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.
Steve Mackie wrote:
Here we go again. Michael my boy, if you can't judge the distance of
approaching vehicles regardless of whether they are using DRL's or any
of the various intensity headlights, please make the world a safer place
for us and stay the hell off the road. What would you do if S.B. Fowler
was approaching you? As S.B. said: "I disabled my DRLs on my Grand Prix
so I could have just the amber corner and fog lights on during low-light
periods, ie dusk. " I guess you'd hit him right between the fogs!
The final lament of many a deceased motorist! I thought you were smarter
than that. You must really get confused when a BMW appraoches you with
it's unique headlights! When in doubt about the distance to an oncoming
vehicle, err on the side of caution. It's as simple as that.
Maybe this will help.
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
What ever gave you the idea I was speaking of myself having a
problem with DRLs? I was quoting the report to the Senate. The
fact is the US Senate did not pass the legislation requiring DRLs
for the reasons stated. You opinion is not material to that
Thanks for your opinion but apparently they take lives as well,
or they would have been made mandatory in the US.
I don't know which state you are referring to but in the six
eastern states where we have our vehicles insured there is no
discount for DRLs ;)
"James C. Reeves" wrote:
You're right. Insurance companies I've spoken to don't discount for DRLs,
except I think in New York where the state legislature there required them
to. Back in 2003, I spoke to my insurance carrier specifically on this
topic. They told me that insurance loss data shows no benefit to DRLs.
Since then I've seen several loss data reports that seem to back up that
statement. Most studies on file at the NHTSA that seem to prove benefit are
those from the likes of GM and other entities with financial interest in the
matter (or they funded the "so-called" independent study...which means it's
not truly "independent). The *real* independent studies on file are a mixed
bag of results (which means there is nothing really conclusive).
BTW, it is still possible that the NHTSA could rule to require DRL's as part
of docket 17243. However, that body has been sitting on it for almost 10
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
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
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.
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.
That wouldn't surprise me a bit. The Malibu I had had only one type...the
low beam type, which isn't quite as bad from a glare to others perspective.
On that model, at least, I wasn't able to switch the DRL mode between hi/lo.
Have ya'll ever noticed that even big ol' trains have DRLs? Wonder why?
But I'm glad they do. My 96 chevy p/u has DRLs. I've only had to replace
one headlamp in 4 years and 160,000 miles of driving. When driving on 2
lanes roads I really appreciate the DRLs on oncoming vehicles, lets me know
if they are moving with me or against me. Haven't misjudged the distance on
one yet. Will let you know if it happens.
Good question. I guess the loud whistle and engines weren't enough. ;-)
Sounds reasonable. A guy at work with a VW Beetle has replaced one or the
other headlamp DRL 5 times in 40K miles. They are notorious for having this
problem. He has one out right now, as a matter of fact. Another guy at
the office has replaced both of his on his Silverado once in 50K miles and
three times in 100K miles on his previous Silverado (those DRLs are separate
lamps). I see 3-4 cars that have amber turn signal DRLs with one burned out
every day. A person I know with a Camaro says she has been through "dozens"
of front turn signal bulb replacements (probably an exageration, but is
probably do burn out more than they should). Some DRL implementations are
better than others in this regard. Reduced intensity headlamps seemd to do
best in regards to longevity. I have replaced two headlamps in 30+ years.
All very interesting, but so what?
Interesting. I never had that problem telling the difference...and I've
driven 2-lane roads for 20+ years before DRLs even existed. But I have no
doubt that some people may have had that problem...and I guess you're one of
After careful thought, I have come to the conclusion that you are
totally correct. DRL's should be removed from all vehicles. So should
head rests, padded dashboards, ABS systems, turn signals, brake lights,
radial tires, electronic ignitions, fuel injection systems and auto
Remove all of these fangled contraptions and cars will run better and
Now if we can get gas back below 25 cents a gallon ;-p
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.