Daytime Running Lights (DRLs) on the S550

[Seabee1973]

Regardless of what Consumer Reports has to say or J D Powers for that matter, speaker only for myself, I`ve owned my 2013 Ford C-Max SE Hybrid for almost 12 months and driven it just over 7000 miles and to date, have had (zero) problems or issues. Plenty of power, excellent handling and between 37 and 39 mpg city and highway driving. No, its not getting anywhere the 43 or 47 mpg that was first promised but considering constant heavy traffic and stop & go driving and doing 75 mph on the Interstate, not too shabby for a Vehicle of its size and comfort.

I just do not see myself driving a c-max... More of a car or truck that fits my personality and style kinda guy....if I can afford it

Sponsored

 

[HallOfPromise]

I like DRL. I wish every car had them with NO ability to turn them off. Why? It's much easier to see how terrible bad-drivers are driving while facing me, also for those who could care less about safety while it's overcast or raining. DRL makes up for either the stupidity or laziness of some people to turn on their lights. DRL are also great for those cars that are grey or dark in color while in inclement weather.

See, I wouldn't want you to turn off your DRL. I need to see how bad you're driving so I can prepare myself.

 

[Jmeo]

I've never been a fan of DRL that are just headlights on but I like what this car is getting. I also agree with calling them "signature lighting" as they just add a touch of class. I also like the new led headlights with the DRL strip on the new F150


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IGJoe2192]

Never realized there was so much hate for DRL's.... seeing as they are for safety, I have no issue with them.

 

[Rob WH]

Wrong! With DRL`s, the headlamps are on all the time at reduced output (without) the need to keep your rear lights on during the daytime. If you wanted to duplicate the similar safety feature, you would need to keep both headlamps and tail lamps on during the daytime when there is no need to.

It's not the actual high or low beam used with any HID equipped vehicle from Ford, at least from the looks. Except (perhaps) Transit Connect, they're LED strips. The TC is the only Ford I'm aware of(in America) with DRL's labeled as such and evidently w/o HID.

Should work the same way for all Fords?

Note: If your headlights are on, either by explicitly turning them on or by setting them to auto in a dark environment, the e-brake will not turn off the DRLs. The headlights being on override the e-brake.

So if you turn your headlights off at night and set the e-brake the DRLs should be off as well.

No, not with Escape. On, period. I checked during the day and the night... Engine on = DRL on.

Didn't read the whole thread since I am at work, but read the first few pages. Not really sure where all the hate is coming from. If your sole argument against DRL's is you don't want people to see you, well you probably shouldn't be doing it anyways.

I have a "lakefront" area, on a small lake w/ extremely limited public access. If I'm at home on my own property, it's not up to anyone else what I'm doing. If I don't want to be seen at night on my property, that's my business, period.

While I am not a proponent of requiring DRL's they can be quite useful. There are, for example, sections of highways here in socal that are long and flat through the desert, yet require headlights during the daytime. It sounds counter-intuitive, but they actually do help see oncoming traffic during the day. It seems to me people are just complaining simply to complain about something.

To sum this whole thread up into three words:

First world problems.

They can be useful, particularly since idiots drive. Of course, when there's serious glare or shaded areas, particularly shady to sunny over and over(forest areas), but really... people should know their surrounding conditions and operate accordingly.

As far as I know the only "solution" is to put the batteries in a concrete lined land fill and hope the acid doesn't leak through the batteries and concrete barrier. There isn't really a way to recycle batteries effectively yet.

I'd recommend plastic wrap(used in landfills already) because acid doesn't eat through plastic.

I like DRL. I wish every car had them with NO ability to turn them off. Why? It's much easier to see how terrible bad-drivers are driving while facing me, also for those who could care less about safety while it's overcast or raining. DRL makes up for either the stupidity or laziness of some people to turn on their lights. DRL are also great for those cars that are grey or dark in color while in inclement weather.

See, I wouldn't want you to turn off your DRL. I need to see how bad you're driving so I can prepare myself.

