Daytime Running Lights Standardization Needed? Featured

| They really show up on a car when the setting sun is shining brightly | behind it.

A dark unlit object in silhouette in front of a bright background in much more visible than a object illuminated to near the same level as the background . In World War II pilots used variable-intensity floodlights on airplanes for the purpose of _masking_ their approach on a target. Your assertion is simply proven as incorrect decades ago.

Do you remember to manually turn on the lights when it's foggy out in the daytime? Ambient auto light control systems aren't typically reliable in those circumstances that require lights be on? Curious.

.. and here we have the real reason for the problem with DRL's.. the arguments about them being unsafe are a smoke screen.. the truth is that US motorists want control of when they use headlights.. yet another case when wording in the 1st Amendment is used to allow people to do whatever they want, regardless of the effects that their actions may have on others.. hardly in the true spirit of the Amendment but words are words, I am told..

and for the record, I have a problem driving at night in North America.. continually blinded by poorly adjusted and badly designed headlamps.. I hate driving at night for that reason..

Re. DRL's being less effective in Euro form.. this is simply not true.. DRL's do not drive their effectiveness by the beams being aligned 'line of sight'.. DRL's are probably most effective where pedestrians both young and old are concerned.. I would be interested to hear your views on child safety and the road..

Re. Cost of using DRL's.. lol.. Boeing claim that it is cheaper to pay lawsuits than to change design to make airplanes safer.. that is how much US companies and people value the lives of others.. using DRL's doesn't lead to yearly failure of headlight bulbs, or anything close.. bulbs are maybe US$6.00 each.. that will hardly break the bank even if it was a yearly replacement cost.. and all to make it safer for kids..

Canadians are as proactive as anybody else, but they do not extend the wording in any constitution to the detriment of the masses.. I think that anybody who uses the wording of the first Amendment to bypass safety issues is doing a disservice to the people that wrote it up..

Shining a flashlight into Grandma's eyes at point blank range?.. lol.. hardly in the same category as an approaching car with DRL's activated..

Auto headlight systems are designed to work in low level lighting.. fog/falling snow does not fall into the category of low light level.. if you take a manual slr camera out into fog and operate the light meter, you will find that closing the aperture of the lens is necessary to get a pic.. ambient light levels in fog are actually quite high even tho visibilty may be impaired.. Canadian vehicles have DRL's on permanently, so the auto function, if fitted, will work when light levels fall, ie dusk onwards.. it is the responsibilty of the vehicle user to ensure that ALL running lights are switched on and maintained properly, cleaned and operational, for the benefit of ALL other road users.. please note that it is not just vehicles that use the roads.. pedestrians are out there too..

That GM have chosen to use high beam as DRL's is an issue to be taken up with them.. It is unfair to blame Canada for it.. but in your own words, GM have opted to standardise the DRL function in alignment with Canada presumably for COST reasons, but that is their right, right?..

US DOT must do something about headlamps generally.. they will not want to take the Euro route because the French are part of Euro and no way will they do anything that the French do.. even if it is in the general safety interests of US citizens.. here we are back at the Boeing thing.. better to stumble forwards with old practices rather than address a safety issue that will require many $$$ to fix..

It irks me to think that the lives of my two kids are not even worth US$12.00 to somebody else.. I wonder what kind of lawsuit I would face if I were to take the same attitude with somebody else's kids.. I can just see the look on the parents face as I tell the judge that $12.00 was more than I thought reasonable to pay such that my vehicle could be seen..

As for the argument that flashing main beam to warn others becomes impossible with DRL's, tell me this.. if a driver flashes main beam, is it indicate 1. get the f&%k out of the way, I am coming thru.. 2. By all means take precedence over my progress.. 3. oops, I meant to use the wash/wipe on my bug-laden windshield, but still get the f&%k out of the way.. 4. Hey Grandma, remember the flashlight?.. 5. the cops have radar down the road aways, back it on down.. 6. this one is a French practice.. flash main beam on highways to indicate that one is about to pass the vehicle in front.. 7. Yes, big wheeler, it is ok to pull back into the lane..

