Daylight Running Lights?

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
So I'm in the backseat asking her to turn the lights on and she's yelling back "THEY ARE ON!" because she can see them... and my ex-wife is griping at me about how her mother has been driving since 1946 and how she knows what she is doing.

Sounds like one of those cases where, in my most sarcastic of ways, I'm known to remark...

"Congratulations, lady! You've been doing it wrong for over half a century!"

 

[sciphi]

I can't blame the poster who doesn't want to use super-performing bulbs with a shorter lifespan than lesser bulbs during the daytime, thus shortening the lifespan of his pricey bulbs.

OTOH, a new car is much more expensive than a new bulb.

 

[Seguino]

Daniel Stern Lighting has a DRL module that uses the turn signal bulbs instead of the headlight bulbs. It is 42 bucks. Go to the products page on his website and scroll to the bottom to read all about it.

 

[ffracer]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: FirstNissan
I dont want to use my low beams all day since I have upgraded philips bulbs and I feel that its a waste/big draw on the electrics. Any thoughts or ideas?
Thanks!


How could simple low beam bulbs be a big "waste" or "draw" on the electrics?

Just make it a habit to turn your headlights on every time you get into the car (it's what I do). Day or night.

Originally Posted By: ffracer
DRLs are unnessary.


That's utterly wrong. And on a side note, it's spelled "unnecessary".

Here are just a few studies other than the GM study you maligned, but failed to actually quote or name.

Quote:
Cantilli, E. J.: Accident experience with parking lights as running lights. Highway Research Record Report No. 32. National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1970.
In the United States, a small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18-percent lower daytime, multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles.

Stein, H. S.: Fleet experience with daytime running lights in the United States. Technical Paper 851239. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 1985.
In a much larger fleet study conducted in the 1980s, more than 2,000 passenger vehicles in three fleets were equipped with DRLs.

One fleet operated in Connecticut, another in several States in the Southwest, and the third operated throughout the United States. A 7-percent reduction was found in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes in the DRL-equipped vehicles compared with control vehicles.

Aurora, H., et al.: Effectiveness of daytime running lights in Canada. TP 12298 (E). Transport Canada, Ottawa, 1994.
In a study in Canada comparing 1990 model year vehicles (required to have DRLs) with 1989 vehicles, a statistically significant 11-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes other than rear-end impacts was estimated. This estimate was adjusted to take into account the fact that about 29 percent of 1989 vehicles were fitted with DRLs. Collisions involving pedestrians, pedalcyclists, motorcyclists, and heavy trucks and buses were not included in this study.

Sparks, G. A., et al.: The effects of daytime running lights on crashes between two vehicles in Saskatchewan: a study of a government fleet. Accid Anal. Prev 25: 619-625 (1991).
In another Canadian study, crashes of vehicles with and without DRLs in a government fleet in Saskatchewan were compared with a random sample of crashes involving vehciles without DRLs. The estimated reduction in daytime two-vehicle crashes was 15 percent. When the analysis was limited to two-vehicle collisions most likely to be affected by DRLs--involving vehicles approaching from the front or side--the estimated reduction was 28 percent.

Society of Automotive Engineers Inc., Automotive Engineering Vol. 102 ; No. 8 ; Pg. 35; ISSN: 0098-2571 (August, 1994).
In 1994 Avis, Inc. announced the results of a traveler-safety study analyzing the incidence and degree of damage to cars equipped with daytime running lights; the study showed a significantly greater degree of damage to those without daytime running lights (DRLs). Those equipped with DRLs have their headlights on at all times and are more visible to other drivers. During the day, they are on at an 80% power level; in the dark they operate at 100%.

Damage severity in the non-DRL group (measured in terms of cost) was 69% greater than that of the DRL-equipped fleet. Only the non-DRL vehicles experienced damage in excess of $15,000. The Avis study involved 1500 cars with DRLs, and 1500 without, representing approximately 29,000 rentals in eight cities in Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Washington.




Thanks for the typo correction.

When you can show me that lighting "awareness" exceeds the need to see turn signals and what you actually doing, I'll believe you. They don't need to be on at all. Only the "save the children" zealots believe in this like you. If it saves lives, "everyone must have it!". Until it creates unintended consequences.

