Daytime Running Lights changed ???

[HumbleAg]

Was being followed on the highway today by a brand new H3 (paper plates) and noticed the DRL's were different from mine.

Instead of the parking lights being on, the headlights were on in "very dim" mode like GM trucks used to be. No tail lights were on, so I know it must have been the DRLs.

Anyone know if this is a change they made recently (and why)?

Under Texas law it used to be illegal to drive with parking lights on, I don't know if it still is. I wonder if that is an issue.

[Sewie]

I read that on another forum and thought it was BS until I saw one with the new DRL's the next day. Anyone with info want to confirm why it was changed.

[HummerNewbie]

I read that on another forum...

WTF Sewie :confused:

You are only allowed to read this forum! :mad: ;)

[Steve - SanJose]

Mmmm interesting. I like the way the H2's run the fog lights as DRL's (I'm assuming that's the standard setup on H2's).

S.

[usetosellhummer]

Just got my rig last week, will try to check that, is it just me or is their no room for nothing in the front. Can't find a place to put my sheeet so it's in the cup holder then wife wants to pop a drink in. Just noticed today it pretty freakin cramped in the front. ya with me?

[timgco]

I heard a rumor that if you have the new DRL's, you get upgraded diffs. that don't fail and 50 more hp.:D

[HummBebe]

I heard a rumor that if you have the new DRL's, you get upgraded diffs. that don't fail and 50 more hp.:D

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a240/HummBeeBe/oddanimals063.jpg

Shut up??? Really???:D

[Disnydad]

My H3 was produced in March of this year and has the dim headlamps for DRL's.

[deserth3]

My H3 uses the headlights for DRL's. I thought that was standard. I did notice the rental they gave me used the marker lamps. I just figured that was something special the rental company requested. Guess I was wrong.

[HummerHippy]

For the cost of a few headlights once in a while, I drive with head lights on full on, day/night rain/shine. It's a safety thing for me. I think there's a reason why school buses and motorcycles do the same thing (besides the law). So far, the xenon HID lights on the current vehicle have lasted 100K miles of being on all the time. Gunna hate to replce them when they go though.

[f5fstop]

Just got my rig last week, will try to check that, is it just me or is their no room for nothing in the front. Can't find a place to put my sheeet so it's in the cup holder then wife wants to pop a drink in. Just noticed today it pretty freakin cramped in the front. ya with me?

Try driving a Corvette C5. Hell the console is only 1 inch deep. To me the H3 seems like a large cavity just waiting to be filled with worthless junk. There are even pockets in the door panel, a very deep console, and a glove box that will acutally hold the owner's manual and a pair of gloves.

[usetosellhummer]

ok you got me, it would take a shoe horn to even get me in a vette. But i had a badass Aztek and it had room for all kinds of stuff (including the ugly comments)

[Desert Dan]

You can turn off the DRL while driving but when your restart the engine they come back on.

[f5fstop]

ok you got me, it would take a shoe horn to even get me in a vette. But i had a badass Aztek and it had room for all kinds of stuff (including the ugly comments)

Yea, but you had to look at the rear end of the Aztec once in a while...didn't you:D

GM is coming back with the Aztek, here is a spy photo of the next generation. Not much room inside, but it can haul a lot of s**t in the back, and the axles are really large, and it offers a very big diesel.

http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3C%3A3578%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E2353%3D829%3D8%3A%3C%3 DXROQDF%3E2324244%3A94877ot1lsi

[deserth3]

GM is coming back with the Aztek

Yeah!! I want one!!!! Tell me now you didn't see me. Ha!

[JWSchmidt3]

Try driving a Corvette C5. Hell the console is only 1 inch deep. To me the H3 seems like a large cavity just waiting to be filled with worthless junk. There are even pockets in the door panel, a very deep console, and a glove box that will acutally hold the owner's manual and a pair of gloves.

Amen brother!!! LOL

[Tommy36998]

Mine works either way.........yellow corners on or wht dim in front

[Sewie]

Mine works either way.........yellow corners on or wht dim in front

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Which comes on you start the truck?

[fourfourto]

Mine works either way.........yellow corners on or wht dim in front



:confused: :confused: :confused:


X2 how?

[NEOCON1]

Amen brother!!! LOL


funny how a c5 manual fills the whole glovebox . :D

[Hummer Guy]

Mine works either way.........yellow corners on or wht dim in front

?

[Michael1]

I can't stand DRLs. To me they are just a glare nuisance, and a waste of fossil fuels. It's just marketing. So far no safety agency has yet to produce a study of *statistical significance* (key words) for any safety benefit. None. Anyone got a nice fix for disabling them permanently?

Michael

[HummerNewbie]

You know it really amazes my how much DRLs bother people. To each their own and I am not knocking anyone for disliking them but I just get why it bothers some sooo much. The fact that I am in the drivers seat makes them basically a none issue since I can't see them. I have no idea if there have been any studies that show any safety benefits or not but I know that the headlights on motorcycles being on is definitely a safety benefit. I also do see where the DRLs are increasing the use of fossil fuels. Maybe I am missing something but how is this, because the alternator might have to work a little harder? Anyway, like I said, to each their own.

[f5fstop]

I can't stand DRLs. To me they are just a glare nuisance, and a waste of fossil fuels. It's just marketing. So far no safety agency has yet to produce a study of *statistical significance* (key words) for any safety benefit. None. Anyone got a nice fix for disabling them permanently?

Michael

To run only the two front signals bulbs, or the two front headlamp bulbs at a lower level, wastes about as much fossil fuel as running the radio and monsoon amp.
So, if you are really concerned about fossil fuel, I have to assume you are running with the A/C disconnected to make sure you don't turn it on when the defrosters are running, and your radio has been removed. Then again, I have to beg the question, why are you driving a Hummer...get a Honda Insight, if you are really that concerned about fossil fuel.


Want to know how much it costs to run your A/C, even with the defrosters on?U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995).
DRL costs are low, so even very modest crash reduction capabilities would be cost effective. For example, according to General Motors, there is a minimal wiring cost in converting to DRLs, and a fraction of a mile fuel penalty (about $ 3 per year for the average driver).



As for studies:
DRLs, at sufficient levels of intensity, increase visual contrast between vehicles and their background. Various studies have shown that DRLs can improve the noticeability and detectability of vehicles in the central and peripheral fields of view. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995); Allen, J. M., Strickland, J., Ward, B., and Siegel, A.: Daytime headlights and position on the highway. Am J Optometry 46: 33--36 (1969); Attwood, D. A.: Daytime running lights project, IV: Two-lane passing performance as a function of headlight intensity and ambient illumination. Technical Report RSU 76/1. Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1976; Attwood, D. A.: Daytime running lights project, II: Vehicle detection as a function of headlight use and ambient illumination. Technical Report RSU 75/2. Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1975; Horberg, U.: Running light--twilight conspicuity and distance judgement. Report 215.

Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1977; Horberg, U., and Rumar, K.: Running lights--conspicuity and glare. Report 178. Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1975; Kirkpatrick, M., Baker, C. C., and Heasly, C. C.: A study of daytime running lights design factors. (DOT HS 807 193). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1987.; Ziedman, K., Burger, W., and Smith R.: Evaluation of the conspicuity of daytime running lights. (DOT HS 807 609). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1990.

Andersson, K., Nilsson, G., and Salusjarvi, M.: The effect of recommended and compulsory use of vehicle lights on road accidents in Finland. Report 102A. National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden, 1976.
A study in Finland conducted between 1968 and 1974 found that DRLs, when required on rural roads in the winter, were associated with a 21-percent reduction in daytime multiparty crash events (involving more than one motor vehicle or motor vehicles colliding with pedestrians or pedalcyclists).

Andersson, K., and Nilsson, G.: The effect on accidents of compulsory use of running lights during daylight hours in Sweden. Report 208A. National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden, 1981.
In Sweden, a study based on 2 years of pre-law and 2 years of post-law data reported and 11-percent reduction in multiparty daytime crashes subsequent to the DRL law.

Elvik, R.: The effects on accidents of compulsory use of daytime running lights for cars in Norway. Accid Anal Prev 25: 383-398 (1993).
A study in Norway, covering the period 1980 to 1990, examined the effect of the country's DRL law, which applied to new cars in 1985 and to all cars beginning in 1988. DRL use was estimated to be about 30-35 percent in 1980-81, 60-65 percent in 1984-85, and 90-95 percent in 1989-90, so, as in the earlier Scandinavian studies, only partial implementation of DRLs was assessed. There was a statistically significant 10-percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes associated with DRLs in this study, excluding rear-end collisions, which increased by 20 percent. For all daytime crashes involving multiple parties, there was a statistically significant 15-percent reduction associated with DRLs in the summer but not in the winter. No significant effects of DRLs were found for collisions involving pedestrians or motorcyclists.

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.

Honestly, don't have time to show all the studies that have been done on DRL usage in all countries where they are required by law, or are used on vehicles at manufacturers discretion.

Or, just think about the cars you see coming down the road with DRLs, you see 'em don't you, so they must attract your attention. There have been studies that certain colors of vehicles are hard to see in daylight, and DRLs will definitely help see these vehicles.

To disable, just go cut the wires, you don't need to use your signals or your LO beams (depending on DRL system); why waste the fossil fuel.

[f5fstop]

funny how a c5 manual fills the whole glovebox . :D

I put mine in one of the little compartments in the rear of the vehicle. That was after I read it in the John.:D

[Steve - SanJose]

I'm not totally sold on the DRL studies, but I can see where they add visibility and safety on 2 lane roads (not limited access freeways). I'm glad the H3 DRLs can be turned off via the override switch, but I would prefer the ability to leave them off. Mercedes has a nice solution that allows the dealer to program them on/off and I did have a Toyota Camry rental that had a separate switch position for the DRLs.

So the new H3's will have improved headlight DRLs instead of the orange signal light DRLs. The "parking light" DRLs are borderline illegal in California and other jurisdictions, but hardware laws are rarely enforced here. And mixing the DRLs with turn signal lights is a bad practice and potential safety issue. I hope GM (and Lexus) change all their DRLs to headlights and make them driver selectable.

As far as turning off lights and AC to save gas....Yea and running premium gas for the hope of better mileage on an H3....Good luck.:)

S.

[Michael1]

To run only the two front signals bulbs, or the two front headlamp bulbs at a lower level, wastes about as much fossil fuel as running the radio and monsoon amp.
So, if you are really concerned about fossil fuel, I have to assume you are running with the A/C disconnected to make sure you don't turn it on when the defrosters are running, and your radio has been removed. Then again, I have to beg the question, why are you driving a Hummer...get a Honda Insight, if you are really that concerned about fossil fuel.

Now multiply those two bulbs by the millions of vehicles on the roads daily and see how much fossil fuel is involved. Its in the megawatts. It's amazing that so few people can see beyond just their own vehicle. Alternators are notoriously inefficient, too. Combine that with the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine, and you have nothing but waste.


Want to know how much it costs to run your A/C, even with the defrosters on?U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995).
DRL costs are low, so even very modest crash reduction capabilities would be cost effective. For example, according to General Motors, there is a minimal wiring cost in converting to DRLs, and a fraction of a mile fuel penalty (about $ 3 per year for the average driver).

I love this..."according to General Motors". Don't you think GM has a marketing angle on this? GM couldn't care less if they worked or didn't work as long as it sold more cars.

As for studies:

You can quote all these studies, but so far the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found them to be flawed or incomplete. They have found no study of STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, with controls, and of long enough duration which prove DRLs work. People said the same thing about the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp, and after they were made law, guess what? After a period of time, people were crashing into the back of each other just as much as when they didn't exist. What may sound logical doesn't always work, because we are dealing with people, not machines.

By the way, my study shows that DRLs have backfired for GM. Ever since they have been putting DRLs on their cars, their industry market share has just kept dropping and dropping. Reason: People see DRLs as a public nuisance.

Michael

[Bully13]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Which comes on you start the truck?

X3

Is there a switch... have to call onstar... what?

[evldave]

Now multiply those two bulbs by the millions of vehicles on the roads daily and see how much fossil fuel is involved. Its in the megawatts. It's amazing that so few people can see beyond just their own vehicle. Alternators are notoriously inefficient, too. Combine that with the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine, and you have nothing but waste.

Then take a fuking walk. If the everything on an automobile has 0.01% inefficiency, we'd all be fuked, since there are millions of automobiles. YOU ARE A TROLL. Go back to your Honda Insight forum and talk about how righteous your electric (fed by coal power plant) cars are.

I love this..."according to General Motors". Don't you think GM has a marketing angle on this? GM couldn't care less if they worked or didn't work as long as it sold more cars.

Believe it or not, the car manufacturers have just as much as a vested interested in this. Why? Because a$$holes like H3.007 will sue them at the drop of a hat. If they didn't have DRLs someone somewhere would sue them for not having DRLs. If they do have DRLs, someone somewhere (probably has) sued them for being distracted and causing an accident. By the nature of the free market and litigation, companies (all companies) know that not pissing off the masses is the best approach to business.

You can quote all these studies, but so far the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found them to be flawed or incomplete. They have found no study of STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, with controls, and of long enough duration which prove DRLs work. People said the same thing about the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp, and after they were made law, guess what? After a period of time, people were crashing into the back of each other just as much as when they didn't exist. What may sound logical doesn't always work, because we are dealing with people, not machines.

Show me a study on 3rd brake lights, I'll show you one that is the opposite. This is about common sense. I f'in HATE DRLs on vehicles, but I also know, because I'm a normal human being with common sense, that lights are easier to see than cars. Drive west at sunset sometime, idiot, you'll agree (wait, you don't drive because alternators are inefficient).


By the way, my study shows that DRLs have backfired for GM. Ever since they have been putting DRLs on their cars, their industry market share has just kept dropping and dropping. Reason: People see DRLs as a public nuisance.

At the same time, your IQ has decreased (guarateed, studies show IQ decreases with age). Also at the same time, the incidence of breast cancer has decreased, which means Daytime Running Lights have caused the decrease in breast cancer!! I think this is due to the headlight syndrom.:D



Michael dumba$$ ****monger environmentalist anti-alternator craplogic troll!

[f5fstop]

Now multiply those two bulbs by the millions of vehicles on the roads daily and see how much fossil fuel is involved. Its in the megawatts. It's amazing that so few people can see beyond just their own vehicle. Alternators are notoriously inefficient, too. Combine that with the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine, and you have nothing but waste.
Ok, tell me you have disconnected your A/C, remember it runs in defrost mode. In addition, all those other vehicles have disconnected their A/C and drive at or below the speed limits.



I love this..."according to General Motors". Don't you think GM has a marketing angle on this? GM couldn't care less if they worked or didn't work as long as it sold more cars.
Actually, this is not a study on if they are effective, it is a statement on the cost per vehicle. Let's forget all the other studies done by non-interested parties.



You can quote all these studies, but so far the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found them to be flawed or incomplete. They have found no study of STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, with controls, and of long enough duration which prove DRLs work. People said the same thing about the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp, and after they were made law, guess what? After a period of time, people were crashing into the back of each other just as much as when they didn't exist. What may sound logical doesn't always work, because we are dealing with people, not machines.

Where are these studies? I know for a fact Canada and Europe has found them to be very effective. More extensive studies on the third brake light, and it has proven it helps reduce rear enders. Now, I supposed you will blame this law on GM. Sorry it was a Federal Law.

By the way, my study shows that DRLs have backfired for GM. Ever since they have been putting DRLs on their cars, their industry market share has just kept dropping and dropping. Reason: People see DRLs as a public nuisance.
Your studies. Do you mean as in YOU, or studies you have read, and if so, where are they? As for your idea that the DRL has dropped their market share...excuse me, you show your complete ignorance.



Michael

I'm beginning to think you are a TROLL. You blast something you don't like...fine, that's not a problem. But to blast make statements that are ludicrous shows your ignorance, and almost proves you are what you are a troll.
Your last statement really shows you have no idea what you are talking about, Ford is also losing market share at the same pace as GM, Nissan is losing at approximately 7 percent per year, and do they use DRLs?

I still say for a person who supposedly owns a Hummer, you sure are worried about that three bucks a year in fuel costs. My advice, get a Honda.
I have said enough, now go back to the Honda forum.

[Michael1]

I'm the troll here? Obviously, when you have HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of light bulbs burning, it is going to use up a lot of energy (that is if you can multiply). In this case, it is for no reason. But even if there was a reason, the fact a couple of people here fail to acknowlege the magnitude of the energy consumption makes THEM the TROLLS.

Of course, you won't get these trolls to make any distinction of the effectiveness of DRLs in different climates. Funny how these studies all seem to take place in the far northern reaches of the globe, where ambient light levels are a lot lower during much of the year compared to the lower 48 of the U.S. You'll never hear any of that perspective from the DRL trolls.

Of course, the DRL trolls won't tell you that most of these studies were performed with a percentage of cars with DRLs, and a percentage without. They leave out the results of what happens with ALL vehicles have DRLs.

The DRL trolls don't tell you when the flawed data shows improved results that have nothing to do with DRLs, such as single vehicle collisions, like someone running off the road.

Even if I went to the trouble to dig up the data from NHTSA (which it is all there), because we have trolls here, it wouldn't do a bit of good. These people are the type who just have nothing better to do than sit on their keyboards and arses all day, and argue based on what happens to pop into their heads at the moment ("Duh, I can see better with the lights" mentality), while ignoring all other data, a bit like conspiracy theorists.

Oh, and guess what else have failed for all you trolls? Antilock brakes. Sorry no reduction in accidents over the long term. Chew on that bone for a while.

So if and when this discussion returns with a shred of intellectual dialog, let me know, and I will present some of the findings to the non-trolls. The trolls can just close their eyes and ears, which shouldn't be too hard, since that's their modus operandi.

Michael

"The world is still flat for some people. They'll point to the horizon as proof."

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Buh-bye ... thanks for coming ... uh-huh ... buh-bye.

This is you ... blah-blah-blah.
This is me ... buh-bye

So ... buh-bye now ... ok then ... buh-bye

[HummerNewbie]

I could really give a rats ass what these studies you keep referencing have to say and until you link to some I am sure nobody else will either. Anyone can find studies that back up their point of view and if they don't link to them, then all they have to do is pretend they saw the report. I could also care less if my H3 has DRLs or not. My opinion of whether they are beneficial or not is based on the fact that I know I can see a vehicle coming better with DRLs than one without and I live in sunny FL (well, not sunny today) so the argument about ambient light levels really doesn't carry any weight with me. Each person is entitled to their own opinion on the matter and that does not make them a troll just because they have one that differs from yours. The reason that comments were made about your being a troll have to do with your fuel usage comments. The additional usage of fuel due to the DRLs is so pathetically minimal compared to everything else in the vehicle that I have a hard time believing that anyone other than a leaf licker would use it. Could be wrong but that sure is how it comes across.

[fourfourto]

?

Back to a real question:D

Can you change the corner lights to the headlights easy
Why would hummer change it :confused:

Im not sure what one looks better, corner or headlights.

I do know you get a insurance discount for the corner lights being on :cool:

[dеiтайожни]

I'm with Michael, save the Earth. Now, Michael, join me in unplugging our modems, because those LEDs are fu.cken useless! It's proven. Not to mention the millions of lights used in locations that keep the internet running in places people rarely travel.

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/4944/h58em.gif

[HummerNewbie]

I'm with Michael, save the Earth. Now, Michael, join me in unplugging our modems, because those LEDs are fu.cken useless! It's proven. Not to mention the millions of lights used in locations that keep the internet running in places people rarely travel.

