Daytime Running Lights Standardization Needed? Featured

There are more cars on the road now than there were even 15 years ago, many, many more than 120 years ago |>)).

The cars are going faster, cars never used to have brake lights, early "head lights" were intended as warning lights, not to allow the driver to see ahead, should we revert?

My reading of the various data out there says that for head-on collisions causing death, DRLs do not help. (I interpret that as meaning that if you are going fast enough to kill yourself or others, DRLs won't help because the "closing speed" is too great to help. Cross-traffic accidents and pedestrian accidents are significantly reduced, however.

My experience "in the car" tells me that on two-lane roads at 80-95 km/hr, I can see a DRL equipped car sooner than a non-equipped car and I can make better decisions because of it.

Dan

I'm not a fan of ABS either. BUT if the car is already set up with ABS, the system will be unbalanced to the rear normally if the ABS system is not functioning by using the previous method suggested to disable the DRL.

Okay...

| (I interpret that as meaning that if you are going fast | enough to kill yourself or others, DRLs won't help | because the "closing speed" is too great to help.

One can always apply "intrepretation" to data to make it say whatever one wants. ;-) Your intrepretation could be a good one (sounds like a reasonable theory), but I've never heard it put forward before by those more knowledgeable on the subject that you or I are though).

| Cross-traffic accidents and pedestrian accidents are | significantly reduced, however.

Yes, matches data that I've seen...which I had earlier communicated. Are you going to stop there (typical)? Let's complete the picture so as not to deceive, shall we? Rear-end collisions, accidents with emergency vehicles, motorcyclists, funeral processions (and there are other categories) are types that are statistically higher.

Yes, you can cherry-pick the data and make absolutely correct claims that this type is reduced and that type is reduced (and, like GM say no more about it, leaving a incomplete/deceiving picture). But, add back in that this type and that type are _increased_ and the _overall_ (total) accident rate number is higher (by some studies like the 1997 HLDI study). Now, one can make a decision that if they need/want a very very slightly reduced risk of cross-traffic collisions at the expense of very very slightly increased risk of colliding with a motorcyclist or ambulance, then by all means use the DRL. (I don't care) However, if you choose the opposite (for yourself) then GM shouldn't be (has no business) making that decision a _mandatory_ one for the owner of the car when the law in the US clearly says DRL use is to be "voluntary".

| My experience "in the car" tells me that on two-lane roads at | 80-95 km/hr, I can see a DRL equipped car sooner than a | non-equipped car and I can make better decisions because | of it.

Personal experience is anecdotal and largely subject to our personal biases...it's human nature. I have no doubt that your personal experience and perception is exactly as you claim. Mine, however, is that I have no problem seeing a car (apparently well soon enough) in broad daylight. DRL or not, makes no real difference to my visual perception that I can tell. 30+ years and nearly a million miles, has not been a problem yet for thousands of successful passing maneauvers. Not a single at-fault accident (so far). But, my experience is also anecdotal and too small of a data sampling to conclude anything in a broad way. One can ONLY apply statistics and broadly collected data to know what the broad picture really is.

Please, for Pete's sake, look at insurance industry loss data, NOT your "perceptions" that can be skewed by the subconscious bias. Do you _really_ see a reduction of accidents for car models that commonly have DRLs vs. those that commonly do not? Has GM (or anyone) used actual insurance data in their pro-DRL "claims"? If not, (and they haven't that I've seen) why do you suppose that is? It would be the perfect "proof", wouldn't you think?

| Give me a break, Mike! I said DRLs are a good idea but don't go crazy on | me. | | The reason why there are TWO headlamps is so IN CASE ONE BURNS OUT, you can | still see and be seen, at least enough not to crash and usually enough to | get safely home. Then you can replace the burned out one tomorrow. Its | not like the end of the world and its not something you should even be | ticketed for. A police officer has the right to stop you and warn you but | should let you go with a warning and your promise to replace it. | | Now, if he sees you again a week later driving around like a cyclops, then | you need to be cited and fined. But not jailed, you mean guy, you. |

In Maryland you get a warning and somewhere between 10-15 days to replace the burned out headlamp. IF you don't send in the copy of the work receipt within that time, a fine is automatically levied (so I've been told).

