FUCKING RETARDED. A two lane mountain road at 8 am, yeah buddy, I realize you can see, but NO ONE CAN SEE YOU.
Why the fuck do cars even go into gear without the headlights going on?
FUCKING RETARDED. A two lane mountain road at 8 am, yeah buddy, I realize you can see, but NO ONE CAN SEE YOU.
Why the fuck do cars even go into gear without the headlights going on?
Hey Jessie,
Dear Diary you fucking baby...
No "i" bitch, now get back to your high powered corporate cocksucking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
I put the "I" because that is how bitches spell Jessie, Jessie. Fine with me, you fucking wannabe :fm:Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
I agree. I always turn my lights on whenever I drive anywhere. As someone who has a truck with a camper shell, in certain conditions it can be really hard to see people behind me if they don't have their lights on.
Is Aunt Flow visiting you right now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
I will constructively add something to this thread. I am fairly sure that all new model cars come with day time running lights. I think this is a fairly new standard. I know some countries, like Canukistan, require you to drive with your lights on during the day. I think it isn't such a bad idea.
I don't think its ever been proven that they actually save lives + they waste gas with the extra drag they exert on the alternator. A little wasted gas per vehicle because of a mandate that is not based in science times millions of cars is a shit ton of extra carbon put into the atmosphere per day.
I like the current voluntary DRL system. I haven't pulled the fuse on mine yet, but with $100 a barrel oil coming, its becoming more likely that I will.
Quote:
Since 1997 General Motors has forced most USA motorists to use daytime running lights (DRL). Generating
electricity from a vehicle engine is extremely inefficient due to mechanical and engine heat losses. To run
two 55 watt headlights and associated lamps takes 970 watts of fuel energy. It is calculated that DRL will
cost $600 million dollars using 406 million US gallons of fuel p.a. creating 33 million tonnes of carbon di-
oxide pollution p.a.**
Across the EU, probably th
Actually, they have been standard in some European countries for over two decades (it was the law in Norway at least as early as 1990, for ex.). And I believe that there have been studies proving their effectiveness. But I don't need a fucking study to tell me what I experience with my own driving. Some cars are difficult to see in certain conditions; all cars are more visible when their lights are on. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the more visible the other cars on the road are to you, the better off you are.
And seriously, how much gas do you think the lights drain? Have you ever noticed a difference in mpg from a daytime tank to a nighttime tank?
RootSkier, that would take all the fun out of pretending to not see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
Light pollution.
Try mid/late 70's and basically the whole western Yurp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Well, I'm sure you'll save a lot of gas by driving without headlights... But I most keep my AC running and 500 Gigawatt ICE blasting crappy tunes, which naturally won't change my gas consumption in any way:p[/irony]Quote:
And seriously, how much gas do you think the lights drain? Have you ever noticed a difference in mpg from a daytime tank to a nighttime tank?
I like the 'if your wipers are on your headlights are required to be',,,thinkin i saw that up in canuckville....
Anyone who doesn't at least put their headlights on when it is raining is a complete retard.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by uglymoney
Post preservation. Has this ever happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Our '04 Matrix has full-time headlights. You can't shut em off with the engine running. It's especially annoying when I feel like lurking in the bushes.
...leading to yet even more global warming. :nonono2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roo
disclaimer: I am stuck in the 21st century with my insistance on using headlamps only after the sun goes down (or if it's particularly nasty out) ... and I still don't own a helmet.
Okay, so you don't give a shit about the billion+ dollars that would be wasted annually (@100 oil) by Americans with a mandate or the extra CO2 in the air that could in all likelihood would kill more people that DRL's could ever save, if they saved lives, which they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeleHoar
Show me a study that says they make our roads safer. Quick googling gives me this.
Quote:
The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results; vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights, waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or don't have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on accident reduction is zero or worse.
... because I'd be more visible to the cops
Now get your eyes checked ;)
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeleHoar
12345
Still law in Austria. Lights on 24 hours a day.
Drink driving seems to be tolerated though.
Our Dr Peppers don't have AWD so most people try to keep them out of the mountains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hohes
?waht
.
In the Suby you pull the e-brake to kill them. This thread has me fired up though. Before this thread I could give a shit less about DRL's one way or the other. Now I'm a total anti and planning a DRL disabling rampage!Quote:
Originally Posted by bio-smear
:FIREdevil
and from this page, a bunch of them are listed: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by uglymoney
From that page:
Oh wait, then there's this summary:Quote:
Some DRL critics have attempted to undermine the unequivical results of international studies on the grounds that driving conditions in Scandinavian countries are not comparable to North American driving conditions. The following studies utterly refute this assertion
And this on costs:Quote:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995).
In summary, although the studies of DRLs have differed in design, analysis techniques, and outcome measures, the later studies are largely in accordance with the earlier ones, indicating that the overall effect of DRLs on motor vehicle crashes is positive.
