139 replies to this topic

[Joel]

So apparently this is not a law in all countries, so I'm curious who does or doesn't support this. For those who don't know what I'm talking about,

http://en.wikipedia....me_running_lamp

Edited by Joel, 03 June 2007 - 18:43.

[tao muon]

I'm on the fence with this one.
I mean, if you cannot see the other car while driving, what makes one think you can see their lights?
Maybe the headlights, at a distance, are more visible since they are shining straight at you, but....

I guess i just answered my own argument.

[gdodson]

tao muon, on Jun 2 2007, 20:29, said:

Maybe the headlights, at a distance, are more visible since they are shining straight at you, but....

That wouldn't work since headlights are supposed to aim low. The only reason you'd ever see them shining in your face is if they're improperly aimed.

[tao muon]

gdodson, on Jun 2 2007, 18:35, said:

That wouldn't work since headlights are supposed to aim low. The only reason you'd ever see them shining in your face is if they're improperly aimed.

haha...
umm, okay.
We'll just pretend that there isn't some light scattered parallel to the road surface... more light than what was there to begin with... and aimed right at an oncoming driver.

Try it some time- park a car a mile down the road from you and have them turn the lights off and on.
Let me know what you see.

[LunarFalcon]

My 02 volvo s60 has them, and I don't care for them

[bangbang023]

I really don't see a need to make it mandatory.

[neufuse]

I like them, doesnt hurt me or anyone else and keeps me from forgetting to turn lights on during rain or night...

[Joel]

gdodson, on Jun 2 2007, 21:35, said:

That wouldn't work since headlights are supposed to aim low. The only reason you'd ever see them shining in your face is if they're improperly aimed.

Mine are half-beam high-beams, so they are aimed higher than normal headlights.

LunarFalcon, on Jun 2 2007, 21:43, said:

My 02 volvo s60 has them, and I don't care for them

Do they bother you when you drive?

[SacrificialSoldier]

Nope. Even though it may be super minute they will use gas and at the prices these days.....

[Joel]

SacrificialSoldier, on Jun 2 2007, 22:29, said:

Nope. Even though it may be super minute they will use gas and at the prices these days.....

I think the math would work out to about $10 a year (if that) and why worry when the radio, AC, power windows and brakes and steering are all using the same power source we're suddenly worried about for DRL? There are many safety features we pay for in the price of the car, so why are so many resistant to this one?

[bangbang023]

How is it a safety feature? Seriously, I've never noticed any difference in my ability to see a car with or without DRL.

[SacrificialSoldier]

^Probably because it is just ANOTHER law that we would have crammed down our throat and enforced by too-eager rookie cops.

[spenser.d]

The cars I've driven have them, but I can't honestly say I notice whether an oncoming car has them or not...ever, now that I think about it. So for me it's a wash - doesn't matter whether it would be a law or not.

-Spenser

[shrike]

I say we just slow people down. If you're not considerate enough to put your lights on in dark conditions, or to take (really) enough time to look for other cars/people... how is seeing a dim light going to help?

It's law over here for a motorbike rider to have their lights on while driving, but they're small compared to a car. So you wouldn't notice them too well.

[Joel]

bangbang023, on Jun 2 2007, 22:49, said:

How is it a safety feature? Seriously, I've never noticed any difference in my ability to see a car with or without DRL.

Cars are more visible. You don't notice it probably because you don't see it much. It's just one of those things that you get used to.