I laugh my behind off at a guy at work that has a VW model. He had been through three headlamp bulbs per side in about 2 years...gotten couple of warnings too. He's about fed up with them being used as DRLs at this point since he is out a few hundred dollars now...but he hasn't had the dealer turn the DRL off yet.

Thanks for the chuckle. :-)

It's just evidence that the so called "experts" at GM, that are so vocal at telling us all how wonderful these things are (the same people that designed this unsafe configuration), are obviously really clueless!!!. Putting DRLs 10" apart...obviously a dangerous configuration. Why do so many people seem to believe those yahoos?

I agree and since the data statistically shows a increased rate of rear end collision for DRL equipped vehicles suggests that your observation is even more important for those that want/need to use DRLs. As far as I know, Volvo is the only manufacturer that understands this fact and design's their DRL setups to include illumination of the side marker and tail lamps...or at least they used to.

Statistics in Canada show that the vast majority of accidents involve cars fitted with DRL's, but does that mean that all accidents, or any in fact, are caused by the use of DRL's?.. absolutely not, any more than statistics showing that every accident involving a vehicle fitted with either steering wheel or handlebars can be attributed to the fitting of a steering device.. DRL's are used in Canada and other parts of the world to increase vehicle visibility for other car drivers, truck drivers. motorcyclists, skidoos, atv's and last but by no means least, PEDESTRIANS..

That's true. The types of accidents that happen at a higher rate with DRL-equipped cars may not have been "caused" by DRLs. But, it is a interesting statistic. One can draw their own conclusions. Mine is that DRLs seems to be a contributing dynamic. Why, who knows. You still haven't answered my question and explain why you think this statistic exists.

| DRL's are used in Canada and other parts of the world to increase vehicle | visibility for other car drivers, truck drivers. motorcyclists, skidoos, | atv's and last but by no means least, PEDESTRIANS..

I believe everyone understands that already. One category on your list not completely correct though. The advent of the automobile DRL has had the opposite effect statistically for motorcyclists...they no longer have the conspicuity advantage they used to have. Perhaps they can see cars better, but cars no longer see _them_ better. Apparently when it comes to riding a motorcycle, it is more importent to "be seen" that to see others. Their accident rates have shy-rocketed over the past 5-10 years. The point is that for one action in one place there is a opposite action in another place. There will always be a balancing cause and effect effect. Doing one thing to "improve" something over here will contribute to a worsentening a situation elsewhere. There are always pros/cons and tradeoffs with everything. A completely "positive" thing doesn't exist...never has. One may wish for a "panecea", but there isn't one! Having said that, if you are a driver that has a alegance for motorcyclists (a lot of friends/family that are, for example) you may choose not to use DRLs on your car to "do your part" for the motorcyclist. Or you're one that rarely drives in a area with pedestrians, you may choose not to use them. The driver should decide what is important to them and be able to make their own decision. Who is it that GM (or the Canadian government) should decide what is important for you.

The statistic may or may not exist in written or typed form but is undoubtedly true in Canada as all cars made for Canada must have DRL's..

Motorcycle incidents will go up as the sale of motorcycles increases.. I do not believe that Canadian motorcyclists feel the same way about DRL's as their US counterparts because the issue is with being told that DRL's are compulsory, and Canadians don't have a problem with that..

As for the right of Government telling people what they can and can't do, some people need to be told, and by a body that can enforce action if necessary.. anarchy is the other option..

