Daytime Running Lights (DRLs) on the S550

[Rob WH]

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

I even gave you the actual NHTSA file number! Your best response is to claim it was Google? Now that is pure stupidity on your part!

You may as well go back to Romper Room, well down the hall... http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811029.pdf <~ There ya go, sports fan... Call it Google... Call it Goofle... call it a spider spinning a web... I don't give a damn.:tsk:

:gossip: It's real and it's directly from the NHTSA, which, unlike the state of Minnesota, actually does conduct these studies. MN mostly uses the data collected by others, as they did in the info you offered part of here.

Sponsored

 

[Seabee1973]

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:

I agree with you completely! Everyone is jumping on the Audi bandwagon but at least Ford is doing their own spin of it for a bit of originality I would call them signature lamps over DRL though they do serve 2 purposes

 

[phil1336]

The NHTSA has for too long stayed on the side lines on whether or not to (mandate) that all Vehicles sold in the USA be equipped with DRL`s or not. Most of Western Europe and our Socialist Neighbors to our North, (Canada) evidently have come to the (wrong) conclusion that Daytime Running Lights are at a minimum, an enhanced safety devise that (may) prevent accidents by making (oncoming) Vehicles more Visible, like Motor Cycles. I`m not a Scientist, as John Boehner would say (but), DRL`s are either a Good idea or a Bad idea. Pick a Model Year date in the future and either mandate that all Vehicle sold in the USA (must) be equipped with DRL`s or conversely, "No" Vehicles sold in the USA after a certain Model Year will be allowed to have DRL`s. Its not difficult, its either a good idea or a bad one, simply decide already!

 

[Reg_2015]

Personally, having an off switch for DRL in your vehicle is a viable option.... Agreed. But arguing against having them in your vehicle is a bit too negative in these day and age. I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be any overseas, European opinion in this thread.... As an ex-pat living in London, England and working throughout Europe, I completely understand both sides of the argument.

But when you consider European cities narrow roads, the sharp corners, the wide side-walks and the huge number of vehicles which only seems to increase daily without any increase in the sizes of the roads and the many idiots who drive in them, and not forgetting the dumb pedestrians who actually has NO idea how to walk on the streets.... DRL actually helps in keeping accidents down and also helps keep us drivers from too much hassle by avoiding incidents; laws are on the side of pedestrians and two wheeled vehicles if you have an incident, even if it's their fault....doesn't work all the time, of course (some woman walked into the path of my car, in daylight, a couple of weeks ago and I had my DRL on; barely managed to brake at the last second!).

But when I'm on the road driving or walking, I actually appreciate the lights I am able to spot on the tight corners or in the blind areas. Just that split second view i get around parked cars and traffic jams (and there are LOTS of them in London), help decide my actions.......

_________________

Past: '65 Shelby GT350; white
Future: '15 Ecoboost P Fastback; Ruby Red

 

[ShelbyGT350]

Is it possible, to keep the DRL's where they are, incorporate both white and amber bulbs in the same housing (the yellow bulbs acting as the turn signal along with the amber bulb on the outside of the headlight blinking as well so you can get rid of the UGLY turn signal above the fog light? There might be DOT or EU restrictions against this, but if you have sequential amber turn signals up front, in conjunction with the sequential reds in the back, that would look cool.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

I don't mind if the outside driving lights are automatic. Kinda hope automatic headlights are standard - a guy can get used to never worrying about whether the headlights were left ON all night. What I don't want is the GM system where the DRLs are switched with the instrument panel lights. Get in at night, see headlights in front, see the speedo lit up, so all is good -- except the taillights don't come on until you turn the headlight switch.

Wondered why people kept almost rear-ending me in that stupid car.

 

[montreal ponies]

I have the DRL's on my 2014 Explorer (Canadian truck here ), i get bot side markers on when lights off, and i leave button on automatic. So when night comes system automatically put on all lights including fogs as well. No worries here.

 

[fionic]

I have the DRL's on my 2014 Explorer (Canadian truck here ), i get bot side markers on when lights off, and i leave button on automatic. So when night comes system automatically put on all lights including fogs as well. No worries here.

see, I don't like that. I don't want my car putting on the lights when I don't ask it to.