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/4944/h58em.gif

LMAO :D

[Sewie]

Hey Mikey, GFY! :)

And would you mind not posting here anymore. Because then I read your posts and my computer may stay on for a couple more seconds (of course, that doesn't even count the time to reply :( ). I'd hate to think of all the energy your posts may be wasting.

[f5fstop]

Back to a real question:D

Can you change the corner lights to the headlights easy
Why would hummer change it :confused:

Im not sure what one looks better, corner or headlights.

I do know you get a insurance discount for the corner lights being on :cool:

You should get a discount for DRL; whether they be signals or headlamps. My insurance agent noted that when I got the vehicle, also got the discount for the Vette, which uses signals, but not for the Jeep. (Farm Bureau)

As for why did they change, the magic word is GLOBAL. In some countries, the DRLs must be headlamps. So, a wiring change was made to make the DRLs all as common as possible. Don't ask me why the electrical guys didn't think of this in the beginning, since they knew the H3G was in the works.
As for a change, right now I can't say. The BCM controls the DRLs on my vehicle, via the signals bulbs. The turn signal lever and hazard switch signal the BCM that the flashers must be used, and the BCM then flashes the signals as required (flashers override the DRLs).
So far, the wiring has not been updated for the headlamp DRLs, but I have to assume the BCM is controlling these also, with the headlamp switch or light sensor overriding the DRLs. The BCM also controls the headlamps on the older style H3, via relays.

My guess is it can be done, but my guess is it might require a new BCM and/or a new wiring harness, or at the least a new BCM calibration.


I personally, prefer the signal bulbs as DRLs. In my opinion, they are easier to see, but that is probably a process of my old eyeballs, and certainly isn't based on anything else. Especially since I have seen some studies where the headlamps are more noticeable than the signals.

(Did the troll go bye-bye:D )

[Steve - SanJose]

Maybe the troll will explain that removing the small GM nameplates will save gas too...

[HummBebe]

I'm the troll here? Obviously, when you have HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of light bulbs burning, it is going to use up a lot of energy (that is if you can multiply). In this case, it is for no reason. But even if there was a reason, the fact a couple of people here fail to acknowlege the magnitude of the energy consumption makes THEM the TROLLS.

Of course, you won't get these trolls to make any distinction of the effectiveness of DRLs in different climates. Funny how these studies all seem to take place in the far northern reaches of the globe, where ambient light levels are a lot lower during much of the year compared to the lower 48 of the U.S. You'll never hear any of that perspective from the DRL trolls.

Of course, the DRL trolls won't tell you that most of these studies were performed with a percentage of cars with DRLs, and a percentage without. They leave out the results of what happens with ALL vehicles have DRLs.

The DRL trolls don't tell you when the flawed data shows improved results that have nothing to do with DRLs, such as single vehicle collisions, like someone running off the road.

Even if I went to the trouble to dig up the data from NHTSA (which it is all there), because we have trolls here, it wouldn't do a bit of good. These people are the type who just have nothing better to do than sit on their keyboards and arses all day, and argue based on what happens to pop into their heads at the moment ("Duh, I can see better with the lights" mentality), while ignoring all other data, a bit like conspiracy theorists.

Oh, and guess what else have failed for all you trolls? Antilock brakes. Sorry no reduction in accidents over the long term. Chew on that bone for a while.

So if and when this discussion returns with a shred of intellectual dialog, let me know, and I will present some of the findings to the non-trolls. The trolls can just close their eyes and ears, which shouldn't be too hard, since that's their modus operandi.

Michael

"The world is still flat for some people. They'll point to the horizon as proof."


http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a240/HummBeeBe/STFUBunny.jpg

[HumbleAg]

[quote=f5fstop]As for why did they change, the magic word is GLOBAL. In some countries, the DRLs must be headlamps. So, a wiring change was made to make the DRLs all as common as possible. Don't ask me why the electrical guys didn't think of this in the beginning, since they knew the H3G was in the works.
As for a change, right now I can't say. The BCM controls the DRLs on my vehicle, via the signals bulbs. The turn signal lever and hazard switch signal the BCM that the flashers must be used, and the BCM then flashes the signals as required (flashers override the DRLs).
So far, the wiring has not been updated for the headlamp DRLs, but I have to assume the BCM is controlling these also, with the headlamp switch or light sensor overriding the DRLs. The BCM also controls the headlamps on the older style H3, via relays.

My guess is it can be done, but my guess is it might require a new BCM and/or a new wiring harness, or at the least a new BCM calibration.


I personally, prefer the signal bulbs as DRLs. In my opinion, they are easier to see, but that is probably a process of my old eyeballs, and certainly isn't based on anything else. Especially since I have seen some studies where the headlamps are more noticeable than the signals.
quote]


Thanks for the info. Was wondering why this thread went so wrong and if I'd ever get an answer to the original question. I personally like the dim headlights better than corner lights, but only because I grew to despise people driving with parking lights and fog lights on. Seems like that was an early 80's Trans Am thing. Was totally ignorant as far as I can tell, why would you need fog lights and not regular headlights? Just having the corner lights on seems similar to me (although I know DRLs make the truck easier to see).

Maybe mullet-head is still trolling around and can answer why they thought that was cool.

:D

[Michael1]

I think I just heard the bell ring. Isn't time for you children to get back to class?

[dеiтайожни]

I think I just heard the bell ring. Isn't time for you children to get back to class?

You think you just heard a school bell? It's 2:30am est, maybe you should go see if you have a tumor tomorrow...

[evldave]

I think the marker (aka stud) lights are best. I don't like (aka hate) the dimmed headlights. Way back in da winna of '45 I'd drive my Nova w/stud lights on, no DRLs, just studs. Why? It looked good and was more visible. My H3 is the first vehicle I got w/DRLs and I actually checked what the lights would look like before I bought the rig. I'm happy w/the marker lights as DRLs, and know they also help (but not as much as DRL headlights) reduce accidents. Maybe someday they will make warning sirens when you are stupid enough to pass the center lane, then there's no need for DRLs...

[dеiтайожни]

x2, the corner drl are the best. They look especially great on a black truck with black grille. :D I like looking at them in the reflection of other cars. ;)

[Michael1]

College Station, TX - General Motors has recently announced the results of a study claiming that 17,000 vehicle crashes have been avoided due to the use of daytime running lights (DRLs). The GM press release is based on a presentation given to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on November 9, 1999. Before we all jump for joy and sing the praises of DRLs, let's take a closer look at GM's news.

