Daylight running lights

Apparently he 'forgot' to read the newest report available on DRL's, as well. I know nothing about DRL's, none of my vehicles are so equipped. After reading the different views expressed in the NG's several months ago regarding DRL's I did some research. I found the information that I posted in reply to be in conflict to a statement to the effect that 'tests in the US show DRL's are safe.' It is available in the US Congressional record for those that want to read that report. Based on what I read I would not buy a vehicle equipped with DRL's, particularly because I do not want to become involved in a head-on collision on a two lane road because my car is confused by some other driver as one with headlamps on, at a greater distance and because of the hazard they present to motorcycle riders. Others may choose a different course but that is up to them, I could not car less. Canadian apparently do not have that option. In the US, like many other things, we can decide for ourselves.

mike hunt

Bob Flam>

Well, no, not really. City lights actually do a poor job as DRLs because of their annular (ring-shaped) beam pattern. Even replacing the typical 4- to 6-Watt city light bulbs with much more intense 10- to 20-Watt bulbs doesn't fix this. What is needed is a wide, bar-shaped beam pattern for an effective DRL.

Low beam DRLs are a perfect Catch-22: If the low beam pattern has sufficient upward-leftward light to work well as a daylight conspicuity light, it is too glaring at night. If the low beam pattern has proper control of upward-leftward light for glare-free nighttime usage, it makes a very poor DRL. The low beams/DRL on a current-model Passat, for instance, are practically invisible during the day and are quite nonglare at night.

All kinds of problems with high-beam DRLs: Excessive glare, very narrow angle of visibility, tendency to create a false impression of vehicle distance.

Agreed. Canada's original DRL proposal was fully in line with the thorough research done by the competent scientists at CIE. They shouldn't have let GM tamper with it.

DS

Sorry, Cammie, but no. I drive a lot on country highways myself, but I'll "take it" from properly-conducted practical scientific research rather than from the opinions and guesses and preferences of subjective humans such as you and me.

How many accidents did you get in due to "aholes coming toward you passing other cars" before you used DRLs?

How many after?

DS

The accident rate went up when the novelty wore off in Norway.

Are the significant reductions in accidents SOLELY attributed to the DRL use? Don't forget that the accident rates have been going down every year, anyway. The cars are fitted with more and more of safety equipments such as ESP, traction control, ABS, and like.

Most of DRL I saw in Denmark are low-beam ECE headlamps with better glare control and distribution than DOT headlamps. Hardly glares at all. Volvos had those dedicated DRL that aren't glaring as those on GM trucks and large SUVs. They switch down to lower wattage when night illumination is switched on.

Oliver

Approximately 8/26/03 20:38, Arif Khokar uttered for posterity:

I have even *more* extensive experience driving on remote highways and I disagree with *your* assessment. On a hot western high desert highway the heat distortion is so bad that without lights it can be very difficult to even tell that there is a car out there. With headlights on, you can tell they are there. As for judging distance, if you are so close that the variation in width is an issue, you shouldn't be considering a pass anyway, and if the vehicle is in *your* lane it is time to be looking for a bailout strategy. The *smarter* drivers out in the high desert always run with their headlights on...the others tend to be bits of metal strewed along the sides of these very isolated roads.

Approximately 8/27/03 07:26, Daniel Stern Lighting uttered for posterity:

It isn't my lights am worried about, and I haven't gotten into any accidents, but I have had to leave the roadway a few times when some doofus is passing without even bothering to look. The doofii with lights on give me a bit more time to choose a path.

Well, if Bob Hoover can print sermons, I suppose DS can do gospels...

nate

(now just watch, he'll be Jewish or something.)

...or Jewish *and* something...

DS

GET RID OF DRLs.

They have no use at all for cars.

People that say it helps drivers see cars better is a joke. If you cant see a car during the day, you shouldn't be driving at all.

Motorcycles need to have the headlights on, all the time. I have several motorcycles and know a lot of riders. But why is there so many accidents with motorcycles? Their headlight was on, but the driver who hit them, still said, I didn't see them. Ya, the headlight really saved them.

Yes, they do cause pollution. OMG newsflash. You are putting an electrical load on the alternator. Which has to work harder to produce more amps to power the drain. That puts a load on the engine. A gasoline engine is already non efficient, why make it worse?

You are getting a glare looking at DRL. How many people in the population wear eye glasses or contacts?

It also puts a strain on your eyes when you have to be looking at the lights. Why would you be looking at a car thats oncoming? It is called defensive driving when the moron is driving on the yellow line, and you need to know if it is appropriate to move over.

High beams are not necessary. If you need high beams, you shouldn't be driving either, or driving way too fast. Yes, i have driven in the darkest roads, and dont need my brights. Same goes with fog lights.

