Do you believe they should be law?  

189 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe they should be law?

    • Yes
      93
    • No
      96


Recommended Posts

one of the most annoying things with car lights is those idiots with powerfull white Halogen lights....when you see them coming at you they make your eyes hurt.

everyone who have seen them say the same thing...it hurts the eyes. they should be banned...they can cause an accident by blinding the other drivers...dumb @sses.

I think some manufacturers used to put them in cars as optional but I think they stopped.... I feel like running the idiots off the ROAD when I see one. :angry:

i dont believe how personally some people here take DRL. about 10 years ago i remember watching some videos during drivers ed. about the topic.

obviously you need to see the cars on the road. but in the distance, even on a sunny day, DRL help you to more quickly notice a vehicle than you would without them

in the vw's i've had, i know that when the parking brake is engaged, the DRL turn off

i dont believe how personally some people here take DRL. about 10 years ago i remember watching some videos during drivers ed. about the topic.

obviously you need to see the cars on the road. but in the distance, even on a sunny day, DRL help you to more quickly notice a vehicle than you would without them

in the vw's i've had, i know that when the parking brake is engaged, the DRL turn off

dude, ITS A CAR! its not as though its a packet of peanuts. i can see a car heading for me MILES away.

They don't bother me when I'm driving, but say I'm in a parking spot the car running (while waiting on someone, which I often find myself doing), then my headlights are shining right in the face of someone sitting in a car in front of me. Really annoying. Plus I don't like the look of the lights on during the daytime.

If you put your parking brake on, the lights turn off.

one of the most annoying things with car lights is those idiots with powerfull white Halogen lights....when you see them coming at you they make your eyes hurt.

everyone who have seen them say the same thing...it hurts the eyes. they should be banned...they can cause an accident by blinding the other drivers...dumb @sses.

I think some manufacturers used to put them in cars as optional but I think they stopped.... I feel like running the idiots off the ROAD when I see one. :angry:

We're talking about daytime running lights, which are limited, not full-on headlights. They barely make a dent, and help you to be more visible.

I can't understand the vehemence some people are showing regarding these lights. How can something designed to make you more visible on the road possibly be a bad thing? :blink: You may think they don't make a difference, but it's been proven they do.

dude, ITS A CAR! its not as though its a packet of peanuts. i can see a car heading for me MILES away.

Now imagine you saw it even sooner.

but its not the safety aspect of the DRL's that bugs me, its not being able to have my lights off if i need it. i have been in a couple situations where i need to go down a driveway late at night to drop a chic off and i dont want to attract attention/wake up sleeping people. or if im waiting outside a friends house to pick them up, and i dont want to shine lights in there house nor turn off my car. im intelligent enough to make the decision when my lights need to be on.

Being sneaky over being safe? Hmm, let me think. :rolleyes:

Now imagine you saw it even sooner.

i can already see it miles out, whats the point in seeing it sooner? perhaps if we where traveling at a few hundred miles an hour, then a greater distance would in some way be relivent. but it isnt.

Being sneaky over being safe? Hmm, let me think. :rolleyes:

again. i have yet to see any reasonable argument for it being safer. if the conditions warrant head lights, then turn them on.

false statement:

car - headlights = invisible

i can already see it miles out, whats the point in seeing it sooner? perhaps if we where traveling at a few hundred miles an hour, then a greater distance would in some way be relivent. but it isnt.

A person can see not more than 2 miles on level ground, due to the curvature of the earth.

again. i have yet to see any reasonable argument for it being safer. if the conditions warrant head lights, then turn them on.

false statement:

car - headlights = invisible

You have also yet to present any reasonable argument that would prove it's NOT safer. Many different countries have investigated this, and the usual argument is not that it's NOT safer, it's that they're worried about gasoline consumption.

False statement: car + DRL = not more visible.

No one ever said a car with no DRL is invisible, just easier to see. And they are. Once every car has them, it IS actually easier to see if a car is on the move or not, by whther or not their DRLs are on. I'm on the road for 9 hours a day, and it helps.

I'm glad my car doesn't have DRL enabled. There are times when I have to sneak into places at night.

I always drive with the Xenons on. I do believe it is safer to drive with the lights on, but I like having the option to drive with all the lights off if I need to. It's not that hard to flip a switch.

again. i have yet to see any reasonable argument for it being safer. if the conditions warrant head lights, then turn them on.

"A study examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes."

