Headlights going out

Page 2 of 2  
snipped-for-privacy@larfx.net wrote:


I didn't call you stupid, I called what you're doing stupid. Infer whatever you want from it.

Because if you go back and read your own words, you'll see that's exactly what you said several times.

Nonsense. Perhaps you're different from the rest of us, but I can see just fine when other cars have DRLs on and I can see them at longer distances, which is precisely what the DRLs are designed to do. FWIW, my eyes are particularly sensitive to glare and bright lights, but I have no problems with DRLs on other cars.

Exaggeration is not going to help your case. Of course there are situations where DRLs aren't necessary, no one is disputing that. Seatbelts, airbags, rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety features aren't necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that they should all be removed, too?
DRLs help one see the "big picture". Perhaps the vehicle in question is not close enough to need to be actively dealt with, but if it's heading toward you, it may be soon. Additionally, most input when driving is processed on the subconscious level and automatically filtered/prioritized by the brain based on need.

Again, that's nonsense. DRLs have nothing to do with one's ability to see other things in one's environment.

Perhaps YOU find them to be a visual distraction, but that's probably because you don't like them, for whatever reason, so you consciously notice them. I don't find them distracting at all.

No one said that. It's just a red herring that you threw into the discussion.

As I said above, I didn't call you stupid and you need to go back and read what YOU wrote.

There you go again. DRLs have nothing to do with drivers' eyesight. They have everything to do with making vehicles more visible to everyone, regardless of their visual acuity.

I don't. I specifically eschew "features" that try to be smarter than the driver or substitute technology for driver skill. That's why my car doesn't have ABS or TCS. I prefer to learn how to handle my car in low traction situations than to rely on technologies that work best when you don't need them and are least effective when they're most necessary. I also drive a manual transmission, for similar reasons.

And if you would quit obsessing over something as innocuous as DRLs, we could have avoided this whole silly debate.

Oh, brother! Let me guess, next you'll say that you're taking your ball and going home.
What you've proven is that you have your opinions engraved in stone and you're completely unwilling to listen to reason. Given that, why bother to even have a discussion?

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Sorry Larry, but you don't get to control the discussion. You have the choice to participate or not, but that's it. You obviously have no interest in what anyone else has to say, so why are you here? Your opinion has been discredited, so you try to demean the whole group in in order to divert attention from the discussion. It seems to me that you're the only one with a problem here. Stay or go as you wish, but don't expect people to agree with you just because you tell them that you're smarter than they are.
BTW, I love the way you insult people, then tack on a blessing at the end. How very Christian of you. Is that supposed to make it all better?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK guys I think this has really gone to the end.....time to turn it over to " Mythbusters " let them finger it out. Besides if I can throw in my 2 cents, wernt DRL's really designed at first for the Northeast when some states passsed laws that you had to turn on your headlights when it was raining ??? I remember a firend getting a ticket when involved in an accident because he didnt have his lights on when it was raining. Just my 2 cents
']['unez
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Many states have laws which say "if your wipers are on, your headlights must be on." They do issue tickets for this in my area.
I wish my car had DRLs so I didn't have to burn my main headlights during the day. Too many people think some Sunday driver granny is driving my Sonata.... well at least until I blow right past them :)
']['unez wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Many states have laws which say "if your wipers are on, your headlights must be on." They do issue tickets for this in my area.
I wish my car had DRLs so I didn't have to burn my main headlights during the day. Too many people think some Sunday driver granny is driving my Sonata.... well at least until I blow right past them :)
']['unez wrote:

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

- The exaggeration is all yours. You have repeatedly spoken about seeing cars at a long distance, that was what you wanted to talk about. You haven't addressed the fact that you can see just fine and drive safely if the cars don't have their lights on.
You keep wanting to talk about everything but DRLs, why is that. You can't provide anything that actually supports their use and even acknowledge that, with the exception of long distance, that there are times that DRLs are not necessary, hmmm.
Look, you are curious, so I will indulge you: Seatbelts - necessary / airbags - can cause injury to certain passengers, but overall are a safety item, but can be done without based on preference / rollover protection - necessary / CHMSL - necessary. All of these items have a proven safety record, however DRLs do not. So, what is your point, I like them (although I am not a huge fan of airbags, but I haven't been in any rush to get rid of them either).
The bottom line is that DRLs are not needed for safety and there are plenty of cars manufactured without them. It is a perfectly normal thing to fix that defect and make the car operate normally.