Some people are in vehicles that generally have very good visibility. People in these vehicles may find that DRLs are unnecessary, because they see all the other cars just fine. But not every vehicle has that kind of visibility. The point of DRLs is to enable all drivers on the road to see your vehicle. Like I said, as someone who has been occasionally surprised by cars that were difficult to see in marginal conditions, this one is a no-brainer.Quote:
One the most foolish arguments raised against DRLs is that they are expensive to implement and decrease fuel economy. This argument is summary dismissed by the facts cited below.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995).
DRL costs are low, so even very modest crash reduction capabilities would be cost effective. For example, according to General Motors, there is a minimal wiring cost in converting to DRLs, and a fraction of a mile fuel penalty (about $ 3 per year for the average driver).
After he left the Army Sgt Pepper entered the medical profession to treat lonely hearts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hohes
or this:Quote:
Originally Posted by uglymoney
"Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15 months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A 1994 Transport Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989 vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.
In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles without DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles.6 Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal researchers, using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a 5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists."
:eek:
I leave my lights on.
I hear he drives VW Bug now.
Those beatles have DRL, therefore he must be seen.
Explain to me again how leaving your lights on waste gas.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeleHoar
Extra drag on the alternator?
heh...
Why does the day time running light have to be the same power as the dipped head lights? (At least, it's the same on my Volvo.)
All of those so called studies are biased, false, and badly composed. I know that based on this study of those studies. Clearly DRL's are dangerous. Now shut off those lights! The polar bears are counting on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
Quote:
"Comments on the Consultation Paper “DRL”
(1) Concerning the statement in the executive summary that DRL has a high potential to increase
road safety due to various research findings from relevant studies, such as Koonstra et al.,
SWOV (1997) we must strongly point out that most efficiency statements not only in that study
in favour of DRL are statistically not significant and therefore simply worthless.
(2) One of the basic critics in that context is also that within that study a couple of methodologi-
cally inacceptable assumptions were made such as
• aggregation of seasonally recorded Norwegian accident data into annual data as well as
• disaggregation of annually recorded Swedish accident data into seasonal data
(3) Another important aspect is that the so called “confounding factors” - i. e. the distorting influ-
ence of nationally applied additional but not considered safety aspects such as national speed
limits that have been introduced parallel to the introduction of DRL – were not properly con-
sidered when determining positive effects of DRL; i. e. ceteris paribus-conditions were vio-
lated.
(4) Also, most of the pro-DRL studies assume that multi-party accidents during daylight would
have increased if DRL would not have been applied in the DRL countries. That assumption is
inacceptable or has at least not been proved so far.
On the other hand the studies building the basis for that consultation paper did not include
critical publications that are pointing out arguments against DRL, such as
• there is a problem that the glare of daytime light may make road users estimation of DRL-
vehicle speed and distance more difficult and less accurate,
• other studies show that DRL may have a masking effect on pedestrians and cyclists,
• some studies also show that DRL increases the readiness of drivers to assure their right of
way as well as false confidence concerning other drivers to respect their right of way,
• the study by FEMA in March 2003 clearly indicates that pro-DRL studies tend to operate with
statistically non significant results as well as methodologically contradictory approaches,
• indeed, many studies show that DRL can improve conspicuity of vehicles; however, that
does not necessarily mean that consequently accidents are prevented due to improved con-
spicuity.
(5) Conclusions
Studies in favour of DRL, such as Koornstra et. al. (1997) as well as most of the recent re-
analysis studies are not able to produce statistically significant arguments in favour of DRL.
Instead of that they practically are lending statistical significance to non-significant findings,
such as to the results of Andersson and Nilsson (1981) as well as reversing the adverse find-
ings of Vaaje and Elvik (1986, 1993).
Unfortunately, the recent EU-study of 2003 and the BASt-study of 2005 just provided a re-
evaluation of already published doubtful results and conclusions pro-DRL. No real new facts
were uncovered in these studies."
I think 0Bernhard must have taped into Odin's account. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Charcoal Gray car, slight drizzle = TURN YOUR FUCKING LIGHTS ON. Since most assholes only worry if they can see, not if they are easily visible, I say make it impossible for them to forget. DRL should be LAW - combine that with a 5mpg mandated increase in fuel economy and we're all better off.
ELVIK LIVES
When Canada mandated them GM elected to just put them in all new North American vehicles in order to reduce manufacturing complexity (having to buidl with and without DRL)...
Within a couple years they will be universal on new cars / trucks for the US market...
You will NEVER see a retroactive mandate that older cars comply.
This my point. The guy in the charcoal grey car is probably A-ok because he has no trouble seeing everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
I don't need a fucking study to tell me if DRL are a good idea. I have my own two eyes, in a vehicle that doesn't have great visibility, that tells me DRL are a good idea.
you don't need one. You could easily pass a law that requires lights to be on (some states have such a law for when it is raining). I manually turn my truck's headlights on.Quote:
Originally Posted by flatNshallow
Still working on the cloaking device for the subie.....
Only complete retards own vehicles that don't have great visibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Do you wear glasses?Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier