation, only you to blame, the rest of us were trying to have a discussion and you interrupted into a topic that you don't care about.
Anyway, I didn't know this was a win or lose situation, is there a medal that you win on this thread? The winners are not those that scream the loudest, like you. The winners are those that can carry out a reasoned discussion.
Your opinions, just like mine, are not the be all and end all. The ideas presented are and you are standing in the way of the information flow. I am sorry that you don't understand how this works :(.
Don't expect anyone to take you seriously either sir.
A reminder: This thread is a discussion of the pro, cons or indifference towards daytime running lights.
Your comment is a personal attack and will not be addressed. If you would like to carry out an intellectual discussion on the actual topic, feel free. Any future personal attacks will be thoroughly ignored.
Irrelevant, who are you anyway. Who made you the King of Usenet, LOL :).
A reminder: This thread is a discussion of the pro, cons or indifference towards daytime running lights.
Your comment is a personal attack and will not be addressed. If you would like to carry out an intellectual discussion on the actual topic, feel free. Any future personal attacks will be thoroughly ignored.
Ah, a post to respond to. Well, yes, I would love to outlaw DRLs, absolutely and it is not just because I don't like them. Ford, Chrysler and Toyota could care less for starters. 22 states had laws against daytime light use and those laws should have stood. I have never pretended that I would not like to go back to the way it was before 1994, so I don't see how you expect that comment to bother me.
Currently there is personal choice on this issue, I am sorry that my choice is not to your liking. The reality, at this time, is that it is a market based fight, that involves helping to educate the car companies and others on perspectives. I would hope that NHSTA will come around and put the rights on light regulation back to the states, but until then, as Mike pointed out in his first post, it won't be mandated on all cars so even the U.S. Federal Government doesn't want them.
So, with many of the car companies and the U.S. government not implementing them fleetwide, I am in good company.
I don't remember who posted it originally, would like to know.
I didn't read all of it, like I said I just stumbled onto it. It doesn't matter how you read it, by the way. Just threw it out there. However, they did not recommend implementation state wide, so it is not a glowing endorsement. One thing you have to realize is that government entities have to appease many different players.
A good example is the U.S. government, they don't enforce DRLs, but allow them. Why, because there is no consensus amongst the people and manufacturers as to the actual benefits of DRLs. However, there are manufacturers such as GM that want to level out costs and they have a good ear in NHSTA to enable them to continue manufacturing the cars with daytime running lights. So, even though there is no proof of any real benefit, the Feds play the fence to appease both sides.
You have wasted too much of our time. From this point forward, I will only respond to reasoned discussions. I will not be responding to any personal attacks, as they are just a waste of time. I hope you have had fun, at the expense of everyone else.
By the way, I don't care of you think I have a flaming torch to get rid of DRLs, I would love that. However, as a realist, if we could just get rid of the glare, that would be a great start. Any reasonable person would understand that it is better to compromise on such things, if you can't get absolution, no matter how you may feel. I think enough has been said, and I am the last to bow out, but unless something good is posted I will have to assume this discussion has played its course.
"The rest of us were trying to have a discussion". Who are they? The voices in your head? All you have done is give bad points, and annoy people. And yes, you do pick and choose as to what to reply too.
And now you try and make everyone feel sorry for you. How pitiful. If you knew how to have a real debate, this may have been interesting. And you are correct, this isn't a "win or loose" situation. However, I don't believe it is fair for you to say DRL's should be taken off all markets, only because
*you* don't like them.
Did you just admit that other (even pro-DRL) opinions count? If so, we might be getting somewhere.
I am standing in the way of nothing. I am telling you what I think of the information you have presented.
Once again, in other words: "I have no valid points. I can name-call, but no one else can. I can't debate at all. And, of course, I am right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong." You want to talk about DRL's? I have owned 9 cars in my lifetime. All but one (an '82) had driving lights. Everyone I know who owns a vehicle, has driving lights. I see them everyday, and don't have a problem with them. I talk to many people every day, and they don't have problems with them. I watch/listen/read the news, and have not seen/heard/read of any problems with them. All I have see is your "points", and they have been shot down. Care to make anymore?
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.
If DRL's are so dangerous, why do some States, and Canada use them? Surely it would be cheaper to not install the feature at all. As for outlawing them, that seems to be exactly what you want to do, and the main reason I see is because you don't like them. Other then your personal opinion, I have seen nothing that makes me want to fight to have DRL's outlawed.
But why? What have DRL's done, or are doing, that makes you hate them so? Give me some good factual reasons.
I have only one question about the above statement: Who are "we"? You talk as if there are many people in this discussion, on your side
The problem is, not everyone is bothered by this "glare". If 8% of the drivers in the USA decided that the seatbelts in there car kept giving them rashes on there shoulders, should they be removed from all cars? Should they be redesigned? You speak as though everyone agrees with your assessment of DRL's. Please explain why.
I have replied to a post you made a couple of days ago. Please give it a look.
"However, I don't believe it is fair for you to say DRL's should be taken off all markets, only because
*you* don't like them. "
Hey Knight, greetings there. I am only addressing the U.S. market specifically. Sharon referenced the different elevation and ambient light differences and I agree with that assessment. Things are different down here and the discussion is mainly about the U.S. I am sorry that you did not realize this.
"Did you just admit that other (even pro-DRL) opinions count? If so, we might be getting somewhere. "
Duh, why you didn't realize this from the start???
I am glad to know about your experiences in Canada. Down here in the U.S., not everyone has them and a high number of people around here disable them. The majority of U.S. spec cars do not come with DRLs, did you realize this? By the way, my truck and my wife's car originally came with DRLs but we had them disabled :). As I have stated before, you cannot draw conclusions about the facts on the basis of your own personal experiences. I am glad you enjoy the lights in Canada, good deal. Here in the U.S., it is different and that is why we are talking specifically about the U.S. market. So, I appreciate your perspective, thanks for being succinct and to the point.
I did visit Canada in 93 and did experience glare. Of course that is attributed to me personally but my theory is that when you get people used to something they begin to accept it as normal when if given a true choice they might think otherwise. But, I am not going to delve into the mindset of Canada.
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.
I found out about this thread from a google search. I don't want to stir anything up, just speaking my mind. It is not my intent to create controversy.
None of the states or the federal government have mandated DRLs. The only reason we have DRLs in the U.S. is because General Motors wanted to make one car for North America. They pushed NHSTA to overturn the light rules of 22 states that prohibited the use of lights during the day. Before GM pushed, they were outlawed in those states, and would have remained so. I would like for NHSTA to get its nose out of the business of the States and allow the rule of law to continue. It isn't just my opinion, it is the opinion of 22 states and the majority of auto makers. If it wasn't for GM, DRLs would have been dead in the water in the States. I just want the laws to revert to where they were before 1994.
It is cheaper for GM to not have to turn them on for one market and not the other. The reason they wanted DRLs is for cost savings and not for safety reasons. I guess the root of the problem was the mandate in Canada, or GM would not have pushed so hard. Ford and Chrysler could have realized the same cost savings but don't, because they don't see it as a safety feature that the U.S. customer would want (so why would GM think that way?).
I already have given factual reasons and personal reasons, I won't go back into all of that. See the other posts by Sharon and myself.
I didn't say that you didn't read what you read. I didn't read all of it. But, I only mentioned that you can read into it what you want to. I wasn't calling you a liar.
Yes, the mere fact that they didn't recommend full implementation openly says that trying to enforce DRLs on the basis of safety would not fly. Of course, this is my read of it :).
I already explained that in the post you responded to.
They already have to manufacture the vehicle for the Canadian market with DRLs. They were having to leave out a module, fuse or other items in order to manufacture the vehicles for the U.S. market. With the allowing of DRLs in the U.S., they can just make one car with one specification and one wiring harness.
My 1991 Chevy Truck had a spot in the fuse panel marked for the DRL fuse, however, that spot did not have any contacts in it to place a fuse. If I had wanted DRLs, I could not have enabled them by placing a fuse in that spot. Even though the truck was manufactured in Canada, it was modified to not allow for DRLs, it did not have the proper harness to accomodate. This was the case, even though that truck went down the very same assembly line as Canadian bound trucks that had the fuse contacts and proper harness. The different harnesses and labor changes cost GM time and money on the assembly line.
Fast forward to 1998, after GM got NHSTA to allow daytime lights. My
98 Chevy pickup came with DRLs and now the fuse #15 has the fuse contacts and a fuse and the proper wiring to run the DRL lights. I pulled the fuse on the dealer lot, but can turn it back on at anytime without any expense. Now, the U.S. bound trucks use the same wiring and fuse pickups as the Canadian bound trucks and GM reaches cost savings by volume and less labor in installing the same wiring in each vehicle. Simple economies of scale.
We aren't talking about seatbelts. I don't feel that everyone agrees with my positions on this issue, that would be a flawed assumption.
By the way, here are comments from a Canadians on the subject of glare:
formatting link
Troy & Vicky Jollimore
"For the most part. An odd thing is that I read for YEARS about how the Americans complained about being dazzled by certain DRLs. "Pish Posh," I'd reply to the drivers on forums, "We've had them for YEARS, and not ONCE has that happened to me."
Well, when I was in Florida a few years back we were driving towards Grosse Pointe on a beautiful sunny day when...BLINDED! It was the DRLs of a Saturn, and they were definitely dazzling, even in the bright sunshine. Heh, I had a lot of apologizing to do... ;) Still don't know why, though. Have never had that happen here, even with the same make/model of Saturn car. "
axemen99
"BMW (I believe) first came out with the modified Flood/Fog light DRL which allowed the driver to see miles in the dark highways in German or France. It is quite similar to the flood light used in Police cars. It is NOT the typical Canadian version of the DRL. Somehow, the Canadian and US goverment accepted the flooded version of the DRL, althought both government agreed that the modified flooded DRL would cause accidents instead, (prolly complaints by BMW and German goverment). Good Canadian invention gone WILD."
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.