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 possibility that milk gathers back into a glass implies that gravity can be 'reversed'.
    • VidCoder 12.20 by Razvan Serea  VidCoder is a DVD/Blu-ray ripping and video transcoding application for Windows. It uses HandBrake as its encoding engine. Calling directly into the HandBrake library gives it a more rich UI than the official HandBrake Windows GUI. VidCoder can rip DVDs but does not defeat the CSS encryption found in most commercial DVDs. You’ll need the NET 8 Desktop Runtime. If you don’t have it, VidCoder will prompt you to download and install it. The Portable version is self-contained and does not require any .NET Runtime to be installed. You do not need to install HandBrake for VidCoder to work. Feature list: Multi-threaded MP4, MKV containers Completely integrated encoding pipeline: everything is in one process and no huge intermediate temporary files H.264, H.265, MPEG-4, MPEG-2, VP8, Theora video Hardware-accelerated encoding with AMD VCE, Nvidia NVENC and Intel QuickSync AAC, MP3, Vorbis, AC3, FLAC audio encoding and AAC/AC3/MP3/DTS/DTS-HD passthrough Target bitrate, size or quality for video 2-pass encoding Decomb, detelecine, deinterlace, rotate, reflect, chroma smooth, colorspace filters Powerful batch encoding with simultaneous encodes Customizable Pickers to automatically pick audio and subtitle tracks, destination, titles and more Instant source previews Creates small encoded preview clips Pause, resume encoding VidCoder 12.20 changes: Updated HandBrake core to 1.11.2. Download: VidCoder 12.20 | 47.0 MB (Open Source) Download: Portable VidCoder 12.19 | 89.3 MB Link: VidCoder Home Page | Github | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Too soon, I'm still not over this death!
    • Normally, I admit when a title is clickbait (unfortunately, it's become somewhat necessary to compete against AI-dominated news sections today), but in this case, all supported versions is implied and doesn't need to be spelled out in the title. Of course, I'm covering a Patch Tuesday update bug that is only available to supported Windows SKUs. All our coverage relates to supported Windows software and SKUs only unless we expressly state that it's "unsupported", "unofficial", or "third-party". I'm sorry, but supported/official SKUs don't need to be spelled out as such in every Neowin headline.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Jordan Smith earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      593
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      185
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      77
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!