As well Larry - this will be my final comment on this thread. Please note your very words above. I will quote them here for you...
"A reminder: This thread is a discussion of the pro, cons or indifference towards daytime running lights."
I chose the "indifference" position which resulted in continued accusations and attacks from you. Please note that I've never attacked you Larry. I've only pointed out where you are doing the things you accuse others of, and where your reasoning have been contrived and weak.
It has been a bit fun toying with your position on this matter Larry. You've proven repeatedly by your own contradictions and your own dancing on the topic that you are really only here for the purpose of stirring up crap. That's fine - it's usenet and that stuff happens from time to time. I elected to play with you for a while since you clearly had no other purpose here other than to stir things up. Now, I'm tired of the game and I'm happy to let you go away frustrated.
"Larfx" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
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)
I remember your indifference position, it made it all the more puzzling that you would carry out such tactics on something you don't care about. Thanks for telling me that you were playing around, I knew that. I don't see the point of toying with people and stirring them up, I wish you had not done that. I called you on it a long while back, but you kept acting as if you were trying to contribute. Please don't do that to people it is very irritating (but alas, no one is perfect, I know that I am not).
The problem is that there is a decided lack of studies on the subject. The U.S. is in a malaise on the issue, with the on but no officially endorsed stance. However, Europe and Australia were in the midst of following in the footsteps of Canada and it stirred up debate and more studies. I really wish there was more data available that would shed more light on the subject.
Yeah, we all do it. And, of course we have a tendency to look on with the filter of our own perspectives, as well.
With so little studies done, I am surprised you are so adamant about making DRL's illegal.
I have no agenda. My car has DRL's, and I don't have a problem with that. If it didn't have them, I would be equally as happy. I read the facts, that is all. You are the one who sees what you wish too.
Wrong. For starters, you have not given any "facts". For seconds, if you say to me, "DRL's cause momentary blindness" I *can* draw a conclusion from my personal experiences.
As I have stated, I do not enjoy nor dislike the DRL's. They are built into the car, and I don't have a problem with that.
How is it different in the US? How can you know more about the effects of something that *I* see everyday, yet you don't?
Honestly, I doubt many even think of it. I have never encountered someone with such an attitude towards tiny lights as yourself. Never anyone with such a desire to get rid of something that doesn't even really do much.
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.
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.
I have seen this before.
No studies cited.
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).
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.
They were illegal in 22 states (including mine) prior to 1994. I want the state laws to apply again. So, yes, I believe in states rights and that a government agency should not have been able to overturn the laws in those states. I would just like for things to return back to normal when we didn't have the glare and the police would stop you and remind you to turn your lights off. It was better then.
No problem with that, we all have our perspectives and opinions. Talking about stuff freely helped people to understand each other. I see the facts differently ;). We all see things as we wish to, not just me.
Larry - please try to keep up. I never stated or even suggested I was trying to contribute. I simply rebutted your claims when they were contrived and weak. As well, I pointed out behaviors of your own that were abominations you accused others of. One might even argue that I was contributing by calling you on inadequately supported claims.
So - you want a contribution? A real contribution? Fine. Please state the vehicles that use full power high beams for DRL's in the US. You have made numerous mentions of blinding light from full power high beam DRL's and I've never encountered any such vehicle. I'm curious what the list of vehicles equipped this way is, according to you.
Well, in some unknown way (actually glare is a good starting point) the situation is different here. That has been established. What you perceive in your area is not what is seen in mine, that is obvious.
Correct, it doesn't do much, but has a tendency to irritate others. You could care less either way, so why worry about it. The kind thing is to stop irritating people with something that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. That is the point, it does irritate and offend people who are trying to drive safely (here in the USA), so it should go. I know you are neutral about it, I don't expect you to endorse a viewpoint either way.
Fine, you have already acknowledged that you were just playing with me. However you said that you were done posting, correct?
I never referenced any DRLs that use "full power" high beams. The list would be empty, there aren't any. You have mistaken the high beam implementation for being "full power", that is not the case.
The glare is worse from high beam positions, even at reduced power. This is due to the lights being focused down the road and into the other drivers eyes.
So - it's safe to say that this is more of an issue of state's rights for you, and that the DRL issue is just a banner to wave in that battle? Well guess what - I'm 100% with you on the issue of state's rights. I'm not with you on the DRL issue, but I am on the state's rights issue.
L> Hey Knight, greetings there. I am only addressing the U.S. market L> specifically. Sharon referenced the different elevation and ambient L> light differences and I agree with that assessment. Things are L> different down here and the discussion is mainly about the U.S. I am L> sorry that you did not realize this.
I would have thought that ambient conditions in US border cities would not differ materially from those in the adjacent Canadian border cities. For example: Detroit vs. Windsor, Sault Michigan vs. Sault Ontario, Niagara Falls NY vs. Niagara Falls Ont. , Buffalo NY vs. Fort Erie Ont. Perhaps you can enlighten me. DRL's work effectively and are well received in Canada, where 90% of the population lives within 200 miles of the US border.
It always fills me with a sense of wonder at how obstinate some people can be with respect to any perceived restriction on their freedom to choose unsafe practices over safer ones. Other debates have dragged on endlessly about the merits of motorcycle helmets, or the use of air bags, or the use of seat belts. If one tries hard enough one can usually unearth isolated instances where an initiative may have an adverse outcome. These instances are then seized upon to support the notion that the initiatives should be abandoned despite ample evidence of their effectiveness in most situations.
I personally dislike the lights, that is obvious. But the states rights thing does burn me in a big way. I do feel that the individual states should be able to regulate their own affairs within the rights afforded to them in the Constitution. A good example is how the federal government has the states over the proverbial barrel on the basis of highway funds, grant or other public payouts that they threaten to with-hold if the state does not comply. Even when a rule makes sense, it still should be up to the states. I big example was the 55 national speed limit. Other examples are seatbelt laws, drinking age, drunk driving BAC levels, and so forth. The Feds step in and use a form of blackmail to force them to pass the legislation they want. Anyway, thanks for mentioning that :).
Good point on the border cities, there really isn't much difference between them and the corresponding cities in Canada. I am down south and there is a difference, but on the border, I just don't know how it could be that different.
For starters, I have never, ever heard of a Police Officer stopping someone to ask them to turn there lights off. Has this happened to you? As for your position, I see no difference between DRL's and seatbelts. Once, both were unheard of, now, not so.
Therein lies the problem. You see the DRL issue exactly have you wish too. You can't separate fact from fiction, and you are determined to have them banned. And yet, you haven't posted any solid proof as to why they should be.
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.
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.