Daytime running lights waste gasoline

Some O wrote:


> I would like to see a change or ban on those too white, too bright,
> blinding discharge headlights.

I'd rather see a ban on high-beam DRLs. While I think they're silly and
wasteful, I have no real problem with DRLs that use the turn signals or
a dedicated set of lamps (GMC trucks from recent years for example). But
DRLs that run the high beams at a reduced output are more offensive
than a whole array of HID headlamps. The whole point of not using
high-beams in traffic is that they direct an image of the filament RIGHT
INTO ONCOMING DRIVERS' EYES! That is just as true and irritating if the
filmanent is at 75% intensity as it is whtn the filament is at full
intensity. A turn signal, low beam, or dedicated light gives a
completely different type of signal image at the oncoming drivers' eyes.
Its recognizable, but not blinding.

For that matter, HID lamps have gotten so much better in the past 5
years, both in color rendering (they're not blue anymore) and beam
control, that I'll bet you don't even notice about 2/3 of the ones you
see as being any different.

When GM first made DRLs standard, they had an accessory kit to put them
on recent production year vehicles. They put out a poster of how much
difference seeing a vehicle's placement with and without DRLs made. The
location for the picture appeared to be on a bridge in the Florida Keys
on a partly cloudy day. The difference was significant.

Later, I went to a swap meet in southern OK. On a long stretch of road
on a sunny day, I could see a GM car (with DRLs) for well over a mile
before we met on the two lane road. Otherwise, the car blended into the
background--especially depending on the color or the car! DRLs are the
equalizing factor that makes all colors of vehicles significantly
visible in the day time. Until I started noticing that, I had the
"WHY?" orientation too.

An observed issue with the "lights" is that many of them seem to be
installed incorrectly OR in a vehicle not designed for them. OR aimed
correctly! I'm getting used to the blue-tint bulbs, but do dislike some
of their beam patterns.

On a normal vehicle, they aren't too bad, but on a lowered vehicle that
hits the bump stops each time an imperfection on the road is
encountered, causing the vehicle to bounce on the tires, those lights'
beams THEN do bad things to oncoming traffic as the allegedly properly
aimed headlight tilts upward and puts you squarely in the higher
intensity part of the beam pattern for a split second, looking like
bright flash that you then try to see where it's coming from. Looking
for the source of that flash can cause an accident itself!

As for police investigation of minor accidents, if I was in a minor
accident, I'd at least want some documentation to take to my insurance
company to file a claim rather than a piece of paper with a name and
address scribbled on it of the person who damaged my vehicle. In some
cases, the police officer will just coordinate the exchange of
information, plus serve as a witness that something did happen, and not
write a ticket unless some significant indiscretion caused the accident.
I consider this to be a valid use of municipal resources. Not quite as
time consuming as directing traffic or serving as back-up on a traffic
violation, but still desireable to happen.

Regards,

C-BODY

The reason that high beams were used for DRLs was because those bulbs
see less use than the low beams (which are the primary headlight). In
the "next redesign" of most of the vehicles which used the low-intensity
high beams for the DRLs, the DRLs either were moved to the turn signals
or a separate bulb was incorporated into the headlight module (taking a
common turn signal bulb rather than an expensive headlight bulb).

C-BODY

On 09/07/08 01:41 am wrote:

<snip>

> As for police investigation of minor accidents, if I was in a minor
> accident, I'd at least want some documentation to take to my insurance
> company to file a claim rather than a piece of paper with a name and
> address scribbled on it of the person who damaged my vehicle. In some
> cases, the police officer will just coordinate the exchange of
> information, plus serve as a witness that something did happen, and not
> write a ticket unless some significant indiscretion caused the accident.
> I consider this to be a valid use of municipal resources. Not quite as
> time consuming as directing traffic or serving as back-up on a traffic
> violation, but still desireable to happen.

In another country in which I lived for many years, everything seemed to
work quite smoothly with a law requiring the police to be *notified*
within 24 hours of an accident involving personal injury or property
damage in excess of $1000 (that was 20 years ago, so imagine what that
limit would be now if it were indexed for inflation). No requirement to
*call* police at all. Far lower insurance rates than in the US despite
high labor costs; most insurance companies worked on the "We'll pay to
fix ours, you pay to fix yours; why make the lawyers rich?" principle.

Perce

Would that be the "no fault" insurance orientation?

C-BODY