They can still be seen - which is why it is mandated almost everywhere in North America that MCs run with DayLites. The fact that cars are also lit now does not detract from the visibility od MCs - just makes them blend in to the other traffic - which, in my opinion as an ex MC rider, is good. I don't care if they think I'm driving a Mack truck - as long as I'm seen. Too many MC drivers take too many chances. If they (we) follow the rules of the road, MS drivers are as safe as they would be if they were the only ones with DayLites.

Too many young kids on "Crotch Rockets" that can't even handle a BMX bike. The point is that

Not what's important for you - you are free to commit suicide. It's what's good for the other guy. Rightly or wrongly, it's the law. In Canada we elected the clowns that wrote it - and most of us agree with it. In the USA it is not the law (yet) - so you are free to modify the vehicle in any way you wish if you dislike the DRLs that much. Definitely not hard to defeat if you want to badly enough. Just throw a relay in the HL power circuit and install a switch - no rocket science.

The Perot & Prowler study is specific to motorcyclists. You may want to read it.

My family has booked many millions of miles over the years during the non-DRL era. We're all still here. The "risk" (assuming one really exists) is incredibly small even using the most agressively positive statistics. One driving without DRLs hardly equates to one purposefully stepping in front of a speeding bus. One example is law of averages and probabilities, the other is law of certainty of outcome. Big difference.

| It's what's good for the other guy.

The motorcyclists? The rate is accident per miles...it has nothing to do with the numbers of motorcyclists out there. You don't know the data, do you?

Curious, you rightfully keep making claims over data that does support your claims (decrease in certain types of accidents), and I accept that as good reasons. But, then try and "explain away" the other data (increase in other types of accidents), which tells me you're not using all the relivant information you should use for your decision . Why only accept the data you like and not the data you don't like? Most of the data are from the same studies and all of the data is relivant! Decisions should be made on the complete picture. Arbitrarily throwing out (or poo-pooing) certain data we don't like makes for making a decision without all the facts (making a incorrect decision more likely). After considering all of the data, you may still opt for DRLs...that's okay, I will defend to the death for your right to that decision.

| Rightly or wrongly, it's the law. In Canada we elected the clowns that | wrote it - and most of us agree with it.

I don't doubt that. Whole populations are capeable of being deceived...given half of a picture for the purpose of making a case (I call it purposful deception). It's human nature we're all suceptable to. I'm just one that like to dig deeper into things. At one time I was one that thought DRLs were likely a good idea and made sense. Now, I'm not so sure the benefit is conclusive (either way). Benefits overall seem mixed at best.

| In the USA it is not the law (yet) - so you are free to modify the | vehicle in any way you wish if you dislike the DRLs that much. | Definitely not hard to defeat if you want to badly enough. Just throw | a relay in the HL power circuit and install a switch - no rocket | science.

You're right. Choice isn't a problem in the "states". But why go through the trouble as you suggest of modifying a vehicles lighting circuits (and void it's warranty according to GM)? You can buy any manufacturer (except GM) that either doesn't offer DRL's at all, OR it is a option the buyer/owner can choose. Only GM (and I think Subaru) makes them compulsory for their customers here.

Curious, taking your philophosy to a logical direction...do you feel that ABS should be made mandatory? Some people claim that tests/studies of them show they reduce accidents and save lives. Do you support a government mandate that cars only be painted silver in color? Some claim tests and studies show that silver painted cars are the least likely to be in a accident compared with any other color, especially black, dark green or dark blue cars that are 300% to

And I never said driving without DRLs was suicide. I just said you are free to commit suicide, but not to kill others. It is for the safety of others, more than for your safety, if your safety isn't a good enough reason for you.

I have not quoted any data.Either to support my claims, or yours.

The only DATA I have brought forward, is that I have been a "dayliter" since the early seventies. Long before it was mandated. Long before studies "proving" either side were conducted or even dreamed up. I feal a lot safer knowing I can be seen, and even safer yet knowing I can see the other fools on the road. (note the "inclusive" use of other)

The only deciept we've been subject to is the same you have been subject to - electing politicians that say one thing, and do the opposite. No difference between Americans and Canadians in that respect. Big difference is, the deceptions of your government cost millions of dollars a day, and the lives of your young men and women in the military.

