Daytime Running Lights: No Statistically Significant Effect On Safety
September 25th, 2008 Posted in Daytime Running Lights, James Baxter
By James Baxter, NMA President
You’re not likely to see any bold headlines, and CNN will not be interviewing Bush administration DOT officials, but the seven year long saga of trying to prove that Daytime Running Lights improve highway safety is coming to a close.
The official results are couched in terms like “not statistically significant,” meaning they don’t prevent crashes or make our highways safer.
The motivation for the study was a General Motors petition to make Daytime Running Lights (DRLs) mandatory on all vehicles sold in the United States. For several years prior to this GM had been fitting its vehicles with DRLs and expected the masses to respond to this patronizing gesture with their checkbooks open.
Instead, random iconoclasts and other non-believers complained about glare, blanked out directional lights, wasted fuel, and just simple irritation with the DRLs concept. They apparently went elsewhere with their checkbooks and bought cars that allowed the operator to decide when to turn the lights off and on.
Two studies preceded this last effort and they indicated some safety benefit attributable to DRLS. However, the DRL critics were just as relentless in pointing out the flaws, and bad assumptions inherent in these studies. The third effort was an attempt to address these earlier failings.
To some degree the last study was an improvement over the prior efforts, but it too failed to address many of the more difficult questions, particularly those questions that suggested DRLS not only did not improve highway safety, rather they detracted from highway safety. Fittingly, the sample population of vehicles investigated in the study were GM products.
Skipping to the final results first, the researchers could find no statistically significant evidence that DRL equipped cars and trucks were less prone to be in accidents where daytime running lights could have been a factor.
Within the study they found random blips where DRL equipped vehicles were disproportionately involved in fewer — or more — accidents than not DRL equipped vehicles. This was largely due to small sub-sample sizes where random variations will cause distortions over short time spans. When the subgroups were combined and the number of sample vehicles increased, the differences between DRL and non-DRL vehicles evaporated.
There were primary and basic assumptions made that may not be valid.
For example, the study design was based on the premise that comparing accident involvement of the two types of vehicles; those equipped with DRLs and those not equipped with DRLs would answer the “safety question.” However, the concerns raised by DRL critics are only peripherally related to actual accident involvement of DRL equipped vehicles. It was their contention that DRL equipped vehicles were causing accidents, even though these same vehicles may not have been involved in the actual accidents.
One such subset of DRL opponents consists of motorcyclists who believe DRL equipped autos and trucks diminished or confused the visibility of motorcycles that typically operate with headlights on during daylight hours. (A Japanese study that explored the effect of daytime headlight use by motorcyclists found no benefit, but that’s another topic.) The correspondingly significant increase in motorcycle accidents has added emphasis to this claim. However, the concurrent increase in motorcycle ownership and use tracks this same increase in motorcycle accidents.
Complaints of “glare,” obscured turn signals, confused distance perception (“is that one headlight close by or two headlights far away?”) and failure to use headlights during periods of low visibility were oft mentioned but not seriously explored.
Issues that were raised in the US, but given short shrift, gathered considerable momentum in some European countries. Namely, does the visual dominance of DRL equipped vehicles mask or obscure pedestrians and bicyclists? Again, the recent NHTSA study mentioned these possibilities, but did not pursue them. In all fairness this would be a difficult task. Conversely, mandating that millions upon millions of vehicles burn headlights or auxiliary lights during daylight hours is not without considerable cost.
Given the finding of “no statistically significant benefit “in this most recent study it would seem GM could better spend its time petitioning Canada to repeal its DRL mandate.
Read the full study (PDF – 3.2MB)
Other Related Articles
- A Brief History Of A Popular, But Useless "Safety" Feature
- More Silly Numbers From AAA
- Bernie Madoff & Red-Light Cameras
- The 4 Types Of Red Light Violations And How To Stop Them
- Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes
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.)
