Chevrolet Malibu sales jump 51.5%; dealers pleased

There's other problems with DRLs, besides the particularly poor
implementation GM has done on vehicles by using the high beams at
reduced brightness.

Drivers with DRLs often forget to turn on their low beam headlights in
rain or fog and at dusk or dawn. This is especially dangerous because
the taillights do not come on until the low beams are turned on. Many
drivers believe that in rain or fog the DRLs are sufficient and fail to
turn on their low beams to activate their tail lights. When it is dark,
the lack of dashboard lights is an indicator that the low beams and tail
lights are not on, but in daytime conditions where the low beams should
be used there is no indication that the DRLs, not the lowbeams, are on.

In 1998, after receiving hundreds of complaints, NHTSA acknowledged that
the intensity limits were too high and proposed reductions in DRL
intensity. NHTSA cited a study by Kirkpatrick, et. al. (1989), that said
that at 2000cd, the glare from DRLs was rated at no worse than "just
unacceptable" in 80% of the responses. At 4000cd, the glare was rated no
worse than "disturbing" in 80% of the responses. These subjective
ratings are based on the DeBoer scale. Corresponding to these ratings,
they found that at 4000cd the probability that the rearview mirror would
be dimmed was about 70%. At 2000cd the dimming probability was 40%. At
1000cd, the dimming probability dropped to 10%.” The NHTSA has now
proposed that the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted.
Expect the automakers to oppose this since it would add cost to do DRLs
properly.

What’s good about DRLs is that they are proven to reduce head-on
collisions on two lane roads, especially at dawn and dusk. This is what
they were designed to do, and if they were implemented just to do this
then you wouldn't see much opposition to them. You often see signs on
roads in California proclaiming "Daylight Safety Test Section -- Turn on
Headlights." These are the places where DRLs would be useful. Sadly,
instead of coming up with a way to use DRLs only when appropriate,
certain parties would like them to be on all the time. Why? Money. It's
cheaper to implement a lame system than a well-designed system.

 

That sounds like a problem with the driver's, not the vehicle, or the DRL
system. Hell, I still see people on vehicles without auto lights driving
around in the pitch black with no headlights on. Should the auto makers
have to put a sign on the steering wheel to remind people to turn there
lights on? Of course not. Regardless of what systems the vehicle has, the
*driver* still needs to be in control, and needs to be intelligent enough to
operate it. DRL's, ABS, Traction Control, etc., are all great things, but
in the hands of a know-nothing driver, they are all useless.

A very heated DRL argument went on in the GM newsgroup last year, and it
ended up being some agreed with DRL's and there function, and others didn't.
Just like everything else in the world.

 

It's aggravated by the DRL system. These drivers often mistakenly
believe that their lights are on because of the DRLs, where if there
were no DRLs they'd actually be turning on their lights.

Actually the opinions don't really matter, it's the facts. The facts are
that DRLs do serve to increase visibility and reduce accidents in
certain situations, but according to statistical data, the only place
where there was a net reduction in fatalities was for pedestrians.

 

It would be worth looking into the archives of this group. The discussion
that took place on this topic previously, reveal a lot more "facts" about
what the statistics really show, than most people thought would be the
case.

 

Some people don't know how to use DRL's properly, so let's just get rid of
them.
Some people still haven't figured out that you're not supposed to pump the
brakes, when you have anti-locks. Let's get rid of them, too.

Some people oversteer after dropping one wheel off the roadway, and collide
with oncoming traffic. Let's get rid of that pesky power steering and save
people from themselves.
Some people leave their small children in cars with the windows up, till
they die.
Damn windows, let's get rid of them.

Hell, we don't need no reduction in pedestrian fatalities. Down with DLR's!!

 

The DRL's have nothing to do with it. If you own and operate a vehicle, you
should know when to turn your lights on, and when they can be off. Do we
get rid of every safety feature because some are too lazy to know how to use
them?

Facts scmaks. Back when the original argument went on in this group, there
were thousand's of "facts" presented. The only true "fact" is that most
automobiles are equipped with DRL's, and every driver should know what they
are, and when to actually use there true headlights.

 

You've hit on the problem, the safety features should be passive and not
make the vehicle actually more dangerous to operate for the owner, as
well as more dangerous to others on the road.

It's not only their problem that they're too lazy or dim-witted to
understand that DRLs do not equal headlights+tail lights, it's a problem
for everyone that's on the road with them.

 

Well, you said yourself that DRL's do increase visibility and reduce
accidents in certain situations. You also said that, according to
statistical data, the only place where there was a net reduction in
fatalities was for pedestrians. So what do we do? Cancel the DRL's, and
have innocent pedestrians (who aren't even driving a vehicle, by the way)
get killed, or force people to learn about there vehicles? Like I already
said, car's are full of safety features that, when used incorrectly, can
pose a huge safety risk. Some people still pump ABS equipped vehicles, so
do we get rid of ABS, just because some people don't know how it works?
That would be akin to getting rid of books, because some people can't read.
It's also like blaming the gun for the homicide, instead of the person
pulling the trigger. If DRL's are that much of a problem (which, they
aren't in Ontario), then people need to be taught how to use them correctly.