Did you just figure that out? Also, in case you didn't notice, we are not discussing driving lights.

When this is done using the high beam bulb, they don't reduce dazzling, they create a potentially dangerous and always annoying situation.

Whats wrong with having your other lights on? The times when you really need to have your lights on during the day are minimal, so bulb life would not be noticeably affected.

All recent cars I have been in have a little chime reminding you when you leave your lights on with the car off. A simple device that works well. It also doesn't intrude when not needed, the way DRL's do.

what is paki-bashing? I would add that if your vision is not that good, you have no business behind the wheel of a car. Driving is not a right. If you can't prove you are capable of safely driving a car, then you shouldn't have a license.

If you can't see, that precludes you from being a competent driver. If your half inch thick glasses allow you to see well, then not a problem.

Once again, if they are not phyically capable of safely driving, they don't belong on the road.

This is a stupid idea. You shouldn't encourage people who can't physically handle the demands of drving. They don't belong behind the wheel of a car. They should realize that and take themsleves off the road before they hurt themselves and others on the road.

Doesn't really matter. If the car is so far away that I can't see them down the road, then I have more than enough room to do a safe pass. That's all the information I need.

I don't understand why you want to make excuses for keeping people who have not business driving behind the wheel of a car.

---------------- Alex

This true. US lighting standards are part of the problem.

Who does like being told what to do? Especially when you are smart enough to realize that what they are telling you to do is something you know is not good for you.

Not blind, but definitely annoy. If I shine a flash light in your face it won't blind you, but it will be annoying and distracting. That is exactly how some DRL's feel.

So now everyone gets stuck with annoying and uncessary DRL's because of a few folks too stupid to realize they need to turn on their lights. Maybe the government should fix the problme instead of treating the sympton. Educate drivers before they get a license on when it is necessary to turn on their lights, and DRL's would be unecessary. This solution would also be retroactive in the sense that it works with all cars, not just with the new ones.

If your eye sight is failing, then you should not be driving.

Not quite. It is not a law yet, at least not in the US. Unfortunately I do have to deal with GM's idiocy. That is one reason I won't buy a GM car.

-------------- Alex

Pedestrians also have to see cars approaching.. it is not always just a question of being seen by other drivers..

Yes, they come on at about 80~85% of full sunlight brightness, so that includes overcast conditions, even slight fog. There is a trim pot in the dash photo sensor that I could tweak for a slightly higher ambient light threshold, but I don't believe it's necessary to adjust it from where it is.

Interesting, the Malibu I used to have didn't have a way to adjust the sensitivity of the ambient light sensor. The way the lights would work, or not work, drove my wife and I so crazy we just sold the car. Nothing worse than owning a car like that. All our cars have _manual_ light controls now, which suits us better and we _know_ what the lights are set for since _we_ set them. But, nothing against those that like the auto lighting, they just weren't for us.

What you are describing is not unique to U.S. companies by a long shot - I could give you personal examples of amoral behavior of French and German companies that look at only the net effect on dollars vs. and moral, ethical, or humanitarian considerations.

It is all embodied in the modern euphemistic term "value added". In the modern business philosophy, a decision will be based 100% on how it affects the bottom line of the company. You think contributions by corporations are for the benefit of others? Maybe sometimes. But mostly, if the contribution was made, it was due to a claculated net positive effect on the bottom line - either in the form of taxes, or public opinion, favorable consideration by some governement or other busines entity, or succumbing to Jesse Jackson's blackmail techniques, or a combination of the above.

Product decisions are made in exactly the same way. If painting the flambatic dopulator will add $0.10 to the cost of each vehicle, but the net gain in sales will add only $0.09 to the bottom line averaged over all the vehicles, it will not be painted. If it adds $0.11 in average sales gains, then it will be done. The fact that it will save the customer $5.26 a month in repair costs if the flambatic dopulator is painted is totally 100% irrelavent to the decision if the customer does not perceive that fact - it would be considered "non-value-added" in modern business-speak, even though in reality it would be genuine value added to the customer.