You got poseurs putting fog lights on their car, all misaligned. Most commonly on ricers, but i see others putting fogs on their cars too. Oh ya, your cars badass now.

And if people are so worried about being able to see other cars during fog, rain, snow, and night conditions, they should mandate automatic lights. I would rather have that, then gay DRLs. which have no use at all.

One reason GM is having DRLs, is because they build their vehicles in Canada. This way, they can use the same wiring harness, and cut costs.

Agreed on the glare issue vis-à-vis typical North American drls.

This is utter bullsugar. Either you poke along at 40mph, a common speed limit on unlit, non-reflectorized semi rural 2 laners around the outskirts of this city (actually 37mph), you're a reckless driver, or your low beams are misaimed and blinding everyone in sight.

I'll say it again: what you wrote above is utter krapola.

Cosmetic toy "foggy lites" found on many cars here probably don't help too much in poor weather, but there's nothing wrong with a good quality set of aftermarket ECE front fog lamps. Actually, regular ECE headlamps make fairly decent fog lamps as well, oddly enough, because their beam pattern is designed to focus light where you need it to see, and minimize backglare in fog, haze, mist, rain, etc.

Yeah, I hate twerps who think they're cool for abusing their "foggy lites" as much as the next guy.

You got that right.

Bullshit.

No, highbeams allow one to see futher down the roadway at night when there's no other traffic.

If you're driving less than 60 mph with properly aimed headlamps that have a good light distribution, probably not, but you're safer driving with them on when conditions permit (because you'll see hazards on and off the roadway sooner than with just the lowbeams).

They should only be used when it is really foggy (and they should be the real ones that provide a wide beam distribution with a low cutoff). A rear fog lamp can be very useful in very foggy conditions to allow vehicles behind you to see you sooner than otherwise.

Your advise is just plain crazy. Thank you very much but my eyesite is

I took a look at the NMA site. I believe in minimum interference, especially from inept governmental groups.

I am afraid that some of the goals of the group would result in it being perceived in the same light as the NRA (which also has some admirable goals.)

Unfortunately, we are not lead by an expert and thinking government, but rather dragged along by a bunch of burocrats.

Yes, we all have choices and this is what our country is all about. Too many individuals want the government to take care of them and the rest of us will foot the bill. Personally I don't need the government to tell me about safety; as long as they do their constitutional mandates (yea, right) I can take care of myself. I can imagine what this small letter will bring in the way of insults.

Hank

DRLs = evil. Period. Regardless of implementation.

Certainly high-beam DRLS are by far the most evil, but they're all evil. If lights are needed, TURN ON THE FRICKIN' LOW BEAMS.

I invite him to come try driving without high-beams at night on back country roads during white-tail deer mating season. He'll wind up with a deer in his lap and his head sitting on the rear package tray along with the deer's antlers.

Yep similar to what I posted earlier. I'm in for north wisconsin, my high beams give me advance warning when there is a deer on the side of the road so I can slow down so they are not a hood ornament. If you dont use high beams in the country, you are going to hit a deer, I guarantee it.

Actually, Steve...No. They're not all evil, and low beams are NOT the best all-around daytime conspicuity lights.

There exist DRLs that materially improve conspicuity (the ability of other drivers and pedestrians to see your car and judge its position and distance sooner than they otherwise would) WITHOUT any possibility of glare, WITHOUT any obscuration of the front turn signals, WITHOUT any possibility of lulling you into misusing your headlamps when they're needed, and with trivial energy consumption (6W apiece). I'm about to install a set of such DRLs on my pre-DRL truck up here in Canada. If all vehicles had *this* kind of DRL, there'd be absolutely no valid reason to object to them at all.

The problems come from implementation, not from the concept. Good DRLs are good. Bad DRLs are bad. It's really that simple.

DS

Couple of points...

Agree

Sometimes my wife and I drive with our brights on during the day, just because there are so many idiots out. So, the point is, just because they shouldn't be driving does not mean I should not protect myself.

Actually it would make the gas engine more efficient in most cases. Most people do not tax the engine, thus it produces more power than they use, thus the DRLs could be used without decreasing efficiency.

Damn sure.

Best thing to do is turn to the side and use your peripheral vision, as being blinded does not make you safer.

Sorry, but high beams are better than regular lights outside the city. You obviously never had a cow, deer or other animal run out in front of you.

No, just idiot drivers.

I believe that is in the works.

Sig for the benefit of Jaybird and other similar cops...

Cops are the cause of everyone's problems. My actions do not give them the right to break the law. Their illegal actions are the result of their idiocy. Their life is not my fault. If you can't handle being a cop, find a real job.