True - but here it IS the law, and the benefits, if not as compelling as you would like to see them, are still there. Do you question the wisdom of the laws requiring Motorcylcles to be lit at all times??

And you CAN order a US GM car with DRL Delete Option.

No, I definitely do NOT. Making snow tires mandatory in areas where snow on the roads is a common risk, I would support.

All ABS does is guarantee that whatever you hit, you hit straight on. It helps maintain control of the vehicle - it does NOT help stop the vehicle.

And these tests are repeated every couple of years, with different results. Is the silver colour the determining factor, or is it that silver is the currently preferred colour for the conservative drivers??? And were these studies conducted in Canada where the black, dark green, or dark blue cars are more visible due to DRLs, or in the USA where they fade into the roadway due to the refusal of American drivers to drive with lights on in daylite? There are a lot of things that come into play in these studies.

And to quote an old sage - name forgotten at the moment " Theres, lies, damned lies, and statistics" Like the politician running a distant third in an election campaign, I have little respect for polls. Now Poles are a different story. Particularly large concrete or steel ones. I've met a couple pretty decent ones from Warsaw too.

I guess because it would be a boring world if every car in the world was silver. Can you imagine going into the parking lot, and looking for YOUR silver car in a sea of 2000???? And then, we'd have to all drive only one brand and model, because it was the safest one in some faulted government study.

I doubt very much that there has been an increase in rear enders attributable to the intro of DRL's.. and the more motorcyles that exist on the road, the more likely one is to be involved in a wreck.. I was a victim of not being seen one time, before the intro of DRL's on motorcycles.. like the good citizen that I am/was. I exercized my right to not use lights in daylight.. the result was a trashed motorcycle, a car almost cut clean in half, two broken arms, two broken ribs, a broken leg.. I wish that somebody had taken the choice from me and switched my lights on.. I have suffered with bad arthritis since I was 17 yrs old because of injuries sustained that day, and all because I exercized my right to choose and thought that I knew better..

Incidentally, four states repealed helmet laws, and guess what?.. incidence of death has increased.. .. a quote for you..

"NHTSA also found that motorcycle deaths rose significantly, from 2,483 in

The bright side is that they were all martyrs to the cause of free choice.. that must comfort the relatives..

A quote of yours.. " Whole populations are capeable of being deceived...given half of a picture for the purpose of making a case (I call it purposful deception). It's human nature we're all suceptable to.".. I will mention just two things here.. a victory needed for the purpose of re-election, and WMD (or lack of)..

ABS braking takes some getting used to for sure, but not all ABS systems perform as they should.. education is a key factor.. GM supplied video with their abs equipped GMC Jimmy's, and they may still do it.. I saw a GMC Jimmy on a used car lot recently.. the video had never been opened.. I guess the previous owner was not about to be told how to do something..

Ah, you also (apparently) exercised your right to forgo body armor, although depending on how old you are, it may not have been available then.

Ted

You got to watch this, it's another example of how a study can be made to lie.

If the study is saying that silver is more visible than black or other dark color, that is certainly true when you factor in night time accidents. However if the study was adjusted to report if Silver was a better daytime or nighttime color, I think you would find no difference in accident rates when you subtract accidents that occur at night.

By contrast, DLR are supposed to reduce DAYTIME accidents. Assuming they do, then considering that far more accidents take place during the day (since more cars are on the road) mandating DLR would save more lives in total than mandating silver cars.

A study said one time that chances of a car being in an accident when driving

Ted

Up here, where every car now has to have DRLs, I don't see headlights burned out with any more frequency than I did before. Yes, anecdotal, but 'sperience is 'sperience.

Dan

Toyota used to too. I don't know if they still do. My '91 tercel was so equipped. The only things you didn't get without the switch was high beams and dash illumination.

Dan