Friday 21st December 2001

Pressure Mounts for DRLs

GM petition US Government to mandate Daytime Running Lights

---

[kip]

Those geeks at GM have nothing better to do than force more mandated self serving rules on car manufacturers?

I think 99.99999% of all drivers are capable of recognizing a car in front of them during daylight hours.

We don't need another goofy rule for the .000001% of drivers who have no business being on the road!

[golders]

seems a strange request.

but it might help, saving just one life would make it worthwhile! So it should be law in the UK.

Only trouble is you will have to replace your bulbs more frequently?

Cheers,

Golders

GPC: www.geocities.com/golders_uk

Total 200sx: www.geocities.com/total200sx


Cheers,

Golders

[venom7]

No as a matter of fact you won't have to change bulb(lamps) more often. They run at a lower wattage(I believe on the high beams). They are law in Canada and I guarantee you they save lives. Living now in California, I can't believe the number of drivers who will drive at dawn and dusk with no lights on. I drive a Super 7 down here and the only reason I'm noticed on the road is by the headlights. Motorcycles have them, it's about time cars did too.

[JMGS4]

My experience of headlights during the day are all positive. Especially when I see the sidelight brigade in full darkness (usually driving a Morris 1000 pale blue!). BUT headlights during the day save lives, and how often especially in maritime climates GB, Nova Scotia, Denmark, et al, does the light change so fast that one is driving blind? I always put my headlights on in daytime especially on the Autobahn, where I may well be doing double the speed of the numpties.....

[kevinday]

Here in Hungary it is compulsory to have headlights on when driving on the motorways, but not in town.

[manek]

Itend to drive on motorways with healamps because numpties don't see you or appreciate how fast you could be goin. Plus they notice you in the rear view mirror more quickly and move over...

-Manek-

[Bruce Fielding]

Actually, Manek, numpties move over becuase they think you're a police car - especially when you're gaining on them with the progress caused by the speed at which YOU drive!

With my other hat (helmet) on as a biker, I'm slighly against DRLs as they prevent bikes (which most often have their dipped beams on) standing out quite as well against the rest of the visual 'noise' on the road. Incidentally, a while ago, making DRLs a legal requirement for bikes was considered, but rejected due to legal issues - "I didn't see him, guv. He didn't have his lights on even though it was noon on a sunny dry day in summer. Not my fault, see?"

[MattC]

This has already been discussed here at length
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=4426&f=57&h=0&hw=drl

and also see:
www.lightsout.org

To summarise the ANTI views:
- they are selfish. They MAY make you easier to spot, but makes it harder to see everything else (peds, cyclists, bikers, signs, the road...)
- the manufacturers are possibly lobbying for the law to sell more lights which nobody wants.
- the countries where this originated have very long periods of low light, and low sun (Finland etc); England doesn't.
- the above countries got the biggest benefits from reducing accidents with elks and similar critters (also not as big a problem in England).
- the statistics have NEVER proved any benefit (except critter-hits).

The Prosecution rests its case, m'lud...

[Roadrunner]

It might make a difference when one car out of the blue has his lights on when all the others don't - they'll stand out a bit more from everything else, by about 0.01%. Although when everything on the road has lights glaring from all directions everyone will become accustomed, it will become part of the scenery again, and will have no extra effect.

Sounds like the GM board have bought shares in bulb manufacturers.

Just another f*cking waste of time. One day we might have some laws on how long were allowed to take a shit, for our own safety of course.

[Fatboy]

Sounds to me more like the F*ckwit accountants who run GM are trying to act like they have a clue what they're doing (again)

DRLs are a waste of time in most countries, and would remove the fun gameof 'Flash the volvo during the day to tell them they've got their lights on, and watch them panic wondering what's wrong'

[elise160]

The last two comments on this post are either people drunk and posting or very young kids.

It has been proved that having headlights on during the day saves lives, and as someone said earlier, even if one is saved a year that one could be you or a member of your family.

What difference will it make to your driving....none. It won't effect you as you probably already drive round with your front fog lights on during the day thinking that you look cool.

Forgive me if I am wrong...I love speed and cars as much as the next person but this is a good thing.

Rgds

[Roadrunner]

elise160,

oh really, zzz, v amusing, zzz...

[beano1197]

Don't air forces put lights on the front of aircraft specifically so they won't be seen?

One practical problem with lights on in day time tends to be the difficulty in judging speeds.

[Fatboy]

elsie160 I don't object to DRLs on any reason other than safety - cars with DRLs on make Bikes (and pedestrians/horses etc) less noticeable - THAT's why I object to their introduction.

If you think I drive round with my Fog lights on, see my posts on the Fog lights threads.

[hertsbiker]

umm. DRL's, what was it? 0.0001% safer for non-bikers, but 6% worse for riders.

Don't forget that hit a car, and it's annoying. Hit a bike, and it will change YOUR life as well as theirs.

DRL's are cop-out for not complying with other safety issues.

Other thing, the "only" 1% or 2% increase in fuel consumption actually adds up to a lot of fuel over a few million cars.


Edited by hertsbiker on Thursday 17th January 15:40

[martvr]

Where does the 1% or 2% come from? It will not be anywhere near that figure. Probably better not to weaken your argument with unsurportable quotes.

[CarZee]

quote:Other thing, the "only" 1% or 2% increase in fuel consumption actually adds up to a lot of fuel over a few million cars.

Where did this figure come from ?
2 headlamps = 100w (or at most 120w)
2 rear lights = 10w

110w total power consumed by DRLs then, assuming this is drawn directly from current the alternator is providing will account for a power loss of 1/7th of a Horse Power - significantly less than that drawn by AirCon, Power Steering, belt driven cooling fans, uprated oil & water pumps etc...

So whilst I agree with what you're saying in general regarding the good or bad of DRLs, the extra fuel consumption is minute. More like 0.001% than 1%...

Pedantic maybe, but then I am aren't I ?

[CarZee]

beat me to it martvr !

[Bruce Fielding]

On the critter hits and headlights issue, it might be interesting (in a whispy beard and cardigan kind of way) for you to know that in Australia the way to avoid hitting roos on the road at night is to turn OFF your headlights, as they can then see outside the 'light tunnel' and stand a chance of running away from the road as opposed to straight into your roo bar (but we've discussed those WAY too much already!)

[MattC]

quote:
...
110w total power consumed by DRLs then, assuming this is drawn directly from current the alternator is providing will account for a power loss of 1/7th of a Horse Power - significantly less than that drawn by AirCon, Power Steering, belt driven cooling fans, uprated oil & water pumps etc...

Don't disagree with your figures, but you seem to be suggesting that the extra fuel consumption of A/C, PAS etc is not a bad thing. I would have to differ, and hopefully Mr Elise should agree, as a disciple of Colin Chapman.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should have a REALLY good reason before bolting unnecessary crap to our cars, no matter how small the effect.