A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Saturn
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GMS & Saturns DRLs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 14th 05, 03:20 AM
teem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My question was mainly why are the headlights used on GMs,& park
lights on saturns,but,I guess I got my point across.On Wed, 13 Jul
2005 20:22:15 -0500, "Box134" > wrote:

>My bad, the site is about more than Audi vehicles. Sorry.
>
>"Box134" > wrote in message
...
>> The URL you posted is about Audi DRLs, not DRLs in general.
>>

>


Ads
  #12  
Old July 14th 05, 07:37 PM
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The regulations here in Canada stipulate the required brightness for DRLs.
Either the Turn Signal lamps (brighter than Park Lamps) or 75% to 92%
(typically 80%) of High Beams are typically used by makers, presumably
whichever is easier to configure to the specs. Chrysler seems to like the
Turn Signal approach, GM as you noted is a bit of a mix.


"teem" > wrote in message
...
> My question was mainly why are the headlights used on GMs,& park
> lights on saturns,but,I guess I got my point across.On Wed, 13 Jul
> 2005 20:22:15 -0500, "Box134" > wrote:
>
> >My bad, the site is about more than Audi vehicles. Sorry.
> >
> >"Box134" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> The URL you posted is about Audi DRLs, not DRLs in general.
> >>

> >

>



  #13  
Old July 14th 05, 10:14 PM
blah blah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
says...
> The regulations here in Canada stipulate the required brightness for DRLs.
> Either the Turn Signal lamps (brighter than Park Lamps) or 75% to 92%
> (typically 80%) of High Beams are typically used by makers, presumably
> whichever is easier to configure to the specs. Chrysler seems to like the
> Turn Signal approach, GM as you noted is a bit of a mix.


C5's and Firebirds didnt have a choice. Generally the DRL's, if routed
through the headlights, only work at 40% of their brightness.

My biggest problem with DRL's is that you cannot flash your lights at
oncoming cars to warn them of a speed trap ahead of them. You cannot
flash your lights at someone looking for a spot to merge. You cannot
flash your lights at some slow poke thats not passing anyone in the
passing lane.

But what about those people who never turn their lights on in the rain?
What about those people who drive at night and forget to turn on their
lights? Those things seem worse since the dawn of DRL's. I see peoples
headlights on but not a single tail light is lit. I see people coming in
a downpoor with DRL's but I cant see the person infront of me until they
hit their brakes. How has DRL's helped in those area's? My father kept
driving home at night with only his DRL's on only because he thought his
lights were on. Gee yeah what a great idea DRL's have been...

My car is equiped with twilight sentinel so even if I did forget to
flip on my headlights my car would do it for me. Nothing beats a smart
twilight sentinel. You can see my tail lights in a downpoor. Thats
something you wont see with DRL's. Of course not all "twilight
sentinel" systems are the same. Chrysler makes a rather stupid lighting
system. The second its dark the lights are on, the second its light the
lights are off. No delay in the system so its on and off on and off.
Cheap cheap cheap.


  #15  
Old July 18th 05, 02:12 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"marx404" > wrote in message
...
> The idea is not so YOU can see, the idea is OTHERS can see you. Simply
> put,
> it is a proven fact that having some form of DRL's (any kind) helps to
> prevent accidents by aiding other drivers to see you, (ex: oncoming
> drivers
> and at intersections).


Care to share the "proof." All the studies I've seen that show a safety
advantage were in far northern counties (like Finland, Norway, Sweden) and
even then they were often flawed. Data from more southernly climates is not
conclusive. Since GM (and some others) have been installing DRLs on cars in
the US for sometime while Ford, Chrysler, and others have not, it should be
possible to collect good data for US conditions (DRLs vs no DRLs). I have
not seem a complete study that does this. But maybe you have.

http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm - old data (nothing as new as
1995)
http://www.autointell-news.com/News-...r-29-03-p7.htm
(this is a GM study. They only included crashes in the study where DRLs
might be beneficial. They ignored the possibility that other sorts of
accidents might be increased as a result of DRLs. It is essentially a study
designed by GM to "prove" DRL are good).
http://www.motorists.com/issues/drl/DRL_petition.html (Rabid anti-DRL group)
http://www.lightsout.org/studies.html (more rabid anti-DRL information)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...pages/TRD.html
(check out the line that says "None of these results were statistically
significant" - the actual study is in the next reference)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...0/DRL7_RPT.pdf - This
the best study I can find and it does not make a good case for DRLs.