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html

The effectiveness of the safety improvements may have to do with ambient lighting conditions. If you live in a southern state that gets purer light then it may not make much of a difference.

how can you base that soley on DRL's? how many tire, brake, and overall vehicle safety advancements have also been made in those 10 years? how about advances in ABS, traction controll and stability control? can you be SURE that because you reduced the "multiple day time vehicle collisions" from 100 to 90, DRLs are the only plausible explanation?

A person can see not more than 2 miles on level ground, due to the curvature of the earth.

You have also yet to present any reasonable argument that would prove it's NOT safer. Many different countries have investigated this, and the usual argument is not that it's NOT safer, it's that they're worried about gasoline consumption.

False statement: car + DRL = not more visible.

No one ever said a car with no DRL is invisible, just easier to see. And they are. Once every car has them, it IS actually easier to see if a car is on the move or not, by whther or not their DRLs are on. I'm on the road for 9 hours a day, and it helps.

well im fairly certain (dont quote me on this) that 2 would warrant the word mile to become plural, and thus miles i still a true statement. corect me if im wrong.

i never said DRL's ARENT safer. i just think your all crazy for thinking me not wanting DRL's is obsurd.

how do DRL's increase gas consumption. they are electrical and run off the alternator.

so what hapens when people start blaming the lack of DRL's for accident. "i didnt think the car was in motion because i didn't see any DRL's"

how can you base that soley on DRL's? how many tire, brake, and overall vehicle safety advancements have also been made in those 10 years? how about advances in ABS, traction controll and stability control? can you be SURE that because you reduced the "multiple day time vehicle collisions" from 100 to 90, DRLs are the only plausible explanation?

Other studies have shown a 7% reduction in collisions of fleet vehicles when models with DRL were compared to similar models without DRL.

It depends on the time of day for me. Early morning (6-10 am), I tend to notice cars who have DRL first before other cars. Midday (11-3pm), the sunlight overpowers the DRL and it does nothing for me. Afternoon (4-7pm), it's the same as early morning.

As for the question of whether it should be mandatory or not, I vote yes. There are numerous times when people forget to turn on the headlights and with a mandatory DRL, there is at least some visibility. Making yourself more visible to other drivers is never a bad thing.

Out of curiosity, could someone explain then how it increases petrol usage, I just would have assumed it runs off the battery?

I don't know much about the inner working of cars lol.

http://www.nationsautoelectric.com/function.html

I'm not an expert, but know the basics... when your car is on... the lights run off your alternator... in the end your alternator is ran with the engine which of course consumes gas.

Out of curiosity, could someone explain then how it increases petrol usage, I just would have assumed it runs off the battery?

I don't know much about the inner working of cars lol.

the battery does NOT run the electrical components of the car. the alternator does. the alternator converts the mechanical power the engine creates from fuel into electrical energy. it keeps the battery charged (so you can re-start your car) as well as power headlights, radios, etc. now, the alternator is powerd by a belt running off the engine. so, energy required by the alternator essentially creates a load on that belt, more energy is required to spin the belt and power the alternator and subsequently the lights. however, you can get about 10.5 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy out of a gallon of gas. while the average headlights (not DRL which are lower consumption) consumes about 50-60 watts.

http://www.nationsautoelectric.com/function.html

I'm not an expert, but know the basics... when your car is on... the lights run off your alternator... in the end your alternator is ran with the engine which of course consumes gas.

