If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"ray" > wrote in message ... > wrote: > > "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message > and when you're behind a moron in the fog with his DRL's on but no damn > taillights... that makes it much safer, right? I guess so, because he > usually has his foglights on too. I agree with you, Ashton. This is very dangerous. And the DRLs instill a false sense of compliance sometimes. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"N8N" > wrote in message oups.com... Very few DRL > implementations light up the sides or rear of the car, and the ones > using high beams are painfully glaring under any conditions that would > warrant regular headlight use. The world would be a better place if > auto mfgrs. just built cars, and stopped trying to save us from > ourselves. Agree on the DRLs that leave the sides and rear unlighted. Headlight DRLs are okay if they default to low beam. My wife's car does that and lights up the rear, etc. My poor old Dodge Van is totally manual mht lighting. And as much as I bitch about people driving in the rain with no lights, I have occasionally caught myself without my lights on. Seldom, but it has happened. Doesn't make it any less dangerous. I would convert my to full time automatic lighting if I could find a kit to do it in such a way as to avoid the problems you mention. I suppose I could rig a simple relay to bypass the headlight switch to low beams every time the key is in Run position. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"ray" > wrote in message ... I know where the headlight switch is and > I know when it needs to be used. You are perhaps an exception. Most of us make the occasional mistake. Some of us just dont seem to know the law in this state and to attempt to comply with it. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com>,
Comboverfish > wrote: >I hear that complaint very infrequently, and I don't really get it. >High beams in series (DRLs) are a much lower intensity of focused light >than when run normally at full B+. The biggest reason HB DRLs are not >a problem is the fact that they are used in DAYLIGHT; there is >significant sunlight outside as to keep onlookers' eyes adjusted for >bright light conditions. Low light conditions (dusk, overcast, rain) cause the onlookers' eyes to be adjusted for a lesser light level, so high beam DRLs can be more annoying in that case. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I had the opportunity to get a little data on the situation just after lunch
today. I drove to our farm which is about 7 miles out of town on a (major) two lane state highway. A cloudburst cut my work short, so driving back into town in this heavy rain and heated mist, I took a count of cars approaching me with lights on. (I was only driving about 55-60 mph so definitely did not catch up with any cars). Of about 21 cars, only a third had any sort of lights on at all...and conditions certainly demanded illumination. We have an all too high traffic accident rate (with high mortality) here anyway, when it really shouldnt be so. The roads are not particularly busy. The usual factors are bad weather, aggressive driving habits, speeding and running through signal lights, women trying to diaper the baby and drive at the same time. I suppose the solution would be for our Texas drivers to wisen up and 'drive friendly', and for our police to get out of the donut palaces and enforce traffic laws. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"ray" > wrote in message ... > > FWIW, I have discussed this with Manitoba Public Insurance... (in Canada > DRLs became mandatory in 1990)... and they charge the same rates for > 1989-90-91 Berettas and the same rates for 1989-90-91 Camaros, so it's > showing me that they don't see a decrease in collision rates for those > cars. They've referred me to the Insurance Bureau of Canada... I feel I'm > either entitled to a discount for my "safer" Beretta (1990) with DRL's or > that DRL's are going to be proven to be a non-issue for saving lives. My insurance company basically told me the same thing 2-3 years back. DRL equipped vehicled do not have a "reduced loss profile" when compared to non-DRL equipped venicles". What that means is that insurance rates will not be reduced since there isn't a safety benefit (obviously). They also told me that the exception was New York State, where the state legislature *mandated* some percentage reduction in insurance rates for DRL equipped vehicles by law, even though insurance loss data doesn't support it. > And FWIW, I think DRL's on two lane highways are good. Possible, but I'm not convinced. In 1978 (I believe was the year), Wisconsin state did a "lights on for safety" study on a particularly accident prone stretch of highway 12. The result was that the accident rate was unchanged...no difference. But then there are other studies that seem to indicate otherwise. One thing for sure, all the "studies" taken together appear to be largely inconclusive. Given that, the real world statistics is all we have left..the insurance industry data. > But they are pointless in rush hour, which is where I spend 90% of my > driving, so that's why I've disabled them. I know where the headlight > switch is and I know when it needs to be used. Most people do. Although, some people out there probably do need the "crutch". For those people that know they don't, they should be able to decide for themselves. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ... > > "N8N" > wrote in message > oups.com... > Very few DRL >> implementations light up the sides or rear of the car, and the ones >> using high beams are painfully glaring under any conditions that would >> warrant regular headlight use. The world would be a better place if >> auto mfgrs. just built cars, and stopped trying to save us from >> ourselves. > > Agree on the DRLs that leave the sides and rear unlighted. Headlight DRLs > are okay if they default to low beam. My wife's car does that and lights > up > the rear, etc. > > My poor old Dodge Van is totally manual mht lighting. And as much as I > bitch about people driving in the rain with no lights, I have occasionally > caught myself without my lights on. Seldom, but it has happened. Doesn't > make > it any less dangerous. > > I would convert my to full time automatic lighting if I could find a kit > to > do it > in such a way as to avoid the problems you mention. I suppose I could rig > a simple relay to bypass the headlight switch to low beams every time the > key is in Run position. > And have you found a automatic system that can tell when atmospheric conditions have limited sight distance to below 1000 feet (a statute requiring lights-on in my state)? I doubt it since none exists that can do that. Manual control is your only reliable option in those situations. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message
... > > "N8N" > wrote in message > oups.com... > Very few DRL >> implementations light up the sides or rear of the car, and the ones >> using high beams are painfully glaring under any conditions that would >> warrant regular headlight use. The world would be a better place if >> auto mfgrs. just built cars, and stopped trying to save us from >> ourselves. > > Agree on the DRLs that leave the sides and rear unlighted. Headlight DRLs > are okay if they default to low beam. My wife's car does that and lights > up > the rear, etc. > > My poor old Dodge Van is totally manual mht lighting. And as much as I > bitch about people driving in the rain with no lights, I have occasionally > caught myself without my lights on. Seldom, but it has happened. Doesn't > make > it any less dangerous. I think that has happened to most everyone, although I doubt that many will admit it. > > I would convert my to full time automatic lighting if I could find a kit > to > do it > in such a way as to avoid the problems you mention. I suppose I could rig > a simple relay to bypass the headlight switch to low beams every time the > key is in Run position. Or you could simply get into the habit of turning on your headlights on low beam every time you drive the car. The headlight switch over-rides the DRL's. I do it automatically now. And you get a sound alarm if you forget to shut them off once the engine is shut down. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What to get... 2005 Chev Impala or Pontiac Grand Prix ??? | jetsguy | Technology | 13 | March 18th 05 05:23 AM |
ALIGNMENT ?? - 2003 Impala 3.4V6 | ChrisCoaster | Technology | 6 | March 6th 05 04:16 AM |
Dumb Question on 69 Impala | Don | Antique cars | 2 | August 25th 04 10:13 AM |
1973 Chevy Impala | Josh | Antique cars | 1 | April 10th 04 08:48 PM |
64 impala pictures | Jason | Antique cars | 0 | December 29th 03 03:04 AM |