On page 13
‘These DRLs included reduced intensity high-beam, reduced intensity low beam, reduced intensity high-low, turn-signal-based, dedicated lamp, and full intensity low beam’
There is the problem
No to: any dedicated high beam implementation
full intensity low beam
turn signal based
Yes to: partial output low beams
warm white LED (Audi’s cool white LEDs are terrible)
Selective yellow
All that this shows is that there is no way of determining if they make a difference or not. The only way to determine that is to not have them on all vehicles one year and have them on all vehicles the next year and that is not going to happen. Even with that there are so many other variances that may distort the numbers.
How many people are surveyed that are asked if the lights may have saved them from an accident? No one I am sure. The only way to really be able to tell if they make a difference is to test them under different conditions and on multiple roads to see if they make a difference during tests for visibility. I am sure no one has thought of such a thing. I can say it makes a big difference for me being able to see cars in the country roads hundreds of yards farther away than without them.
My wife and I are very dissappointed in the lack of interest or positive feedback for daytime running lights. As we drive 180 miles on average of one a month, through mountains and limited passing areas, mostly two lane roads, we find the daytime lights a very distinct advantage. We wish more vehicles had them. We see them much more quickly, and sometimes before the vehicle in front of them. Plus many people don’t turn on their as soon as they should at dusk. It’s one of the best defensive tactics one can have. Glare has never been a problem. We think it’s a great safety item. Just comon sense and logic.
I personally favor the use of DRLs. Regardless of what some may say, they DO increase the visibility of vehicles, all the more so during cloudy or rainy weather. Also, since the driver doesn’t have to think about it, the lights will always be on when they are required to be. Around here, many people only turn on their parking lights after dusk or when it is raining. I have had a couple of very close calls that could easily have been avoided had the other driver had headlights on. I have also avoided a number of potentially dangerous situations because of the increased visibility afforded by DRLs.
I support DRLs where they are needed when they aren’t horrible in execution.
When you have a VW Touareg, with air suspension, sitting behind you with HIDs operating as DRLs, then you know full output low beams should NOT be allowed as a DRL concept.
{This might be do-able with the Hella Variox projector system using the ‘town light’ distribution. But the VW Touareg doesn’t have that}
When you have high beams operating a point source of glare, that is just horrible.
The off-off-off of turn signals when using the turn signal as a DRL is moronic.
Now with the EU tightening the screws with the AGW CO2 hoax, LEDs will be the future of DRLs.
If automakers put a nice high output warm or neutral white (say Cree MC-E) into the low beam housing, 3 of the 4 dies could be used for DRL function and the 4th die could be the city light.
Having read the first five comments on the DRL study and seeing that in spite of the findings people still think they are beneficial , one can only conclude that those who believe in the concept of DRL are simply not going to let the facts get in the way .
I wonder if their willingness to believe in flawed studies would also apply to other fields such as medicine or aviation . I think not .
In such an instance people want to know for a fact if this procedure is going to work or if that airplane is going to fly .
Its ok for you drl people to admit you were wrong . The rest of us won’t hold it against you .
so the assumption is that studies are the last word and done without fault or lacking in the information used. Wow!
Barry all of these studies have lots of flaws and do not always conclude the facts. If you had a study of my driving and ask me to drive 130 mph for a given time and conclude that since I did not get in an accident during that time that it is safe for everyone to do so then the study would be wrong and flawed. It does not mean that the next day after the study that I would not get in a major crash doing the same speed. The problem is that to do a study like this right it would cost millions of dollars and no one is willing to pay for that.
Sometimes you do not need a study to find out that hitting someone at 60 mph that you know that you have a serious chance of getting injuted.
