GMS & Saturns DRLs

On GMs the headlights are on full time,on Saturns,it's the park lights.Is this how it ended up?.In my opinion,if you have to see lights on in daytime,you shouldn't be driving,plus the battery has enough to do.

Reply to
teem
Loading thread data ...

Uh, this is not sarcasm, so dont take it that way, this topic is a real pet peeve of mine but - The idea is not so YOU can see, the idea is OTHERS can see you. Simply put, it is a proven fact that having some form of DRL's (any kind) helps to prevent accidents by aiding other drivers to see you, (ex: oncoming drivers and at intersections).

Here in FL it drives me nutz when it is downpouring rain and I see so many people that have NO lights on at all. Can you say "camoflage"? Many ppl just dont get the concept of having lights on for safety of themselves and for others. Thats why DRL's are a good idea.

DRL's do not drain as much power as having al l external lights on, therefore they really don't tax the alternator much. And besides, DRL's are alot cheaper than having some old person mess up your nice shiny car because they didn't see you.

marx404

Reply to
marx404

I'm with you on that. Definitely improves your visibility to others. I think the next move should be to make the directional signals visible more from the sides. I often get someone abreast of me on my left, who I later find has his right turn signal on, and is mad because I didn't yield. There are some cars now that have a turn arrow embedded in the side mirrors. Looks strange but is effective. Not as strange as the (British?) car that had a illuminated stalk unfold from the mirror when the turn signal was on.

I'm sure that at some point strobe lights similar to the ones on airplanes, but lower intensity, were proposed as marker lights. That would drive me nuts in traffic. The emergency and slow moving vehicles now mostly have strobes that flash three times fast, a pause and then 3 times again. The syncopation is more likely to be noticed than a steady pattern. Some cars and many trucks now have a system that pulses the brake lights when your foot is steady on the pedal. This does make it much more noticeable. Oppie

Reply to
Oppie

When it's actually darker, sure, but it's a minor peeve of *mine* that FL (and NY and probably other) state law requires headlights when it's raining even when it's just as bright and sunny as when there is no rain (for example, at 9 AM or 4 PM, with the sun at a sufficient angle as to be unaffected by clouds overhead)!

Hey, at least other drivers where you are *use* their turn signals! Here in Southeast Michigan, drivers typically act as if they don't even have them!

Reply to
Steve

You're right that DRLs are not indented to illuminate the road for you, the driver, during daylight hours, but for others; it ostensibly helps them see you better.

I would argue that if you can see them when they have their lights off while it is raining that you don't have much of a complaint. I am noticing more and more vehicles that do not have DRLs, and I seem to recall that the law requiring full-time DRLs were repealed at least in NYS. Can anyone confirm that? If not, can anyone explain why so many late-model vehicles don't have DRLs?

When it rains, I usually turn on my headlights if visibility drops appreciably. But I like having the choice, which is why I disabled the automatic DRL nonsense in my car. While running DRLs may not impact your electrical system all that much it most certainly *will* impact the life of your bulbs. I drive mostly during daylight hours. Headlights are unnecessary.

And if some old person hits me, my insurance will cover it. Hopefully, their insurance will drop them and they'll be forced to ride as passengers if they are unable to see well enough to drive.

Reply to
Brian Talley

Brian said: " And if some old person hits me, my insurance will cover it. Hopefully, their insurance will drop them and they'll be forced to ride as passengers if they are unable to see well enough to drive."

Here it can pour rain on one side of the street and be sunny on the other in an instant, silver, grey and light color cars "dissapear" in the rain. Aslo, even though the sun is out, espacially here, when it is only partly rainy in the bright sunshine, it can render your car invisible to other drivers.

It aint just "old ppl", it could be anyone who doesn't see you. And once you get in an accident, your fault or not, your insurance rates go up, period. Weigh it out, Accidents suck, repairing your car sucks, dealing with traffic cops suck, insurance claims suck. Injuring yourself and others suck. Do DRL's outweigh all of that? you betcha. ;-)

marx404

Reply to
marx404

DRLs are not a good Idea see

formatting link
They do waste gas. There is now way the don't and it is a strain on the alternator.

