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

[Blurred]

Edit : this one's for you Blurred.

Those calculations are ridiculous.

I'll break it down for the reading comprehension inept later when I have the time, but that's like saying using anitfreeze as a coolant instead of water is raising fuel consumption because it takes more energy for the water pump to circulate a thicker substance such as antifreeze, thus creating more load on the engine.

[philippeR]

Pretty sure the biker would rather be able to see the cars easier - at least I would. Once again - it's a lesser of two evils. Seems to me if you teach people in France that ALL Headlights are to be avoided then you wouldn't have a problem.

Lane-Splitting is asking for trouble. The benefits to drivers outweigh the needs of a few bikers in a hurry, IMHO. You guys should act like cars do - hell, you should be even MORE cautious since you're more vulnerable.

Lane splitting is considered as vastly safer where I ride. You can't afford to get rear ended on a bike. And on wet or uneven surfaces, a bike braking distance is longer.
No way I would ride a bike in a lane of cars. IMO, a bike is not a car (duh) and should not be subjected to the same rules.
Car drivers expect riders to lane-split anyway. Less traffic-jams and no harm done. But they need to be able to tell the bike that will pass them to the right from a car, at a glance in the mirror. Thus DRLs for bikes, not for cars. Of course, at night, bikers should be extra cautious (and use their warnings if avalaible).
The key to safety, IMO, is to act as expected. It's certainly much more dangerous to lane-split in the US,because it's unusual, (and frowned upon by jealous cagers ?)
Different perspectives, different contexts. We should agree to disagree here.

[Eldo]

What? The feds have mandated DRLs since 1991 for all newly manufactured cars, and any imported car. The individual provinces pass laws dictating the rules of the road, and "headlights on" laws are in there. Ontario for example mandates headlights on from a half hour before sunset until a half hour after sunrise and during periods of rain.

Read Rontele's post, he said it was a requirement in Canada to have your vehicle lights on during the day. I stated there is no such requirement.

I can drive my 1989 van with no DRL during the day without turning on the lights. A motorist from the U.S. who is driving their late model vehicle built without DRL can do the same.

Nothing you mentioned changes the incorrectness of his original statement.

[philippeR]

Those calculations are ridiculous.

I'll break it down for the reading comprehension inept later when I have the time, but that's like saying using anitfreeze as a coolant instead of water is raising fuel consumption because it takes more energy for the water pump to circulate a thicker substance such as antifreeze, thus creating more load on the engine.

It may be marginal and outweighted by the safety gains.
But electric consumption in car = extra load on the alternator = gas. That's basic physics. Conservation of energy.

[jonesy]

I am here to cunt up this thread. Lights on you are seen better than lights off. Disclaimer-Just because your lights are on doesn't mean you know WTF you are doing.

[Blurred]

It may be marginal and outweighted by the safety gains.
But electric consumption in car = extra load on the alternator = gas. That's basic physics. Conservation of energy.

Well then fold your side view mirrors in, because that will save you a lot more fuel than not running lights....

[FFsup]

One might argue, that riding a motorcycle is a bit like skiing. If you go too fast for your own sake you could eventually hit a cliff or a tree. Doesnt make me want to remove the trees or the cliffs from the mountain

Not to offend, but what is it that gives bikers the RIGHT to disregard traffic rules and regulations? The idea of that drl only allowed on motorcycles, would save bikers from accidents, is kind of like going into avalanche terrain with a tranciever and absolutely no knowledge. In the end, the effect is that it just lures you into a false sense of safety and makes you take higher risks "since you have an avalanche gizmo".

And to not allow DRL is like denying the rest of us - who knows how to use trancievers safely and have bc knowledge - the right to use them as we might interrupt the signals from the loose cannons that are constantly going off everywhere.

I mean, sure, riding a bike is great fun and all. But in the end, I, myself, am responsible for my own safety if i choose to ride one. Don't blame the cars if you hit them while driving slalom in traffic.


Edit: This post got delayed half an hour due to my fucking router crashing as usual...

[Danno]

I am here to cunt up this thread. Lights on you are seen better than lights off. Disclaimer-Just because your lights are on doesn't mean you know WTF you are doing.

I don't know why that seems so hard to grasp.

[philippeR]

One might argue, that riding a motorcycle is a bit like skiing. If you go too fast for your own sake you could eventually hit a cliff or a tree. Doesnt make me want to remove the trees or the cliffs from the mountain

Not to offend, but what is it that gives bikers the RIGHT to disregard traffic rules and regulations? The idea of that drl only allowed on motorcycles, would save bikers from accidents, is kind of like going into avalanche terrain with a tranciever and absolutely no knowledge. In the end, the effect is that it just lures you into a false sense of safety and makes you take higher risks "since you have an avalanche gizmo".