In my hundreds of thousands of miles of driving, I have NOT ONCE wished that a vehicle had DRLs. I’ve been through canyons and tree shaded curvy highways, the bright snow of the midwest, and the open spaces of the southwest. In 25 years of driving I just cannot point to a single instance where DRLs would have saved the day. OTOH, I’ve had a couple experiences where an unexpected high-beam DRL was blasted straight into my eyes and resulted in a delay of my driving decisions. E.g., meeting a Lexus SUV in a left turn lane, getting blasted by its DRLs to the point of temporarily losing sight of the oncoming traffic, and immediately halting my left turn. I’ve also found that with more DRLs on the roads I spend less time looking in my rearview mirror. This was an effect acknowledged by NHTSA back in 1998 and Kirkpatrick, et.al. back in 1989. With the variety of DRL implementations out there, it makes the job of distance perception much more difficult if a driver is conditioned to focus on two points of light. They human eye is very good a detecting motion and judging distance to an object. This ability is diminished when point sources are used as the primary object.
For me this reports confirms what I’ve felt for a long time – DRLs do not have a statistically significant effect on highway safety. There are detrimental effects as I mentioned above and as posted in the blog. Let’s also not forget that there are millions of vehicles in the US using headlamp based DRLs at ~ 50W per bulb, 100W per vehicle. While this may not sound like much, it’s enough for NHTSA to request an exemption from the EPA regarding CAFE testing (DRLs not required when testing), and when taken as a whole, it’s an appreciable amount of fuel consumption nationwide for a device that does not have a significant effect on safety.
LeeJ come to see me and hundreds of others that see benefits of drls. I can show you the difference and if you do not agree you can have my new car. The fact is on shaded two lane roads or during different lighting conditions they are a huge benefit. During many lighting conditiions vehicles blend in with the road and you do not know if one is coming or not until they get close.
Maybe there is a make of vehicle out there where the drl is too bright but fix that make and do not cause many of us a greater chance of being in an accident. For the most part the reduced low beam drls are not distracting at all period.
Do you outlaw antilock breaks because it is said that some drivers drive more agressivly when they have them?
The reasons that the reports do not show a distint advantage is because the numbers of accidents reduced is not in the 10% range or higher. If it saves .5 percent of accidents or reduces the severity then that is a huge savings. The report shown above is not able to determine small savings because it is using numbers and data that are not intended for such use and is trying to interpret the data that it was not intended for.
Why is it that many states require you to have your headlights on during rain? I will give you the answer. To see the vehicle better to reduce accidents. I say that there are many lighting conditions during the day that you can not see vehicles on the road as well as if there was a light rain.
Where is the report that shows how many drivers went into the ditch because they were passing someone and did not see the vehicle coming until the last few seconds?
LeeJ name one vehicle that uses 100 watts for drl use? It does not matter what bulb is used it is the voltage and current that makes up wattage that is used.
Onoz! Someone’s goring another one of randy’s sacred cows.
The comparison of DRL’s with rain driving cannot be made. Rain is a low-visibility condition. Normal operation is not. There are many states that have a ‘wipers-on, lights-on’ law for that situation. DRL’s are not needed to deal with that situation.
And as for randy’s ‘flaws’ in the studies, everyone should realize that his ‘flaws’ are things that are usually controlled for in the studies, and most times involve proving a negative.
Highway I did not say that drls were for lights on during rain. I said there are driving conditions during daytime hours that are just as bad or worse than a light rain condition.
As for the study, the only way that this study compensated for certain things was to throw some caculations at it. It was not by using facts. That is a fact. They used the database that is used for accidents and in no where in that database is there information about if DRLS reduced the accidents or caused accidents or kept someone from getting in an accident. Read the report. The only way that it could have shown an improvement was to be a drastic change in data. There was also things like antilock brakes etc that were not included in the report. If someone goes in the ditch because someone driving towards them does not have drls then that can not be shown in this report.
The fact is that this report could not show a statististical improvement not because there was not an improvement but because the data given them in the databse was insufficient to give them enough information to show the improvement with drls.
>LeeJ name one vehicle that uses 100 watts for drl use? It does not matter what bulb is used it is the voltage and current that makes up wattage that is used.
-=-=-
Many vehicles use low-beam headlights as DRLs, and
most headlights are in the 55W per bulb range. Multiply by two and you have 110W. In fact, many of these bulbs are rated at 12V laboratory test voltage, whereas real world operating voltages are approaching 14V.
