Headlights vs DRL in safety zone

RedRocket204 wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
Why have DRL`s in broad daylight? this never made any sense to me! I can see a car coming down the road with or without DRL`s.

Ever travel in dense forests during broad daylight like ones that exist in the PNW?

I used to commute 75 miles one way in conditions like that and cars frequently disappear in the shadows when they do not have DRLs...again, during broad daylight.

And even in day time in the desert, depending on the colour, the on-coming car can be hard to see.

By the way, at least in Canada, in most vehicles, the daylight headlights are not as bright as when on fully. There is a voltage reduction to help the bulbs last longer.

When I had my US purchased motorhome modified to meet Canadian standards the mechanic used the clearance lights rather than the headlights and said it was legal. I passed the inspection and got the sticker so I really don't care if he was right or not!

pitch wrote:
Every DRL equipped vehicle I have ever owned, had a lumen sensor that automatically switched to full headlights at dusk.
My Ram does not have DRL, but it is a habit of mine to turn on the driving lights as soon as I start it up. I also programed it to turn the lights on with the wipers.

We should have auto on DRL mandated as Canada does, helps greatly on foggy or snowy days.

our 2010 jeep liberty has auto-on headlights when the wipers are turned on or when the sensor senses the absence of daylight.

History

In some countries, DRLs have been mandatory or in use since the 1970s, and some have noticed a decrease in only one or maybe two types of motor vehicle crashes. However, under reanalysis, the benefits of DRLs in these countries has been called into serious question. The countries that currently use and have used DRLs for many years are very different from the United States in culture, in government, and, most importantly, in latitude and climate.

Scandinavian countries were the first to impose DRL regulations on manufacturers and on consumers. But Scandinavia, which is located in the far northern latitudes (i.e. North Pole,) has much less ambient lighting than the United States, especially in the winter. Naturally, then, DRLs would have a different impact on motorists and on highway safety. Yet it is to 20 year old studies from these countries that our government and our automobile manufacturers point to in support of DRL regulations.

Sweden enacted mandatory DRL laws in 1977. Norway followed in 1986, Iceland in 1988, Denmark in 1990. Canada has required DRLs on new cars since 1989. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of geography, however, will see the plain and apparent differences between these nations and our own - their distance from the equator!

Initially, NHSTA said safety experiences in northern countries had no direct application to the United States. But, in a strange reversal of tradition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began embracing DRL regulatory proposals at the request of petitions from General Motors. One need only follow the money trail to see why this has happened. The automobile industry has seen the massive economic potential of marketing their products to your fears, and has convinced the federal government to throw reliable data -- and common sense -- out the window.

Because there is no conclusive evidence that DRLs present any real safety advantages, and because the United States does have more ambient lighting than countries where DRLs have been embraced, DRLs are NOT currently required in America. But if some people -- including the amazing special interest of the automobile industry -- have their way, we'll all soon be paying for their unique but unfounded marketing concept.

Strangely, the road toward DRL acceptance by government regulators has been a twisted one. In 1987, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety proposed that NHTSA permit DRLs. NHTSA rejected the idea, but the Insurance Institute proposed the concept again a year later. Still, it was rejected, and NHTSA said that DRLs do not improve highway safety and may, in fact, INCREASE HIGHWAY HAZARDS. Quite simply, if most vehicles have DRLs, it's harder to spot those who do not. NHTSA also said glare from the DRLs of oncoming vehicles could bother some drivers.

But in 1990, General Motors pushed NHTSA again, asking for a national standard permitting an optional DRL system. NHTSA complied two years later, and therein lies the problem. NHTSA regulations take precedence over any and all state laws, so now DRLs are legal in all states, when two-thirds of the states had previously banned DRLs altogether. Even worse, NHTSA permitted DRLs to be implemented on high beam headlamps at up to 7000 candela. This is well above the threshold for discomfort glare. Why? So that GM could make DRLs on the cheap.

