Daytime Running Lights Standardization Needed?

This true. US lighting standards are part of the problem.

Who does like being told what to do? Especially when you are smart enough to
realize that what they are telling you to do is something you know is not
good for you.

Not blind, but definitely annoy. If I shine a flash light in your face
it won't blind you, but it will be annoying and distracting. That is
exactly how some DRL's feel.

So now everyone gets stuck with annoying and uncessary DRL's because
of a few folks too stupid to realize they need to turn on their lights.
Maybe the government should fix the problme instead of treating the sympton.
Educate drivers before they get a license on when it is necessary to turn
on their lights, and DRL's would be unecessary. This solution would also
be retroactive in the sense that it works with all cars, not just with the
new ones.

If your eye sight is failing, then you should not be driving.

Not quite. It is not a law yet, at least not in the US. Unfortunately
I do have to deal with GM's idiocy. That is one reason I won't buy a GM
car.

 

Pedestrians also have to see cars approaching.. it is not always just a
question of being seen by other drivers..

 

What you are describing is not unique to U.S. companies by a long shot -
I could give you personal examples of amoral behavior of French and
German companies that look at only the net effect on dollars vs. and
moral, ethical, or humanitarian considerations.

It is all embodied in the modern euphemistic term "value added". In the
modern business philosophy, a decision will be based 100% on how it
affects the bottom line of the company. You think contributions by
corporations are for the benefit of others? Maybe sometimes. But
mostly, if the contribution was made, it was due to a claculated net
positive effect on the bottom line - either in the form of taxes, or
public opinion, favorable consideration by some governement or other
busines entity, or succumbing to Jesse Jackson's blackmail techniques,
or a combination of the above.

Product decisions are made in exactly the same way. If painting the
flambatic dopulator will add $0.10 to the cost of each vehicle, but the
net gain in sales will add only $0.09 to the bottom line averaged over
all the vehicles, it will not be painted. If it adds $0.11 in average
sales gains, then it will be done. The fact that it will save the
customer $5.26 a month in repair costs if the flambatic dopulator is
painted is totally 100% irrelavent to the decision if the customer does
not perceive that fact - it would be considered "non-value-added" in
modern business-speak, even though in reality it would be genuine value
added to the customer.

Right or wrong, good or bad, in highly competitive situations, that's
how human nature operates. I have observed in my professional life
based on observations that you can take practically any decent human
being and if you push them up against the wall hard enough with a
reality that will cause them pain (the company will close down and you
will lose your job if you give the customer $0.05 of added value at
company expense, or it will go out of business if you help out a
deserving employee), that person will go with what benefits the
company. (That's not to say that some people won't go for the jugular
when they taste blood just for the thrill of it when doing the right
thing would have done no damage to the company, but that is a different
type of person.) I won't bore you with personal examples.

But I assure you - it is not unique to American companies. Some of the
most blood-thirsty acts I have personally witnessed were comitted by
European companies.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

So buy a Peugot, or a Renault. It's a free country. (they are not sold
in Canada, so won't get "Canadian mandated" DRLs.)

 

| .. and here we have the real reason for the problem with
DRL's.. the
| arguments about them being unsafe are a smoke screen.. the
truth is that US
| motorists want control of when they use headlights.. yet
another case when
| wording in the 1st Amendment is used to allow people to do
whatever they
| want, regardless of the effects that their actions may
have on others..
| hardly in the true spirit of the Amendment but words are
words, I am told..
|

The lighting laws _specifically state_ that the _operator_
is the one that is responsible for the proper operation of
vehicle lighting. The manufacturer isn't even mentioned as
having a role. Since a "auto" system can't read the law and
certainly can't apply a real decision process applicable to
when the written law says the lights (all of them) are to be
on, then the control of said lights should be at the
discretion of the operator (a entity that can _think_). The
operator can certainly _decide_ if they want a auto system
to do it for them. BUT, if the _operator_ decides he
doesn't (maybe doesn't trust or feel comfortable), then the
owner must be provided that option.