I have them turned off on my saturn.

Paul

Reply to
Paul

And if turning your lights on helps increase visibility, then do so! I have no problem with people using their lights during what might normally be daylight hours. I have a problem with "on" being the default.

You used the expression.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Is that an abbreviated way of saying "Communism Not Found"?

Brian

Reply to
Brian Talley

The URL you posted is about Audi DRLs, not DRLs in general.

Of course they "waste" gas, so does your cigarette lighter, AC, and everything else. The miniscule amount of gas used in DRLs is more then offset by the increase in safety. In Canada we've had them for at least 15 years and it's a non-issue.

However, I'm sure this issue is like seatbelts. We had a horse's ass professor of philosophy in our city who claimed seatbelts make you LESS safe, in spite of having no credentials in engineering, statistics, or medicine. At least he said that until the courts told him he knew nothing about it and fined him for not wearing a seatbelt. (Sorry, I rant. That SOB still burns me up!)

Reply to
Box134

My bad, the site is about more than Audi vehicles. Sorry.

Reply to
Box134

Reply to
teem

The regulations here in Canada stipulate the required brightness for DRLs. Either the Turn Signal lamps (brighter than Park Lamps) or 75% to 92% (typically 80%) of High Beams are typically used by makers, presumably whichever is easier to configure to the specs. Chrysler seems to like the Turn Signal approach, GM as you noted is a bit of a mix.

Reply to
Chris

C5's and Firebirds didnt have a choice. Generally the DRL's, if routed through the headlights, only work at 40% of their brightness.

My biggest problem with DRL's is that you cannot flash your lights at oncoming cars to warn them of a speed trap ahead of them. You cannot flash your lights at someone looking for a spot to merge. You cannot flash your lights at some slow poke thats not passing anyone in the passing lane.

But what about those people who never turn their lights on in the rain? What about those people who drive at night and forget to turn on their lights? Those things seem worse since the dawn of DRL's. I see peoples headlights on but not a single tail light is lit. I see people coming in a downpoor with DRL's but I cant see the person infront of me until they hit their brakes. How has DRL's helped in those area's? My father kept driving home at night with only his DRL's on only because he thought his lights were on. Gee yeah what a great idea DRL's have been...

My car is equiped with twilight sentinel so even if I did forget to flip on my headlights my car would do it for me. Nothing beats a smart twilight sentinel. You can see my tail lights in a downpoor. Thats something you wont see with DRL's. Of course not all "twilight sentinel" systems are the same. Chrysler makes a rather stupid lighting system. The second its dark the lights are on, the second its light the lights are off. No delay in the system so its on and off on and off. Cheap cheap cheap.

Reply to
blah blah

I don't know what you drive, but with my 96 SL2 I can certainly flash my headlamps because Saturns of that vintage have the dedicated inboard DRLs. Only problem is how many people know what you're telling them? I know in some parts of the world it's a universally accepted method of letting the other driver know you're giving them the right of way.

DRLs aren't a panacea for every form of idiocy, carelessness, or inattention on the road. Everyone is ultimately responsible to use their own grey matter. They address one specific issue.

Reply to
Box134

Care to share the "proof." All the studies I've seen that show a safety advantage were in far northern counties (like Finland, Norway, Sweden) and even then they were often flawed. Data from more southernly climates is not conclusive. Since GM (and some others) have been installing DRLs on cars in the US for sometime while Ford, Chrysler, and others have not, it should be possible to collect good data for US conditions (DRLs vs no DRLs). I have not seem a complete study that does this. But maybe you have.

formatting link
- old data (nothing as new as 1995)
formatting link
(this is a GM study. They only included crashes in the study where DRLs might be beneficial. They ignored the possibility that other sorts of accidents might be increased as a result of DRLs. It is essentially a study designed by GM to "prove" DRL are good).
formatting link
(Rabid anti-DRL group)
formatting link
(more rabid anti-DRL information)
formatting link
(check out the line that says "None of these results were statistically significant" - the actual study is in the next reference)
formatting link
- This the best study I can find and it does not make a good case for DRLs. Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

What works in Canada might not be appropriate for Florida. Read

formatting link
and then tell me the case for DRLs in the US is compelling.

