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

[cj001f]

?waht

.

After he left the Army Sgt Pepper entered the medical profession to treat lonely hearts.

[PNWbrit]

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

or this:

"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."



I leave my lights on.

[Odin]

I hear he drives VW Bug now.

Those beatles have DRL, therefore he must be seen.

[TeleHoar]

Explain to me again how leaving your lights on waste gas.
Extra drag on the alternator?
heh...

[Shorey]

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.)

[uglymoney]

or this: <snip>

"


I leave my lights on.

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.

"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."

[AKPogue]

I hear he drives VW Bug now.

Those beatles have DRL, therefore he must be seen.

I think 0Bernhard must have taped into Odin's account.

[Tippster]

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.

[Odin]

ELVIK LIVES

[flatNshallow]

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.

[Danno]

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

This my point. The guy in the charcoal grey car is probably A-ok because he has no trouble seeing everyone.

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.

[Danno]

You will NEVER see a retroactive mandate that older cars comply.

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.

[Lonnie]

Still working on the cloaking device for the subie.....

[LongLegsInAlaska]

This my point. The guy in the charcoal grey car is probably A-ok because he has no trouble seeing everyone.

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.

Only complete retards own vehicles that don't have great visibility.

[Adolf Allerbush]

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?

Do you wear glasses?

[Odin]

Only complete retards own vehicles that don't have great visibility.

pffft, you are CLEARLY retarded for not putting tin foil up on all the windows in your vehicle, if at least to prevent against the radiant heat of the earth based molepeople.

Clearly you don't even have a clue as to what this topic is about and should stay about. Molepeople and their systematic attempts at convincing us to drive with the DRL off.

Morons.

me?

I'm wearing my tin foil hat and underoos right now.

Sure, I am getting wierd looks from my clients, but my juices are basting my yambag right now and the molepeople won't get any of it's goodness.

[rideit]

my juices are basting my yambag right now and the molepeople won't get any of it's goodness.

You selfish git.

[uglymoney]

Explain to me again how leaving your lights on waste gas.
Extra drag on the alternator?
heh...

Umm, yes? This seems unlikely to you somehow? Turn you headlights on and off and you can hear your motor speed increase and decrease as the drag comes and goes. This is a pretty compact piece from Wiki that might help bring you up to speed.

Environmental impact

DRL power consumption varies widely depending on the implementation. Current production DRL systems consume from 8 watts (dedicated LED system) to over 200 watts (headlamps and all parking, tail, and marker lights on). International regulators, primarily in Europe, are struggling to balance the potential safety benefit offered by DRL with the increased fuel consumption due to their use. Because the power to run the DRLs must be produced by the engine, which in turn requires burning additional fuel, high-power DRL systems increase CO2 emissions sufficiently to affect a country's compliance with the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.[4] For that reason, low-power solutions are being encouraged [5] for use when and if DRL become mandatory in ECE Regulations. LEDs and low-wattage, high-efficacy, long-life light bulbs produce appropriate amounts of light for an effective DRL without significantly increasing fuel consumption or emissions. Fuel consumption reductions of up to 0.5 mpg may be found when comparing a 55-watt DRL system to a 200-watt DRL system. [6] In 2006, the UK's Department of Transport also found significant reductions in emissions and fuel consumption when comparing a 42-watt DRL system to a 160-watt full headlight DRL systems. [7] DRL fuel consumption can be reduced to insignificant levels by the use of 8- to 20-watt DRL systems based on LEDs or high-efficacy filament bulbs.

Also this link, which calculates a DRL mandate in the US would run us an extra 406 million gallons of fuel per year and add 8 billion pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere.

[LongLegsInAlaska]

pffft, you are CLEARLY retarded for not putting tin foil up on all the windows in your vehicle, if at least to prevent against the radiant heat of the earth based molepeople.

Clearly you don't even have a clue as to what this topic is about and should stay about. Molepeople and their systematic attempts at convincing us to drive with the DRL off.

Morons.

me?

I'm wearing my tin foil hat and underoos right now.

Sure, I am getting wierd looks from my clients, but my juices are basting my yambag right now and the molepeople won't get any of it's goodness.

Huh? I couldn't resist calling a Danno a complete retard.

And BTW, are you still driving the Seward Highway?

[grskier]

My ninja skills are far better when I don't have drls

[Danno]

Only complete retards own vehicles that don't have great visibility.

guilty as charged.

But it's handy to be able to sleep in the back.

[Jer]

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?

Yeah - cars should only be able to go 55mph max too. And the seatbelts should automatically lock you in when you sit down. I really wish somebody would babyset me and hold my little hand throughout every aspect of my life.

[Tippster]

Only complete retards own vehicles that don't have great visibility.

PACERS FOR EVERYONE!

[rideit]

I really wish somebody would babyset me and hold my little hand throughout every aspect of my life.

I never woulda thunk you were so....comfortable with your sexuality.

[DJMingus]

Umm, yes? This seems unlikely to you somehow? Turn you headlights on and off and you can hear your motor speed increase and decrease as the drag comes and goes. This is a pretty compact piece from Wiki that might help bring you up to speed.

Also this link, which calculates a DRL mandate in the US would run us an extra 406 million gallons of fuel per year and add 8 billion pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere.

I have to admit that's news to me and I've been a gearhead of sorts for 40-some years. The alternator is turning and producing ~14.5V regardless of electrical use; it's not like an AC compressor that causes noticeable drag when it's activated. It produces the same 14.5V output any time the engine is turning. And no, I have never noticed any engine on any car I have ever owned running slower when the headlights were turned on. I will take it on faith for now but I'll want to do some more research 'cause that wikipedia link doesn't say jack about why an alternator would have more drag when more electrical was being used - it just states it as fact.

So yeah, it does seem unlikely to me somehow. It sounds like I am probably uninformed.