Remember that most DRL configurations (except Volvo) do not
light the marker and tail lamps, So, the operators of many
GM vehicles are driving in daylight fog illegally during
times when only the DRLs are lit. The couple of people I
know that gotten tickets for it both said "I have DRLs!"...
"I have 'auto' lights!" "Why weren't my lights on?" DUH!!!
Perfect! Make a control system whereby so many "operators"
no longer think (in fact are trained my the system not to
think) about their lights any more...what a terrible,
terrible idea! Just keep dumbing people down, no problem!
Wipe Billys runny nose for him until the day he dies. Are
we adults? Or are we children?

 

And if our American friends, who think they need to be in control of
ALL phases of their life, were as smart as they think they are, they
would very quickly find out GM DRLs are EXTREMELY easy to defeat. Just
put a switch in parallel with the parking brake indicator switch. The
DRLs do NOT come on with the parking brake applied.

I remember years ago driving in the US with my headlamps on (as I
ALWAYS did in those days) encountering "road rage" because I had my
lights on.
My eyesight was always better than 20-20. I could usually see cars
coming, even in poor lighting - but "day liters" were SO much easier
to see. If driving with my lights on made me THAT much easier to see,
it made the chances of me being hit by someone who could not see me
that much less likely.

The whole "day-lites" question may eventually be answered by Darwin.
Survival of the "smartest".

 

| and for the record, I have a problem driving at night in
North America..
| continually blinded by poorly adjusted and badly designed
headlamps.. I hate
| driving at night for that reason..

I can agree with that.

| Re. Cost of using DRL's.. lol.. Boeing claim that it is
cheaper to pay
| lawsuits than to change design to make airplanes safer..
that is how much US
| companies and people value the lives of others.. using
DRL's doesn't lead to
| yearly failure of headlight bulbs, or anything close..
bulbs are maybe
| US$6.00 each.. that will hardly break the bank even if it
was a yearly
| replacement cost.. and all to make it safer for kids..

The statement is made unter the premis that safety is
enhanced. Results of all studies when combined are, in the
opinion of many, mixed at best.

600 million gallons annually of fuel burned unnecessarily
for vastly inconclusive results would result in large
environmental fines for most companies that had only a
fraction of this level of environmental impact. Now we're
going to promote such waste? For what! A fad? A
politican's wet dream? The _possibility_ of at best a very
slight benefit? It's overreaching at it's absolute worst
(in my opinion).

| Canadians are as proactive as anybody else, but they do
not extend the
| wording in any constitution to the detriment of the
masses.. I think that
| anybody who uses the wording of the first Amendment to
bypass safety issues
| is doing a disservice to the people that wrote it up..

The statement is made unter the premis that safety is
enhanced. Results of all studies when combined are, in the
opinion of many, mixed at best.

I respetfully disagree. "Detriment of the masses"?
Hardly so!

| Shining a flashlight into Grandma's eyes at point blank
range?.. lol..
| hardly in the same category as an approaching car with
DRL's activated..

Wasn't point blank...probably 20-30 feet away. I learned
that, cause of hurt to grandma's eyes effect of hurt hiney!

| Auto headlight systems are designed to work in low level
lighting..
| fog/falling snow does not fall into the category of low
light level.. if you
| take a manual slr camera out into fog and operate the
light meter, you will
| find that closing the aperture of the lens is necessary to
get a pic..
| ambient light levels in fog are actually quite high even
tho visibilty may
| be impaired.. Canadian vehicles have DRL's on permanently,
so the auto
| function, if fitted, will work when light levels fall, ie
dusk onwards.. it
| is the responsibilty of the vehicle user to ensure that
ALL running lights
| are switched on and maintained properly, cleaned and
operational, for the
| benefit of ALL other road users.. please note that it is
not just vehicles
| that use the roads.. pedestrians are out there too..

This skirts the issue I apparently failed to make. A "auto"
system is not unlike like a continual active training
system. A couple of posts at the NHTSA are of situations
where accidents (rear enders in fog) _could_ have been
avoided IF the driver knew they even had a light switch.
The "auto" system trained them to believe that the car
controlled everything...never used the switch or knew where
it was or how to use it. Real world then says that a auto
system is hardly safety positive.