Want an example of commonly used bulbs in headlamps?
http://tinyurl.com/3bs72v [sylvania.com]
Some manufacturers will run the low beams at full intensity for DRLs. Some will run them at reduced voltage. However, the voltage cannot be reduced too far as that tends to shorten the life and effectiveness of the halogen bulb.
So, 100W for a 2-bulb DRL system isn’t out of the question, and is probably in widespread use.
LeeJ you still do not get it. How many vehicles run their drls at 100% full power on low beam? I would guess none. Like I said it does not matter what bulb is used. It depends on what power is delivered to the bulb. (voltage X current)
A few points to make.
1a) DRLs can be dangerous.
I’ve seen a handful of drivers not turn on their headlights at night time because they didnt know they should (since their DRL lights were already on)
In at least one of the cars I observed, I was able to ask the driver about it. She (a teenage girl) said I noticed it was sort of hard to see, my lights didnt seem that bright, but they did come on automatically, so I just drove.
In her case, she wasn’t aware of a difference between her DRLs (low powered highbeams) and her regular driving lights.
1b)Rear lights generally dont turn on with DRLs running(I’m sure its vendor specific though). In the above situation, her rear light weren’t on. Any car driving behind her would have to then guage their distance based off the light output her DRL headlights gave. (and the with windy road she was driving on, thats hard to do)
2. I personally think LED DRLs would fit into this role very nicely. For both motorcycles and cars.
They are bright when looked at directly. Can have a narrow or wide visual angle depending upon use. They dont emit a ton of light, so couldn’t be confused at night when driving with them. Last virtually forever, take little power, and look cool.
The new audi A5 has a row of LEDs under its headlights which serve this function basically.
High beam DRLs are dangerous.
The new Chrysler Sebring Dodge Avenger take the cake.
They are the worst I have ever seen.
Most headlights operate at more than 55 watts at normal operating voltage (60-65 watts)
So if the low beam operates at partial intensity (VWs and Volvo, etc.)
say 45+ ish watts per bulb, then you have to add the consumption of the DRL module, about 10 watts. So you are up to 100watts for DRL function.
Purely anecdotal, I know, but here are my personal observations:
1. In my 35 years of driving, I have NEVER failed to see a vehicle in front of or behind me in normal daylight. Period. The idea that any kind of driving light makes vehicles easier to see in normal conditions strikes me as silly.
2. I have on many occasions been greatly annoyed by DRLs. Occasionally, I have been forced to avert my eyes entirely, which cannot possibly be considered as good and strikes me as a ludicrous thing to happen in broad daylight.
3. The (slightly) increased consumption of fuel to power DRLs is not a compelling argument against them IF they contribute to traffic safety. To me, they clearly do not.
Why can’t you people understand there are NO benefiet to DRLs? There has not been one stufy in the 14 years that GM has been using them that says so. Atleast that hasnt been revoked. That leads me to another point, in 14 years if DRLs had such a profound effect on your safety would’nt just one OTHER manufacturer make them standard on all models like GM does? I know you DRL supporters like to say that if you have lights on people notice you. The brighter they are the more people notice you right? Well assuming you happen to be right and people do notice you it does NOT mean they SEE you. DRLs work mainly on the theory that you stand out among a crowd to be effective. Well, what happens when all your freinds are using the lights? What now? You don’t stand out any more so, what are you gonna do now? Get the NHTSA to mandate strobe lights? Look people the simple trueth is, DRL have very minimal effects on your improved safety and they are in some cases very bright and in other very annoying. All DRLs cause un needed glare to some extent. You have to keep in mind that 95 percent of accidents ARE preventable if the drivers pay attention. Thats all it is, paying attention. Theres no magical “pill” (DRLs) for driving better. DRLs are among other lousy excuses just a way for people to pay less attention while on the road. DRLs make it easier for you to play with your cell phone, Ipod, laptop, read a book and play with your GPS while hoping everyone you run across will have DRLs so your distracted personna can see them comming. Please people don’t even try to tell me DRLs are a god send, They are NOTHING more than an EXCUSE!