And to not allow DRL is like denying the rest of us - who knows how to use trancievers safely and have bc knowledge - the right to use them as we might interrupt the signals from the loose cannons that are constantly going off everywhere.

I mean, sure, riding a bike is great fun and all. But in the end, I, myself, am responsible for my own safety if i choose to ride one. Don't blame the cars if you hit them while driving slalom in traffic.


Edit: This post got delayed half an hour due to my fucking router crashing as usual...

Nothing gives bikers the right to disregards traffic rules. But rules may differ according to the vehicule you drive.
Different size, weight, speed, maneuverability... different rules. I'm pretty sure you have different regulations for trucks and cars in the US. Why not for bikes ? And what's that twisted sense of equality ? Bikes and cars are not equal.
Yes, bikes can use an extra protection from the rules. Even though safety is indeed a personal responsability.

[philippeR]

The motorcyclist view on DRL. (UK).
With this intersting report, in pdf (what's not to love, Blurred ? )

Re mileage :
http://www.fiabrussels.org/policy.php?policyno=42

"The FIA also believes that the use of modern dedicated daytime running light systems does not represent any tangible disadvantage with regard to energy consumption. The BASt study estimates additional consumption [litre fuel (petrol) / 100 km] of dipped headlights at 0.207, of modern dedicated daytime running light systems at 0.052 and of modern dedicated LED daytime running lights systems at 0.021. The TNO Human Factors report estimates the additional fuel consumption of dedicated DRL around 0.5 to 1.5 %."

= marginal indeed.

[FFsup]

Of course i agree with you that bikes are vaulnerable and could use any protection they can get.

But i dont agree that it should be on the account of reducing safety for everyone else. Like someone stated before; I don't need any studies to tell me the obvious - DRL makes cars more visible and thus reduces risk for everyone.

But i understand your point of veiw, i know it's real difficult to see a problem when you're used to it. But coming from a country where DRL is manditory it is very obvious what huge a difference it makes. It is just absurd to me not to use lights.

[cantunamunch]

The motorcyclist view on DRL. (UK).

And they bought THAT piece of biased cherry-picked garbage?

Of course, they couldn't have possibly bothered to show one picture of a lighted and unlighted motorcycle with the sun behind them.

Of course, they couldn't have possibly bothered to show one picture of a lighted and unlighted motorcycle driving past a row of parked cars, and what a driver on an intersecting road sees as they are required to look through the parked cars.

Of course, they couldn't have possibly bothered to show one picture of an actual dip in the road where the only visible part of an oncoming motorcycle is the headlight and driver's chest.

Of course, they couldn't have possibly bothered to show how ahem, distinctive that 3d motorcycle shape is when viewed through a rain-spattered window from a rain spattered rearview mirror. Yeah, distinctive, yep, sure, 3d, uh-huh.

[philippeR]

Of course i agree with you that bikes are vaulnerable and could use any protection they can get.

But i dont agree that it should be on the account of reducing safety for everyone else. Like someone stated before; I don't need any studies to tell me the obvious - DRL makes cars more visible and thus reduces risk for everyone.

But i understand your point of veiw, i know it's real difficult to see a problem when you're used to it. But coming from a country where DRL is manditory it is very obvious what huge a difference it makes. It is just absurd to me not to use lights.

Actualy, we don't really disagree. I've stated in my first post I've found DRL useful in certain circumstances (long streches of roads, light traffic, DRL for all vehicles. Say Norway or Finland. Or Montana...). But I think they're confusing on heavy traffic.

[Blurred]

Re mileage :
http://www.fiabrussels.org/policy.php?policyno=42
The BASt study estimates additional consumption [litre fuel (petrol) / 100 km] of dipped headlights at 0.207, of modern dedicated daytime running light systems at 0.052 and of modern dedicated LED daytime running lights systems at 0.021. The TNO Human Factors report estimates the additional fuel consumption of dedicated DRL around 0.5 to 1.5 %."

= marginal indeed.

There are too many factors to get an accurate draw of energy on something so negligible. When you have a truck like mine with 610 lbs of torque, those numbers are even closer to zero.

It's such a ridiculously superficial argument to say DRLs waste fuel.

Still waiting for the self professed EEs in this thread to to make my signature unfunny.