I do agree 100% with your statement that "it is the
responsibilty of the vehicle user to ensure that ALL running
lights are switched on and maintained properly, cleaned and
operational, for the benefit of ALL other road users.." My
assertion is that this goal that you so well state, can be
best achieved with standard manual (not automatic) light
controls. Only _manual_ controls will cause (force) the
operator to keep the "check lights" item on their
"pre-flight checklist". A "auto" system eventually causes
the "check lights" step to "fall off" of their checklist due
to the human nature of unconscience habit. A VERY bad
situation. Will this happen to everyone...no. Will it
hapen to a significant number of people..yes! That type of
"training" is very effective. We don't want to "teach" and
promote the wrong behavior. A "auto" system can "teach" the
wrong behavior in the end.

| That GM have chosen to use high beam as DRL's is an issue
to be taken up
| with them.. It is unfair to blame Canada for it.. but in
your own words, GM
| have opted to standardise the DRL function in alignment
with Canada
| presumably for COST reasons, but that is their right,
right?..

Many have. When it comes to the topic, GM is very
defensive, typically ignoring that group of customer. They
could do as their competitors do (provide the option which
is legal here in the US), but they have painted their egos
into a corner and are, apparently, willing to alleniate
hundreds of thousands of customers in the process. Letting
ego take control is a ugly ugly thing.

| US DOT must do something about headlamps generally.. they
will not want to
| take the Euro route because the French are part of Euro
and no way will they
| do anything that the French do.. even if it is in the
general safety
| interests of US citizens.. here we are back at the Boeing
thing.. better to
| stumble forwards with old practices rather than address a
safety issue that
| will require many $$$ to fix..

I agree that the standards need improvement. The premise
that it isn't being done because the French already do it
(so we won't) is just plain silly and diminishes your
credibility if you really believe that is the reason. It's
more because the NHTSA, like just about anthing associated
with government, is lazy and inefficient.

| It irks me to think that the lives of my two kids are not
even worth
| US$12.00 to somebody else.. I wonder what kind of lawsuit
I would face if I
| were to take the same attitude with somebody else's kids..
I can just see
| the look on the parents face as I tell the judge that
$12.00 was more than I
| thought reasonable to pay such that my vehicle could be
seen..

The statement is made unter the premis that safety is
enhanced. Results of all studies when combined are, in the
opinion of many, mixed at best.

First off, how come you're not dead...you grew up in a era
of DRLs? What? you survived (somehow) during a era without
DRLs? How is that possible?

Lets go with your premise though, will your kids then have
to breath 60 million tons a year of additional polluted air?
So, decide either that risk of accident with a car is lower
by a miniscule amount AND perhaps contribute to later
respratory health issues they may contract at some point
also by a miniscule amount. We're talking in the order of 1
in thousands chance here on either equasion. Which tradeoff
is best? Now that is one dynamic I know hasen't been
studied at all and a answer isn't (can't) be known at this
time.

In conclusion. The topic of this thread is "Daytime Running
Lights Standardization Needed?". Since I will support
individual choice and will defend anyone that decides on
their own to use DRLs, ( I may debate them though! )
the answer to the question in the subject heading of this
post is "yes"

 

| And if our American friends, who think they need to be in control of
| ALL phases of their life, were as smart as they think they are, they
| would very quickly find out GM DRLs are EXTREMELY easy to defeat. Just
| put a switch in parallel with the parking brake indicator switch. The
| DRLs do NOT come on with the parking brake applied.

Two problems with your bright idea:

1. The "brake" light on the dash stays illuminated...a light that
doubles as a brake system warning failure light. Not a
good idea.
2. Cars with ABS will disable the ABS system if the ABS system
thinks the parking brake is not fully disengaged. What
makes the ABS "think" the parking brake is still set? You
got it, the same circuit that activates the light. Also
why your solution a bad idea!

Hmmm...try again!

| I remember years ago driving in the US with my headlamps on (as I
| ALWAYS did in those days) encountering "road rage" because I had my
| lights on.