lol. you have some nerve talking about credibility.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The machines are starting to fight back any way they can.
    • No news articles about the Arch Linux repo being majorly infected with malware?!?
    • Waymo recalls self-driving software after cars enter closed freeway work zones by Paul Hill Waymo, the self-driving car maker owned by Alphabet – the parent company of Google –, has recalled some of its fifth-generation Automated Driving Systems (ADS). It did so after some of its cars drove through closed construction zones. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the affected vehicles were capable of driving through a closed freeway construction zone and continuing to drive at speed. The listing on the NHTSA website says that Waymo is currently developing a solution to fix this issue, but in the meantime, freeway driving is being restricted. Waymo will update its ADS software so that vehicles can detect when they can avoid entering construction zones. According to the Safety Recall Report, on April 20, 2026, Waymo’s Field Safety Committee began meetings reviewing an event from April 11, 2026, and five events from April 19, 2026, where Waymo’s autonomous vehicles didn’t recognize and drove past ramp closure signs into the pre-planned freeway construction zones. This took place in Phoenix, Arizona. Separately, on May 18, 2026, seven Waymo vehicles entered freeway lanes with active construction in the San Francisco Bay Area by driving between cones that were placed to show the lane was closed. On the back of both of these events, Waymo restricted freeway driving until it could address the issue. In June, Waymo’s Safety Board reviewed the issue and additional information related to ADS performances around construction zones; then, as a result, it decided to conduct a recall. This development is not good for Waymo as it adds to a growing list of technical hiccups its cars have experienced. Ultimately, it will lead to more scrutiny from lawmakers around the world who will be more cautious about letting autonomous vehicles on their roads without tighter regulation. For readers in areas where Waymo operates, does this news make you more wary about stepping into one of these vehicles?
    • I'm still on Windows 10 22H2 because I didn't want to deal with all the issues in Windows 11, so I waited almost a week before installing the latest Patch Tuesday update (KB5094127), I went ahead and did it, and it was a huge mistake—ever since then, my File Explorer has seen a performance drop of about 30% when transferring large files... Once again, Microsoft has outdone itself! This update cannot be uninstalled, either through the Control Panel (via Settings) or by accessing Advanced Startup Options. The only possible alternative would be to use system restore points, but I’d have to reinstall all app and driver updates (and there’s no guarantee it would work). Or there’s the “nuclear option” of a in-place repair without losing files or apps, but even then, all my customizations would be lost! Microsoft just can’t help but mess everything up! Way to go, Microsoft! But I still don’t want your c****y Windows 11!
    • Microsoft: Windows 11 could finally solve a major issue across AMD, Nvidia, and Intel GPUs by Sayan Sen While Microsoft has been trying to improve it, Windows 11 is definitely not flawless, as even today some issues are taking a year to publicly acknowledge. However, one area of trouble that may finally see much better results soon is graphics driver crashes. Work on graphics driver timeouts, also called Timeout and Detection Recovery (TDR), is not new as the latest WDDM 3.2 also has specific improvements regarding it. Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) version 3.2 is supported on Windows 11 24H2 and 25H2. However, with the upcoming version 26H2, TDR crash diagnosis could go to the next level as Microsoft is introducing a new DirectX 12 API feature called "DirectX Dump Files". Similar to how system memory dump files work when a system crashes or freezes or encounters any such major issue, DirectX Dump Files (DDF) will essentially record a snapshot of the GPU execution right at the moment a graphics-related crash or hang or freeze occurs, so that developers can better understand and diagnoze these TDR and timeout detection errors. The dump will be available as a .dxdmp file for analysis and it will be a comprehensive dump file generated with detailed insights about the hardware, drivers, Windows, as well as the affected application. This should be another welcome change in this department. Earlier at GDC 2026, when the technology was first debuted, Microsoft had shared more details regarding it. The company had explained how DDF is designed to gather data from every layer of the graphics stack into a single file, eliminating the need for developers to manually correlate logs from multiple tools. As mentioned above, the dump can contain a lot of useful details like GPU hardware state information such as register values, shader program counters, page fault virtual addresses, shader memory data, and command buffers. Alongside that, it also captures DirectX runtime and kernel information, including D3D objects, pipeline state objects, device error data, adapter details, and CPU call stacks. Microsoft says the feature has been built around two primary use cases: retail device removals and local device removals. The former allows developers to collect crash information from end users' systems in the field, while the latter helps QA teams and developers investigate issues on test machines. Developers will also be able to include up to 2 MB of custom application data through new D3D12 APIs, providing additional context for troubleshooting. In addition, Microsoft is introducing three dump collection modes ranging from zero-overhead capture, which has no runtime performance impact on supported hardware, to higher-detail modes that collect more vendor-specific debugging data. On compatible Tier 2 hardware, zero-overhead dumps will be enabled by default, meaning developers may begin receiving useful crash diagnostics without making any code changes. The table below explains the three tiers: Tier Description NO_OVERHEAD Enables crash capture with no runtime cost and is suitable for broad deployment MEDIUM_OVERHEAD Provides a balance, capturing additional diagnostic data with moderate impact HIGH_OVERHEAD Collects the most detailed GPU and driver state available, enabling deeper investigation at the cost of higher runtime overhead In terms of availability, the company expects broader release to be around the fall of 2026, which should be right around the time when Windows 11 version 26H2 lands. Right now, DirectX Dump Files are available as a preview and currently, only AMD has the compatible AgilitySDK Developer Preview driver version 26.10.07.02. You can find the official announcement post here on Microsoft's website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Skeet Campbell earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Sharbel earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • First Post
      BizSAR earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      599
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      190
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      79
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      77
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!