Ed


  #16  
Old July 18th 05, 02:21 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Box134" > wrote in message
...
> The URL you posted is about Audi DRLs, not DRLs in general.
>
> Of course they "waste" gas, so does your cigarette lighter, AC, and
> everything else. The miniscule amount of gas used in DRLs is more then
> offset by the increase in safety. In Canada we've had them for at least 15
> years and it's a non-issue.


What works in Canada might not be appropriate for Florida. Read
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...0/DRL7_RPT.pdf and
then tell me the case for DRLs in the US is compelling.

> However, I'm sure this issue is like seatbelts. We had a horse's ass
> professor of philosophy in our city who claimed seatbelts make you LESS
> safe, in spite of having no credentials in engineering, statistics, or
> medicine. At least he said that until the courts told him he knew nothing
> about it and fined him for not wearing a seatbelt. (Sorry, I rant. That
> SOB still burns me up!)


DRLs and Seat Belts are not the same things. If you want to compare dubious
safety devices compare Center Brake Lights, Air Bags, and ABS.
The case for DRLs and these other safety devices is dubious. It is my
contnetion that in many cases the money spent on these four "safety" device
could have been better spent if you goal is reducing accidents.

Ed


  #17  
Old July 18th 05, 02:24 PM
Roy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:4VNCe.184420$xm3.115004@attbi_s21...
>
> "marx404" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The idea is not so YOU can see, the idea is OTHERS can see you. Simply
> > put,
> > it is a proven fact that having some form of DRL's (any kind) helps to
> > prevent accidents by aiding other drivers to see you, (ex: oncoming
> > drivers
> > and at intersections).

>
> Care to share the "proof." All the studies I've seen that show a safety
> advantage were in far northern counties (like Finland, Norway, Sweden) and
> even then they were often flawed. Data from more southernly climates is

not
> conclusive. Since GM (and some others) have been installing DRLs on cars

in
> the US for sometime while Ford, Chrysler, and others have not, it should

be
> possible to collect good data for US conditions (DRLs vs no DRLs). I have
> not seem a complete study that does this. But maybe you have.
>
> http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm - old data (nothing as new

as
> 1995)
>

http://www.autointell-news.com/News-...r-29-03-p7.htm
> (this is a GM study. They only included crashes in the study where DRLs
> might be beneficial. They ignored the possibility that other sorts of
> accidents might be increased as a result of DRLs.


How could having lights on in the daytime cause an accident? I'm not trying
to be a smartass but I can't concieve of any situation where a low intesity
light during daylight hours could cause an accident.

> It is essentially a study
> designed by GM to "prove" DRL are good).
> http://www.motorists.com/issues/drl/DRL_petition.html (Rabid anti-DRL

group)
> http://www.lightsout.org/studies.html (more rabid anti-DRL information)
>

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...pages/TRD.html
> (check out the line that says "None of these results were statistically
> significant" - the actual study is in the next reference)
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...0/DRL7_RPT.pdf - This
> the best study I can find and it does not make a good case for DRLs.
>
> Ed
>
>



  #18  
Old July 18th 05, 04:51 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
...
>
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:4VNCe.184420$xm3.115004@attbi_s21...
>>
>> "marx404" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The idea is not so YOU can see, the idea is OTHERS can see you. Simply
>> > put,
>> > it is a proven fact that having some form of DRL's (any kind) helps to
>> > prevent accidents by aiding other drivers to see you, (ex: oncoming
>> > drivers
>> > and at intersections).