It's always a good idea to do things that promote road rage...very safety
positive indeed!

| My eyesight was always better than 20-20. I could usually see cars
| coming, even in poor lighting - but "day liters" were SO much easier
| to see. If driving with my lights on made me THAT much easier to see,
| it made the chances of me being hit by someone who could not see me
| that much less likely.

Sure it did.

| The whole "day-lites" question may eventually be answered by Darwin.
| Survival of the "smartest".

Since man has been around for tens of thousands of years and DRLs have only
been around for a dozen years, I say Darwin has already spoken. The non DRLs
era has lasted considerably longer then the DRL era has, wouldn't you agree?

 

Actually, a GOOD idea if it shuts off the damned ABS. You want to rant
about a "Safety feature" that is neither, take a look at ABS. All ABS
does when it gets slippery is make sure you hit what is in front of
you SQUARE ON. Actual stopping distance on slippery roads is increased
significantly - and with good snow tires if I can LOCK the brakes in
many cases I can get through to a good high-friction surface -and get
stopped - when the ABS just shuts off the brakes. If the brakes need
pumping, I'll pump them.

Now, you southern Yankees and rednecks that only see about 5 days of
slippery roads a year - you can drive with your 55 series racing tires
and ABS and not have a problem. The rest of the world is a bit
different.

Same with DRL. When the road is grey, and the sky is grey, and the air
is grey, and there is glare on the road from rain, slush, or snow,
cars of virtually any colour can fade into the backround very easily.
With DRLs on, they are seen. You don't want them, that's fine with
me. I dislike driving in much of your country enough already.

 

BAD idea if you're driving a vehicle that has the ABS take over the
function of the proportioning valve. This will make your brakes
dangerously rear-biased. Not sure if this applies to any Chrysler
vehicles or not but I know that it does to some GM trucks circa 2000
and probably a few years on either side. And if your ABS disables the
brakes on low-traction surfaces you're either not using it right
(fight the urge to pump! just push as hard as you can on the brake
pedal, your reflexes notwithstanding) or else you just have shitty ABS
- a good ABS system really does work well in most conditions. (now
there *are* shitty ABS systems out there... the ones installed on
Dodge vans around the mid-90s immediately springs to mind. That was a
dangerously poorly functioning system!)

If you need DRL's you should have your low beam headlights on, so that
your side and rear marker lights are illuminated. Or do you think you
only need to be seen from the front?

nate

 

The DRL thing was primarily so that pedestrians were more aware of cars
approaching them, hence headlights only..

 

Add to that list the 4 channel ABS on a 1994 Trans Sport.
Downright dangerous on snowy surfaces wirhout agressive snow tires. (I
put on a set of 4 Graspics)

Being seen from the front prevents the majority of problems, because
what is coming towards you is approached at roughly double the speed
of what is standing still, and a WHOLE lot faster than something you
are overtaking. If pulling into traffic what has already gone past
does not concern you - so yes, being seen from the front is MUCH more
important than being seen from the side or rear (although that is
important too).
You will notice that before DRLs became standard, I was a "dayliter",
and on my old Chrysler I still run with the lights on most of the
time. My Poncho turns the sidelights and taillights on when it gets
dark automagically.

 

There are more cars on the road now than there were even 15 years ago,
many, many more than 120 years ago |>)).

The cars are going faster, cars never used to have brake lights, early
"head lights" were intended as warning lights, not to allow the driver
to see ahead, should we revert?

My reading of the various data out there says that for head-on
collisions causing death, DRLs do not help. (I interpret that as
meaning that if you are going fast enough to kill yourself or others,
DRLs won't help because the "closing speed" is too great to help.
Cross-traffic accidents and pedestrian accidents are significantly
reduced, however.

My experience "in the car" tells me that on two-lane roads at 80-95
km/hr, I can see a DRL equipped car sooner than a non-equipped car and I
can make better decisions because of it.

Dan

 

|
| Actually, a GOOD idea if it shuts off the damned ABS. You want to rant
| about a "Safety feature" that is neither, take a look at ABS. All ABS
| does when it gets slippery is make sure you hit what is in front of
| you SQUARE ON. Actual stopping distance on slippery roads is increased
| significantly - and with good snow tires if I can LOCK the brakes in
| many cases I can get through to a good high-friction surface -and get
| stopped - when the ABS just shuts off the brakes. If the brakes need
| pumping, I'll pump them.
|
| Now, you southern Yankees and rednecks that only see about 5 days of
| slippery roads a year - you can drive with your 55 series racing tires
| and ABS and not have a problem. The rest of the world is a bit
| different.
|
| Same with DRL. When the road is grey, and the sky is grey, and the air
| is grey, and there is glare on the road from rain, slush, or snow,
| cars of virtually any colour can fade into the backround very easily.
| With DRLs on, they are seen. You don't want them, that's fine with
| me. I dislike driving in much of your country enough already.

I'm not a fan of ABS either. BUT if the car is already set up with ABS, the
system will be unbalanced to the rear normally if the ABS system is not
functioning by using the previous method suggested to disable the DRL.

 

|
| My reading of the various data out there says that for head-on
| collisions causing death, DRLs do not help.

Okay...

| (I interpret that as meaning that if you are going fast
| enough to kill yourself or others, DRLs won't help
| because the "closing speed" is too great to help.

One can always apply "intrepretation" to data to make it say whatever one
wants. ;-) Your intrepretation could be a good one (sounds like a reasonable
theory), but I've never heard it put forward before by those more knowledgeable
on the subject that you or I are though).

| Cross-traffic accidents and pedestrian accidents are
| significantly reduced, however.

Yes, matches data that I've seen...which I had earlier communicated. Are you
going to stop there (typical)? Let's complete the picture so as not to
deceive, shall we? Rear-end collisions, accidents with emergency vehicles,
motorcyclists, funeral processions (and there are other categories) are types
that are statistically higher.

Yes, you can cherry-pick the data and make absolutely correct claims that this
type is reduced and that type is reduced (and, like GM say no more about it,
leaving a incomplete/deceiving picture). But, add back in that this type and
that type are _increased_ and the _overall_ (total) accident rate number is
higher (by some studies like the 1997 HLDI study). Now, one can make a
decision that if they need/want a very very slightly reduced risk of
cross-traffic collisions at the expense of very very slightly increased risk of
colliding with a motorcyclist or ambulance, then by all means use the DRL. (I
don't care) However, if you choose the opposite (for yourself) then GM
shouldn't be (has no business) making that decision a _mandatory_ one for the
owner of the car when the law in the US clearly says DRL use is to be
"voluntary".

| My experience "in the car" tells me that on two-lane roads at
| 80-95 km/hr, I can see a DRL equipped car sooner than a
| non-equipped car and I can make better decisions because
| of it.

Personal experience is anecdotal and largely subject to our personal
biases...it's human nature. I have no doubt that your personal experience and
perception is exactly as you claim. Mine, however, is that I have no problem
seeing a car (apparently well soon enough) in broad daylight. DRL or not,
makes no real difference to my visual perception that I can tell. 30+ years
and nearly a million miles, has not been a problem yet for thousands of
successful passing maneauvers. Not a single at-fault accident (so far). But,
my experience is also anecdotal and too small of a data sampling to conclude
anything in a broad way. One can ONLY apply statistics and broadly collected
data to know what the broad picture really is.

Please, for Pete's sake, look at insurance industry loss data, NOT your
"perceptions" that can be skewed by the subconscious bias. Do you _really_ see
a reduction of accidents for car models that commonly have DRLs vs. those that
commonly do not? Has GM (or anyone) used actual insurance data in their
pro-DRL "claims"? If not, (and they haven't that I've seen) why do you suppose
that is? It would be the perfect "proof", wouldn't you think?