[SuperChief]

It's such a ridiculously superficial argument to say DRLs waste fuel.

Exactly, how much fuel could it really be, I know your alternator creates a load and the more current it needs to output the more drag the field will create, whether or not if the alternator is in a turbo diesel truck or a honda civic makes no negligible difference to your fuel economy.

Why would I worry for a moment about saving face? That should be for those that jumped my ass about something that I was entirely correct about. Its all in good trollish fun till people that haven't met me start calling me a douchenozzle, retard, and other assorted names rather than arguing with the facts.

Which part are you correct about? You have no idea how much fuel your alternator wastes.

You are also clueless to how this board works, if you put up a post acting like you know something about the subject and are clearly an idiot, you will get called out.

[RootSkier]

I am going to quit listening to my stereo and satellite radio, that shit is a waste of gas.

[Blizzard7763]

I drive a '96 Civic and ride a '73 CB750. Both have the headlight/s on any time of day, any weather condition.

If this were mandated by law, what's next? Wearing a headlamp when we go skiing? Seat belts on chairlifts? (Ask Nader how that one worked out)

[uglymoney]

Exactly, how much fuel could it really be, I know your alternator creates a load and the more current it needs to output the more drag the field will create, whether or not if the alternator is in a turbo diesel truck or a honda civic makes no negligible difference to your fuel economy.



Which part are you correct about? You have no idea how much fuel your alternator wastes.

You are also clueless to how this board works, if you put up a post acting like you know something about the subject and are clearly an idiot, you will get called out.

Call me out with some facts then chief. Calling me an idiot is pretty much a dead end strategy. You bring nothing to the table.

I'm pretty well aquainted with the board jong. I have a job and a life and I've no obligation to satisfy your demands for instant calculations. Already stated in various posts throughout this thread are .5 percent to 1.5 percent reduction in fuel economy for DRL's.

If your so incredibly curious as to how much extra fuel your car or my car burns here is the data you'll need. Amount of BTU in a gallon of gas is about 115,000 or roughly 60 kwh of electrical energy. Efficiency of a gas motor is between 20-35 %. Alternator efficiency is about 70%. Current standard DRL's use between 70-100 watts of power. How many hours you drive your car with your DRL's on. Plug in the numbers genius.

As originally stated if you have millions of cars driving billions of miles small amounts of extra fuel burned per vehicle adds up to millions of gallons of extra gas burned per year.

Transport Canada estimates the extra annual fuel and bulb replacement costs to be $3-15 for systems using reduced-intensity headlights or other low-intensity lights and more than $40 a year for DRL systems using regular low-beam headlights.

[Tippster]

Not to offend, but what is it that gives bikers the RIGHT to disregard traffic rules and regulations? The idea of that drl only allowed on motorcycles, would save bikers from accidents, is kind of like going into avalanche terrain with a tranciever and absolutely no knowledge. In the end, the effect is that it just lures you into a false sense of safety and makes you take higher risks "since you have an avalanche gizmo".

And to not allow DRL is like denying the rest of us - who knows how to use trancievers safely and have bc knowledge - the right to use them as we might interrupt the signals from the loose cannons that are constantly going off everywhere.

I mean, sure, riding a bike is great fun and all. But in the end, I, myself, am responsible for my own safety if i choose to ride one. Don't blame the cars if you hit them while driving slalom in traffic.


Edit: This post got delayed half an hour due to my fucking router crashing as usual...

Hear Hear. Thanks, mang. I love riding my bike - if I get tagged by a car (again) it'll be my own fault. For the times I'm in my car I'd like the fucking idiots to have lights on when necessary, regardless of their feelings on the matter.

It's a light, for fucks sake. I'm not trying to take your guns away.

[Shaggy]

There are only two belt driven engine accessories which have the capability to instantly create more drag on the engine: the A/C compressor and a mechanical fan clutch. When either engages, it will produce the "instant" drag you describe. An alternator will never...I repeat...NEVER do that.

If you don't believe me, then tear an alternator apart and tell me where this magical clutch device exists inside. I wish you luck with that.

The magical clutch device is called magnetism. As load is applied to the alternator, the magnetic fields in the alternator increase. You've heard about opposite magnetic polarities attracting, and like magnetic polarities repelling, right? This happens in your alternator between the stator and the rotor and causes rotational resistance. More resistance, means more energy required to keep it spinning at the same speed. More load (ie in the form of DRLs) creates more resistance.