Right or wrong, good or bad, in highly competitive situations, that's how human nature operates. I have observed in my professional life based on observations that you can take practically any decent human being and if you push them up against the wall hard enough with a reality that will cause them pain (the company will close down and you will lose your job if you give the customer $0.05 of added value at company expense, or it will go out of business if you help out a deserving employee), that person will go with what benefits the company. (That's not to say that some people won't go for the jugular when they taste blood just for the thrill of it when doing the right thing would have done no damage to the company, but that is a different type of person.) I won't bore you with personal examples.

But I assure you - it is not unique to American companies. Some of the most blood-thirsty acts I have personally witnessed were comitted by European companies.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

So buy a Peugot, or a Renault. It's a free country. (they are not sold in Canada, so won't get "Canadian mandated" DRLs.)

The lighting laws _specifically state_ that the _operator_ is the one that is responsible for the proper operation of vehicle lighting. The manufacturer isn't even mentioned as having a role. Since a "auto" system can't read the law and certainly can't apply a real decision process applicable to when the written law says the lights (all of them) are to be on, then the control of said lights should be at the discretion of the operator (a entity that can _think_). The operator can certainly _decide_ if they want a auto system to do it for them. BUT, if the _operator_ decides he doesn't (maybe doesn't trust or feel comfortable), then the owner must be provided that option.

Remember that most DRL configurations (except Volvo) do not light the marker and tail lamps, So, the operators of many GM vehicles are driving in daylight fog illegally during times when only the DRLs are lit. The couple of people I know that gotten tickets for it both said "I have DRLs!"... "I have 'auto' lights!" "Why weren't my lights on?" DUH!!! Perfect! Make a control system whereby so many "operators" no longer think (in fact are trained my the system not to think) about their lights any more...what a terrible, terrible idea! Just keep dumbing people down, no problem! Wipe Billys runny nose for him until the day he dies. Are we adults? Or are we children?

And if our American friends, who think they need to be in control of ALL phases of their life, were as smart as they think they are, they would very quickly find out GM DRLs are EXTREMELY easy to defeat. Just put a switch in parallel with the parking brake indicator switch. The DRLs do NOT come on with the parking brake applied.

I remember years ago driving in the US with my headlamps on (as I ALWAYS did in those days) encountering "road rage" because I had my lights on. My eyesight was always better than 20-20. I could usually see cars coming, even in poor lighting - but "day liters" were SO much easier to see. If driving with my lights on made me THAT much easier to see, it made the chances of me being hit by someone who could not see me that much less likely.

The whole "day-lites" question may eventually be answered by Darwin. Survival of the "smartest".

I can agree with that.

| Re. Cost of using DRL's.. lol.. Boeing claim that it is cheaper to pay | lawsuits than to change design to make airplanes safer.. that is how much US | companies and people value the lives of others.. using DRL's doesn't lead to | yearly failure of headlight bulbs, or anything close.. bulbs are maybe | US$6.00 each.. that will hardly break the bank even if it was a yearly | replacement cost.. and all to make it safer for kids..

The statement is made unter the premis that safety is enhanced. Results of all studies when combined are, in the opinion of many, mixed at best.

| Canadians are as proactive as anybody else, but they do not extend the | wording in any constitution to the detriment of the masses.. I think that | anybody who uses the wording of the first Amendment to bypass safety issues | is doing a disservice to the people that wrote it up..

The statement is made unter the premis that safety is enhanced. Results of all studies when combined are, in the opinion of many, mixed at best.

I respetfully disagree. :-) "Detriment of the masses"? Hardly so!

| Shining a flashlight into Grandma's eyes at point blank range?.. lol.. | hardly in the same category as an approaching car with DRL's activated..

