Tell me one good reason why all cars aren't mandated to have daytime running lights?

**RootSkier** · 10-29-2007, 01:47 PM

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?

**Rontele** · 10-29-2007, 01:54 PM

Hey Jessie,

Dear Diary you fucking baby...

**RootSkier** · 10-29-2007, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Rontele

Hey Jessie,

Dear Diary you fucking baby...

No "i" bitch, now get back to your high powered corporate cocksucking.

**Rontele** · 10-29-2007, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by RootSkier

No "i" bitch, now get back to your high powered corporate cocksucking.

I put the "I" because that is how bitches spell Jessie, Jessie. Fine with me, you fucking wannabe

**Danno** · 10-29-2007, 02:01 PM

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.

**Danno** · 10-29-2007, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Rontele

Hey Jessie,

Dear Diary you fucking baby...

Is Aunt Flow visiting you right now?

**Rontele** · 10-29-2007, 02:02 PM

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.

**uglymoney** · 10-29-2007, 02:03 PM

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.

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

**Danno** · 10-29-2007, 02:17 PM

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?

**LongLegsInAlaska** · 10-29-2007, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by RootSkier

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?

RootSkier, that would take all the fun out of pretending to not see them.

**Roo** · 10-29-2007, 02:20 PM

Light pollution.

**hemas** · 10-29-2007, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

it was the law in Norway at least as early as 1990, for ex.

Try mid/late 70's and basically the whole western Yurp.

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?

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

[/irony]

**Tye 1on** · 10-29-2007, 02:27 PM

I like the 'if your wipers are on your headlights are required to be',,,thinkin i saw that up in canuckville....

**Danno** · 10-29-2007, 02:28 PM

Anyone who doesn't at least put their headlights on when it is raining is a complete retard.

**TeleHoar** · 10-29-2007, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by uglymoney

they waste gas with the extra drag they exert on the alternator.

Originally Posted by Rontele

I will constructively add something to this thread...

Post preservation. Has this ever happened?

**bio-smear** · 10-29-2007, 02:31 PM

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.

**FrankZappa** · 10-29-2007, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Roo

Light pollution.

...leading to yet even more global warming.

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.

**uglymoney** · 10-29-2007, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by TeleHoar

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.

Show me a study that says they make our roads safer. Quick googling gives me this.

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.

**summit** · 10-29-2007, 02:42 PM

... because I'd be more visible to the cops

Now get your eyes checked

**Rontele** · 10-29-2007, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by TeleHoar

Post preservation. Has this ever happened?

No.
12345

**neck beard** · 10-29-2007, 02:42 PM

Still law in Austria. Lights on 24 hours a day.

Drink driving seems to be tolerated though.

**Odin** · 10-29-2007, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Hohes

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.

**neck beard** · 10-29-2007, 02:45 PM

?waht

.

**uglymoney** · 10-29-2007, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by bio-smear

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.

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!

**Danno** · 10-29-2007, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by uglymoney

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.

Show me a study that says they make our roads safer. Quick googling gives me this.

and from this page, a bunch of them are listed: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm

From that page:

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

Oh wait, then there's this summary:

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.

And this on costs:

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).

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.