|
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
 |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
[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 |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
I think I just heard the bell ring. Isn't time for you children to get back to class?
|
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
You think you just heard a school bell? It's 2:30am est, maybe you should go see if you have a tumor tomorrow... |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
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...
|
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
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. ;)
|
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
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. |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
And your point is? |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
Heh, X2 |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
DAYUM, you have way too much time on your hands:rolleyes: PONTIFICATOR |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
Uh, maybe for use in fog?:rolleyes: |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
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: |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
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. |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
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. |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
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? Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
No need to sell. I just disable them, although if they end up making too hard, I'll give my $$$ to another manufacturer. The point here is GM is trying to ram DRLs down everyone's throat. Now that their marketing experiment has failed, they have been lobbying NHTSA to mandate DRLs just so they don't end up with egg on their face. That's the part I find reprehensible. Michael |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Michael, you're an idiot.
|
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
There is a new law in CA. If your windshield wipers are on, your lights must be on. Dunno, but it sounds like CA is on the DRL bandwagon.
|
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
New York was that way 10 years ago. haven't been there recently so I don't know if they still are.
|
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
I hope someday I know what your H3 is. Then, I'll drive down the road, see you coming the other way (without your DRLs), I'll hit you head on, then have H3.007 sue your sorry a$$ 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. |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
1 Attachment(s)
1
|
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
1 Attachment(s)
2
|
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
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 |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
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 :) |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
light is good, dark is bad
|
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
OK, so where is the flaw(s), so I can correct it? Michael |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
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? |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
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: |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
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) |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
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 |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
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. |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
:rolleyes:
 |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
Quote:
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. Quote:
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 |
Re: Daytime Running Lights changed ???
I don't care!
I'm going to go pick the lint off my socks, it's more interesting |
Re: Daytime Running Lights Data Full of Holes
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 |
Re: Daytime Running Lights Data Full of Holes
Quote:
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? |
Re: Daytime Running Lights Data Full of Holes
Quote:
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 |
Re: Daytime Running Lights Data Full of Holes
Quote:
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. |
Re: Daytime Running Lights Data Full of Holes
Quote:
No, it's actually per 100 million miles. Just checked the NHTSA website. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...004/809908.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_3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed 01891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCach eTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID= 8c184e5e1adaff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType= standard |
Re: The Public Views DRLs as a Distraction
This from a 2000 NHTSA report on driving distractions:
Driving Distractions NHTSA Report "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 |
Re: Daytime Running Lights Data Full of Holes
Quote:
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.