First, GM's press release claims that the results were from an "independent study." Well, "independent" is a relative term. The study was independent in that it was not conducted in-house by GM. Rather, GM commissioned Exponent Failure Analysis Associates of San Francisco to conduct the study for them. Immediately, we see that GM has an economic interest in the success of DRLs, and is willing to finance an "independent" study to support their crash avoidance claims. Because of the relationship between the external analysis firm and GM, one must already question the validity of the results.

Next, GM gives a little history of DRLs. In 1990, GM petitioned NHTSA to allow DRLs based on data from Scandanavian countries. The studies from several countries where DRLs are required have been called into question by a report entitled, "Thirty years on: Do motorcar daytime lights reduce accidents?" from Stephen Prower, Research Officer for the British Motorcyclists Federation. Mr. Prower's report questions the methods used by researchers to support the mandated DRLs in the Scandanavian countries and Canada, casting doubt on the DRL proponents' claims of collision avoidance.

The data used in the GM sponsored study compares collision rates of GM, Volvo, Saab, and Volkswagen vehicles before and immediately after the introduction of DRLs on particular models. Immediately, the analysis becomes artificially biased due to the lack of data from non-DRL vehicles. Such data could have been used as a control to filter out other contributing factors to crash avoidance. Such factors might include a change in driving habits, year-to-year weather changes, and other crash avoidances devices, such as anti-lock brakes, becoming more prominent.

A closer look at GM's presentation in DOT's docket reveals that GM claims that DRLs reduce multivehicle collisions --- at night. GM didn't bother to mention this silly statistic in their press release. While there are some drivers who fail to turn on their headlights at night, their numbers are probably very small and quantifying them in a statistical study is nearly impossible. Some DRL equipped vehicles do not have an automatic headlight option. Intuitively, one would assume that such vehicles may be involved in more nighttime collisions since the taillights are not illuminated with the DRLs. GM's claim of a reduction nighttime collisions casts a serious shadow of doubt on the entire study.

GM's press release claims that their DRLs do not cause "disabling glare." This statement is very questionable. Many of GM's vehicles have a DRL intensity at or near the limit of 7000 candela specified by the NHTSA 1993 rule change. However, NHTSA has acknowledged that "discomfort glare" sets in at 2600 candela. Discomfort glare causes drivers to avoid looking into oncoming traffic as well as switching their rearview mirrors to the Night position to avoid the glare from DRLs. Unfortunately, both of these practices run counter to safe driving. Further, in an already bright environment the DRLs add to the visual clutter that drivers must endure and can increase driver anxiety and even provoke road rage.

GM's summary in their presentatation even acknowledges, "the crash reduction benefit of DRLs is difficult to determine with precision." Let's take GM at their word and disregard this inaccurate study. Researchers have spent years trying to massage crash data to support DRL effectiveness, and this appears to be yet another failed attempt.

The GM presentation to NHTSA has been filed at the Department of Transportation's docket management system as NHTSA-98-4124-350.

[evldave]

College Station, TX - General Motors has recently announced the results of a study claiming that 17,000 vehicle crashes have been avoided due to ...

blah blah blah

...even acknowledges, "the crash reduction benefit of DRLs is difficult to determine with precision." Let's take GM at their word and disregard this inaccurate study. Researchers have spent years trying to massage crash data to support DRL effectiveness, and this appears to be yet another failed attempt.

The GM presentation to NHTSA has been filed at the Department of Transportation's docket management system as NHTSA-98-4124-350.

And your point is?

[HummBebe]

x2, the corner drl are the best. They look especially great on a black truck with black grille. :D I like looking at them in the reflection of other cars. ;)

Heh, X2

[HummBebe]

College Station, TX - General Motors has recently announced the results of a study claiming that 17,000 vehicle crashes have been avoided due to the use of daytime running lights (DRLs). The GM press release is based on a presentation given to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on November 9, 1999. Before we all jump for joy and sing the praises of DRLs, let's take a closer look at GM's news.

First, GM's press release claims that the results were from an "independent study." Well, "independent" is a relative term. The study was independent in that it was not conducted in-house by GM. Rather, GM commissioned Exponent Failure Analysis Associates of San Francisco to conduct the study for them. Immediately, we see that GM has an economic interest in the success of DRLs, and is willing to finance an "independent" study to support their crash avoidance claims. Because of the relationship between the external analysis firm and GM, one must already question the validity of the results.

Next, GM gives a little history of DRLs. In 1990, GM petitioned NHTSA to allow DRLs based on data from Scandanavian countries. The studies from several countries where DRLs are required have been called into question by a report entitled, "Thirty years on: Do motorcar daytime lights reduce accidents?" from Stephen Prower, Research Officer for the British Motorcyclists Federation. Mr. Prower's report questions the methods used by researchers to support the mandated DRLs in the Scandanavian countries and Canada, casting doubt on the DRL proponents' claims of collision avoidance.

The data used in the GM sponsored study compares collision rates of GM, Volvo, Saab, and Volkswagen vehicles before and immediately after the introduction of DRLs on particular models. Immediately, the analysis becomes artificially biased due to the lack of data from non-DRL vehicles. Such data could have been used as a control to filter out other contributing factors to crash avoidance. Such factors might include a change in driving habits, year-to-year weather changes, and other crash avoidances devices, such as anti-lock brakes, becoming more prominent.

A closer look at GM's presentation in DOT's docket reveals that GM claims that DRLs reduce multivehicle collisions --- at night. GM didn't bother to mention this silly statistic in their press release. While there are some drivers who fail to turn on their headlights at night, their numbers are probably very small and quantifying them in a statistical study is nearly impossible. Some DRL equipped vehicles do not have an automatic headlight option. Intuitively, one would assume that such vehicles may be involved in more nighttime collisions since the taillights are not illuminated with the DRLs. GM's claim of a reduction nighttime collisions casts a serious shadow of doubt on the entire study.

GM's press release claims that their DRLs do not cause "disabling glare." This statement is very questionable. Many of GM's vehicles have a DRL intensity at or near the limit of 7000 candela specified by the NHTSA 1993 rule change. However, NHTSA has acknowledged that "discomfort glare" sets in at 2600 candela. Discomfort glare causes drivers to avoid looking into oncoming traffic as well as switching their rearview mirrors to the Night position to avoid the glare from DRLs. Unfortunately, both of these practices run counter to safe driving. Further, in an already bright environment the DRLs add to the visual clutter that drivers must endure and can increase driver anxiety and even provoke road rage.

GM's summary in their presentatation even acknowledges, "the crash reduction benefit of DRLs is difficult to determine with precision." Let's take GM at their word and disregard this inaccurate study. Researchers have spent years trying to massage crash data to support DRL effectiveness, and this appears to be yet another failed attempt.

The GM presentation to NHTSA has been filed at the Department of Transportation's docket management system as NHTSA-98-4124-350.