Jim you are absolutly right about DRLS having a little effect on safety. If a driver cannot see a vehicle without DRL in bright day light then I don’t think that driver should be driving. Mostly any good responsible driver can see other vehicles during the day without DRLS. DRLS offer a false sense of security just like how a big SUV does. People think that if they are driving an SUV that they are going to be safe in a crash but that is not true because SUVs don’t handle as well as cars, they have a higher chance of fliping over, and some SUV crash test are more worst then the crash test of smaller vehicles.
Jim and Todd you do not understand DRLs at all. I challenge you to allow me to show you what they do. If sunlight is directly over head and is in the middle of summer DRLs have less of an affect. Other times they do help and sometimes a lot. Studies can not show what affect they have because there is not the huge difference in safety numbers like there is with seatbelt use and air bags etc. DRLs not only affect the safety of the vehicle that has them but has more of a safety affect on the cars that can not see them if they do not have them so they have to avoid them at the last few seconds sometimes by driving off the road. Where can you find that in any report? If you say that the visibility of cars with and without drls is the same then you have only driven on roads in town during full summer months.
I have noticed the largest affect of DRLs on two lane roads with hills and trees shading the highway or light conditions where the car blends into the road where you can not tell if there is a car there or not until you get close and that is too late if you are passing someone. The fact is that in such condions you can see someone with DRLs hundreds of yards before you can see them without DRLs. The statement they are used to “stand out among a crowd” is crap.
Maybe bright yellow cars being manditory may be a good substitute. Often cars are are silver colored or other darker color that blends into the road under less than ideal conditions.
There are also other conditons such as someone driving in your blind spot where you need all the help you can get to see someone.
Randy, if a drivers primary concern on the road is driving there would no need for safety gimmicks.I didn’t state it before but I believe you are a victim of GMs gimmicks. Another thing yall don’t realize is GM started this new round of DRL BS because they wanted to save money NOT lives. GM sells in Canada where they do NOT have ample light like we do and DRLs are required. That law is currently being re-evaluated BTW. GM wanted the US government to allow DRLs here so they did not have to use two different lighting systems therefore saving them money! It just so happened that it was GOOD for their ADVERTISING and they could convince people such as yourself that you are profoundly safer behind the when this simply is not true. GM still tells people that DRLs are safety features even though they can’t provide one single shred of proof.
You know if you people really and truely think you have to have DRLs that is ok with me as long as they are AMBER and NO BRIGHTER than marker lights would be. But, this constant glare ESPECIALLY from chrysler cars and GM cars like the monte carlo is just plain reduculous. I guess what Im saying is don’t put a burdon on me because YOU think something other than paying attention and good driving will save your life.
I also posted on this site in another section that 95% of all accidents are avoidable by EITHER driver. All you have to do is PAY ATTENTION. That means leave you cell phone off, try to restrain from your IPod, dont use GPS and most of all PLEASE don’t read a book going down the highway. Yes, I have seen people reading a book at 75 mph!!
One other thing, unless you spend good quality time on the road like, more than say 1500 miles a week I’m not really concerned with how much you think DRLs don’t affect other drivers. Trust me they become VERY annoying very fast and as a result I wear sunglasses most of the time now simply to combat DRL glare.
Oh and Randy I have no doupt that you truely beleive DRLs will save your life after all, that’s what you been “trained” to beleive but, there is NO proof of that what so ever. Apearantly even the insurance companies that are ALWAYS looking for ways to cut cost don’t beleive there is any benefiet to DRLs. How do I know this? I asked three of the top companies one simple question. Do you have a DRL discount and if not, do you plan on offering one? The answer from all three companies……no and no! So even the insurance compampanies don’t beleive the hype.
