Daytime Running Lights

[Joel]

i dont think anyone here has said that having DRLS is less safe then not having them. The argument is there are times when you need to have no lights at all.

No, there are no times at all, actually. Being on the road is not about sneaking your GF home after curfew or stuff like that.

[Korneliouz]

If you want to sneak, just put some cardboard on them...

[VGVL]

No, there are no times at all, actually. Being on the road is not about sneaking your GF home after curfew or stuff like that.

The safety gained by having DRLs would be lost if I had a shotgun to my head. :laugh:

[Nose Nuggets]

No, there are no times at all, actually. Being on the road is not about sneaking your GF home after curfew or stuff like that.

perhaps you misunderstood me. i was not asking your opinion, i was stating fact. there are times when i dont want my lights on. maybe you have not been in a situation when you dont want yours on, and thats fine. cars are not always on the road, though. a driveway is not a public road. if im parked and want to keep the car running, im not driving, i dont want my lights on.

[Shuu]

get older girlfriends.

[Joel]

perhaps you misunderstood me. i was not asking your opinion, i was stating fact. there are times when i dont want my lights on. maybe you have not been in a situation when you dont want yours on, and thats fine. cars are not always on the road, though. a driveway is not a public road. if im parked and want to keep the car running, im not driving, i dont want my lights on.

So pull up your emergency brake (it should be up anyway if parked). The lights go out. Problem solved.

Of course, you shouldn't leave your car running for no reason when not moving, but that's another thread.

[CaKeY]

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?

Best post in teh thread. If a vehicle is moving it needs to be seen. Period.

[SoCalledChaos]

iff you're parked, adn pull the E-Brake, the lights go out, then theres the sound of the car and the car door shutting.. which are a little noisier than lights

[Dashel]

Hell no, DRL's are just too metro to gain popularity here.

-DRL's were created to deal with lighting deficiencies that we don't have in the US

-Higher natural light requires brighter DRL's = more glare

-They are annoying to other drivers

-No positive effect on bright, sunny days

-Dubiously addresses only one or two types of crashes

-Inefficient

-Detracts from motorcycle use that is proven to be effective

Installing sensors that react to ambient light is a much more elegant solution that this feel good baldurdash but neither should be regulated. GM's latest study only shows that 423 people were 'saved' by them in the last ten years. (Thats about oh, 0.1% and not statistically significant)

Your 'even if it saves just one person!' type arguments scare the hell outta me.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Dashel

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Hell no, DRL's are just too metro to gain popularity here.

-DRL's were created to deal with lighting deficiencies that we don't have in the US

What the hell does that mean?

-Higher natural light requires brighter DRL's = more glare

-They are annoying to other drivers

-No positive effect on bright, sunny days

-Dubiously addresses only one or two types of crashes

I don't believe that any of those are true. For one, they are useful even on bright, sunny days - they make it easier to tell whether a car is running or parked (less likely to be surprised by a car your eyes or peripheral vision thought was parked).

-Inefficient

Then why have car manufacturers like Saab, when asked, insisted that the effect on gas mileage is indiscernable?

-Detracts from motorcycle use that is proven to be effective

Huh?

Installing sensors that react to ambient light is a much more elegant solution that this feel good baldurdash but neither should be regulated. GM's latest study only shows that 423 people were 'saved' by them in the last ten years. (Thats about oh, 0.1% and not statistically significant)

I bet those 423 people would disagree...

My car has both light sensors (which are optional, they're only used if you have the lights set to "auto"), and DRLs which have an on/off switch. Though on my car the DRLs appear to be the high-beams, which I haven't yet read about (likely has something to do with the bi-xenon setup), and so far I've left them disabled.

I'm not saying they should be regulated, just that your arguments against them seem shallow and illogical.

[Dashel]

DRL (and the majority of 'positive studies') originated in northern countries with lower levels of outdoor ambient light than we experience in the US. If we can't see another car on a bright, sunny day I think there are more pressing issues at stake. I really don't see how your example is of that much importance. If the car is behind me what do I care for if he is parked or not? That it would enable you to see if a car in front of you was going to pull out just doesn't hold weight.

They were created to assist with head-on and front-corner collisions only (i.e. taking a curve or passing and not 'clipping' each other due to misleading light).

Having something run all the time will consume unnecessary engergy. What you are really asking is that if a 'nominal' fee is worth it for the percieved safety. I don't think 1.2B of mandated technology is the answer.

I could see the state of Alaska reasonable push for this during certain seasons, but even there 24/7 lights aren't the answer. Really though, its simply a matter of taking power away from the driver, which is where it belongs. Proponents want to install something you can't turn off. Do you really need anymore reason than that?

[Joel]

-DRL's were created to deal with lighting deficiencies that we don't have in the US

Nope, for better visibility in ALL conditions.

-Higher natural light requires brighter DRL's = more glare

Nope, the candela level is regulated.

-They are annoying to other drivers

Nope, I can't imagine anyone saying, "damn you, your DRL made me notice you more on the road. How dare you?"

-No positive effect on bright, sunny days

Let's say you're correct; what's the negative effect? BTW, you're actually not correct. Bright days don't suddenly render DRLs useless.

-Dubiously addresses only one or two types of crashes

What's your point? Better yet, which studies are you referring to? Nothing posted was so limited, except for the single study done in the US

-Inefficient

Compared to what?

-Detracts from motorcycle use that is proven to be effective

So DRLs are useless but they also make motorcycles more visible? :blink: Which one is it?

Really though, its simply a matter of taking power away from the driver, which is where it belongs. Proponents want to install something you can't turn off. Do you really need anymore reason than that?

So your whole point is that there's something out of your control? Seatbelts are mandated; do you NOT wear them just to be contrary?

[Flae_qui]

my car had them... it's bad enough the cops see it since it's bright orange but DRL also... nah. so i mod'd the car to turn them off. also when installing HID Lamps a DRL system can mess them up so they don't run proper.

[Wannes]

Cars are more visible. You don't notice it probably because you don't see it much. It's just one of those things that you get used to.

Indeed AND there are plenty of cars down here which don't turn on any lights when it rains so we see them really late. Therefore such law would be handy there you always have to turn on your lights.

[Stalk3r]

It is a law here but I fail to see the benefit to be honest.