- No, DRLs help one focus on a single car for a moment, to the exclusion of the big picture. If that car in the distance is catching your eye, it shouldn't, you should be scanning the immediate area for things that impact your current drive and not where you will be later. Quite honestly, if you are not having to deal with that car in the distance, it will probably be gone by the time you get there, but the car in front of you is there and you should be looking at it.

- No, not "nonsense", it is a basic fundamental of driving. You are to be alert and scan the area to be ready for any possible hazard or change in the driving condition. People driving with lights on their cars add a stimulant distraction that harms your ability to process all inputs during the moment your eyes focus on the extra input.
The mere fact that a persons lights are in the environment that you are viewing makes DRLs play a role in seeing things since you have see the lights along with everything else.

- Good for you, but you are not me. Nor are you the many other people that feel the same. There are plenty of folks turning their lights off, and car companies like Toyota that are, as well, they must all be mistaken then. You can't base the impact of your lights, solely on your own perspective.

- No, you want to see cars that are far away. For some strange reason, you focus in on that as the only positive reason to have DRLs.
<snip>

- Ok, so since we can see the cars just fine without the lights. The only reason you would need to add additional stimuli would be because other persons have poor vision. It goes hand in hand. "Visible" is related directly to sight.

- So, you hate ABS or TCS and want to disable them, even though they do make your driving safer. Hmmm, you must hate everything, just following your line of reasoning from above. How about this: "Seatbelts, airbags, rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety features aren't necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that they should all be removed, too?"
What you have just said applies directly to DRLs. They are not affective in the majority of situations and they are placed on certain vehicles and the driver does not always have a choice if they are on or not. You would disable your ABS because you want control over your vehicle for a feature that you don't have to have to drive safely and you know that to be true. How is this unlike removing DRLs when you know full well that they do not enhance your safety, hmmm. You can't be thinking it is stupid for a person to remove something from their car for a similar reason while you doing the same is "smart", sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

- The only one obsessing is you. I made some comments, but you got so irritated that you had to call what I said stupid and argue with me. The only reason that I am speaking with you right now is because for whatever reason you want to defend your right to see cars a long way off while irritating others in closer range. You are so adamant that the far off cars need to be lit that you would carry on this kind of conversation with a perfect stranger. I really think that deep down you know that the lights are not helping you and that many people don't like them. You just can't stand it if someone takes exception to what you are doing.

- No, I wish you would :).

- No, actually they aren't. However I do know that we can all drive safely without the lights, that hasn't changed. I understand that there are people out there that will do whatever they want to without paying attention to reason or the impact on others. Quite honestly, if people would stop using their headlights as DRLs or drive around with their brights on then it would not be as big a deal. I have no control over what you do, but I do expect you to look at your car and see if it is possible that your lights could be glaring and have some consideration for others.
I see no reason for lights during the day, you do. It is fine to disagree. It is not illegal to use your lights during the day, so go for it, but do so with consideration of how your lights will impact others.
Reason, wow it would be nice if you were exhibiting some. In general, you haven't added anything to the discussion, other than lighting far away cars :).
<snip>

- Don't care to :).
<snip> > Your opinion has been discredited, - Discredited by what, you haven't actually said anything substantial.

- This has been what you have been doing. I haven't seen you do anything but be demeaning and stereotyping on this list. You can't accept that there are different opinions and you keep coming time and again. I don't ever remember addressing you in my original comments. You came out of left field to take me head on in a vain attempt to discredit me, not with facts or reasoned opinions, but with comments about things being "stupid" and trying to put words in my mouth. Your actions are clear.

- Same to you, and don't expect people to shut up because you call them stupid or attempt to stereotype or verbally beat them into submission, LOL.

- I never insulted you, that is your department. I do believe in God and fully believe in honest debate.
So, God bless,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@larfx.net wrote:

No, that's not at all what I said. What I said is that DRLs increase the distance at which you can see a car, which can be critical to safety under some conditions. I cited one. Another common scenario is a dark car driving through a shadow area. It can be very difficult or impossible to see on its own, but DRLs make it visible.

If you weren't so lazy - or afraid of having your flawed premise blown out of the water - you could have found an abundance of information supporting the use of DRLs with a quick Google search. Here are just the first three that came up when I searched on "effects of daytime running lights:
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/library/consultations/consultation_paper_drl_20060727.pdf http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-97-36.PDF

Once more, you're absolutely wrong. Do the research.