DAYUM, you have way too much time on your hands:rolleyes:

PONTIFICATOR

[Michael1]

Maybe mullet-head is still trolling around and can answer why they thought that was cool.

:D

Uh, maybe for use in fog?:rolleyes:

[HummerNewbie]

What was the point of posting this "report"? GM paid for a study so that means that it automatically has to be biased? The whole thing came across to me as a biased report. Was there one fact in there that proved the study was biased or that it was incorrect? I might have missed something but don't think I will waste my time rereading it :rolleyes:

As I have said before, I could care less what the studies say. Based on my personal experience I believe they do have a safety benefit. You don't feel that way and that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion. What I do have to ask though, is why to do DRLs enrage you so much? Did a DRL attack you or something? I for one just don't get why anyone would spend some much time arguing against something so insignificant :rolleyes:

[f5fstop]

Michael, that is a GM study, what would you think a manufacturer would release?
Where are those independent studies you are talking about, and what would they prove anyway. I posted only independent studies, except for the cost figures that yes, were run by GM.
Your contention that running DRLs uses too much fuel, is ludicrous, when you also make the assumption you are driving a H3.
Therefore, I have to assume you are a troll, since it makes absolutely no sense to anyone so far, that your worries about the $3.00 in extra costs for DRL usage when driving a vehicle that maxes out about 20 mpg highway, are warranted.
So, if you don't like DRLs fine, not everyone will, so sell the H3. If you are really worried about fossil fuels, then sell the Hummer and get a Honda Insight or some other vehicle that will save fossil fuels. But to link the fact that DRLs uses a small minute amount of fossil fuels while driving around in a H3, is laughable.
Pesonally, I'm done. I have better things to do than discuss this issue with someone who makes no sense about an issue.

[HumbleAg]

Uh, maybe for use in fog?:rolleyes:

Hey Mullet Head, is that you? If not, you are a great stand-in.

Fog lights are for use aiding the low beam headlights in fog, not to replace them. Read the owners manual in the Mulletmobile.

I'm somewhat bored with this discussion.

[Michael1]

Michael, that is a GM study, what would you think a manufacturer would release?
Where are those independent studies you are talking about, and what would they prove anyway. I posted only independent studies, except for the cost figures that yes, were run by GM.

Does anyone read anything here? GM's study showed DRLs improving the accident rate at NIGHT! How does a DAYTIME Running Lamp improve your accident rate at night? What more proof do you need to know the study is flawed?

Your contention that running DRLs uses too much fuel, is ludicrous, when you also make the assumption you are driving a H3.

First off, not everyone is driving an H3. Second, the H3 uses fuel because it has an off-road purpose. Turning on lights for no reason only has the purpose of making GM happy.

30 million vehicles on road during day x 2 DRL lamps x 20 watts each (half power headlamps) = 1200 megawatts.

That's as much as good sized nuclear plant. That doesn't sound insignificant to me. In fact, one year of DRLs in the US is enough to provide all the residential electricity for the state of Vermont for almost three months.

1,200,000,000 watts x 10 hours of daylight / 0.6 alternator efficiency / 0.2 engine efficiency / 1000 watts/kW/ 32.6 kW-hr per gallon of gasoline w/10% ethanol = 3,072,000 gallons of gasoline burned PER DAY for DRLs.

Therefore, I have to assume you are a troll, since it makes absolutely no sense to anyone so far, that your worries about the $3.00 in extra costs for DRL usage when driving a vehicle that maxes out about 20 mpg highway, are warranted.

You're smarter than this. Stop hiding behind this "troll" nonsense. Give it a break.

This GM $3 figure per year sounds bogus.

15,000 miles per year / 35 avg. miles per hour x 0.8 daytime = 343 hours/year

Let's say gas is $3/gallon (even though it is far more in my area). That gets you 32.55 kW-hr of energy.

32.55 kw-hr of energy bought for $3 / 343 hours/year x 0.6 alternator efficiency x 0.2 engine efficiency = 11.4 watts. If GM is now running half power headlamps, that's on the order of 40 to 55 watts. Interesting disparity.

So, if you don't like DRLs fine, not everyone will, so sell the H3.

No need to sell. I just disable them, although if they end up making too hard, I'll give my $$$ to another manufacturer.

The point here is GM is trying to ram DRLs down everyone's throat. Now that their marketing experiment has failed, they have been lobbying NHTSA to mandate DRLs just so they don't end up with egg on their face. That's the part I find reprehensible.

Michael

[dеiтайожни]

Michael, you're an idiot.

[HummBebe]

There is a new law in CA. If your windshield wipers are on, your lights must be on. Dunno, but it sounds like CA is on the DRL bandwagon.

[deserth3]

New York was that way 10 years ago. haven't been there recently so I don't know if they still are.

[evldave]

No need to sell. I just disable them, although if they end up making too hard, I'll give my $$$ to another manufacturer.



I hope someday I know what your H3 is. Then, I'll drive down the road, see you coming the other way (without your DRLs), I'll hit you head on, then have H3.007 sue your sorry a$$ for not being responsible because you have a chip on your shoulder about GM.

Question, were you canned by them at some time in the past? You seem to know a fair amount of valuable info, but you seem to be a bitter person, lashing out a GM or hummer's at every opportunity.

Yet, you still chose to own one. Is this because you secretly love The General, but deny your own desires for acceptance and inclusion because you were once rejected? I can see how this could be a hard time for you. Therapy works well - everyone on this forum loves you - we may not all show it in the same way - for example, I think you are a complete dick - but everyone is here if you want to talk about your latent tendency to blame The General for something from your past.

[evldave]

1

[evldave]

2

[Michael1]

Hey Mullet Head, is that you? If not, you are a great stand-in.

Fog lights are for use aiding the low beam headlights in fog, not to replace them. Read the owners manual in the Mulletmobile.

I'm somewhat bored with this discussion.

This is from Daniel Stern, a lighting consultant:

"To answer the original question of whether fogs are meant to be used with
or without headlamps:

In general, it is not appropriate and not safe (and in many places, not
legal) to drive with only parking and fog lamps at any time. In fact, it's
a poor idea (and in many places, not legal) to drive with fog lamps (even
with headlamps on) unless weather conditions warrant their use. Some
jurisdictions explicitly permit fog lamps to be used "in lieu of" (rather
than "in supplement to") headlamps when weather conditions so warrant.
Current human-factors research (e.g. Sivak and Flannagan, 1997) shows that there are situations (extremely adverse weather conditions) in which running with properly-designed fogs and full position marking lamps (parking lamps, sidemarkers, taillamps) but no headlamps can be of great advantage. However, the local laws that prohibit the use of fogs without headlamps aren't likely to change until Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 (and Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108) are modified to contain a meaningful performance standard for fog lamps.