DRLs and Seat Belts are not the same things. If you want to compare dubious safety devices compare Center Brake Lights, Air Bags, and ABS. The case for DRLs and these other safety devices is dubious. It is my contnetion that in many cases the money spent on these four "safety" device could have been better spent if you goal is reducing accidents.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

formatting link
(this is a GM study. They only included crashes in the study where DRLs> might be beneficial. They ignored the possibility that other sorts of> accidents might be increased as a result of DRLs. How could having lights on in the daytime cause an accident? I'm not trying to be a smartass but I can't concieve of any situation where a low intesity light during daylight hours could cause an accident.

formatting link
(check out the line that says "None of these results were statistically> significant" - the actual study is in the next reference)>
formatting link
- This> the best study I can find and it does not make a good case for DRLs.>

Reply to
Roy

formatting link
> (this is a GM study. They only included crashes in the study where DRLs>> might be beneficial. They ignored the possibility that other sorts of>> accidents might be increased as a result of DRLs.>

Distractions. Your eyes are drawn towards the DRLs and away from other items. They also tend to hide motorcycles. Glare. Inconsistent implementation. Yada, Yada, Yada. Look through the other references, particualrly the ones form the anti-DRL sites. The NHTSA reference (last one) actaully showed an 8% INCREASE in some types of accidents related to DRLs (like the decreases associated with DRLs, this increase was not considerdd statistically significant). I have not seen a single study that was based on US condiutions that showed DRL provided a significant positive benefit. If there is one, I'd like to see it. I am tiresd of being saddled with useless "safety devices" (ABS) or dangerous "safety devices" (air bags) becasue Joan Claybrook, Clarence Ditlow and their ilk whine aboiut automotove safety. If road safety is the true goal, then there are plenty of better ways to spend the "safety dollar" than some of the "safety devices" promoted by self appointed safety experts. What relly tees me off is that even when safety devices can be shown to be of dubious value ( air bags, high mounted brake lights), the requirements for these devices are not removed. I particualrly hate air bags since for people who atually use seat belts, they are at best marginally useful and at worst dangerous (not to mention expensive).

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

The biggest safety issue I've seen with DRLs is that some vehicle drivers don't realize they don't have their headlights on at dusk since they have the DRLs and think they have the lights on, but do not. I've even seen some idiots driving in full darkness with only DRLs and no side markers or tail lights. You would think they would figure it out since they have no dash lights, but that does not appear to be the case.

I personally prefer to make the decision on whether to use the headlights or not myself and not take the decision away from the driver. I also think the added energy cost should be a factor in the decision.

Bob

Reply to
Bob Shuman

formatting link
>> (this is a GM study. They only included crashes in the study where DRLs> >> might be beneficial. They ignored the possibility that other sorts of> >> accidents might be increased as a result of DRLs.> >

"Distractions" If you aren't any smarter than a fish (attention drawn solely to shiny objects) or if you have tunnel vision then you have no business behind the wheel of a car. As far as I know this isn't a US only group. Here in Canada where the sun spends a lot of the winter at a low angle I see a big advantage to DRLs. As for people driving at night with no headlight, people did that before DRLs and they will continue to do it as long as there is a switch for them. I'll admit I did it once when I was in high school, out with my friend on a well lit street downtown, a little distracted. I only went about half a block before a nice police officer pulled up beside me and reminded me to turn em on. :-) Good talking to ya.

formatting link
>> (check out the line that says "None of these results were statistically> >> significant" - the actual study is in the next reference)> >>
formatting link
-> >> This

Reply to
Roy

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.