Jim all I can say to you is they work. I do not care about GM. Do you honestly think that the visibility with drls makes no difference? I do not know about all drls on all cars but for the most part there is “no” glare when they use low beams at the 70% or whatever power close to that they are.
If you have a million dollars I would bet you that you can see cars hundreds of yards down the road better than without drls during many lighting conditions. When a car is coming at you at a combined speed of 110 mph to 130 mph or more then the more distance you can see a car the better.
Jim One thing I forgot to mention. Your 95% accident status is wrong. It is not all about paying attention. It is also about judgement. Judgment if you are driving too fast for condtions or other things like passing someone or turning etc. Poor judgment is a major cause of accidents behind not paying attention.
If insurance companies are giving deductions because an auto has DRLs then you could bet it saves accidents and money.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24111107/
Randy some parts of your argument is right about during the evening vehicles with DRLS is seen more easier and yes at a far distance you can see them better. DRLS have good in some respect but even there effect on safety is very small. During the day DRLS only make a very little difference and during the evening some DRLS have a glare. I guess if DRLS are bright enough without the bad glare it would be fine but putting your parking lights on is just as good. Like I said before if a driver is a good driver then his or she should be able to see anotheir vehicle during the day or early evening without no lights on but the drivers who can’t scares me.
Randy, yes, yes, yes 95% of all accidents are avoidable by either driver. It’s a simple fact of life. What were you talking about in your stment about the insurance companies. You do know that insurance companies commonly offer discounts safe driving and accident avoidance stuff right? Three of the top insurance companies DO NOT offer any DRL discount nor do they plan to. Meaning they do NOT see where DRLs save them any money for example, by reducing accidents. Simply put DRLs DO NOT WORK and your just beating a dead horse trying to convince us that a useless safety gimmick actually saves lives. Plain and simple, sorry Randy thats just the facts.
Ok Jim. I guess DRLs do not work for you. I was glad that cars had them late yesterday and this morning but you were not there. Maybe they did not save me an accident this mornging because I was not passing anyone but it was nice to see that a car was coming. By the way even this time of year the road is often shaded until almost 11 am in the moring by trees and shadows. You have x-ray vision or something that is able to see through such things though.
As for insurance companies not decreasing your premium because you have drls, it costs millions of dollars to set up data processing changes and to implement such a thing. Maybe they do not think it is worth the added cost to implemtent it. I happen to know it is not as easy as flipping a switch to implement those kind of changes. I have worked around dp areas and have seen what things can cost.
Randy, are we taking a trip down sarcastic lane? On the first part of your post, I am at a loss for words to know you need DRLs to see traffic around you. As far as the insurance companies go even if it does cost alot of money with DRLs being as effective as you claim wouldn’t it be worth it?? After all if DRLs are so effective at preventing accidents the insurance companies could save millions per year by giving people inventive to use them. But then again we are being sarcastic aint we?
Jim you are not listening. Sure I can see cars around me. No I can not see them a few hundred yards down the road if it is shaded and the cars are dark colored. I am sure you would have a hard time also but you either do not drive those kind of roads or you would not admit it.
Why would insurance companies need to give a discount if it seems like a lot more than 50 percent have them anyway.
Australia rescinded the requirement for DRLs on motorcycles after it was found the DRLs did not lower accident rates.
Randy if the road is really dark shaded then I guess yes vehicles should have there parking lights on or DRLS just as long as there is no bad glare. This is more true for dark cars like you said however during the early evening or day DRLS hardly do anything which is probably why it hardly reduces accidents. Like I said before DRLS are ok if they are bright enough without the bad glare but your parking lights are just as good if it is bright enough.
I think the only way to properly implement DRLs is to dim them significantly, to a scientifically determined level at which they are not even noticaeble in daylight, except when is quite overcast or the car passes through an unusually shady space.
I you need another car to have DRLs in order to be visible in conditions other than those exceptions, you shouldn’t be allowed to have a driver’s license.