 

[phil1336]

see, I don't like that. I don't want my car putting on the lights when I don't ask it to.

Let me assume you would`nt like a Dog using its Muzzle and Nose pushing the Radio Station pre-set buttons either? LMAO

 

[phil1336]

I don't mind if the outside driving lights are automatic. Kinda hope automatic headlights are standard - a guy can get used to never worrying about whether the headlights were left ON all night. What I don't want is the GM system where the DRLs are switched with the instrument panel lights. Get in at night, see headlights in front, see the speedo lit up, so all is good -- except the taillights don't come on until you turn the headlight switch.

Wondered why people kept almost rear-ending me in that stupid car.

I found the same thing to be true with my 2013 Ford C-Max SE Hybrid once I had the DRL`s activated. I then realized that the (Green) "Headlight-On" Indicator located in the center of the Speedometer warns you if the Headlamps are on or off. I now just leave the Headlamp Switch in "Automatic" Mode so they go on at dusk. That presented a different problem too because in "Automatic" Mode, they won`t go on during the daytime when its raining. You have to remember to manually put the Headlamps on as required by Law in Florida when its raining regardless of the time of day.

 

[fionic]

Let me assume you would`nt like a Dog using its Muzzle and Nose pushing the Radio Station pre-set buttons either? LMAO

And you would!?

 

[phil1336]

And you would!?

Hey "Arch Enemy" you forgot? I`m buying this 2015 Mustang Convertible primarily to take my 2 Golden Retrievers out for a ride, but of course! Its just a damn Car!

 

[scottpe]

I even gave you the actual NHTSA file number! Your best response is to claim it was Google? Now that is pure stupidity on your part!

So are you claiming you did not use Google? Maybe you spent a bunch of time scouring the NHTSA site to find that ONE study you quoted? Guess what the very first result is if you search on "daytime running light effectiveness?" It's the same study you posted. If you didn't use Google, maybe you should have, wise guy, so your perspective would be a bit less myopic... there's more to the story than that one study.

Now, maybe you were too busy telling yourself how right you are to bother actually reading the information I quoted. So I'll spell out a few things (again) for you:

1. 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.
   
2. A European study that aggregated the results of FOURTY-ONE studies on DRL usage determined that there was a 5-10% reduction in daytime multi-vehicle crashes.
   
3. Minnesota DOT's research (:gossip: yes states do their own research!) of their own statistics revealed an even higher magnitude of reduction of accidents with the use of DRLs.

The bottom line, which you seem to want to conveniently ignore, is that there have been LOTS of studies on the use of DRLs. Different studies, different research methodologies. Now put on your thinking cap for a second. Is it more logical to base a conclusion on one study, or to consider what the majority of the numerous studies combined revealed? I won't insult your intelligence by spelling out the answer. You know what it is.

It's real and it's directly from the NHTSA, which, unlike the state of Minnesota, actually does conduct these studies. MN mostly uses the data collected by others, as they did in the info you offered part of here.

As stated above, MN also did their own research with THEIR OWN statistics and came to the same conclusion as many other studies, that DRLs help prevent accidents. And yes they did also consider studies conducted by others. Why wouldn't they? It's smart to do so! The MN DOT report simply noted that most of them point to the same thing.

And as I said before (you still with me?), forget all the expensive studies and their pie charts... Let's use our own brains for a second. A car that is easier to see is easier to avoid, yes? Avoiding other cars avoids accidents, yes? Now unless you want to construct an argument that a car with its lights on is not any easier to see, what else is there to say? We didn't need all these studies to tell us the obvious anyway, now did we?

Anyway, I'll leave it at that, as I don't think there's anything else to be gained by further discussion at this point. If you want to go on believing that there is no evidence that DRLs help prevent crashes, nothing else I can say is going to change your mind. But nobody can say I didn't try. :shrug: You can lead a horse to water...