Wasn't point blank...probably 20-30 feet away. I learned that, cause of hurt to grandma's eyes effect of hurt hiney!

| Auto headlight systems are designed to work in low level lighting.. | fog/falling snow does not fall into the category of low light level.. if you | take a manual slr camera out into fog and operate the light meter, you will | find that closing the aperture of the lens is necessary to get a pic.. | ambient light levels in fog are actually quite high even tho visibilty may | be impaired.. Canadian vehicles have DRL's on permanently, so the auto | function, if fitted, will work when light levels fall, ie dusk onwards.. it | is the responsibilty of the vehicle user to ensure that ALL running lights | are switched on and maintained properly, cleaned and operational, for the | benefit of ALL other road users.. please note that it is not just vehicles | that use the roads.. pedestrians are out there too..

This skirts the issue I apparently failed to make. A "auto" system is not unlike like a continual active training system. A couple of posts at the NHTSA are of situations where accidents (rear enders in fog) _could_ have been avoided IF the driver knew they even had a light switch. The "auto" system trained them to believe that the car controlled everything...never used the switch or knew where it was or how to use it. Real world then says that a auto system is hardly safety positive.

I do agree 100% with your statement that "it is the responsibilty of the vehicle user to ensure that ALL running lights are switched on and maintained properly, cleaned and operational, for the benefit of ALL other road users.." My assertion is that this goal that you so well state, can be best achieved with standard manual (not automatic) light controls. Only _manual_ controls will cause (force) the operator to keep the "check lights" item on their "pre-flight checklist". A "auto" system eventually causes the "check lights" step to "fall off" of their checklist due to the human nature of unconscience habit. A VERY bad situation. Will this happen to everyone...no. Will it hapen to a significant number of people..yes! That type of "training" is very effective. We don't want to "teach" and promote the wrong behavior. A "auto" system can "teach" the wrong behavior in the end.

| That GM have chosen to use high beam as DRL's is an issue to be taken up | with them.. It is unfair to blame Canada for it.. but in your own words, GM | have opted to standardise the DRL function in alignment with Canada | presumably for COST reasons, but that is their right, right?..

Many have. When it comes to the topic, GM is very defensive, typically ignoring that group of customer. They could do as their competitors do (provide the option which is legal here in the US), but they have painted their egos into a corner and are, apparently, willing to alleniate hundreds of thousands of customers in the process. Letting ego take control is a ugly ugly thing.

| US DOT must do something about headlamps generally.. they will not want to | take the Euro route because the French are part of Euro and no way will they | do anything that the French do.. even if it is in the general safety | interests of US citizens.. here we are back at the Boeing thing.. better to | stumble forwards with old practices rather than address a safety issue that | will require many $$$ to fix..

I agree that the standards need improvement. The premise that it isn't being done because the French already do it (so we won't) is just plain silly and diminishes your credibility if you really believe that is the reason. It's more because the NHTSA, like just about anthing associated with government, is lazy and inefficient.

| It irks me to think that the lives of my two kids are not even worth | US$12.00 to somebody else.. I wonder what kind of lawsuit I would face if I | were to take the same attitude with somebody else's kids.. I can just see | the look on the parents face as I tell the judge that $12.00 was more than I | thought reasonable to pay such that my vehicle could be seen..

The statement is made unter the premis that safety is enhanced. Results of all studies when combined are, in the opinion of many, mixed at best.

First off, how come you're not dead...you grew up in a era of DRLs? What? you survived (somehow) during a era without DRLs? How is that possible?

Lets go with your premise though, will your kids then have to breath 60 million tons a year of additional polluted air? So, decide either that risk of accident with a car is lower by a miniscule amount AND perhaps contribute to later respratory health issues they may contract at some point also by a miniscule amount. We're talking in the order of 1 in thousands chance here on either equasion. Which tradeoff is best? Now that is one dynamic I know hasen't been studied at all and a answer isn't (can't) be known at this time.

In conclusion. The topic of this thread is "Daytime Running Lights Standardization Needed?". Since I will support individual choice and will defend anyone that decides on their own to use DRLs, ( I may debate them though! :-) ) the answer to the question in the subject heading of this post is "yes"

| And if our American friends, who think they need to be in control of | ALL phases of their life, were as smart as they think they are, they | would very quickly find out GM DRLs are EXTREMELY easy to defeat. Just | put a switch in parallel with the parking brake indicator switch. The | DRLs do NOT come on with the parking brake applied.

Two problems with your bright idea:

1. The "brake" light on the dash stays illuminated...a light that doubles as a brake system warning failure light. Not a good idea.
2. Cars with ABS will disable the ABS system if the ABS system thinks the parking brake is not fully disengaged. What makes the ABS "think" the parking brake is still set? You got it, the same circuit that activates the light. Also why your solution a bad idea!

Hmmm...try again!

| I remember years ago driving in the US with my headlamps on (as I | ALWAYS did in those days) encountering "road rage" because I had my | lights on.

It's always a good idea to do things that promote road rage...very safety positive indeed!

| My eyesight was always better than 20-20. I could usually see cars | coming, even in poor lighting - but "day liters" were SO much easier | to see. If driving with my lights on made me THAT much easier to see, | it made the chances of me being hit by someone who could not see me | that much less likely.

Sure it did.

| The whole "day-lites" question may eventually be answered by Darwin. | Survival of the "smartest".

Since man has been around for tens of thousands of years and DRLs have only been around for a dozen years, I say Darwin has already spoken. The non DRLs era has lasted considerably longer then the DRL era has, wouldn't you agree? :-)

Actually, a GOOD idea if it shuts off the damned ABS. You want to rant about a "Safety feature" that is neither, take a look at ABS. All ABS does when it gets slippery is make sure you hit what is in front of you SQUARE ON. Actual stopping distance on slippery roads is increased significantly - and with good snow tires if I can LOCK the brakes in many cases I can get through to a good high-friction surface -and get stopped - when the ABS just shuts off the brakes. If the brakes need pumping, I'll pump them.

Now, you southern Yankees and rednecks that only see about 5 days of slippery roads a year - you can drive with your 55 series racing tires and ABS and not have a problem. The rest of the world is a bit different.

Same with DRL. When the road is grey, and the sky is grey, and the air is grey, and there is glare on the road from rain, slush, or snow, cars of virtually any colour can fade into the backround very easily. With DRLs on, they are seen. You don't want them, that's fine with me. I dislike driving in much of your country enough already.

BAD idea if you're driving a vehicle that has the ABS take over the function of the proportioning valve. This will make your brakes dangerously rear-biased. Not sure if this applies to any Chrysler vehicles or not but I know that it does to some GM trucks circa 2000 and probably a few years on either side. And if your ABS disables the brakes on low-traction surfaces you're either not using it right (fight the urge to pump! just push as hard as you can on the brake pedal, your reflexes notwithstanding) or else you just have s***ty ABS

- a good ABS system really does work well in most conditions. (now there *are* s***ty ABS systems out there... the ones installed on Dodge vans around the mid-90s immediately springs to mind. That was a dangerously poorly functioning system!)

If you need DRL's you should have your low beam headlights on, so that your side and rear marker lights are illuminated. Or do you think you only need to be seen from the front?

nate

The DRL thing was primarily so that pedestrians were more aware of cars approaching them, hence headlights only..

Add to that list the 4 channel ABS on a 1994 Trans Sport. Downright dangerous on snowy surfaces wirhout agressive snow tires. (I put on a set of 4 Graspics)

Being seen from the front prevents the majority of problems, because what is coming towards you is approached at roughly double the speed of what is standing still, and a WHOLE lot faster than something you are overtaking. If pulling into traffic what has already gone past does not concern you - so yes, being seen from the front is MUCH more important than being seen from the side or rear (although that is important too). You will notice that before DRLs became standard, I was a "dayliter", and on my old Chrysler I still run with the lights on most of the time. My Poncho turns the sidelights and taillights on when it gets dark automagically.