>>
>> Care to share the "proof." All the studies I've seen that show a safety
>> advantage were in far northern counties (like Finland, Norway, Sweden)
>> and
>> even then they were often flawed. Data from more southernly climates is

> not
>> conclusive. Since GM (and some others) have been installing DRLs on cars

> in
>> the US for sometime while Ford, Chrysler, and others have not, it should

> be
>> possible to collect good data for US conditions (DRLs vs no DRLs). I have
>> not seem a complete study that does this. But maybe you have.
>>
>> http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm - old data (nothing as new

> as
>> 1995)
>>

> http://www.autointell-news.com/News-...r-29-03-p7.htm
>> (this is a GM study. They only included crashes in the study where DRLs
>> might be beneficial. They ignored the possibility that other sorts of
>> accidents might be increased as a result of DRLs.

>
> How could having lights on in the daytime cause an accident? I'm not
> trying
> to be a smartass but I can't concieve of any situation where a low
> intesity
> light during daylight hours could cause an accident.


Distractions. Your eyes are drawn towards the DRLs and away from other
items. They also tend to hide motorcycles. Glare. Inconsistent
implementation. Yada, Yada, Yada. Look through the other references,
particualrly the ones form the anti-DRL sites. The NHTSA reference (last
one) actaully showed an 8% INCREASE in some types of accidents related to
DRLs (like the decreases associated with DRLs, this increase was not
considerdd statistically significant). I have not seen a single study that
was based on US condiutions that showed DRL provided a significant positive
benefit. If there is one, I'd like to see it. I am tiresd of being saddled
with useless "safety devices" (ABS) or dangerous "safety devices" (air bags)
becasue Joan Claybrook, Clarence Ditlow and their ilk whine aboiut
automotove safety. If road safety is the true goal, then there are plenty of
better ways to spend the "safety dollar" than some of the "safety devices"
promoted by self appointed safety experts. What relly tees me off is that
even when safety devices can be shown to be of dubious value ( air bags,
high mounted brake lights), the requirements for these devices are not
removed. I particualrly hate air bags since for people who atually use seat
belts, they are at best marginally useful and at worst dangerous (not to
mention expensive).

Ed

>
>> It is essentially a study
>> designed by GM to "prove" DRL are good).
>> http://www.motorists.com/issues/drl/DRL_petition.html (Rabid anti-DRL

> group)
>> http://www.lightsout.org/studies.html (more rabid anti-DRL information)
>>

> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...pages/TRD.html
>> (check out the line that says "None of these results were statistically
>> significant" - the actual study is in the next reference)
>> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...0/DRL7_RPT.pdf -
>> This
>> the best study I can find and it does not make a good case for DRLs.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>

>
>



  #19  
Old July 18th 05, 05:12 PM
Bob Shuman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The biggest safety issue I've seen with DRLs is that some vehicle drivers
don't realize they don't have their headlights on at dusk since they have
the DRLs and think they have the lights on, but do not. I've even seen some
idiots driving in full darkness with only DRLs and no side markers or tail
lights. You would think they would figure it out since they have no dash
lights, but that does not appear to be the case.

I personally prefer to make the decision on whether to use the headlights or
not myself and not take the decision away from the driver. I also think the
added energy cost should be a factor in the decision.

Bob

"Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
...
> How could having lights on in the daytime cause an accident? I'm not

trying
> to be a smartass but I can't concieve of any situation where a low

intesity
> light during daylight hours could cause an accident.



  #20  
Old July 19th 05, 04:48 PM
Roy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:OdQCe.184979$xm3.29392@attbi_s21...
>
> "Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> > news:4VNCe.184420$xm3.115004@attbi_s21...
> >>
> >> "marx404" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > The idea is not so YOU can see, the idea is OTHERS can see you.

