day time lights

Oh heck - far from it.

I understand, it used to happen around here on a regular basis. In fact, regular citizens used to remind other to turn their lights off during the day. That changed in 94.

You don't see a difference, fine. However, seatbelts clearly save lives and you wearing your seatbelt has no impact on other drivers. DRLs are not proven as a safety feature and impact others. I can't put them together as equals.

This is all your opinion, as far as I know I have presented plenty of information on the subject. But, since you have two disparate viewpoints on this, then we have to agree to disagree. I don't deal with fiction in my life, do you?

I was talking of THIS group not all of Usenet

On Sep 5, 3:44 am, "80 Knight" wrote:

Yes, her email address is a .ca address and she posts in Canadian related threads:

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.

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.

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=2E5K, 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."

Comment: No real world data but he can "suggest" the result?

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

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."

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

"(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=2ES. 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."

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

Also look at:

another comment from another person with "opinions": more comments:

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

Rise in Motorcycle and Pedestrian Deaths Led to Increase in Overall Highway Fatality Rate in 2005

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

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.

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.

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.

Nah - this group has seen some pretty long threads that have chased down some pretty deep rabbit holes. I didn't do any google searches to compare the length of this thread to others, but I'd be surprised if it were the mother of all threads.

Just like most of this thread it really dose not matter LOL.

on Tuesday 04 September 2007 05:34 pm, someone posing as Tim took a rock and etched into the cave:

Oh, is that all?

Heck, after running for the past five days with no power in the house I can tell you what to do.

Go down to your local autoparts store and buy one of those flashlights that plug into your cigarette lighter. (I don't know why they include those things anymore...)

Then go down to your local hardware store and buy some duct tape.

You strap the flashlight to the hood of your car/truck and have it go on when the engine is running.

Instant daytime running light.

on Tuesday 04 September 2007 08:44 pm, someone posing as Tim took a rock and etched into the cave:

Bah - you've obviously not seen the hacker beer thread in alt.2600...

And you can go to a home store and buy a generator.

That is easy for you to determine the differance. For one, seat belts are INSIDE the car and DRL are OUTSIDE, just look at the car and you can tell the difference at a glance LOL

mike

Yes, the differences between seat belts and DRLs is obvious: the seat belts are a PROVEN life-saving device and bother no one else on the road. OTOH, the DRLs are an unnecessary distraction that bothers many people and may even CAUSE loss of life (as in motorcycle riders). Remember," The freedom for you to swing your arm ends where my nose begins", and this principle applies quite handily to DRLs. :) The howler monkeys and their self-imagined "wit" can chime in any time on this commentary.

Yawn. You are just like Larry. No evidence, and tons of lies. At least Larry sounds sane, unlike yourself.

DRL do reduce accidents. It is proven and not just a personal oppion.

A study in the United States compared crash rates of specific GM, Volvo, SAAB and Volkswagen cars before and immediately after daylight running lights became standard equipment on these models. The results suggest a reduction in crashes between target vehicles and other vehicles in excess of

5 per cent and a reduction in vehicle and pedestrian collisions of about 9 per cent. A study in Texas in 2002 reported on a trial involving a campaign to encourage voluntary use of headlights during the day. Crash rates in the area where the campaign was run were compared with crash rates in neighbouring areas over the same period and showed a reduction of 58.7 per cent for fatal crashes and for serious injury crashes on major roads.

I've never denied that under certain limited circumstances, DRLs can reduce collision rates, namely at dawn & dusk on two-lane roads with limited forward visibility due to curves and hills. The point I make over and over again is, how many accidents do DRLs CAUSE, thru (mainly) distraction and masking. Effectivity of DRLs should not be promoted or even condoned just for that narrow set of circumstances, since anyone that has a driver's license is supposed to know that you turn your headlights on during periods of limited visibility. Please cite the study source where it showed a reduction of 58.7 percent for fatal crashes and for serious injury crashes on major roads, since that number would seem incredible even for hardcore DRL-use believers.

Stats have been cited over & over again, so I suggest that you remove your head from its usual resting place and look around. What lies? As far as sanity goes, I'm not the one that believes motor vehicles should have their lights on in broad daylight in order to be seen by other drivers. To me, THAT concept smacks of insanity. :)

I've never denied that under certain limited circumstances, DRLs can reduce collision rates, namely at dawn & dusk on two-lane roads with limited forward visibility due to curves and hills. The point I make over and over again is, how many accidents do DRLs CAUSE, thru (mainly) distraction and masking. Use of DRLs should not be promoted or even condoned just for that narrow set of circumstances, since anyone that has a driver's license is supposed to know that you turn your headlights on during periods of limited visibility. Please cite the study source where it showed a reduction of 58.7 percent for fatal crashes and for serious injury crashes on major roads, since that number would seem incredible even for hardcore DRL-use believers.

Just like people believe the world is round and people can actually stand on the bottom of it and not fall off. How about that you can push electricity through a solid wire. Those concepts smack of insanity also.

Not to people that are smart enough to actually understand how things work. :)