More detail:

Fog and driving lamp performance is not regulated under FMVSS 108 or any
other Federal standard. The only proviso is that items unregulated by
FMVSS may not be installed in a manner that would interfere with the
function of FMVSS-required equipment. For instance, fog lamps may not
obscure or glare-out the turn signals or cover-up the headlamps. The lack
of a precise performance specification for fog and drive lamps means that
a manufacturer can call just about anything a "fog" lamp (or a "driving")
lamp. Many of the factory fog lamps on US and Canadian roads do little,
if anything, to illuminate the road--though many of them do a fine job of
illuminating other drivers' retinas. In Europe, fog and drive beams are
required to conform to specific beam pattern criteria. The toy plastic
items we get here are not acceptable over there. Because "fog lamp" has a
meaningful definition in Europe and it is possible to count on such a lamp
producing at least a specific performance level, fog lamp usage laws allow
more flexibility to use the lamps in such a manner as to maximize their
benefit.


NHTSA is currently working with ECE (European) regulators to devise a fog
lamp beam standard that is said to be an improvement even on the
already-good European beam. It's a step in the right direction,
certainly, but I remain skeptical until I actually see such a lamp.
We've been stuck with too much really bad lighting from US regulators for
too long for me to trust what they say."

Michael

[HummerNewbie]

Does anyone read anything here? GM's study showed DRLs improving the accident rate at NIGHT! How does a DAYTIME Running Lamp improve your accident rate at night? What more proof do you need to know the study is flawed?

Ok, I have to comment on this statement. I did see that in your original post and it is a ludicrous finding but how is that proof that the study is flawed? Sure, it is an idiotic thing to put in the report but how does that effect the rest of the study?

As for the rest of your post, didn't really bother reading all of it, just bits and pieces. I do have to ask though, who wronged you so bad that you feel the need to put so much time and energy into convincing people that DRLs are bad. Was the individual that came up with DRLs your father and he left you and your mother when your were little or maybe he did something worse to you? It is also about time you give up on the whole fuel consumption argument. You can through all the math out there that you want (which I saw a flaw or two in the little bit I looked at) and it doesn't make any difference, you sound like a troll or even an AE just trying to stir the pot. Just so you can prove you are neither, post some pics of you wheeling your H3. Since you used the argument that the H3 gets lower MPG because of its off road capability and you are so concerned about fuel consumption you must have bought it to wheel. So lets see the pics.

Well, that helped pass a little bit of time :)

[usetosellhummer]

light is good, dark is bad

[Michael1]

You can through all the math out there that you want (which I saw a flaw or two in the little bit I looked at)

OK, so where is the flaw(s), so I can correct it?

Michael

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Does anyone read anything here? GM's study showed DRLs improving the accident rate at NIGHT! How does a DAYTIME Running Lamp improve your accident rate at night? What more proof do you need to know the study is flawed?
This does not discredit the study. There is good reason to include nighttime crash statics in an analysis of DRLs. For example:

1. Many DRLs are controlled by a light sensor, which automatically turns on full wattage and activates marker lights during dusk/dawn/night. With nothing to forget, the driver's risk could decrease.
2. Drivers with DRLs that aren't controlled by a light sensor may forget to turn them on. This leaves their car with headlights at half power and no tail/marker lights during dusk/dawn/night hours. The driver's risk could rise.
3. Headlamps burn out more quickly with DRL than without. If a lamp burns out at dusk/dawn/night, the driver's risk could rise.
4. Including nighttime statistics also eliminates the variables of winter/summer daylight hours and the need to define "dusk" and "dawn".

Most of these variables were called out in the study ... didn't you read it?

[dеiтайожни]

30 million vehicles on road during day x 2 DRL lamps x 20 watts each (half power headlamps) = 1200 megawatts.

1,200,000,000 watts x 10 hours of daylight / 0.6 alternator efficiency / 0.2 engine efficiency / 1000 watts/kW/ 32.6 kW-hr per gallon of gasoline w/10% ethanol = 3,072,000 gallons of gasoline burned PER DAY for DRLs.

You can explain this one further, I must be missing something.

You are saying just the DRLs of 30 million passenger vehicles, around 10% of the nations registered passenger vehicles, account for about 1% of the entire nations gas usage a day? What does the engine of just these 30 million passenger vehicles use? 1,000,000% of the nations daily gas consumption? :rolleyes:

[HumbleAg]

Holy crap, now I've gone from somewhat bored to totally bored.

MIchael, you obviously aren't the true mullethead (all his crap was made up), but I nominate you as an honorary mullethead just for continuing an argument no one cares about.

So, what's your take on airbags? (Please don't answer that, it was just a smart-ass comment)

[Michael1]

You can explain this one further, I must be missing something.

You are saying just the DRLs of 30 million passenger vehicles, around 10% of the nations registered passenger vehicles, account for about 1% of the entire nations gas usage a day? What does the engine of just these 30 million passenger vehicles use? 1,000,000% of the nations daily gas consumption? :rolleyes:

Here's the part you are missing. That is 30 million passenger vehicles on the road in any one hour during the 10 hours of daylight. I guess that figure could have been clearer.

Michael

[HummerNewbie]

That is 30 million passenger vehicles on the road in any one hour during the 10 hours of daylight. I guess that figure could have been clearer.

Michael

That right there was one item I was talking about because as I scanned through you post it came across like you were saying the vehicles were on the road 10 hours a day. As in each of them running 10 hours a day. Doesn't really change anything since it is such a pointless argument anyway so I'm not going to go back and reread it. Bottom line is you don't like DRLs, will go to most any extent to convince everyone they are the destroying the world and it is all the evil generals fault even though nobody here really seems to cares. I think that about covers it. You are entitled to your opinion but at the same time so is everyone else.

[Sewie]

:rolleyes:

http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-Sucks-Chick_suck.gif

[Michael1]

This does not discredit the study. There is good reason to include nighttime crash statics in an analysis of DRLs. For example:

1. Many DRLs are controlled by a light sensor, which automatically turns on full wattage and activates marker lights during dusk/dawn/night. With nothing to forget, the driver's risk could decrease.

What percentage of cars do you see driving around at night with no lights on? It is not zero, but it is pretty close to it.


4. Including nighttime statistics also eliminates the variables of winter/summer daylight hours and the need to define "dusk" and "dawn".


It doesn't eliminate variables. It ADDS a control variable. The statistics shouldn't change one bit with or without DRLs at night. If it does, you know there is noise in the data, and you use that to build a confidence band.