If you read all of what I wrote I think you would agree that we said exactly the same thing except you believe that the voltage regulator also regulates the current. I believe that the voltage regulator simply supplies the current that it is able to until it is at its limit. In other words... as far as current goes I think an alternator would be passive. I don't think a voltage regulator regulates current. My guess would be that there is additional ciruitry that must either shunt the extra current off when it isn't needed (assuming the alternator current is constant with constant velocity) or cause the alternator to not build up the current when it's not needed. In the second case there would be extra strain on the alternator if additional current was needed. In the first case I guess the power would just constantly be wasted. In any case the current output can't be constant unless it is shunted somehow or I think the battery would explode. Anyway... I actually have to get to work. Todays gonna be one of those 24 hour days (I think you know what I mean since you work in Telecom?)

Uhh.. no.

The excess current is not shunted because there is never excess current. Current only exists when a load is drawing it. No load = no current. An alternator that only has a 100 watt bulb attached to it will only produce 7.14 amps (@ 14V). If the alternator in my car was constantly pumping out at it's max current rating (130amps) and only half of that (65 amps) was being used then that'd be an extra 910 watts that'd have to be going somewhere, probably in the form of heat, which would melt the fuck out of something or require one hell of a large heat sink.

Read Rontele's post, he said it was a requirement in Canada to have your vehicle lights on during the day. I stated there is no such requirement.

I mis-read your post, sorry.

I'm off to look at the wonder woman thread.

Me too.


And Uglymoney, for the extra $3-15 a year, that's cheap insurance. If some oncoming car doesn't see me and pulls out in front of me, my concern for the environment or desire to save money won't really matter, will it?

[doughboyshredder]

A regulator controls the field voltage to the alternator. This directly relates to the voltage that the alternator produces, which in turn relates to the amperage that is available from the alternator the cars dc system.

And, I think this

The magical clutch device is called magnetism. As load is applied to the alternator, the magnetic fields in the alternator increase. You've heard about opposite magnetic polarities repelling, and like magnetic polarities attracting, right? This happens in your alternator between the stator and the rotor and causes rotational resistance. More resistance, means more energy required to keep it spinning at the same speed. More load (ie in the form of DRLs) creates more resistance.

Deserves a big ZING

[uglymoney]

And Uglymoney, for the extra $3-15 a year, that's cheap insurance.

Yep, certainly I find that the low powered DRL's make it harder for one to argue against them. If an LED DRL burned an extra gallon of gas a year, thats pretty small change.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Shaggy just backed me up. I'll just sit back and wait for the concession speeches

Originally Posted by Arty50

Apology accepted.

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

Drag from the alternator? are you fucking retarded?

Originally Posted by bio-smear

Comment retracted.

Originally Posted by SuperChief
Thanks Ugly Money, you have posted the most uninformed thing about cars I have ever seen on the web.

[Arty50]

The magical clutch device is called magnetism. As load is applied to the alternator, the magnetic fields in the alternator increase. You've heard about opposite magnetic polarities repelling, and like magnetic polarities attracting, right? This happens in your alternator between the stator and the rotor and causes rotational resistance. More resistance, means more energy required to keep it spinning at the same speed. More load (ie in the form of DRLs) creates more resistance.

True, but is this magnetic field large enough to create the effect that uglymoney is describing? If he were right, then the engine rpm should go up the moment you switch the lights on. I've never witnessed this in any of the cars I've driven.

Perhaps it's due to the fact that the magnetic resistance in the alternator is negligible. Otherwise, you'd have to have the black box monitor load in the charging system and adjust rpm accordingly. So if you ever had a problem with your electrical system (like say a bad battery), then the engine RPMs would increase noticably to compensate. I've never seen this happen either. Assuming the black box isn't diagnosing the charging system, then if your battery died the engine RPMs would decrease. I haven't seen this either. I have seen the engine die though, which is due to the fact the electrical system can't provide enough spark to fire the cylinders.

Theory is great and all, but what is the real world experience?

Oh and I do owe you an apology, uglymoney. My language was inappropriate. But I still stand by my statement that your basic premise is wrong. Turning on your headlights should have no measurable impact on your gas mileage.

[runethechamp]

Uglymoney is right here about the increased resistance from the alternator. Everybody else here calling him an idiot are idiots.

The magnitude of the effect is unknown though. But if you have a generator and try to put a shitload of load on it, you can manage to stop because it gets to hard for it to run. I've seen that it real life.

[Arty50]

Uglymoney is right here about the increased resistance from the alternator. Everybody else here calling him an idiot are idiots.

Guilty as charged.