Daytime Running Lights (DRLs) on the S550

[fionic]

The problem with your post is that lights are as much about the other drivers as they are about you. It helps people (pedestrians or other drivers) in sudden changes in weather conditions see you or at least be alerted that you are there.

he's not saying he won't use lights. he's saying he's responsible (and attentive) enough to realize when he needs the lights and doesn't need some bullshit government agency deciding/forcing when he should use them (and I agree )

Sponsored

 

[geokots]

he's not saying he won't use lights. he's saying he's responsible (and attentive) enough to realize when he needs the lights and doesn't need some bullshit government agency deciding when he should use them (and I agree )

Yes I understand his point. All I'm saying is that when people feel it's the right time to turn on lights isn't necessarily the best time for the other drivers/pedestrians.
It doesn't happen as much now but I remember when people would forget to turn on their lights as the sun went down. It's not that they're not responsible. People forget and a delay can cause a dangerous situation.

It's not hard to just leave DRLs on.

 

[fionic]

It's not hard to just leave DRLs on.

it is for me. I don't want them.

 

[wilkinda65]

I don't see them when I am behind the wheel driving so i could care less if they are on.

 

[geokots]

it is for me. I don't want them.

And if you were told to keep them off you'd leave them on. Good thing courtesy to others is also not mandated.

 

[fionic]

And if you were told to keep them off you'd leave them on. Good thing courtesy to others is also not mandated.

Not true, I really do not like DRLs. It has nothing to do with being forced to use them.

They also have nothing to do with courtesy (like I said, if lights are needed, I'll use them. I'm not some lemming that doesn't pay attention to what's going on around me)

 

[geokots]

Not true, I really do not like DRLs. It has nothing to do with being forced to use them.

doesn't need some bullshit government agency deciding/forcing when he should use them (and I agree)

If you say so

 

[Esfoad]

While I personally believe that DRLs do make vehicles more visible at dawn/dusk or in really sunny weather, I am pretty sure that the fact is that there has been no statistical improvement in Canada to prove a reduction in accidents since DRLs were made mandatory. I wonder if anyone can find the stats to prove either way.

 

[wilkinda65]

This whole later half of this thread sounds like much-to-do about nothing....

 

[fionic]

If you say so

I do not LIKE being forced, but I am not turning them off BECAUSE they are forced. See the difference?

I'd have them off no matter what the rules were.

 

[OppoLock]

While I personally believe that DRLs do make vehicles more visible at dawn/dusk or in really sunny weather, I am pretty sure that the fact is that there has been no statistical improvement in Canada to prove a reduction in accidents since DRLs were made mandatory. I wonder if anyone can find the stats to prove either way.

There are no statistically significant findings to prove DRL effectiveness in preventing or minimizing collisions of any type, and in any type of setting (low visibility, dawn/dusk, daytime, etc.). To back up what you're saying.

Summary of NHTSA DRL findings:

The analysis applied a control-comparison technique to evaluate the effects of DRLs on three daytime target crashes: Two-PV, Single-PV-to-PED/CYC, and Single-PV-to-Motorcycle crashes. The ratio of odds ratios statistic was used to estimate the effects. Based on this measurement, a majority of the derived effects were not statistically significant. Although some estimated effects were statistically significant, these results often contradicted each other.
Of these three target crashes, the target Two-PV crash samples obtained from FARS and individual States were generally sufficient for analysis. DRLs seemed to reduce daytime Two-PV injury crashes. The effect was not statistically significant. However, when all crashes were considered, DRLs seemed to have no effects on daytime target Two-PV crashes.
The other two target crash samples were generally small. The estimated effects had a relatively wide confidence interval indicating that the estimated results were quite imprecise even for the statistically significant effects. Particularly, Single-PV-to-Motorcycle crashes obtained from several States were too small to render any meaningful results.
The combined State data for each set of target crashes were considered to be relatively more reliable than the individual State results. However, none of these combined results were statistically significant. Further, there were no discernable trends among the individual States that could be used to infer a likely direction (positive or negative) of the combined effects.
For all target crashes combined, the estimated effects and statistical conclusions were similar to those presented for the target Two-PV crashes. This is not surprising given that the target Two-PV crashes comprised the vast majority of the sample.
Studies have validated the sensitivity of the DRL effects on the statistic chosen to measure the effects. Each statistic controls confounding factors differently. Roadway design, vehicle configuration, DRL technologies, weather patterns, the environment, driver behavior, driver demographics, etc. would also affect the DRL effective outcomes. The ratio of odds ratios has a stronger confounding-factor-control ability and produces relatively more conservative statistical results than simple odds do. The derived estimates based on ratio of odds ratios, if found statistically significant, would be more defendable. Therefore, we selected the ratio of odds ratios over simple odds.
Given the uncertainties around the estimated DRL effects and the magnitude of the effects, several statistical-process and data-related factors would affect the outcomes of the analysis:
(1)
The DRL-equipped vehicles used in the analysis were mostly 1995 to 1999 model years for PCs and 1995 to 1998 model years for LTVs. DRLs in these vehicles might not represent the current state-of-the-art of DRL technologies.
(2)
GM vehicles comprised the majority of the vehicles selected for this analysis. Thus, the vehicle sample might not be representative of all on-road DRL-equipped passenger vehicles.
5-1
(3)
Results among States were different and sometimes contradicted each other. Therefore, the DRL effects based on an assessment of nine States might not be applicable to or inferable to the national level.
Additionally, since DRLs come with different configurations, this analysis primarily focused on the overall DRL effects and did not attempt to estimate the DRL effects by individual DRL configurations. Furthermore, this analysis has several limitations such as, but not limited to, no estimates by latitude, roadway, and weather conditions. However, further expanding this analysis would reduce crash cases and most likely produce less defendable results.
Finally, the report does not estimate the novelty and intrinsic effects of DRLs to determine whether the increase in DRLs on the road would gradually diminish the DRL effects or impair the conspicuity of pedestrians, pedalcyclists, and motorcyclists. Concerns have been raised about DRLs obscuring the conspicuity of motorcyclists (whose motorcycle lights are on all the time). A timeline trend analysis would be more appropriate for this type of analysis. It is beyond the scope of this analysis.

Bear in mind that these studies are largely based on mid-90s GM vehicles, and the study does take into account that new "state-of-the-art" (probably i.e. LED-based systems) cannot be fairly represented by these results.

 

[Devon]

Not using them up here gives the cops a great excuse to pull you over and give you a nice fat ticket. Not worth the hassle or expense.

 

[Devon]

There are no statistically significant findings to prove DRL effectiveness in preventing or minimizing collisions of any type, and in any type of setting (low visibility, dawn/dusk, daytime, etc.). To back up what you're saying.

Summary of NHTSA DRL findings:
...

As someone who conducts statistical analyses on occasion, on first glance the use of a ratio-of-odds methodology for the analysis seems a little questionable to me - it certainly would not be standard practice, and seems a bit like cherry-picking your methodology to get the results you want. Also the fact that no means for the DRL and non-DRL groups (or any quantitative statistics at all) are reported is highly unusual. But I'd need to review the whole report to come to a conclusion.

I imagine a similar analysis was done in Ontario to support its choice to go with DRLs. I suspect DRL use may be more effective at latitudes like Ontario's where you have comparatively shorter daylight hours in the winter so there is much more of the morning/evening rush hour being spent in dawn/dusk conditions.

I remember when they were introduced, I hated them, but you eventually don't even notice them on the road.

 

[Robinson02]

What is the big deal? Remember when Audi came out with those DRL LEDs? Everybody wanted one. I think they look cool. If they help other drivers see your car and not potentially wreck it, then why not?

Also, Lights should be on anytime your wipers are on, minus when just using a mist to spray clean.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

What is the big deal? Remember when Audi came out with those DRL LEDs? Everybody wanted one. I think they look cool. If they help other drivers see your car and not potentially wreck it, then why not?

There have been many times in the winter when I've been parked on the side of the road and needed to keep my engine on because it's cold and I need the heat but did not want anybody down the block to know that there was a person in the car that was parked there. It happens all the time. Not having the ability to shut all of the lights off would drive me absolutely insane.

Sponsored