I don't see them as a defect and apparently neither do the agencies that study and regulate vehicle safety.

Not at all. What DRLs do is increase the visibility of objects in your field of view. There is no need to concentrate on anything. The brain processes the input subconsciously

Perhaps you're limited in how much information you can process, but I don't find it to be a problem at all.

Of course they do, but the way you're phrasing things sounds like your claiming that they aid the vision of the person in the DRL equipped vehicle, which they don't except perhaps in conditions where one should really have their headlights on. If that's not what you mean, fine, but I'm not the only one here that concluded that's what you meant from what you wrote.

Hmmm. I don't see anyone here jumping to your defense. I guess that makes you the minority, doesn't it?

No, that's not what I said. You know that, but you keep harping on it pointlessly anyway.

No, poor visibility and/or low contrast conditions can limit the visual range of someone with excellent eyesight, as in the examples I cited. It has nothing specific to do with the visual acuity of drivers, though it does have the side effect of making things more visible for those with less than ideal eyesight. Whether they should be driving or not is a separate issue.

No, you're misinterpreting what I said. ABS and TCS were options on my car and I chose not to add them. I prefer skill to technology in these areas and I'm willing to work on the necessary skills through practice. There are studies that show that a skilled driver can outperform these systems in many situations. For the average driver, they're well worthwhile.

No, once again you missed the mark by a country mile. Read the reasearch.

No kidding? Don't hold your breath.

Who are you to speak for "we all"? Obviously, the data suggests otherwise.

Which is why I don't use fog lights or high beams on when they're not necessary, such as on clear nights when glare can be a significant problem. During the day, it's not an issue, except apparently for you.

I don't know about where you live, but it's perfectly legal here. In fact, there are stretches of road where daytime headlight use is mandated. Apparently, it helps to prevent accidents in those areas.

Read the research.

Then don't tell people to shut up, just because they don't agree with you.

Read the research.

Then you must have spent as much time reading this board as you have reading research on DRL effectiveness.

Of course I can, but I don't suffer fools. Sometimes it's necessary to agree to disagree and that's fine, but in some cases, people post information that is clearly wrong and it should be pointed out. There's also a difference between stating and opinion and stating something as fact. You've offered a lot of opinions here, but no facts to back them up. The studies indicate that you're wrong.

It's an open forum, Larry. You have no control over who reads it or who responds. That's just the nature of Usenet. As for facts, once more, read the research. The facts do not support your opinions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Nystrom wrote:
<snip>
Brian,
You could argue with a paper sack, apparently. You won't be quiet, you keep ranting on an on about research this and that I am wrong about that. I haven't seen anything in your postings that merit any further replies or even anything that supports your position. You have based everything on your personal perception and continue to try to read into my comments things that were never said. You have ignored what I actually said (pro and con links, actual discussion and even agreement with others) and have continued to fight. I don't know why you are fighting and I don't want to know. By the way, this isn't a contest of who can yell the loudest. There are people on here that can talk without attacking others, you could learn allot from these people.
I have made the case against DRLs, you have done something, but I am not quite sure, ha ha. You can agree or disagree with me, I really don't care. I am glad to have riled you up, because that shows that this subject really gets under your skin and you have to fight for an idea that you know is flaky, oh well :).
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@larfx.net wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you Larry, but I'm not "riled up" as you hoped, nor do I have any particular concern about DRLs. What I do care about is that the information here is accurate or at least that both sides of an issue get presented, so that others reading it can make informed decisions. If you want to continue to post your bizarre opinions on this subject as fact, I'll continue to point out your errors. Your closed-mindedness is evident and your silly diversionary ploys don't work. If you expect people to feel sorry for you or to accept your opinions simply because you keep repeating them, you have a few things to learn about Usenet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Nystrom wrote:

- Sounds like the one who needs to learn about Usenet, is you. The way that you presented your argument has failed, just admit it and go on.
The proof of you being affected by this subject is very obvious. The evidence is the lack of clear reasoning in your discussions and the distinct lack of facts, as well. You post fast and fail to make sense, this is because this subject affects you. If you were just simply having a discussion, you would not have carried out such a tirade.
You are for DRLs, wonderful, but you haven't made one distinctive point that even supports them. You are grasping at straws and I don't know why you even bother responding.
Look, I don't want to know what your issues are, but your response to me shows that you have something going on that causes you to continue this.
I really wish that I could help you, but apparently you are beyond assistance.
God bless,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@larfx.net wrote:

