Daytime Running Lights

[Nose Nuggets]

And was I the one who asked why DRL consumes fuel??? Give me a break.

whateva. the point im making is its negligible.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

whateva. the point im making is its negligible.

True but some people don't want to pay an extra penny for something they see as helping other people.

[Nose Nuggets]

True but some people don't want to pay an extra penny for something they see as helping other people.

LOL! the first non debatable post in this thread!

[FreqFace]

And was I the one who asked why DRL consumes fuel??? Give me a break.

To be fair though, I did ask that same question.

Thanks for the link btw, I'm really interested in cars and how it all works, always good to learn more. The complexity and accuracy of the engine itself astounds me.

[Nose Nuggets]

To be fair though, I did ask that same question.

Thanks for the link btw, I'm really interested in cars and how it all works, always good to learn more. The complexity and accuracy of the engine itself astounds me.

internal combustion engines are anything but complex, fuel and air compress and then a spark ignites it. internal components and torque specs are fairly exact but everything else is astonishingly basic.

[FreqFace]

Ok, maybe complex was the wrong word... but it's still pretty crazy, the speed at which it does that process especially.

[Nose Nuggets]

Ok, maybe complex was the wrong word... but it's still pretty crazy, the speed at which it does that process especially.

oh hell yeah! then you look at a high end sport bike (like an R6) or an F1 car that rev at 17-20K RPM. and one revolution is 4-10 cylinders moving up and down.

[Joel]

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm

[Nose Nuggets]

i got da linx 2

http://www.motorists.org/drl/

[Phalesafe]

I say yes because I see a lot of people that fail to turn their lights on at dusk and in bad weather especially when snow is near white out conditions.

[Lexcyn]

I'm pretty sure it is already law in Canada (at least in Ontario) to have some form of headlights on during the day. That being said, I know there are some retarded kids that disable their DRL's and leave all of their lights off at night and use that car to go around doing graffiti on buildings.

But in all honesty they should be on for safety. I've seen cars on highways at night with no lights on at all. If they had DRL's they would at least have something turned on. Whenever I drive on the highway I usually just turn my full lights on since that's what the Ministry of Transportation says you should do, lol.

[Mouldy Punk]

I didn't read all the details, but if they're on about using dipped beam lights it's pointless. You can barely see those in the dark, never mind about in broad daylight. If they're on about regular headlights (not high beam because they would dazzle) then I think that would be a good idea. Especially for grey/silver cars in the rain. It's quite often easy to miss them because they're so camouflaged.

[Joel]

i got da linx 2

http://www.motorists.org/drl/

Yes, and your link cites the one and only study done in the US. No other studies. That's some good backup! ;)

I didn't read all the details, but if they're on about using dipped beam lights it's pointless. You can barely see those in the dark, never mind about in broad daylight. If they're on about regular headlights (not high beam because they would dazzle) then I think that would be a good idea. Especially for grey/silver cars in the rain. It's quite often easy to miss them because they're so camouflaged.

They're more effective than you think.

[Nose Nuggets]

i dont think it needs to directly site any studies. it lends its own facts to the idea as a whole.

[Joel]

i dont think it needs to directly site any studies. it lends its own facts to the idea as a whole.

There are no facts in that article that pertain to cons of DRLs. There are some interesting conjectures, however.

[Nose Nuggets]

"The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results; vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs."

seems rather factual. also funny how that study was not in your list of pro DRL studies, however relative and accredited.

[Erp.]

I think it should be standard for all new cars, and people with older cars like myself should use their running lights. I almost hit someone on a grey rainy day, it was a metallic silver painted car, and I almost didn't see it in time. It would have been my fault legally, but the driver should have had some marker lights on. I installed front fog lights on my truck after that, that are wired to the ignition, meaning always on.

[Nose Nuggets]

i think you should be using proper head lights in the rain.

[Slacker]

"The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results; vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs."

seems rather factual. also funny how that study was not in your list of pro DRL studies, however relative and accredited.

Perhaps it's because more and more cars are equipped with it now than ever!

Seriously, I can never recall being annoyed at my own DRL. Yes, occasionally I have had to sneak away at night, and there is a simple solution! Pull the emergency brake just a touch. I find on my car that my DRL goes out before the e-brake actually engages.... so, I can still slip away in the dark. I fail to understand why having more lights on a car actually makes it less visible... it just doesn't make sense to me, the eye reacts to light faster than not-light.

[Joel]

"The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results; vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs."

seems rather factual. also funny how that study was not in your list of pro DRL studies, however relative and accredited.

Funny also how it runs contrary to every other study done in all those other countries. Is your point that US drivers are too stupid to drive, or rather that they're like moths, attracted to lights and unable to stop themselves from crashing? Seriously, you're saying ONE study (by its own admission, the only one made) shows a pattern?

i think you should be using proper head lights in the rain.

But for some reason, THAT would not distract you. Only if you saw lights in sunlight, right?

[tao muon]

I wonder how many accidents would be prevented if elk, deer, squirrels, opossum, dogs, cats, or whatever animal had lights you could see if they entered the roadway?

(what is the plural of opossum? opossi? <shrug>)

[planetik]

I think they're useful to spot cars on the road; even in broad daylight. Yes, it's probably another way to ticket you, but it does make sense to have DRL's...

The DRLs on my car are broken though. A mechanic set it so that my headlights turn on when the engine is :p

[tao muon]

I've been pondering this for a while, since I first saw the thread come up a while back. I've dodged it a bit and made my little funny comment and have now decided to offer my conjecture.

If, according to research done around the world, that DRL's reduce accident rates somewhere between one to ten percent....

How many accidents occur around the world and what would one to ten percent of that number be?

Let's assume every country has 20,000 accidents per year (I know, not accurate but bear with me)...

How many countries are there?

Let's assume there are 120 countries with cars and roads (I think there are more, but I'm being cautious)...

That means there are (at least) 2,400,000 accidents per year around the world.

Let's humor the anti-DRL crowd and say that ONLY 1% of those accidents would have been prevented by DRL's....

That means that 24,000 people (and up to 240,000 people) could have had their accident avoided or maybe even life saved by DRLs...

That is, if you didn't whine and b!tch about them.

You want your social equality and government hand-outs and tax the rich and I could go on... but...

Are you that selfish that you want 24,000 people dead just because you don't want your headlights on during the day...

... or because you want to sneak into your girl/boyfriends neighborhood?

Edited June 26, 2007 by tao muon

[Slacker]

Personally, I find that seat-belt laws limit my freedom more than DRL's. I mean, I have no family, so the only one really hurt by me not wearing my seat-belt is me so long as I am the only one driving my car.

Of course, it's just plain stupid to drive with no seat-belt.

But, when compared to having to wear a restraint, a DRL law doesn't really limit me from much of anything at all.

If it's been proven many times over that DRL's reduce accidents, then I personally find it selfish of you that you would want to make my roads less safe just so that you have the convenience of sneaking around in the dark in your car.

Now that I think about this sneaking around business all the more... if someone is planning to break into your house in the dark, if they have DRL's, there is a chance that they might fail to remember to turn them off, in which case the DRL's in your driveway might wake you up. So, if anything, DRL's might decrease robberies, simply because some robber somewhere will have his plans foiled because he forgot that his car had DRL's

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Personally, I find that seat-belt laws limit my freedom more than DRL's. I mean, I have no family, so the only one really hurt by me not wearing my seat-belt is me so long as I am the only one driving my car.

Unless you become a projectile...