Sorry folks I been out doing my job all week, 60 plus hours of looking at headlights all day long! Thats not counting going to work 45 min away everyday. Randy you said you needed the lights to see cars “hundreds of yards away”, are you really going to try to tell me you need to see a car 100 yards away? 100 yards is a football field if you dont know and I assuming you would mean atleast 4 or 5 of them, that is a long way off! Dave had a good point and that would be to make DRLs visible only in low light conditions how ever shade in the daytime to me does not quality as low light. Personally I think we need to make drivers responsible for their own lights instead of assuming people are just idiots and doing it for them. If a person can’t resonably know when to turn on lights then why are they driving? Driveing in the U.S. is still a privelage and people should be responsible. Plain and simple DRLs do not work and are just a quick “fix” for a problem no one wants to fix.
But they just look so goddamn GOOD in my EURO CODE Audi auto-leveling xenon headlight housings. You know, from a country that KNOWS how to build cars and use technology right.
They do headlights PROPERLY, unlike the idiot US carmakers celebrating their 100th anniversary of bankruptcy.
The Audi/VW of old and some current-mainly Euro sold models only, use a 5-thats FIVE watt bulb in the high beam housing as a DRL. Some use 5 LED like the A8, or a hideously implemented row like the A5 which would have been better served with a curved neon type light bar. And the euro code ones do NOT use the stupid parking lights that america mandates. Your drl/headlights are on or off, no amber turn signals to confuse. They only come on when you flip the stalk to turn. Look at an old model 2001-05 VW Passat for this, as somehow they made it past US-DOT at the port. The US code version for older Audi has a holder for the DRL, but did not come with them which pisses us German car enthusiasts off.
As some have mentioned those DRL from chrysler and others are overdone.
If you need to use parking lights, european cars have a feature that leaves ONE side of the cars light on at night depending what side of the road you park.
Did you just say DRLs look GOOD on a car?? Most car modders take them OFF of thier cars because they take away from the cars apearance. You think they look GOOD? You gotta be outta your mind. BTW those amber lights are NOT mandated in the U.S. mainly because the U.S. does NOT mandate DRLs, period! That is most of the problem in the U.S. aside from the fact that anyone that has any sense at all knows they do NOT improve safety. It’s real simple DRLs have been used for atleast 14 years and you have to do a study to figure out whether they work or not. If they actually worked don’t you think it would be obvious by now?
If you’ve ever been to Europe, or seen a US spec German car with EURO code headlights that the owner bought from Europe to replace the crap US spec lights, you’d know. Simple, elegant, UNDERSTATED. Audi A4-A6, VW Passat, Mercedes, BMW – angel eyes.
You can also see them on newer ‘03+ US Mercs. They do away with the amber turn signals being on with the headlights – no “parking light” option, and use a 5w “city light” as we like to call them; not DRL. It’s almost the effect of a little christmas tree light being on. Not the pompous 55w garbage US automakers use, and burn out.
And if you’re going to complain about lighting, then you should be focused more on the idiot penny pinchers at the US auto makers who feel it necessary to combine both turn signal and brake light in one housing, making both in red instead of AMBER like they goddamn should be!!
If the Germans really know how to build cars, why did they design the Chevy Chevette as such a low-tech vehicle?
Jeff
Do you have a point laying around here somewhere? I don’t see it anywhere.
Fleet Admiral says the Germans really know how to build cars. My old 1984 Chevy Chevette (designed in Germany by Germans)was hardly a high-tech vehicle.
Sometimes while driving and getting constantly irritated by DRLs, I feel I’d like to choke the idiots who are responsible. Rather than confront and address the issue of driver competency, they advocated this and apparently without any meaningful regulation. So now you have these typical scenes:
1. Someone driving with 9 gajillion candlepower and talking on a cellphone – WATCH OUT FOR ME; I’M CLUELESS, SO THEY PUT THESE LIGHTS ON ME TO WARN YOU OF MY APPROACH, BY IRRITATING YOU.
