Disabling Daytime Running Lights

Page 3 of 4  
"Steve W." wrote:


Yours are anecdotes that fit in the 20% portion of the distribution table. The 80% that I quoted is from gov't stats gathered from several thousand motorcycle/car collisions.
Once again, as the DRLs increase in number, so do the motorcycle fatalities, running about a 10% increase per year for the last 5 years. Curiously, that increase happens to have a strong correlation with the number of 2-track vehicles equipped with DRLs that are being added to the number of US road-registered vehicles annually. Of course, that COULD be just a coincidence. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motocycle fatality rates per miles traveled are indeed increasing...the reports are available on the NHTSA site. Also a good read is the Perot & Prowler study on effects of DRLs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

99% of that increase is due to IDIOT squids riding bikes well beyond their ability to handle them. Look at the age statistics not just the numbers. Notice that the majority who die are under 30? Want a recipe for disaster. Take a 100+ HP bike. Put a kid who has never ridden before on it (happens A LOT, seems these kids think that having a race bike makes them superman) Now turn him loose to do the stunts that are so common now (well ever since these stupid "reality" shows have been on, and movies like fast and furious and others showing bikes/cars doing tricks) things like 60 MPH "stoppies" and 70 mph "wheelies" and other dumb crap. Think the fact that this type of event has had any effect? Ever got to pick body parts from some 20 year old out of guide rails when he lost control while wearing his flip flops and T-shirt and doing 80 in a 45 zone? DRLs have nothing to do with that increase. Maybe if driver training was actually required in the US you would see the numbers drop.
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You ranting for DRLs says more about you than the Senates decision to not make DRLs mandatory in the US. Why do you think they should be standard equipment? Do you believe the average driver has a vision problem that they can't see a two ton vehicle, in broad daylight, unless it has DRLs? Talk about inability to judge distance ;)
You might want to do some research on the human eye, lights and perception. Why do you think magicians use strong lighting, in broad daylight, when the want to create an illusion?
mike hunt
Grayfox wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The military uses lights as camouflage as well. In some lighting conditions (common in the desert southwest, by the way) a dark silhouette against a light background (like sand/snow/sky) is more visible that a lighted vehicle that then blends in with it's background. In WWII, the military used lights on bombers to make them disappear (or nearly disappear) in the daytime sky.
Lighting is a very tricky science. GM only tells half the story about the effects of daytime illumination. Unless they can make them with variable intensity system that "auto-senses" the background/foreground lighting conditions, they will mask a vehicle on some occasions. Perhaps their engineers aught to study the masking effects of lighting that had been known for decades!
-Jim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Motorcycles do not use low light illumination. They use the headlamp. Just hope you are not among a bunch of cars with DRLs.
mike hunt
Grayfox wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Position has nothing to do with the confusing distance perception. It is the difference in intensity of the two types of lighting and the fact that many drivers of DRL equipped vehicles operate illegally under those conditions by not tuning on their headlamps as required by law.
Do you understand now? If not I suggest you search the Congressional Record for the reports to the US Senate from the engineering departments of the universities that did the study. They came to the conclusion that DRLs cause more accidents than they prevent. That is the reason DRLs are not standard equipment in the US
Of course if you just want continue to post you personal opinion on the subject I guess you could do that instead.
mike hunt
Steve Mackie wrote:

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

I am reading the facts and forming an opinion like everyone else is.

So the driver made a mistake.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

That is perhaps the dumbest thing you have ever spewed forth! Do you think that all vehicle headlights have the same intensity? Do you think that all DRL's have the same intensity. I doubt that neither you nor anybody else could consistantly tell the difference between DRL's and headlights. If you judge distance to an approaching vehicles by the intensity of their lights, man you are in for a world of hurt! And I thought that you were a car guy!

Wasn't it research groups at the universities that said thalidomide was safe? Yep, if a university research group says it is true, it must be so. Beam me up Scotty!
Do you remember the name Ralph Nader? Did you believe him too?
That is the reason DRLs are not standard equipment

You seem to be suggesting that you formed your personal opinion on what appears to be suspect junk science. Hey, but that's okay. Wanna buy my '52 Chev for only $45,000? Some appraiser said it's worth $50,000.00!

Cunning Linguist
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I did not spew anything. I merely quoted from the report to the US Senate. It is available in the Congressional Record for you to read as well if you wish to be enlightened.
You are free to believe whatever you wish, I could not care less about you opinion. I prefer to believe the engineering schools of two of the best engineering schools in the country, as did the Senate, rather than your personal opinion, however.
mike hunt
Grayfox wrote:

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

So much for "professors" and their book knowledge.
How about insurance companies? They offer discounts for cars with DRLs. If they put their money on the line I will go with them.
I know someone who brought a Dodge to the U.S. from Canada. He had to prove to his insurance company that he had DRLs to get a discount.
So I guess if you disable your DRLs you had better notify your insurance company. If you have an accident with them disabled they might not pay off.
Avis car rental reported a 64% reduction in car damages with cars equiped with DRLs
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

reduce traffic by about 60%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
An example are Saturn's and some Oldsmobile's where the DRLs are 10" or so apart. The car's apparent position appears much further away than it really is under some light conditions.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are driving at a time of low visibility, dusk, dawn, fog etc. You assume the approaching vehicle is being operated with headlamps, as required by state law. You think you have sufficient distance to pass or enter unto the highway safely. Unfortunatly you have a collision because you misjudged the distance. The approaching vehicle was in fact being operated illegally, with DRLs rather than headlamps, and was actually much closer. OK?
mike hunt
Steve Mackie wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK, well from all the flames, I guess I should've added that the lights still automatically come on in dark/low light conditions (that means all of them, headlights, taillights, etc), AUTOMATICALLY, so here's to the kind words from some of you!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"S.B. Fowler" wrote:

Nothing wrong with automatic lighting; I've had it on all my cars for the last 20 years or so and I think it's GREAT. Imagine, lighting when it's NEEDED. However, DRLs still suck to the MAX and the PTB that still want to perpetuate this travesty knowing the DISbenefits (negative safety factors) involved should be jailed (at least).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've had auto light controls too. I have found that auto lights aren't always reliable in turning on headlights as required when it's foggy or snowing (during the daytime hours). So I don't agree with this statement.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oops, sorry, I thought this was the news group alt.autos.gm --- looks like I'm in the alt.autos.DRL's newsgroup.
LOL
Harryface 05 Park Avenue 91 Bonneville LE, 303,219 miles
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They're one in the same, aren't they? ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
S.B. Fowler wrote:

That's no reason to continue your childish habit of driving around with your fog lights on when there is no fog! Remember? F-O-G lights!!!
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.