I think you missed my point or just want to have you personal opinion on the subject heard. I'm not posting an opinion. What I posted was fact. The fact is the US does not require DRLS because the Senate determined that they can cause moiré problem they they prevent. Not having DRLs means a fewer number of cars having the opportunity to drive without headlamps, when they should use headlamps, reduces the probability of another driver misjudging the distance between their vehicle and another, period. The result is fewer accidents for the car with DRLs as well as the driver that made the error. Not having DRLs reduces the probability that a motorist will not see a motorcycle, in the mix of cars on the highway, compared to a motorcycle with its headlamp on all the time. Whether you happen to think DRLs are advantages is moot. Personally I always illuminate my headlamps during hours of limited vision and when driving out of the sun, so that my vehicle can be more readily seen by other drivers.
Sharon K.Cooke wrote: > No, it's not driver error;
It sure as hell is! If the driver being approached by a car with DRL's didn't err in judging the distance, there is no problem! Duh!
DRLs with far inboard mounts and reduced light
I think that your "ILLUSION" is a result of too much cafeine. I'd like to hear you tell that one to the judge: "Well your honor, I now know that the oncoming car was only 100 feet away, but with it's far inboard mounts and reduced light intensity, it appeared to be a mile away." The judge would give you 5 years for stupidity!
that the oncoming 2-track vehicle is farther
Actually, I hate those idiots who drive 24/7 with fog lights on!
the more 2-track vehicles with DRLs that are put on the road, the less
Guess what happens with
Uh, he judges the distance correctly and lives another day to pull your chain in this NG!???
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills; the collision was a given, as was the 100 mph collision speed; The correct answer is, The motorcycle rider dies. Not just shook up or a broken arm, but DIES. Good Luck with your belief system.
For some types that is true. So then why spend energy to have them lit if they aren't visable? You do read your own contridictions, I assume?
However, for the high beam type, if one happens to be driving a sedan when a S-10 truck pulls up behind them, the rear mirror and ones eyeballs falls right in the brightest part of the high beam DRL. Even the light of a
3-watt flashlight can be quite bright when shining directly in ones eyes. Then go just 10-degrees "off-axis" of the highbeam, and the light is not visable at all. Idiot to use high beam's with such a narrow beam spread as a DRL!
Incorrect. The howstuffworks.com is one site that has the calculations. DRLs consume between 46 and 110 watts total per vehicle.
Also, you may be interested to know, several years ago GM petitioned the EPA to do the mileage tests for the published EPA ratings for their cars without the DRLs being on. (The EPA rule was that all "accessories" normally operational must remain so for the test). GM was granted that waver (and still uses it), even though customers couldn't operate the car as tested. So, IF there wasn't a impact on gas mileage, then why did GM submit that petition? The answer is that there is a impact.
It can, but not necessarily. It depends on the type of driving and the design of the car. While driving on the highway, vehicles typically get better mileage with the A/C on. The added wind drag of open windows is worse (on many venhicles) compared with running the A/C.
The A/C system is useful. The DRLs are a waste of resources, a annoyance for some people and are of questionable benefit.
I was speaking of your analogy. Turnong off the DRL's is not like removing the seatbelts. I argued that not using the seatbelts (and leaving then installed) is like not using the DRLs (and leaving them installed). You were saying that not using the DRLs were like asking to have them removed...ain't so.
Apparently I don't have that problem...35+ years driving and haven't had a problem seeing a car yet...except when I squint from the glare. By the way, insurance loss statistics don't seem to show any benefit at all...none. Check the NHTSA sight for information. In fact the 1997 Highway Loss Data Institute findings indicated a increase in accident rates on cars with DRL's. So pick your study...nothing conclusive when taken in total.
But non of that matters. The topic is selling cars. GM needs to respect customer's conclusions that are different from theirs if they want to sell those customers cars. It really is that simple.
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.
Silly argument. There is a easy solution with the DRL example you use...and that would be to get rid of them. the other distractions are not so easily remedied (in your current comparison examples)
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.
Take older Saturns. The DRLs were about 10" apart. In some lighting conditions, Saturn's are perceived (by everybody) to be much further away then they actually are. Lights that appear close together must be a car that is far off in the distance, right? (when the outline of the car isn't visable due to poor visability of snow/rain/fog). So, lesson learned, DRLs
*should* be placed at the farthest outboard positions of the vehicle to avoid this natural situation of tricking one's distance perception (we all have).