2. Driving on the Long Island Expressway at noon on the 4th of July, using my hand to block oncoming cars’ DRLs.
Dave
I couldnt agree with you more!!!
Jeff
I’m still trying to find your point laying around here some where. As for Fleet Admirals comment I would not be opposed to a 5 watt bulb IF and ONLY IF there were regulations against using ANY other type of light during daylight hours witht he exception of bad weather.
We in new jersey recently had four days of rain and misty conditions,and DRLS were a blessing on the local highways. But there was a problem at times because of the fact that when 2 or 3 cars with DRLS were followed by a car without DRLS and then another car with DRLS it gave the appearence of a vacant area between them.If you were approaching from a side road and were trying to get on the highway it appeared that there was no car there and you could proceed safely to on the highway. I cannot believe so much anti- DRLS drivel.
Pete
That does sound like a low light situation. Does it make a viable case for having lights on 24/7? NO it absolutely does not! It does how ever show that the local police do not enforce a law that is already in effect. Sorry Pete but there is absolutely no reason to have lights on 24/7 I mean, DRLs sorry about that.
>Does it make a viable case for having lights >on 24/7? NO it absolutely does not!
Thank you for putting that in perspective, Jim.
>Pete:
>But there was a problem at times because of >the fact that when 2 or 3 cars with DRLS >followed by a car without DRLS and then >another car with DRLS it gave the >appearence of a vacant area between them.
Right. That was the fault of the DRLs. It’s like being in a room of polite people, everyone speaking at a moderate conversational level. Some loud, boorish people arrive and thereafter the polite people can’t hear each other.
I am required to wear sunglasses because of the heart medicine I take. On shady sections of the road, the DRL give me an idea of what is ahead. At dusk, when a lot of drivers do not put on their lights as required, the DRLs give you some measure of the road ahead.
Since DRL lights have been on motorcycles for a lot longer time, they should have been included in the study. I searched for “motorcycle” and didn’t get a hit. My opinion is that the study is flawed
I think they are great and all cars should have them.
Tom K
You still lack any valid points for DRLs and I will explain below.
“I am required to wear sunglasses because of the heart medicine I take. On shady sections of the road, the DRL give me an idea of what is ahead.”
You have to wear sunglasses even in low light conditions?? Isn’t that a little bit questionable?
“At dusk, when a lot of drivers do not put on their lights as required, the DRLs give you some measure of the road ahead.”
Again, sounds like the local police NOT doing their jobs! Also in some drivers having lights on actually distorts depth perception making some drivers more leary and not able to determine how far away you really are. This in turn poses a danger to you if you are using daytime lights.
“Since DRL lights have been on motorcycles for a lot longer time, they should have been included in the study. I searched for “motorcycle” and didn’t get a hit.”
You raise an interesting point there. Have you ever heard of the “Start seeing Motorcycles” campaign? Several states have it and it to raise awareness of motorcycles. This however is kind of odd because as you mention above, motorcycles have had daytime lights for years and years. So, if daytime lights actually work why do we always have motorcycle safety campaigns?
“My opinion is that the study is flawed”
The only “flawed” part of the study is that even after seeing this people like you STILL think daytime lights actually do save lives!
“I think they are great and all cars should have them.”
Why should we all have to pay for your questionable condition while driving? We do NOT need lights on our cars they have NO proven benefits and may even pose a danger to pedestrians and other drivers.
>I am required to wear sunglasses because of the
>heart medicine I take. On shady sections of the
>road, the DRL give me an idea of what is ahead.
(this is incredible) With all due respect, if your condition requires you to wear
something that degrades your vision, then I suggest that you shouldn’t
be driving. That’s one of the requirememts for being a competent driver:
you must be able to SEE.
Dave
I like that. It was the short and sweet of what I said to him but i wanted him to know why each of his comments made no sense.
Hopefully he gets it. These DRL advocates remind me of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers
If having your lights on made driving safer—-then there would be no accidents at night.