OT: What are your views on daytime running lights?
 

To start it off, I'm for them. I think that all new cars should come equiped with them and that they should become mandatory. I know that some of the highways in California have daytime running light zones and I will say, it makes a big difference. A car can blend in with the surroundings, but a light can't.

------------------
Joshua Harrison
Porsche owner at heart

honestly, i think they are stupid.

Daytime running lights are mandatory in the province of Ontario (or maybe the whole of Canada)and I like them. It makes approaching cars much easier to see. I do a lot of travelling, and I notice a big difference when I'm somewhere that does not have madatory running lights.

I have one complaint, though. Most running lights turn on when the driver releases the hand brake, which is fine, but in some cars that also turns on the instrument back lighting. The result is that you see some cars driving at night with no tailights on (because the driver forgot to turn on the lights). My VW Golf's instrument back lighting stays off until the headlight/tail light switch is selected on, which prevents that problem.

And before anybody asks, no, the headlight bulbs seem to last just as long.

HATE 'EM! Just another example of big brother telling me he knows better than I. Like I don't know when to turn on the lights in order for others to see me. I won't consider buying a GM car these days...because of the DRL's alone.

They sure make it tough to get away clean after a late night burglery.

------------------
blue
'81 SC Targa

Here's some food for thought: Airline pilots turn their landing lights on below ten thousand feet so they can be more easily seen in the congested airspace below that altitude.

I absolutely hate them. In my low slung 911 anybody following me has them blasting directly into my rear view mirrors so i have to turn my interiour mirror to the tinted mode and that way I can't see anybody else.

Also young boy racers with their hastily installed driving lights are often setup on "high beam".

Interesting topic. I guess in this day and age I'm in favour. So many dull coloured cars, bad driving, etc. It makes it clearer to see what's around. In the UK people put their *sidelights* (white smaller bulbs in the headlight) on in poor daytime visibility - but a lot of people don't - and it's not the law. In mainland Europe one sees it much more often; compulsory in a lot of Scandinavia, very common sight in our cars Homeland, Germany.
I don't get why US cars have orange *sidlights* opposed to white ones you can use instead of headlights during the daytime or poor d/t visibility. Anyone? That would be the more subtle option.

So do a lot of new US spec. cars come with d/t running lights always on?
If so, now I see why it's more of an issue.

They're too bright. The object is to be seen- not blind other drivers. If they were not as bright as headlights I would not hate them as much.

I usually turn on my headlights as I pass a car on an open, two-lane road. This helps a distant, oncoming car to better notice me. Otherwise, I keep the lights off, as I don’t want to be (ahem) "noticed" by a LEO (law enforcement officer).

[soapbox mode = ON]
Mandatory DRL are about as useful as a CHMSL (center high mounted stop lamp). If you are attentive enough to actually LOOK for a car or its brake lights, then DRLs or CHMSLs aren't necessary. Recall how collision rates dropped in 1985, when CHMSLs became mandatory? By 1990, when the "novetly" of the CHMSL wore off, collision rates were right back up there.
[soapbox mode = OFF]

I don't think our collision rates are up because we are used to CHMSL's: I think we have more stupid people on the road! I wonder if they have data on collision rates on cars equipped with the center-mounted stoplight vs. the ones without such equipment.

I think the CHMSL is one of the three best safety innovations for cars in the past 20 years (the other 2 being ABS/traction contol and airbags).

IMO, anything that helps others on the road notice me (or other cars) for a safety standpoint is a good thing. Therefore, I think DRL's are good. They do help get you noticed. (IF law enforcement is an issue for you, I suggest taking your speed to the track!)

However, for nighttime driving, I am working on replacing my headlights with STROBE LIGHTS: that way it looks like everyone else is standing still! (Just kidding! That's an old Steven Wright joke)

Just my $0.42.
-Z.

One problem with DRL's is that nearly all cars have them now - so an individual DRL-equipped car no longer stands out in a mass of traffic. Before DRL's, anybody driving in the daytime with lights on would draw attention (i.e "Hey, look at the idiot with the lights on!"). Now, they're not given a second glance. This is an argument made by many motorcyclists.