 

|
| "James C. Reeves" wrote:
|
| > ...But, I know, you're talking about the
| > Saturns here, and I agree. The DRLs on Saturns
| > are so close together that they _can_ give the
| > false impression that the vehicle is much further
| > away than it actually is. Try a pass and
| > head-on city! It would be better (and safer) if
| > the DRLs were off.
|
| Those cars just need to paraphrase the sideview mirror
| warning on a big sign suspended over the car:
| "CAUTION: THIS CAR MAY BE CLOSER THAN IT APPEARS".
| Of course that message would need to be on their in five
| different languages in California. A separate SUV may be
| needed to haul the sign around (kind of like the "WIDE
| LOAD" situations), and the sign would be designed to be
| aerodynamic so that the SUV will get better gas
| mileage. 8^)
|

Thanks for the chuckle.

It's just evidence that the so called "experts" at GM, that are so vocal at
telling us all how wonderful these things are (the same people that designed
this unsafe configuration), are obviously really clueless!!!. Putting DRLs 10"
apart...obviously a dangerous configuration. Why do so many people seem to
believe those yahoos?

 

|
| If you need DRL's you should have your low beam headlights
| on, so that your side and rear marker lights are illuminated.
| Or do you think you only need to be seen from the front?
|

I agree and since the data statistically shows a increased rate of rear end
collision for DRL equipped vehicles suggests that your observation is even more
important for those that want/need to use DRLs. As far as I know, Volvo is the
only manufacturer that understands this fact and design's their DRL setups to
include illumination of the side marker and tail lamps...or at least they used
to.

 

Statistics in Canada show that the vast majority of accidents involve cars
fitted with DRL's, but does that mean that all accidents, or any in fact,
are caused by the use of DRL's?.. absolutely not, any more than statistics
showing that every accident involving a vehicle fitted with either steering
wheel or handlebars can be attributed to the fitting of a steering device..
DRL's are used in Canada and other parts of the world to increase vehicle
visibility for other car drivers, truck drivers. motorcyclists, skidoos,
atv's and last but by no means least, PEDESTRIANS..

 

| Statistics in Canada show that the vast majority of accidents involve cars
| fitted with DRL's, but does that mean that all accidents, or any in fact,
| are caused by the use of DRL's?..

That's true. The types of accidents that happen at a higher rate with
DRL-equipped cars may not have been "caused" by DRLs. But, it is a interesting
statistic. One can draw their own conclusions. Mine is that DRLs seems to be
a contributing dynamic. Why, who knows. You still haven't answered my
question and explain why you think this statistic exists.

| DRL's are used in Canada and other parts of the world to increase vehicle
| visibility for other car drivers, truck drivers. motorcyclists, skidoos,
| atv's and last but by no means least, PEDESTRIANS..

I believe everyone understands that already. One category on your list not
completely correct though. The advent of the automobile DRL has had the
opposite effect statistically for motorcyclists...they no longer have the
conspicuity advantage they used to have. Perhaps they can see cars better, but
cars no longer see _them_ better. Apparently when it comes to riding a
motorcycle, it is more importent to "be seen" that to see others. Their
accident rates have shy-rocketed over the past 5-10 years. The point is that
for one action in one place there is a opposite action in another place. There
will always be a balancing cause and effect effect. Doing one thing to
"improve" something over here will contribute to a worsentening a situation
elsewhere. There are always pros/cons and tradeoffs with everything. A
completely "positive" thing doesn't exist...never has. One may wish for a
"panecea", but there isn't one! Having said that, if you are a driver that has
a alegance for motorcyclists (a lot of friends/family that are, for example)
you may choose not to use DRLs on your car to "do your part" for the
motorcyclist. Or you're one that rarely drives in a area with pedestrians, you
may choose not to use them. The driver should decide what is important to them
and be able to make their own decision. Who is it that GM (or the Canadian
government) should decide what is important for you.

 

The statistic may or may not exist in written or typed form but is
undoubtedly true in Canada as all cars made for Canada must have DRL's..

Motorcycle incidents will go up as the sale of motorcycles increases.. I do
not believe that Canadian motorcyclists feel the same way about DRL's as
their US counterparts because the issue is with being told that DRL's are
compulsory, and Canadians don't have a problem with that..

As for the right of Government telling people what they can and can't do,
some people need to be told, and by a body that can enforce action if
necessary.. anarchy is the other option..