Michael

[FutureBeachBum]

I don't care!
I'm going to go pick the lint off my socks, it's more interesting

[Michael1]

There was press report last year that EU road casualties were little different from countries using DRL's than those not using DRL's. EU road safety data for 1989 - 1995 shows that Sweden is not as safe as the UK despite the use of DRL?s.

(source - The Times 03/06/98)
Fatalities per million miles
Britain
64
Sweden
65

In Canada there was a 12% reduction in accidents when DRL's were introduced, but during the same period there was a similar decrease in accidents the USA which did not widely use DRL's at that time.

I understand in Australia that DRL's have been tried but abandoned due to no perceivable benefits.

One concern has been that DRLs on motorcycles are being masked by cars with DRLs. Motorcycles become less noticeable, and then involved in more collisions, many of them fatal. Motorcycle fatalities have shot up from 22.66 fatalities per million miles in 1994 to 38.38 in 2003. DRLs first widespread installation on GM cars was in 1995. We may be killing motorcyclists with automobile DRLs.

Michael

[dеiтайожни]

Motorcycle fatalities have shot up from 22.66 fatalities per million miles in 1994 to 38.38 in 2003. DRLs first widespread installation on GM cars was in 1995. We may be killing motorcyclists with automobile DRLs.

And does that have anything to do with the number of motorcycles on the road increasing between 1994 and 2003, or no?

First we are killing the planet with DRLs, now we are killing motorcyclists. They are probably responsible for aids, the holocaust and the existence of drugs too, right?

[Michael1]

And does that have anything to do with the number of motorcycles on the road increasing between 1994 and 2003, or no?

First we are killing the planet with DRLs, now we are killing motorcyclists. They are probably responsible for aids, the holocaust and the existence of drugs too, right?

If you read the post a little more carefully before shooting off at the keyboard, you'll notice the data was normalized per million miles.:rolleyes:

Michael

[dеiтайожни]

If you read the post a little more carefully before shooting off at the keyboard, you'll notice the data was normalized per million miles.:rolleyes:

Michael

No, I noticed that. But there are still changes between the times that you conveniently left out to help your cause, whatever that may be. Not the first time you left out or exaggerated facts, and you just want unbiased reports. :confused: :rolleyes:

You also skipped the last part of my last post. So, now that our DRLs are responsible for killing the planet, accounting for 1% of the nations gas consumption everyday, and are responsible for the slaughtering of poor motorcyclists everyday. What's next on your list? Really, what happened between you and DRLs? My guess is, DRLs killed your father, raped your mother and molested you. So, out with it already.

Maybe you'll have less resistance on this topic elsewhere, like maybe the prius forums or another suv forum that needs a new troll.

[evldave]

If you read the post a little more carefully before shooting off at the keyboard, you'll notice the data was normalized per million miles.:rolleyes:

Michael

No, it's actually per 100 million miles. Just checked the NHTSA website.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2004/809908.pdf

AND, motorcycle accidents actually DROPPED when DRLs started being used (95-98).

1994 22.66
1995 22.73
1996 21.78
1997 20.99
1998 22.31
1999 23.46
2000 27.67
2001 33.17
2002 34.23
2003 38.93

Besides, none of this matters. I'm guessing that there are so many statistical variables, there there's no way with any level of confidence (at least a 95% confidence interval) to prove anything one way or the other. A common statistical fallacy is to assume since the average number changes that it's the result of something - without a real statistical analysis, there's no way to tell.

An example of a real statistical analysis is this:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.51ea2eb4d278d13bc22cf37490008a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef 9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a _viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=8c184e5e1adaff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard

[Michael1]

This from a 2000 NHTSA report on driving distractions:

Driving Distractions NHTSA Report (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-13/FinalInternetForumReport.pdf)

"Surprisingly, large numbers of comments posted in these areas addressed the use of Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs). Nearly all were negative comments relating to the practice. DRLs were perceived to needlessly draw attention away from the road, reduce the conspicuity of emergency vehicles and motorcycles, contribute to glare and driver fatigue, and cause other drivers to adapt their behavior in manners that may not be safe. The main concern appeared to be with the use of excessively bright lights. Calls for limits in brightness as well as research to document the effect of DRLs on crashes and the visibility of emergency vehicles were made by many participants."

Michael

[Michael1]

No, it's actually per 100 million miles. Just checked the NHTSA website.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2004/809908.pdf

AND, motorcycle accidents actually DROPPED when DRLs started being used (95-98).

[FONT=HelveticaNeue-Light][SIZE=1][LEFT]1994 22.66
1995 22.73
1996 21.78
1997 20.99
1998 22.31
1999 23.46
2000 27.67
2001 33.17
2002 34.23
2003 38.93



I stand corrected on the 100 million miles. I am not sure why you think the day GM puts its first DRL cars on the road, that the fatality rate should shoot up. You are just looking at noise. There is no doubt that the rate is skyrocketing starting in the year 2000. DRLs the cause? Maybe. DRLs on vehicles aren't going to help motorcyclists, especially if cars keep using headlamp based DRLs, instead of the turn signal type.

Michael

[Steve - SanJose]

Screw the DRL's, they should at least be driver-selectable.

And motorcyclists know that the recent rise in death rates won't be cured by DRLs alone. No doubt DRLs help motorcycles stand out, just as they help with auto visibility on country roads etc. But I've driven in Canada in the sea of DRLs and most of the time it adds no value. Don't trust the auto manufacturers alone and their spiel on safety. Remember how slow GM was to adopt ABS. And how come vehicle stability systems are not standard on all their SUVs if they are so concerned with safety? DRLs are cheap. Dollars and cents are more important, business is business.

Is this the new highway safety forum?:D

S.

[evldave]

:o Bump, just trying to keep this one on everyone's mind. DRLs are ruining the world, causing global :p warming, killing motorcyclists (and JFK!), destroying the Amazon and I think they might ac:( tually be the cause of R&:rolleyes: P breakage too!!:mad:

[HummBebe]

NO!!! DRL's are causing the R&P failures?????


WTF???;)

[evldave]

NO!!! DRL's are causing the R&P failures?????


WTF???;)

Didn't you know? I think Michael1's got a study that shows the UV rays from the DRLs of other cars actually penetrate the dif covers and affect the molecular structure of the gears. I think it has something to do with the wavelength of the UV light matching the 5/8 wave of the electromagnetic pulse from the electrovibration of the 4.56 gears in the hummer. It only happens when you get a harmonic vibration in 4LO w/the rear locked - that's why it only affects H3s.

[HummBebe]

Woooooooow;)

That's intense. I think we should get f5 back in on this one;)

[Steve - SanJose]

Wow them are gnarly DRLs !!!

S.