My argument is that if drivers are so inattentive as to not recognize a 6000 pound chunk of steel hurtling down the road at 60 MPH, taping a couple of flashlights to the front of that chunk of steel ain't gonna help much. We need smarter drivers, not smarter cars.

------------------
1971 911T - 2.5L Big Bore

The Gray Wolf!
My Porsche Owners-Gallery Page!

Ah, but where do we draw the line with that logic? Will NHTSA prohibit dark colored cars, since they don't stand out as much? Will bumpers be required to have reflective strips of day-glow yellow covering 80% of their surface area?

Airbags, seat belts, padded dashboards, etc. are great. Such safety features protect the driver in an accident. CHMSLs, DRLs, and other "pay attention to me" devices have a temporary effect on the general driving population, and are merely a wet Band-Aid on the arterial bleeding we call a driver's education system here in the USA. Grrrrr!

Okay, breathe Robert...count to 10...that's better...blood pressure dropping...okay, I think I WILL have a drink now, honey.

I think they are a good idea. I do think that the best system is the type that is at low power during the daylight hours, then switches to regular power (full head and tail lights on) at night. I had a Grand Am that worked this way and I loved it (best part of the car). My new Audi does not have this feature, and I find myself turing on the headlight on long day trips now.



------------------
Paul
1981 911SC/RS
2001 Audi A4 1.8T Quattro

Bottom Line.
It saves Lives,
maybe your kid's.

There were the same complaints about dtrl in Canada but they have been around since 1990 by legislation. They make a huge diffrence especially in dusk and dawn conditions, and just think they may have helped out james dean for one(have to relate back to porsches somehow).

[This message has been edited by sessa (edited 11-01-2001).]

I have seen people driving around with their daytimes during the evening. They really can't be seen from behind on a dark road while they think they have their night lights on.

I like DRL for other people, but not on my car. The wife has DRL on her GM car and that is very good in my opinion.

DRL are made for those idiots in dark cars that do not turn thier lights on at dusk and dawn... They are not to see, but to be seen.

Robert writ:
"By 1990, when the "novetly" of the CHMSL wore off, collision rates were right back up there."

I beleive that is wholey caused by cell phones. It amazes me how poorly people drive when on the phone, and then say they are driving perfectly fine. Ha!

There are more accidents caused by cell phones than drunk driving... I will take the beer over a phone call anyday http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate/smile.gif




------------------
Adrian Pillow
1979 911 SC
1966 VW Microbus
PCA - Peachstate Region

Two issues. One, there's a brief novelty effect to any changes. Accident rates go down (I'm told) when the power goes out and all traffic lights go to flashing red. Obviously, flashing red lights aren't safer, but it gets everybody thinking about what they're doing for a few moments. Third brake lights, daytime running lights, etc., seem to have a similar effect.

Now, on the one hand, you can point out that it's a temporary thing. But if it saves my life, could I complain about that? The problem is that driving is so routine -- and so dangerous -- that drivers inevitably get lazy -- and lethal. Big Brother issues aside, I'd say much more frequent, and intrusive, driving tests would probably have a more pronounced effect on safety. If we all had to work, really hard, to earn our next six month's driving priviledge, we might view it differently. As it is, anyone over 16 with a clue as to where to stick the key feels like they're entitled to unlimited doses of the driving experience.

The dangers, it seems to me, come from taking the act of driving for granted. People feel they can do it while they're talking on the phone, or after they've been drinking, or when they haven't had enough sleep. All of these things kill people, at a really staggering rate. If anything else we did as a culture killed 40,000 people a year, we'd make it illegal in a heartbeat. Imagine if air travel produced that many deaths. We'd make it a crime to even own the plans for an airplane.

The other, less serious, issue is the way the newer models of cars do all this stuff automatically. My 98 Jaguar turns the interior lights on when I disable the alarm. The interior lighting level changes when I opent the door, and it all switches off when I put the key in. At the same time, some sensor somewhere turns the headlights on when it gets dark enough. I never have to think about any of it.

This is all great, but -- inevitably -- I drive my other cars now with the lighs off half the time. Once you don't have to think about it, you tend not to.

------------------
Jack Olsen
My Rennlist page • My Pelican Gallery page • My Porsche Owners Gallery page

[This message has been edited by JackOlsen (edited 11-01-2001).]