 

[Seabee1973]

The NHTSA has for too long stayed on the side lines on whether or not to (mandate) that all Vehicles sold in the USA be equipped with DRL`s or not. Most of Western Europe and our Socialist Neighbors to our North, (Canada) evidently have come to the (wrong) conclusion that Daytime Running Lights are at a minimum, an enhanced safety devise that (may) prevent accidents by making (oncoming) Vehicles more Visible, like Motor Cycles. I`m not a Scientist, as John Boehner would say (but), DRL`s are either a Good idea or a Bad idea. Pick a Model Year date in the future and either mandate that all Vehicle sold in the USA (must) be equipped with DRL`s or conversely, "No" Vehicles sold in the USA after a certain Model Year will be allowed to have DRL`s. Its not difficult, its either a good idea or a bad one, simply decide already!

I disagree, for one whether you have DRL or not I still find it as an advantage as being "seen" my thoughts it is no different when you are on a motorcycle and the lights are always on while the engine is running which can make arider or for this instance vehicle more visible. It is much the same everywhere else.. EU, Canada... whatever, but it is also not a matter of people being stupid of not turning on their lights in adverse weather.. for the states that mandate that headlights be on in bad weather... it's still the drivers responsibility to do so... if they get pulled over... the fine is their own problem... you could say it's about the same adverb you are supposed to switch on your lights 30 mins to dusk... you can babble all day long on this matter but honestly it really doesnt matter. I would rather be able to see people if not drivers but also pedestrians... but you really can't cure stupid, you still have that bunch that do not look both ways before crossing a street

 

[SStormtrooPer]

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.

Yes, safety equipment is expensive, its adds weight, and yes, it sucks when the government has its hand in too many things. But there are just some things that the government NEEDS to have say in. If they did not mandate at least some safety devices, there would be no controls no regulation, and no effective way to "measure" one car against the next.

And even if they didn't mandate ANYTHING, you clearly have ZERO clue how MASS PRODUCTION works, do you? For a company to build two of the same car -- one without safety equipment for the VERY few people that are like you in the world, and one with "safety" as an "option", would require a fundamental change in how cars are designed and built. BOTH would be much more expensive than cars are now because you would need two designs, and two lines. I HATE all this fancy crap they are adding to cars these days, but unfortunately for me, I am a rarity. Most people DO want safe cars, along with all the other garbage they put in them -- and not because the government says so.

At the end of the day the effect of laws requiring certain things is no more or less than if there were no laws, except that you know exactly what you are getting, and that whether right or wrong, SOMEONE is making sure your interests are protected.

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:

The Smart Fortwo is still for sale, and the 2014 rated GOOD in everything accept head restraints and seats, which were ACCEPTABLE-- that is better than some of the new cars on the road, and as good as a lot of them.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/smart/fortwo

And second, arguing for/against DRLs is VERY different than arguing whether or not motorcycles should be legal. Don't be so silly. DRLs ensure that other drivers see YOU, so you aren't a victim of negligence or inattentiveness -- which regardless how comprehensive driving tests are, is going to exist. They have nothing to do with how good of a driver you are, or what type of vehicle you can handle or choose to drive. But being a past OTR driver and a model of driving excellence, your perfection does not allow you to understand the concept. What a poor attitude -- no wonder people don't like truckers.

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

What, and pulling people over at all times of the day because they think the drivers should have their lights on? Laws are black and white -- they are not a gray subject left for interpretation. To expect a LEO to make that determination would be ludicrous. "Hey son, I'm giving you a $90 ticket today because you the sun was reflecting off the truck behind you, and without your headlights on I couldn't see you. You should have known better."

Is that what you want? That is FAR more troubling behavior than the government mandating DRLs.

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:

You are right, but it will help stupid people see you. We unfortunately do not, and never will, live in a perfect world.

I don't want my government choosing ANYTHING I buy, ever. They're too stupid, mistake prone and untrustworthy, period.

Please explain how the government mandating safety equipment equals the government choosing the things you buy. Last I checked, safety mandates or not, we ALL have the freedom to buy the car we want. If you don't want to buy a car equipped with any sort of safety devices, then DON'T buy one. There are plenty of used options that don't have all that crap.

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.

Law or not, it's very simple. DON'T have the car running, and they won't be on. You can run the radio with the car off you know. And don't be that annoying person that sits for extended periods of time with the car running and the A/C on.

Sponsored