Simply
> >> > put,
> >> > it is a proven fact that having some form of DRL's (any kind) helps

to
> >> > prevent accidents by aiding other drivers to see you, (ex: oncoming
> >> > drivers
> >> > and at intersections).
> >>
> >> Care to share the "proof." All the studies I've seen that show a

safety
> >> advantage were in far northern counties (like Finland, Norway, Sweden)
> >> and
> >> even then they were often flawed. Data from more southernly climates is

> > not
> >> conclusive. Since GM (and some others) have been installing DRLs on

cars
> > in
> >> the US for sometime while Ford, Chrysler, and others have not, it

should
> > be
> >> possible to collect good data for US conditions (DRLs vs no DRLs). I

have
> >> not seem a complete study that does this. But maybe you have.
> >>
> >> http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm - old data (nothing as

new
> > as
> >> 1995)
> >>

> >

http://www.autointell-news.com/News-...r-29-03-p7.htm
> >> (this is a GM study. They only included crashes in the study where DRLs
> >> might be beneficial. They ignored the possibility that other sorts of
> >> accidents might be increased as a result of DRLs.

> >
> > How could having lights on in the daytime cause an accident? I'm not
> > trying
> > to be a smartass but I can't concieve of any situation where a low
> > intesity
> > light during daylight hours could cause an accident.

>
> Distractions. Your eyes are drawn towards the DRLs and away from other
> items. They also tend to hide motorcycles. Glare. Inconsistent
> implementation. Yada, Yada, Yada. Look through the other references,
> particualrly the ones form the anti-DRL sites. The NHTSA reference (last
> one) actaully showed an 8% INCREASE in some types of accidents related to
> DRLs (like the decreases associated with DRLs, this increase was not
> considerdd statistically significant). I have not seen a single study that
> was based on US condiutions that showed DRL provided a significant

positive
> benefit. If there is one, I'd like to see it. I am tiresd of being saddled
> with useless "safety devices" (ABS) or dangerous "safety devices" (air

bags)
> becasue Joan Claybrook, Clarence Ditlow and their ilk whine aboiut
> automotove safety. If road safety is the true goal, then there are plenty

of
> better ways to spend the "safety dollar" than some of the "safety devices"
> promoted by self appointed safety experts. What relly tees me off is that
> even when safety devices can be shown to be of dubious value ( air bags,
> high mounted brake lights), the requirements for these devices are not
> removed. I particualrly hate air bags since for people who atually use

seat
> belts, they are at best marginally useful and at worst dangerous (not to
> mention expensive).
>
> Ed
>

"Distractions" If you aren't any smarter than a fish (attention drawn solely
to shiny objects) or if you have tunnel vision then you have no business
behind the wheel of a car.
As far as I know this isn't a US only group. Here in Canada where the sun
spends a lot of the winter at a low angle I see a big advantage to DRLs.
As for people driving at night with no headlight, people did that before
DRLs and they will continue to do it as long as there is a switch for them.
I'll admit I did it once when I was in high school, out with my friend on a
well lit street downtown, a little distracted. I only went about half a
block before a nice police officer pulled up beside me and reminded me to
turn em on. :-)
Good talking to ya.

> >
> >> It is essentially a study
> >> designed by GM to "prove" DRL are good).
> >> http://www.motorists.com/issues/drl/DRL_petition.html (Rabid anti-DRL

> > group)
> >> http://www.lightsout.org/studies.html (more rabid anti-DRL information)
> >>

> >

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...pages/TRD.html
> >> (check out the line that says "None of these results were statistically
> >> significant" - the actual study is in the next reference)
> >> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...0/DRL7_RPT.pdf -
> >> This
> >> the best study I can find and it does not make a good case for DRLs.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >>

> >
> >

>
>



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The dangers of DRLs 223rem Driving 399 July 25th 05 11:28 PM
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 Daniel J. Stern Driving 3 May 24th 05 04:19 AM
Why no rear lights with DRLs? Don Stauffer Technology 26 April 26th 05 04:16 AM
Chevy Tahoe DRls? BE Driving 0 March 28th 05 03:45 PM
"Saturn's VUE new, improved" Mike Saturn 2 May 28th 04 12:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.