Explain why glare is better than turn signals, which are far more important.
Explain why those who are trailering and/or have heavy loads need misaimed headlights with the equivalent of double highbeams.
Explain why the train in the tunnel effect is worth the "awareness"
Explain why people are driving in snow and fog with just DRLs and no taillights?
Explain why you even need headlights during the day, if it so effective? Why so bright? How about ambient lights? If you need to "grab my attention", you don't get how people perceive motion.
Motorcycles have headlights to differentiate themselves, now they all look the same.

The studies from 1994 are meaningless when few cars had DRLs and people are looking for positive results. When Ford owned Volvo, they stated DRLs have no value and are for marketing purposes. Neither Volvo nor Subaru use DRLs in most markets.

High brightness = stupid and ineffective.

I saw a kid crossing in front of a Dodge Caravan with DRLs by a school bus. Lost him in the glare, and then reappeared. How is this good?

I get rid of DRLs with my rear view mirror.

 

[Greaser]

I thought they were dumb when I first had them on my car up here in Canada,now if a car doesn't have them it seems dangerous (or it's an American).Simple.... if it's moving the lights are on!

 

[Surestick]

Originally Posted By: ffracer
Originally Posted By: lexus114
I know my drl`s saved my butt a few times.


How do you know?

DRLs are unnessary. Most DRL studies that aren't funded by GM (trying to save money by making US and Canadian cars with the same lights) and lighting companies have found the glare offsets the rare benefit in long distance plains visibility. DRLs are also non-standard lights, so people don't turn on their headlights when needed, nor have tailights when needed. They have lights when not needed. Some even have "driving" lights all the time, which are supposed to be only used for fog.

Most are annoying since they are focused half high beams. Irritating glare that also covers up turn signals, which are far important than headlights.

DRLs should be banned. Headlights are for night. You need to be able to see what the motion of the car is doing, not the train in the tunnel effect.
Either you need headlights because of dark or you are a distraction. Turn them off.

I am so tired of the self-rightous safety nut who has them on with a trailer or a full pickup or SUV or minivan blinding me in the mirror, yet can't see their turn signal or what they are doing. Turn them off.


I've never had any issues with them obscuring turn signals.

 

[Ken2]

Originally Posted By: FirstNissan
Hey guys, Ive recently been interested in adding some type of daylight running lights to my nissan, so that others can spot me from further.
Webelectric DRL-1 running light kit
http://www.webelectricproducts.com/products.htm

This kit powers the bright filament in the front turn signals when the engine is on and you aren't signalling for a turn. When this kit is installed, also buy a pair of long-life turn signal bulbs. I have this kit and like it.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ffracer
DRLs are unnessary. Most DRL studies that aren't funded by GM (trying to save money by making US and Canadian cars with the same lights) and lighting companies have found the glare offsets the rare benefit in long distance plains visibility. DRLs are also non-standard lights, so people don't turn on their headlights when needed, nor have tailights when needed. They have lights when not needed. Some even have "driving" lights all the time, which are supposed to be only used for fog.


I'm Canadian, so have dealt with DRLs for years. Many of your objections are notable, but there is a huge variety in the way DRLs are implemented, and the implementation is the key. General Motors itself has used a huge variety of ways to run DRLs, even in the same model year on different vehicles.

Take the late 1980s GM trucks. It was the high beam bulbs only, running at reduced wattage. They would be deactivated each time the parking brake was engaged. They were far from blinding unless the vehicle's headlight aim was incredibly out of whack.

The late 1980s Chevrolet Caprice was a different animal. To not have them on when the vehicle was running, the parking brake had to be engaged prior to starting. They would use the high beam at a reduced wattage, again, along with the marker and tail lights.

My 1999.5 Lightning used the high beams (reduced) only, with no way to prevent them from lighting. 1990s Crown Vics were similar. My 1990 Town Car somehow had DRLs that only activated if I had the automatic headlight feature enabled. It would be the high beams reduced only in the day, and when it was darker, all would light up as if the headlights were turned on in a "normal" car.

The Audi does the high beam only thing, too, with reduced output, and far from blinding, with no way to disable it. The G37 uses an inner bulb with a dim appearance for DRL purposes, and not the xenons. Oddly enough, its DRLs provide the most light at night of any DRLs I've seen, yet are very glare free.

On none of the vehicles I have driven would I have confused my DRLs with my headlights at night. Most of the vehicles don't have instrument illumination if only the DRLs were operating. The only exception I've seen are some of the smaller GM cars (i.e. Sunbirds) of the previous era and my Infiniti, where the daytime illumination (which can be disabled) is far different than the night illumination.

