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

    • Qualcomm's new Snapdragon Reality Elite chip brings on-device AI to Android XR devices by Pradeep Viswanathan Qualcomm has been delivering dedicated SoCs for mixed reality and spatial computing devices for several years. The journey started with the Snapdragon XR1, followed by the Snapdragon XR2 in 2019, the Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 in September 2023, and finally the Snapdragon XR2+ Gen 2 in 2024. Today, Qualcomm announced a major upgrade with the new Snapdragon Reality Elite Platform, which targets premium mixed reality and spatial computing devices. OEMs can use this SoC to power both all-in-one video-see-through headsets and lightweight, tethered optical-see-through glasses. Qualcomm highlighted that the Snapdragon Reality Elite will power the next wave of Android XR devices coming later this year. These wearables will offer better visuals, improved power efficiency, and deeper on-device AI integration compared to the previous generation. The Snapdragon Reality Elite can deliver up to 48 TOPS of AI performance, allowing large language models and large vision models to run directly on the device for the first time. In addition to enabling new spatial AI experiences, these new AI capabilities will improve head and hand tracking, as well as see-through features. On the performance side, the Snapdragon Reality Elite offers up to 60% higher GPU performance, up to 30% higher CPU performance, and up to 160% higher NPU performance compared to the previous generation. The platform supports visuals of up to 4.4K per eye at 90 frames per second for sharper images and smoother motion. Qualcomm is also claiming significant efficiency improvements. The Snapdragon Reality Elite can offer up to 20% longer battery life under the same workload. More importantly, the chipset can run up to 12 degrees Celsius cooler under load, making headsets more comfortable for users to wear for longer periods. The platform also includes improvements to video see-through, featuring lower latency and better image quality. Qualcomm states that its EVA hardware block helps accelerate demanding computer vision workloads, improving how digital content blends with the real world.
    • Umm... GitHub continues to use AWS. That's the story, that's the headline. There's no "new" news here. GitHub continues to require additional capacity beyond the originally-planned Azure allocations. There's nothing special about this; nothing noteworthy. They're still using AWS' infra until the cutover is complete.
    • Hello, Also known for https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jan/29/adware-internet.   Regards, Aryeh Goretsky    
    • Hello, I have used a few TEAM Group SSDs, USB flash drives, and Micro SDXC cards in the past. They all seemed to work fine. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
    • "just $100 per TB"? Just? Are we trying to make this seem like the new normal? Kinda weird to make it sound like that is not a ridiculously expensive asking price.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      vjlex earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Reacting Well
      Dys Topia earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Conversation Starter
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      Console General earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Twozo Technologies earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      517
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      106
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      88
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!