How ironic that sentence is! You need to work on your knowledge of the English language. There is no such word as "conspicuity" in the English langauge!
the collision was a
My dear, if I may call you "my dear", if a motorcycle rider is in a collision with a two-track vehicle at a 100 mph collision speed", it matters not a wit whether or not the vehicle has it's DRL's on. What does any of this proposed scenario have to do with DRL's? You are really scratching and clawing to defend your position, but you are doing a poor job. Your motorcycle scenario is a lot of "smoke and mirrors" and has nothing to do with the safety of DRL's. You seem to subscribe to the theory that "bullshit baffles brains"!!! Since you snipped most of the early part of my post and failed to respond to it, I assume that you conceded to my wisdom on the matter of DRL's.
Hi James! I have two vehicles with DRL's and as I have previously mentioned, I like DRL's in the daytime simply because it makes me more visible to unsafe lane switchers. On both of these vehicles, I have the option of "low-beam" DRL's or "high-beam" DRL's, simply by flicking the normal hi/lo beam switch. I'm not aware that GM has developed a specific "high beam type" of DRL. I suspect that the vehicles you think have high beam DRL's are simply dolts who have flicked their DRL's into high beam mode. They are probably the same dolts we all see with their high beams on full time when they have their actual headlights on. Just my 2 cents.
Not TRUE. I have walked away from a "100" mph collision speed (FYI that means the total impact speed equals 100 mph. IE: car at 50 bike at 50) Had a broken arm and one seriously sprained ankle but I walked away, The cage driver DIED on the scene. He was not wearing a seat belt and was thrown from the car after he hit me and went into the ditch. He went out a window and took a tree to the skull.
Also know quite a few other who have made it through similar mishaps. Want to know what the FIRST thing out of the mouth of the person who hits a biker is.. "BUT I DIDN'T SEE HIM" DRLs make NO difference at all in that statement. It has been the main statement for year LONG before DRLS were ever used. The problem is really that US drivers mostly SUCK. They are too busy eating their big macs while talking on the phone and yelling at the kids in the back seat. I would LOVE to see the US make it MUCH harder to get a license and start retesting EVERY driver every 4-6 years. Vision testing by a real doctor and written and driving tests before you renew. Random drug testing and AUTOMATIC revocation for drunk/drugged driving. NO conditional licenses for drunks or repeat offenders either. Two speeding tickets in a year, you lose your paper for a year.
You also seem to have a limited vocabulary, as well as suffering from poor reading comprehension & limited reasoning. See:
formatting link
>
My dear, if I may call you "my dear", You can if you're a h*mo; I happen to be of the male gender
collision speed", it
Once again to fail to understand; the collision happens because the sea of DRLs renders the motorcycle less visible than it was before GM and its ilk started this DRL crap.
I responded, and quite well; there's that lack of comprehension again.
I find it interesting that your amazing vocabulary stems from a completely plagiarized article from a website in Auckland, New Zealand. If you were the cunning linguist you purport to be, you would surely have given credit to the actual author of the article, or at the very least, you should have used quotation marks. Ah, but of course, you only divulged your plagiarism in an effort to support your contention the the word you plagiarised actually exists. So now that we know you were actually using someone elses word, we would still expect you to prove that the word "conspicuity" actually exists, other than in your mind and the mind of the actual author of "your words". I still say that there is no such word. You and the author are mistaken. Prove me wrong Sharon! You shouldn't believe everything you read. And you certainly shouldn't plagiarize a word that doesn't exist. Next time, look it up!
By the way, did you also plagiarize that other non-existant word "DISbenefit", when you said "This would seem to indicate a safety DISbenefit of 3% with the use of DRLs.". Sharon, you have to learn to proof-read that which you plagiarize. Naw, you probably came up with that one yourself.
Sharon, if I may call you Sharon, your parents could surely have chosen a more manly name for their manly, albeit homophobic, son! They say that mothers are very intuitive and your mother probably had an inkling that you would turn out to be . . . well, let's leave it at that. After all, no self respecting man says "willy-nilly".
collision speed", it
Oh, now I understand Sharon. Motorcycle fatalities are all caused by drivers who drive after sunset with their DRL's on. You really do subscribe to the theory that "bullshit baffles brains"!!! "GM and its ilk" may have started this GM crap, but they don't hold a candle to your ability to disemminate bullshit! ;-)
Ah yes, you defended the non-existent word which you plagiarized from someone in New Zealand very well. Yes, you're a legend in your own mind Sharon! Sadly, my lack of comprehension necessitates that I once again challenge you to verify that the two cited words exist. Any well-know and accredited dictionary would suffice Sharon. That should keep you busy for a while. Although, you have clearly shown that you know how to steal other peoples' words from their websites. Meanwhile, don't get your panties in a knot Sharon. ;-)
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.