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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"blah blah" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > says... I don't know what you drive, but with my 96 SL2 I can certainly flash my headlamps because Saturns of that vintage have the dedicated inboard DRLs. Only problem is how many people know what you're telling them? I know in some parts of the world it's a universally accepted method of letting the other driver know you're giving them the right of way. > 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. DRLs aren't a panacea for every form of idiocy, carelessness, or inattention on the road. Everyone is ultimately responsible to use their own grey matter. They address one specific issue. > 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. 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... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |