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

    • Microsoft confirms Windows 11 26H2, urges IT admins to prepare for release by Usama Jawad Windows 11 typically follows an annual update cycle, but Microsoft recently broke that tradition a bit by releasing a "26H1" version in the first half of this year as a "scoped" build for select new silicon PCs only. This version was not available for customers using 24H2 and 25H2 builds, as Microsoft is busy preparing version 26H2 for them, confirmed officially for the first time. In a Windows IT Pro blog, Microsoft has urged IT admins to prepare for the upcoming release of Windows 11 version 26H2. The company has confirmed that this will be a small enablement package (eKB) that will simply light up certain disabled features that are already present in the operating system's code base. This means that the "refined" Windows update and deployment experience will be simpler and quicker, with minimal disruptions, as the feature update will simply toggle a few flags rather than performing a complete replacement. Microsoft has explained that this is all possible because the standard Windows 11 releases share the same servicing branch and hence, the same source code. However, this also means that Windows 11 26H1 users won't be able to upgrade to 26H2 as that is a different branch, but this is something we have known for a while now. Similar to previous annual feature updates, Windows 11 26H2 will offer the following support cycles: 24 months of support for Home, Pro, Pro EDU, and Pro for Workstations editions 36 months of support for Enterprise, Education, IoT Enterprise, and Enterprise Multi-session editions Microsoft has not confirmed a concrete release date for Windows 11 26H2, but noted that it is "coming soon". If we go by the ongoing release cadence, we can expect it to begin rolling out in early October 2026. As such, IT admins have been encouraged to begin validating Windows Insider releases in the Experimental Channel, plan rollout rings, and strategize the utilization of their existing deployment tools.
    • Windows 11 gets new audio improvements in the latest builds by Taras Buria Today's Experimental builds (26H1 and Future Platforms, formerly Canary) pack several audio-related improvements. If your device is enrolled in the Experimental Channel (26H1), you can download build 28120.2315, while those in the Future Platforms version have build 29613.1000 to try. Here is what is new in build 29613.1000: [Audio] Following up on our previous improvements, we’re making some more adjustments to Settings > System > Sounds based on your feedback. Namely, we’ve updated the “All sound devices” page so: You now have the ability to change default devices from this page. Each of the devices displayed on this page now has a little volume meter next to it to show if there is audio actively playing. We’ve adjusted the page design slightly so now you can filter whether you’re viewing input or output devices. We’ve added toggles so you can choose if you want to hide or show disabled, disconnected, and unplugged devices on this page. We’ve also updated the input and output audio properties page for devices in Settings to now include jack information for those that need it. And here is the changelog for build 28120.2315: This update includes a small number of minor bug fixes and improvements. [Accessibility] This update improves caption style responsiveness by redrawing captions immediately for caption style changes. If no current caption is visible, a sample caption string is displayed. [Audio] This update improves the reliability of the inbox HD Audio driver. You can find the official release notes for build 28120.2315 here and for build 29613.1000 here.
    • I agree with what I think you are saying, just not in the way you are saying it. Like any tool, the amount it represents your work is perorational to the effort you put into it. It is similar to why 2nd grade math students learning to add and subtract are not allowed to use calculators, but a high-school calculous student is. For the 2nd grader, that tool would completely replace the work they are doing, for the calculous student the same tool allows them to work far more effectively while in no way replacing their effort or knowable. If you spend 30 seconds writing a prompt, then the image that comes out is no more "yours" than if you found the same image with a Google Image search. However, many of these generative tools also support highly iterative processes that allow back and forth, and merging generated images with photos or human created images. I am sure you would agree that a human spending hours of time working on a project, even if AI was involved in the process, still reflects that human's work.
    • Windows 11 version 26H2 is now available for testing in the latest preview build by Taras Buria Friday Windows 11 preview builds are here. Insiders in the Experimental (formerly Dev) and Beta Channel can download builds 26300.8697 and 26220.8690. There are no new features, but Microsoft is officially moving the Experimental Channel to version 26H2. In addition, Microsoft is improving the copy dialog in File Explorer, the Start menu reliability, and fixing virtualization issues. Here is the changelog: [General] With today’s build, Windows Insiders in the Experimental channel will see the versioning updated under Settings > System > About (and winver) to version 26H2. For more information, see the Windows Insiders blog. [File Explorer] We’ve improved the visual consistency and reliability of the Copy dialog in Dark mode, including its launch experience and the expanded progress view. [Start menu] - Also available in Beta Improved reliability of Start menu reflecting newly installed or removed apps without requiring sign-out or restart. [Taskbar] Fixed an issue for Insiders using the new smaller taskbar option, where the system tray might get cut off or pushed off screen. [Settings] - Also available in Beta Improved reliability of Settings > Apps > Startup. [Virtualization] - Also available in Beta This update addresses an issue that could result in bugchecks citing HYPERVISOR_ERROR (0x20001) and KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED (0x1E) errors after installing the latest flights on some devices during system restarts, virtual machine operations, or while running some gaming applications. You can find the official changelog for the Experimental build here and for the Beta build here.
    • I've always preferred this possibility. There is something that feels good about the idea that all matter in the universe will eventually come back together and maybe even result in another big bang. The idea that the universe would fizzle out over the eons and forever drift apart is a little depressing. I realize it is not logical to let a basic human desire for life to have a grand everlasting meaning change the way I feel about a scientific theory, but I am human, so that is how I feel :-).
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • 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
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      574
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      77
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      76
    5. 5
      neufuse
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!