GM began installing DRLs immediately on some models in 1993. By 1997, all GM vehicles had installed. GM has kindly offered to SELL you a kit to convert your current vehicle to DRLs. How thoughtful -- and how very profitable.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING

Click

I have disconnected the DRL on every car I own that had them



NHTSA FINDS NO SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT FOR DRLS

Big news: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has recently released a technical report finds DRLs are of practically no use, and further admits that DRLs have negative safety consequences. In NHTSA's own words:

"The analysis found that DRLs have no statistically significant overall effect on the three target crashes. When combining these three target crashes into one target crash, the drl effects were also not statistically significant. When examined separately for passenger cars and light trucks / van (LTVs) , drls in LTVs significantly reduced LTVs involvement in the target two vehicle by 5.7 percent. However, the remaining drl effects on these three target crashes were not statistically significiant. Although not statistically significant, drls might have unintended consequences for pedestrains and motorcycles. Particularly, the estimated negitive effects for LTV's were relatively large and cannont be completely ignored.

"Currently the NHTSA is in the rulemaking process in response to General Motors (GM) petition to mandate DRLs. This report will affect the rulemaking decision. Therefore the report is considered to contain 'highly influential scientific information'."

The document can be found at www.regulations.gov and entering 2008-0153-0004 in the Search field.

There is another name for DW.. SWAMBO.. Means "She Who Must Be Obeyed" in case you wonder.. Just say "Yes Dear" and ...

I do have a story about that and it ALMOST fits here but not today.

So long as the law specifics HEADLIGHTS must be on.. DRL systems should do it, Thing is though when you turn on the headlights it also brings up the Marker and Tail lights.. Thus, the officer was right, Best to turn 'em on.

Also, in many rigs the ICC switch only works if the MARKER lights are on. Thus it's a good habbit to drive with headlights full time.

Fact: When Canada passed their DRL law.. GM started putting DRL's on everything, Ford only on those shipped to Canada.

I have to think GM was more concerned about customers LIVING long enough to buy a new car.. Ford, Figured you'd need a new one after the crash. Though I doubt that is true.. IT is still one of the many reasons I'm not a Ford Fan.

I tend to disagree with you on the requirement to have DRL ANYWHERE. I actually believe they ADD to the danger of driving in many conditions. YOu experienced it yourself, feeling you "didn't need to worry about turning on your lights" and many others get into that habit also. The result is that in extreme foggy weather or smoke on the highway situations they drive into those hazzards with ZERO lights showing from the rear. I have to wonder how many have been rearended for just that reason. Add to that the fact that about 40% of GM vehicles with DRL have less than two working lights. Many have zero working lights and many other only one. If DRL were required they would all be subject to tickets.
Just a difference in opinions and good luck to you. Tell your DW "good catch"

I just went out and checked my DRL, on my vehicle the low beams come on and I believe at full power. It's bright daylight out right now but the reflection of the lights on my neighbor's car do not change when I switch from DRL to headlights. That is with exception of the tail lights which only come on with the headlights.

I thought that the CHP officer was pretty reasonable, most of them are more concerned with speeding drivers, drivers making unsafe lane changes and turns and those that are driving erratically, possibly due to being und the influence. For those of you that are thinking only about the letter of the law and being guilty or not, any LEO can follow you for a mile and find reasonable cause to stop you. Maybe the aforementioned problems seem more important than how far in advance of making a turn you signal for the turn or a lane change or maybe you didn't really have adequate space when you signaled and made your turn or lane change.

As far a seeing a judge in our county, forget it, they don't even have traffic court most days. I don't want to go into the politics of why, just knowing we're on the left coast should answer that question.

I do agree that on foggy days or in areas where there is dappled sunlight, tail lights are needed, but this was broad daylight and the real need is for oncoming traffic being able to see you. Only a few idiots normally drive that streach at anywhere near the speed limit.

I keep my headlight switch in the AUTO position most of the time, yesterday the headlights came on while we were in the fog between Ventura and Santa Barbara, I would not have used them in the light fog we encourtered but Suzuki is pretty safety concious.

Original point still evident, She who must be obeyed is also always right.

Every DRL equipped vehicle I have ever owned, had a lumen sensor that automatically switched to full headlights at dusk.
My Ram does not have DRL, but it is a habit of mine to turn on the driving lights as soon as I start it up. I also programed it to turn the lights on with the wipers.

We should have auto on DRL mandated as Canada does, helps greatly on foggy or snowy days.

rk911 wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
Why have DRL`s in broad daylight? this never made any sense to me! I can see a car coming down the road with or without DRL`s.

X2 on that. our MH has DRL but neither of our newer jeeps do and that's fine with us.

I would disagree. They are really for people who won't use lights in reduced visibility during daytime. Many colours, particularly a grey or silver vehicle on a grey drizzly or rainy day are often near invisible from any distance if they have no lights showing.