A Brief History Of A Popular, But Useless "Safety" Feature
One of the pervasive urban myths plaguing our highways and byways is the belief that daytime use of headlights reduces motor vehicle accidents.
It all started with a Greyhound Bus Company public relations gimmick to promote its “safety image.”
There was an apparent reduction in bus accidents and the conclusion was made that the daytime headlight use must be the reason. There was a burst of publicity and daytime headlight use was christened as a great highway safety strategy.
Subsequent studies, slightly more thorough, determined that daytime headlight use on busses had no effect on accident frequency. Those studies have never received nearly as much attention.
Think about this; if you can’t see a bus during the daytime, because it doesn’t have its headlights on, there is a greater problem at play here than “visibility.”
Next, there were mandates of daytime headlight use in a few tundra-laden Scandinavian countries. Subsequent government sponsored studies proved the government was inspired in its mandating of daytime headlight use.
Again, subsequent review of these favorable DRL studies indicated the high probability that factors, other than daytime headlight use, were responsible for any reduction in accident frequency.
The same scenario was subsequently repeated in Canada—the government mandates vehicles be equipped with automatic daytime running lights (DRLs) and low and behold government studies find that DRLs may be responsible for saving the human race from roadway annihilation.
Auto manufacturers, never loath to exploit a fad, climbed on the DRL bandwagon and hyped the safety benefits of irritating other drivers by shining headlights in their eyes, during daylight hours. General Motors was the most aggressive on this front.
While seldom admitted, the primary motivation for putting DRLs on American market cars is that it saves money.
Rather than building one lighting system for Canada, where DRLs are mandated, and a different system for the US market, GM decided to save a few bucks by just installing the DRL equipped system on both the US and Canadian models.
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 Highway Loss Data Institute. The results; vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal, but the meaning was straight forward.
DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights, waste fuel, “mask” other road users that don’t have headlights on, or don’t have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on accident reduction is zero or worse.
Because DRLs negatively effect other motorists, they should be omitted from all new cars by government mandate. Furthermore, all states should explore legislation that limits daytime headlight use to low beam or parking lights.
The government, in concert with various corporate interests has sold the driving public a bill of goods that doesn’t live up to its advertised claims. It seems only fair that the government and the same corporate interests undo the damage they have done.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
>Anything one can do to increase
>their conspicuity while on a motorcycle
>is a positive safety step.
How about attaching a siren to each motorcycle? And put a big, continously ringing gong atop every car? Where does it all end? Complete safety and no peace; that’s where we’re headed.
For some reason the NMA has decided to combat DRLs and I am not sure of their motivations or goals pertaining to that subject. I do know that members of the NMA have misquoted the sections of 571.108 in furtherance of this witch hunt. So I am unsure of how many of you are making informed decisions to vote against DRLs or are simply believing what the NMA is telling you, which isn’t the whole truth.
I do feel there should be some uniformity to how manufacturers accomplish DRL. I believe the best way is a partial power low beam headlight approach since the low beam directs the light downward towards the ground anyway. This would make the vehicle more visible yet produce NO glare to oncomming traffic.
Rick, I also welcome your point of view in this forum, however I’m going to need you to step it up:
(a) Calling someone foolish doesn’t advance your argument
(b) >Can you see a car more easily when
>its lights are on or off? Case closed.
oh really?
(c) Calling someone a whiner: refer to (a)
You’re going to have to do better than that.
Rick while we welcome all comments here, the fact that you can see a car better with lights on is not the issue. The issue is whether those annoying lights actually serve any purpose except to add eye strain to the motoring public. As far as your waisted energy comment is concerned, I’m not a green person, I could not care less if my car gets 12 mpg or 50 mpg except for the cost of fuel. One thing I might add though is, does your state have a motorcycle safety campaign? Something like “Start seeing Motorcycles”? Motorcycles have had “DRLs” on them for as long as I can remember yet it’s still a problem “seeing” them? What to me is foolish is the fact that people like you think that adding lights to every car on the road will make people better drivers! An awesome example would be, DRLs or not you CAN’T read a book while DRIVING down the road. DRLs simply are not the answer. Like I said, while we welcome all comments here please think rationally about what you are thinking before you say it! Have a great day and if we meet on the road please don’t try to blind me with those silly DRLs you are probably using!!
This is the most foolish argument I have ever heard! Can you see a car more easily when its lights are on or off? Case closed.
It could not be more obvious. You people find something important to whinge and whine about…like the need for brake lights.
It would be interesting to know how many of the people here complaining about “wasted energy” of headlights drive V-8′s.
LOL
This practice of daylight headlight use or running lights is assinine. The law in New Hampshire only mandates lights on for the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise, or when visibility is reduced to 1,000 feet or less due to precipitation or fog. All these fools accomplish who fall prey to this myth gain is bigger expenses to replace prematurely burned out lights, annoy the hell out of other drivers, and obscure the vehicles without lights on that are sandwiched between them. Further, if the state law mandates the parameters for use outlined above, why should a vehicle be “rejected” at state inspection for having a burned out running light. My wife’s car has these silly daytime lights and a sensor that automatically throws on the full headlights. I’ve seen these headlights come on while passing through a tree shaded area with the sun still well above the horizon. I know that when it comes time for me to purchase my next vehicle, I’ll walk right past any vehicle that has these ridiculous and costly features!!!
Mandatory DRL helped kill off GM’s market share.
>By Dave on Oct 14, 2008
>By pete on Dec 11, 2007
>I like the idea of removing the headlight
>switch and having the headlights on when
>the motor is running.
>Pete, I don’t like the idea of backing into >my driveway at night and being forced to >illuminate my neighbor’s living room >through their picture window. Or parking at >the beach at night and being forced to >disturb people on blankets. In short, I >don’t like the idea of being forced to be >rude.
No headlight switch? It seems to be a popular thought that the brighter your lights are the more your visable or the more scared you are.
How about the take the switch out because people are to stupid to use it any way right? Now lets do away with lowbeam lights and add another set of highbeams after all we dont need lowbeams anyway right?
You DRL lovers need to start taking responsability for your own driving and quit relying on “safety” gimmicks safe you butts out there on the roads. You will be alot safer if you start taking responsability for your own driving.
By pete on Dec 11, 2007
>I like the idea of removing the headlight
>switch and having the headlights on when
>the motor is running.
Pete, I don’t like the idea of backing into my driveway at night and being forced to illuminate my neighbor’s living room through their picture window. Or parking at the beach at night and being forced to disturb people on blankets. In short, I don’t like the idea of being forced to be rude.