Basically, you think you're the only capable driver on the road, eh? While it's obvious that too many idiots who shouldn't be, actually are allowed to and are driving on American roads, DRL will simply never solve the problem. Generally, any idea that a government comes up with to solve a public problem... fails the public it was meant to help.

What could work is better training for all drivers and better policing for bad drivers, rather than what our cops are forced to focus on, like speeders. Adding money has yet to solve the 1st problem except being short on money...

Having spent 5yrs driving over the road(OTR), I've seen that a majority of drivers simply suck at it and that generally includes most of those who believe they're a good or even great driver. :frusty:

There are too many creature comforts in our cars today and those cause people to pay less attention to their driving and more to what they're hoping, dreaming, wanting, missing, etc. When I started driving, cruise control was an option on high end cars, like Cadillacs and Lincolns... For that matter, power windows, automatic transmissions, auto headlamps and even A/C were still considered luxuries. Today, most Americans wouldn't consider buying a car w/o all the above. In my mind, ALL DRIVERS who have less than 5yrs experience should only be allowed to drive the most basic cars(w/o any of those amenities), unless they've already passed a CLASS A driving test, to include driving an OTR truck. Were that the case, not every teen would even want in the vehicle, let alone to run around town for fun or worse.

With that, DRL's are no big thing... learning how to drive, conversely, is. There are some positively great safety items in cars today, but beyond the seatbelt being used and a properly trained driver at the wheel, everything else is just a hopeful helper.

 

[Rob WH]

Never realized there was so much hate for DRL's.... seeing as they are for safety, I have no issue with them.

No? So, the fact the average additional cost to every new vehicle sold in America(and elsewhere, surely) includes 30% for "safety features" and other government requirements gives you no pause? No issue with the fact anyone buying a new car has to pay for airbags, crumple zones, seat belts, multiple brake lights, steel belted radials, heating systems, tire pressure monitors(in all 4 tires)?? No issue with the government determining where a fuel cell is and what it's made of and what it's protected by? No concern with added weight for sound proofing, catalytic converters, fuel economy(CAFE) standards?

I'm not saying to hate the government, but I am saying that you and anyone else who purchases a new vehicle, or has over the past 30yrs, is being forced to pay extra because of what someone ELSE deems safe and/or prudent for the safety of others. What I want people to think over is that it costs extra for every new vehicle and most of us never need the majority of these items. In some cases, they don't even work, but we pay for them, just the same, because someone supposedly well educated and intelligent happens to believe they do work.... flawlessly.

My vehicles has DRL and I bought it anyway, so I don't mind having them, but they should be switchable, just like the headlamps. All these additional "automatic" features only help make bad drivers, worse drivers. ;)

 

[Spartan]

Audi years ago did it right with their DRL's. I can tell from miles back if an 2010-2014 Audi is approaching. Not so big on their recent changes to their DRLs...the A3 is just boring vs the previous years.

I think the Mustang has the most unique DRLs now since everyone else is copying Audi's look, you can't even tell now what is coming at you.

With these 3 slanted DRL's, you'll know its a Mustang! :shocked:

 

[IGJoe2192]

No? So, the fact the average additional cost to every new vehicle sold in America(and elsewhere, surely) includes 30% for "safety features" and other government requirements gives you no pause? No issue with the fact anyone buying a new car has to pay for airbags, crumple zones, seat belts, multiple brake lights, steel belted radials, heating systems, tire pressure monitors(in all 4 tires)?? No issue with the government determining where a fuel cell is and what it's made of and what it's protected by? No concern with added weight for sound proofing, catalytic converters, fuel economy(CAFE) standards?

I'm not saying to hate the government, but I am saying that you and anyone else who purchases a new vehicle, or has over the past 30yrs, is being forced to pay extra because of what someone ELSE deems safe and/or prudent for the safety of others. What I want people to think over is that it costs extra for every new vehicle and most of us never need the majority of these items. In some cases, they don't even work, but we pay for them, just the same, because someone supposedly well educated and intelligent happens to believe they do work.... flawlessly.

My vehicles has DRL and I bought it anyway, so I don't mind having them, but they should be switchable, just like the headlamps. All these additional "automatic" features only help make bad drivers, worse drivers. ;)

Here let me leave this link. This is what crashing in a car was like before government standards were introduced. YOU'RE WELCOME.

[ame]

BTW DRL's added no additional weight to a vehicle, they just mandated that your regular running lights be on all the time so the vehicle is more visible during the daytime.

 

[scottpe]

My vehicles has DRL and I bought it anyway, so I don't mind having them, but they should be switchable, just like the headlamps.

If they are truly intended as a safety feature, they should not be switchable. If they simply worked like headlamps, what would be the point? They would still only get turned on by those same people who were sharp enough to recognize exactly when to use their headlights before.

And, this is not necessarily directed at you, but the issue of knowing when to turn on lights for safety is not as cut and dried as some here like to think either. Sometimes, from a driver's perspective it is not always easy to know exactly how visible you are to oncoming traffic. There are tons of variables that can affect visibility, and they are not always obvious. The color of your vehicle, position of the sun, glare, what's in view behind your car (i.e. how your car blends in to the environment from the perspective of oncoming traffic... which can be very different from YOUR view of oncoming cars), patches of shade, etc. can have sudden and unexpected impact on how visible your car is. Anyone that thinks they are 100% aware of exactly how well their car can be seen by oncoming traffic at all times is fooling themselves. That is exactly what these lights are for. They help remove one more potential element of human misjudgment/error.

Unlike airbags or other safety features that only affect the health/well being of the vehicle driver/occupants, DRL's (and other exterior safety features) are for the benefit of everyone else on the road. Leaving it up to the discretion of the driver as to whether or not to place everyone else on the road at higher risk by disabling such a feature would simply diminish their overall effectiveness.

I do get the whole premise of wanting to be incognito when the car is parked. And I agree with enabling a way to turn them off in that scenario. Hopefully the Mustang will include that feature. But IMO, if the car is in motion, they should be on, period...

 

[IGJoe2192]

If they are truly intended as a safety feature, they should not be switchable. If they simply worked like headlamps, what would be the point? They would still only get turned on by those same people who were sharp enough to recognize exactly when to use their headlights before.

And, this is not necessarily directed at you, but the issue of knowing when to turn on lights for safety is not as cut and dried as some here like to think either. Sometimes, from a driver's perspective it is not always easy to know exactly how visible you are to oncoming traffic. There are tons of variables that can affect visibility, and they are not always obvious. The color of your vehicle, position of the sun, glare, what's in view behind your car (i.e. how your car blends in to the environment from the perspective of oncoming traffic... which can be very different from YOUR view of oncoming cars), patches of shade, etc. can have sudden and unexpected impact on how visible your car is. Anyone that thinks they are 100% aware of exactly how well their car can be seen by oncoming traffic at all times is fooling themselves. That is exactly what these lights are for. They help remove one more potential element of human misjudgment/error.

Unlike airbags or other safety features that only affect the health/well being of the vehicle driver/occupants, DRL's (and other exterior safety features) are for the benefit of everyone else on the road. Leaving it up to the discretion of the driver as to whether or not to place everyone else on the road at higher risk by disabling such a feature would simply diminish their overall effectiveness.

I do get the whole premise of wanting to be incognito when the car is parked. And I agree with enabling a way to turn them off in that scenario. Hopefully the Mustang will include that feature. But IMO, if the car is in motion, they should be on, period...

My 2007 Pontiac G6 allows me to turn off the DRL's, when done, it gives me a chime letting me know I am doing so and it leaves the message "Auto Lights Turned Off" on my radio screen until I personally clear the message.

 

[Rob WH]

Here let me leave this link. This is what crashing in a car was like before government standards were introduced. YOU'RE WELCOME.

I've been around a day or two, sport. I'm aware of all that as I've actually owned cars like those.

So what? Are you so convinced that our government is so great that w/o it, we'd all still be living in the 1950/60's? No, we wouldn't. The part you don't seem to understand is, the government came up with ZERO of these ideas! Not a single one! Many of them weren't even invented in America at all, but they're mandated on our cars because someone else believes they're smarter than you. Maybe they are... maybe not.

They simply take advantage of upgrades so that the government makes more money and it works like a champ! My point is, was and will remain, you, the consumer SHOULD be smart enough to determine whether or not you want to purchase all that stuff and if you don't want to spend your money on it, you shouldn't have to spend your money on it, while still making a purchase you want to make. If you feel that you're not bright enough to make the decision, by all means, rely on the government. I'm not in that boat and I'll swim on my own before climbing aboard.

You apparently think that I have a problem with safety... I don't. However, it should not be up to the government to determine what I buy .... even IF it thinks it knows better and in fact, even if it DOES know better.

By the way... How's the Smart for two in crash tests? That's still for sale, right? Next, would you like the government to ban motorcycles because they may be dangerous? How about all vehicles with more than 2 wheels, since they can cause more damage? It tends to never end once they get involved. :tsk:

BTW DRL's added no additional weight to a vehicle, they just mandated that your regular running lights be on all the time so the vehicle is more visible during the daytime.

That was old school. Today, DRL's are part of HID's and those aren't your standard halogen lamps(save perhaps the aforementioned Transit Connect -from Ford, anyway). Not only that, I'm hardly concerned with the weight of LED lighting or even HID. I'm far more concerned with the cost and if you've never purchased an HID bulb, prepare for a shock when you need one. Unlike your typical $9.99 halogen bulb, the typical HID is more like $69 and I've sold them as high as $250. ... apiece. That price shouldn't repeat itself anymore, as more vehicles get them, but it's never going to be just $10 and that's a shame because they're not so different. Look up the cost of a replacement assembly and then look at w/o HID. For example: A 2004 Lincoln Aviator was offered w/ or w/o HID... w/, bulb alone is about $90.00 and w/o, $9.49. For under $60, you can get the entire headlamp assembly for the Explorer(same ride), w/ the bulb if there's no HID.

Finally, it's pretty clear that they're not yet mandated in America, since we can still buy vehicles w/o HID and w/o DRL.

If they are truly intended as a safety feature, they should not be switchable. If they simply worked like headlamps, what would be the point? They would still only get turned on by those same people who were sharp enough to recognize exactly when to use their headlights before.

Unless cops were actually doing their job, you're correct. ;)

And, this is not necessarily directed at you, but the issue of knowing when to turn on lights for safety is not as cut and dried as some here like to think either. Sometimes, from a driver's perspective it is not always easy to know exactly how visible you are to oncoming traffic. There are tons of variables that can affect visibility, and they are not always obvious. The color of your vehicle, position of the sun, glare, what's in view behind your car (i.e. how your car blends in to the environment from the perspective of oncoming traffic... which can be very different from YOUR view of oncoming cars), patches of shade, etc. can have sudden and unexpected impact on how visible your car is. Anyone that thinks they are 100% aware of exactly how well their car can be seen by oncoming traffic at all times is fooling themselves. That is exactly what these lights are for. They help remove one more potential element of human misjudgment/error.

When in doubt, turn on lights. Simple rule. If having DRL really saves lives or even crashes from happening, why is there no discernible data showing this? After all, would it not be helpful for us to know that fewer crashes have occurred per capita where they've been mandated. Haven't seen it and if it truly favored the added cost, surely someone would be saying so, kinda like above, showing me that cars crashing can cause damage... on accounta I may not have known that...

Unlike airbags or other safety features that only affect the health/well being of the vehicle driver/occupants, DRL's (and other exterior safety features) are for the benefit of everyone else on the road. Leaving it up to the discretion of the driver as to whether or not to place everyone else on the road at higher risk by disabling such a feature would simply diminish their overall effectiveness.

Again, there's not a shred of proof that DRL have ever saved a single crash from happening, let alone injuries or deaths.

According to the NHTSA(DOT HS 811 029) analysis, there is no statistically significant overall effects by having DRL in cars... a possible 5.7% in light trucks/vans. They also mentioned the possibly negative... negative affect to motorcyclists and pedestrians. This was released in 2008.

I do get the whole premise of wanting to be incognito when the car is parked. And I agree with enabling a way to turn them off in that scenario. Hopefully the Mustang will include that feature. But IMO, if the car is in motion, they should be on, period...

You can bet the Mustang will... they do now and I doubt Ford will change that, but the switch is the e-brake...

As I said before, I have no problem with them being on while rolling. However, testing has proven it will not help stupid people become smart people. :shrug:

 

[HallOfPromise]

Basically, you think you're the only capable driver on the road, eh? While it's obvious that too many idiots who shouldn't be, actually are allowed to and are driving on American roads, DRL will simply never solve the problem. Generally, any idea that a government comes up with to solve a public problem... fails the public it was meant to help.

What could work is better training for all drivers and better policing for bad drivers, rather than what our cops are forced to focus on, like speeders. Adding money has yet to solve the 1st problem except being short on money...

Having spent 5yrs driving over the road(OTR), I've seen that a majority of drivers simply suck at it and that generally includes most of those who believe they're a good or even great driver. :frusty:

There are too many creature comforts in our cars today and those cause people to pay less attention to their driving and more to what they're hoping, dreaming, wanting, missing, etc. When I started driving, cruise control was an option on high end cars, like Cadillacs and Lincolns... For that matter, power windows, automatic transmissions, auto headlamps and even A/C were still considered luxuries. Today, most Americans wouldn't consider buying a car w/o all the above. In my mind, ALL DRIVERS who have less than 5yrs experience should only be allowed to drive the most basic cars(w/o any of those amenities), unless they've already passed a CLASS A driving test, to include driving an OTR truck. Were that the case, not every teen would even want in the vehicle, let alone to run around town for fun or worse.

With that, DRL's are no big thing... learning how to drive, conversely, is. There are some positively great safety items in cars today, but beyond the seatbelt being used and a properly trained driver at the wheel, everything else is just a hopeful helper.

1. Where did I say I was the only capable driver on the road? I have my faults. There is enough blame to go around.

2. DRL are not supposed to solve all problems. However, a little help is greatly appreciated, right? I'd rather have something than nothing at all.

3. Since I believe DRL are helping me see other drivers, then I suppose it can't be all a failure. If you are expecting DRL to solve all problems, maybe your expectations are a little too high.

4. I agree with everything else you've said. Drivers as a whole need better training and guidance. I also agree there are too many distractions within the vehicle. Well said and straight to the points.

 

[Rob WH]

1. Where did I say I was the only capable driver on the road? I have my faults. There is enough blame to go around.

You missed the point, as that was a rhetorical question... However, you did say... "I wish every car had them with NO ability to turn them off. Why? It's much easier to see how terrible bad-drivers are driving while facing me, also for those who could care less about safety while it's overcast or raining. DRL makes up for either the stupidity or laziness of some people to turn on their lights."

My point was that just because many drivers suck, doesn't mean we need a new law which costs every buyer additional money.

My Escape MSRP was about 35k... I could've spent 10k less and not gotten HID or DRL... I'd have had to do w/o the 2L EB, but still could've gotten the 1.6L. The thing is, I chose the one I got and seriously, I like that idea. I don't want my government choosing ANYTHING I buy, ever. They're too stupid, mistake prone and untrustworthy, period. in fact, it bothers me so much that if it were up to me, every single federal politician would be OFF the ballot from today forward.. and we'd start over! That's because those are the clowns who are responsible for the idiots who make the rules, or they're the very idiots who make the rules. Either way, they're no intelligent enough to work for me... were it my choice... sadly, it isn't, so we're stuck with idiots re-electing other idiots... revolving door from Hell. It really wasn't about you, but the government. I just made the initial statement based on yours.

2. DRL are not supposed to solve all problems. However, a little help is greatly appreciated, right? I'd rather have something than nothing at all.

I'd simply rather people be forced to know how to drive before taking the wheel alone. When I was a kid, that was the law... These days it's apparently not, as I can attest to kids getting their license w/o having to do something so trivial as parallel park. Most can't drive a manual transmission vehicle, but know how to handle the stereo right away!

3. Since I believe DRL are helping me see other drivers, then I suppose it can't be all a failure. If you are expecting DRL to solve all problems, maybe your expectations are a little too high.

C'mon.. people asking for it to be a law are obviously expecting it to solve problems and that's asking too much... Even 1 is too many to ask from a light during daylight hours. Again, I'm not against them at all, just the idea that they be mandatory or that they cannot be shut off, at least while parked.

4. I agree with everything else you've said. Drivers as a whole need better training and guidance. I also agree there are too many distractions within the vehicle. Well said and straight to the points.

Hmm... I guess you didn't miss the point after all!

 

[scottpe]

Again, there's not a shred of proof that DRL have ever saved a single crash from happening, let alone injuries or deaths.

According to the NHTSA(DOT HS 811 029) analysis, there is no statistically significant overall effects by having DRL in cars... a possible 5.7% in light trucks/vans. They also mentioned the possibly negative... negative affect to motorcyclists and pedestrians. This was released in 2008.

If you're going to use Google to try to prove a point, sometimes it pays to look beyond the first couple results. ;)

For instance, the Minnesota Department of Transportation had this to say on the subject in a 2010 report:

"Effectiveness at Reducing Crash Rates In the considerable body of research on this topic, most studies have found that the presence of DRLs reduces daytime multiple-vehicle crashes, especially head-on and front-corner collisions where vehicle conspicuity is a concern. The magnitude of the reduction varies depending on the study and the type of crash, but many studies have found a reduction of 5 to 10 percent.

The most recent large-scale study on this topic conducted in the United States is a 2008 NHTSA study that found that DRLs had no statistically significant effects on the types of crashes studied, except for a 5.7 percent reduction in the involvement of light trucks/vans in two-vehicle crashes. A 2004 NHTSA study that used different analysis methodology found that DRLs reduced opposite-direction fatal crashes by 5 percent and opposite-direction/angle non-fatal crashes by 5 percent. That study also found a 12 percent reduction in crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists, and a 23 percent reduction in opposite-direction crashes involving motorcyclists.

In general, the issue of research methodology seems to be a critical factor in the debate over demonstrating DRLs’ effectiveness, and can make it more difficult to aggregate the results of different studies. A key European study (Elvik et al., 2003) that used statistical meta-analysis to aggregate 41 DRL studies (25 studies that evaluated the safety effects of DRL for cars, and 16 for motorcycles) found that DRL use produced a 5 to 10 percent reduction in multiparty daytime crashes for cars. In this study, all 25 of the passenger car studies evaluated in the meta-analysis found that DRL use yielded a crash reduction of some magnitude—no studies demonstrated an increase in crashes.

Finally, recent research using the Minnesota DOT Crash Database also identified reductions in the rates of various crash types when DRLs were present. The magnitudes of the reductions were greater than in other DRL studies, again likely due to differing research methodology. (In this study, the overall crash rate among vehicles without standard DRLs was 1.73 times higher than the rate for vehicles with standard DRLs [832 crashes vs. 481 crashes per 10,000 vehicles].)"
​

As this report states, research methodology can significantly impact the results of a given study. Therefore, a single study should not be taken as conclusive. The only logical thing to do is base a conclusion on the results from multiple studies. It would seem that most studies and analysis regarding DRLs have indeed concluded that they help prevent accidents. Common sense would seem to support that conclusion as well... a car that can be seen more easily can be avoided more easily. Simple as that.

 

[Jmeo]

But how can a 4oz bird carry a 1lb coconut?

Perhaps an African swallow?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sponsored