Larry, I don't need your help, but perhaps you should seek out professional counsel. You have ignored everything others have presented here and blindly stuck to your opinion, despite the evidence against it. You are in complete denial of the truth, for some strange reason. I tired of arguing with some who acts like an obstinate child. Everyone here can see what you're doing and no one is supporting you or your position. You're wrong. Get over it. Move on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Nystrom wrote:

- You are still being affected by this subject, why? I still don't know, LOL.
It would have been nice if you did have some evidence or a line of reasoning, still haven't seen that.
Now, buzz off and go play with your friends, ROTFLOL.
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your wish is my command. Read: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html
I'm not saying that there should be laws designed to force everyone to drive with their headlights or DRL's on in the daytime. I can't stand when the f%)!@%! government trys to tell me what to do. What is annoying is when people who have no idea what they're talking about tell me that something I'm doing is either annoying or dangerous. And, especially someone who has had at least two major accidents caused by not paying attention to the road - you do realize that you could've been responsible for the death of a human being through your inattentiveness. And still, you're proud to say that you drive while talking on a cell phone - real responsible.... I honestly don't give a shit what you think about DRL's or that you disconnect yours for whatever reason. It's a free country and it is NOT illegal to drive with or without headlights on in the daytime - so, I'll continue to do so no matter what you think. If that annoys you, then all the better. I think this is done.
HJS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Homer S. wrote:
Hey Homer,
There is more out there than just one link. And by the way, I do know what I am talking about, so I have to ignore your negativity. There is no reason for you to be so irritated over this.
Here are some links, pro, con and discussion:
I was a participant in this discussion (be aware there were some folks that just wanted to be negative, not unlike some of the comments on this list) :
http://www.300cforums.com/forums/general-discussion/29156-daytime-running-lights-dlr.html?highlight=larfx
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html
http://www.lightsout.org /
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl /
http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2004...-GRE-53-08e.pdf
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm
http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl /
http://www.answers.com/topic/daytime-running-lamp
http://www.acrs.org.au/collegepolicies/vehicles/daytimerunninglights.html
Another discussion, but I had no involvement in it: http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/show...7&highlight=drl
God bless,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Some of the links in my first reply to Homer are broken. I fixed it in a second post and I am sorry for the multiple postings.
Thanks for your time,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Homer S. wrote:
Hey Homer,
There is more out there than just one link. And by the way, I do know what I am talking about, so I have to ignore your negativity. There is no reason for you to be so irritated over this.
Here are some links, pro, con and discussion:
I was a participant in this discussion (be aware there were some folks that just wanted to be negative, not unlike some of the comments on this list) :
http://www.300cforums.com/forums/general-discussion/29156-daytime-running-lights-dlr.html?highlight=larfx
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html
http://www.lightsout.org /
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl /
http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2004/wp29gre/TRANS-WP29-GRE-53-08e.pdf
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm
http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl /
http://www.answers.com/topic/daytime-running-lamp
http://www.acrs.org.au/collegepolicies/vehicles/daytimerunninglights.html
Another discussion, but I had no involvement in it: http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/showthread.php?tA27&highlight=drl
God bless,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What is being wasted? The bulbs are u sually low powered highbeams and last a long time that way. It is n ot a strain on the alternator or battery. Cost over 20 years may be two bucks?

Perhaps you are distracted by them, but I've never heard that complaint from anyone else. Taking your position, that standout distraction is magnified even more at night so perhaps we should not use light at night either. Ig you can show me a situation where thee was an accident cause by DRL on another car, I'll believe you.
Meantime, take a look here for some interesting studies. http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm Summary of the Studies U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). In summary, although the studies of DRLs have differed in design, analysis techniques, and outcome measures, the later studies are largely in accordance with the earlier ones, indicating that the overall effect of DRLs on motor vehicle crashes is positive.
I'm sure none of this will change your mind though. I only know what I can see myselft and I've nver been distracted by a DRL. This is not to say that a few idiots that hae their high bemas on (an entirely different situation) will n ot give you some glare in daylight, just as at night.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
glassfern53 wrote:

Time to learn to shop. You can get bulbs a lot cheaper than that. Even better quality bulbs like Sylvania Silverstars can be had for $25/pair online.
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.