People who are using DRLs as headlights at night simply aren't paying attention. In the days before DRLs, I saw plenty of cars driving city streets at night without headlights, too.

Personally, I have no problem with them. I just prefer there be a way to disable them under certain circumstances, such as when a car is on the side of the road using its hazards, or when you start it before driving away.

 

[Samilcar]

I still don't understand how glare can be a problem with DRL's when run in the daytime. Wouldn't any glare problems in a daylight setting be compounded many times over when looking at normal headlights when it's dark? Anyone experiencing "glare" from DRL's during daylight hours has no business operating any vehicle at night.

 

[weebl]

Being Canadian, I too have observations from before and after the implementation of DRLs. Prior to their implementation, except in inclement weather, I failed to understand why lights on during the day would be of any benefit.

Since their implementation, I have observed the following:

- When waiting to turn left, in situations where oncoming traffic is in lighting conditions that reduce a car's visibility, such as a dark car in the shadows, glare from the sun washing out everything, a car with an effectve DRL design became visible far sooner than one without. I'm sure many left-turners have been spared accidents in those situations without realizing it.

- On 2 lane highways where passing is done in the opposing traffic's lane, again, as with the left turn scenario, with similar lighting conditions, vehicles with effective DRLs became visible sooner.

- I have never seen glare caused by a DRL, never been blinded by a DRL. DRLs are reduced in intensity generally, and at brightest, one implementation that was legal were systems that simply turned on the full headlight system in low beam. Even those brightest systems (incidentally, they were typically only transitionary for 1990 until a car was redesigned and are not on any current models), which really weren't that bright given early 1990's headlight technology, could not possibly be bright enough to cause glare in daylight, which would require light intensity at least that of the sun. The two most common systems in use today are the high beam filament at reduced intensity, or the turn signal filaments.

There will always be opponents of DRLs citing a host of reasons why they dislike DRLs. Arguments typically around fuel consumption (yes, more fuel may be burned due to a marginal increase in alternator load, but over a year, the fuel consumed is practically negligible); they don't look cool (who cares what you think is cool or not); they blind oncoming drivers (I call [censored]).

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: weebl

There will always be opponents of DRLs citing a host of reasons why they dislike DRLs. Arguments typically around fuel consumption (yes, more fuel may be burned due to a marginal increase in alternator load, but over a year, the fuel consumed is practically negligible); they don't look cool (who cares what you think is cool or not); they blind oncoming drivers (I call [censored]).

I got tired of my Buick (like many GMs) going through front turn-signal/running lights like they were kleenex. I can't remember all of the details as to why it occurrs (its been a few years) but the way that GM implements the DRLs on the Buick involves the body control module and some other trickery that ends up overvolting the bulbs. I hooked up a voltmeter to verify, running the lights through the various operations (DRL only, DRL w/ turn signal flashing, parking lights, full lights). With the DRL + turn signal I was getting voltages of 15.5+.

From what I remember, its borderline on if the bulbs can handle that high of voltage, but the real problem lies in the bulb socket getting overheated due to the excess voltage. Once the socket overheats enough, it stops transferring heat well and then the bulb overheats and burns out.

Using some wiring diagrams and suggestions I found online, I cut 4 wires leading into and out of the BCM and then joined like wires together bypassing the BCM. No more DRLs. Automatic headlights still work and the lighting switch functions perfectly. No more repeatedly burnt out bulbs or replacing the bulb sockets.

I disabled the DRLs on my wife's VW because: A) it was dirt simple, and B) I felt like it. Pull out the light switch - no tools, just push in and turn counterclockwise and the assembly slides out. Bend over 1 contact pin on the switch and put a piece of electrical tape on it. Reconnect wiring harness.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: buickman50401
I disabled the DRLs on my wife's VW because: A) it was dirt simple, and B) I felt like it. Pull out the light switch - no tools, just push in and turn counterclockwise and the assembly slides out. Bend over 1 contact pin on the switch and put a piece of electrical tape on it. Reconnect wiring harness.


That's pretty painless. The Crown Vic PIs up here had major problems with the DRL module when police equipment was added to them. Many of them wound up in taxi fleets with all kinds of strange issues with the DRL module.

My mixed feelings as to DRLs are kind of amusing. When I had my old 1983 LTD or when I drive my old 1984 F-150, I often turn the headlights on in the day, particularly if I'm on the highway. Yet, when I get a newer vehicle, right away I'm researching on how to disable the DRLs if they're too intrusive.