 

What you do is to implement a safety system that doesn't actually make
things worse. It would not be hard to have a warning light or sound that
warned when a driver only had their DRLs on at night or in low
visibility conditions.

You also mandate standards for DRLs so that especially bad
implementations of them, like GM has done on vehicles where they use the
high beam headlights, are illegal.

You keep saying that it's the driver of the vehicle with DRLs that
doesn't use them properly that's the problem, but you're not going to
fix that behavior problem, and meanwhile their cluelessness makes things
more dangerous for everyone.

The reason that the only statistical benefit of DRLs is pedestrians is
not because DRLs don't work, it's because their benefits in the
reduction of head-on collisions is being offset by how they contribute
to other accidents.

It really isn't asking too much for the manufacturers to implement them
properly, since this is already being done on many imports, such as
Volvos, Saabs, etc. There needs to be a way to over-ride them and there
needs to be a warning when the driver has _only_ their DRLs on at night
(or the warning can be simply when the driver doesn't have their
headlights on at night, regardless of the state of the DRLs).

 

You basically want the vehicle to have a warning system telling the driver
the DRL's are on, but it's nighttime, and the full headlights should be on?
GM's vehicles already have auto lights. When it gets dark, the headlights
come on by themselves. As for the high beam DRL's, they don't bother me in
the slightest, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

When the US Congress was considering making DRLs standard in the US, several
studies showed DRLs caused more accidents then the prevented. Particularly
at times of limited vision and increases in motorcycle accidents. Do a
search of the Congressional Record for the facts.

 

There's nothing wrong with DRLs'. Any I've seen.
The only problem is the anti-GM crowd that jumped on them because GM
was the first to make them standard in the U.S./Canada.
Did you know that GM plastic is "plastic" and Honda plastic is
"leather-like"?
They're seeing problems nobody else sees.
Prowlers and burglars have to disable them, in order to furtively
skulk around. Might be a real problem for them.
If you want to stare at DRL's, go ahead. Your eyes.
OTOH, there's those intense Euro headlights blinding everybody
at night.
BTW, the only time I touch the headlight switch in my DRL-equipped '97
Lumina is to turn on the interior lights.
There's a sensor that turns on all the normal night time lights when
it darkens. And they do go on in heavy rain.
Personally, I could do without that automation, but so far it has been
trouble-free.

--Vic

 

Wacko bullshit.
Even you could put something in the Congressional Record.
Might as well read the Old Farmer's Almanac.

--Vic

 

Can we assume you do not ride a motorcycle?

DRLs are NOT standard in the US, the Congress conclude years ago that they
caused more problems than the prevented.

 

Go to Committee reports, not member remarks and see for yourself why DRLs
were not made standard.

 

Yes, because that's the most common problem with DRL equipped vehicles.
The driver thinks that their lights are on because the DRLs (which are
usually brighter than European DRLs) are providing road illumination.
But they don't realize that their tail lights aren't on.

Nah, we don't have to disagree, anyone that doubts that high beam DRLs
annoy other drivers can simply read the NHTSA report, including the
NHTSA proposal that the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted
in the U.S..

 

The NHTSA study showed no increase or decrease from DRLs. DRLs increased
rates for some types of accidents and decreased them for others. The
only clear benefit of DRLs that was found was that pedestrians were more
likely to see vehicles with DRLs at dawn and dusk, and hence there was a
reduction in pedestrian fatalities.

 

Good assumption, but nothing to do with it. Daytime lights on bikes
have only proven good. Makes them more visible so you don't pull out
in front of them and cause an accident. I've seen it work.
Same for cars, especially the ones colored the same as the pavement,
including bumpers. Seen that too.

As I said, they are standard on U.S./Canada GM vehicles - as far as I
know. DRL's are the law in Canada.
Easier to standardize production.
Congress should give Canada the "facts" about DRL's.
Include that crap free with the "Waterboarding Manual."
Congress conclude? Might be a good idea.
Probably got paid by some anti-DRL greenie wackos via lobbyists.
DRL's burning use some gas, adding to global warming.
Are you part of that crowd?
Don't worry about it. You can bypass DRL's in the U.S. and do your
part to reduce global warming. Turn down the heat in the house just
to be sure.
I don't care much about DRL's one way or another, except for arguing
More concerned that my toaster doesn't zap me when I stick a fork in
there. So I don't.

--Vic

 

GM is part of that crowd. They got permission to disconnect DRLs when
conducting their EPA mileage tests. Considering that the amount of extra
fuel that DRLs use is extremely small, you have to wonder why they felt
compelled to disconnect them.

 

That is called "driver error". Has nothing to do with the DRL system.

Oh boy the NHTSA did a report! Seriously, neither you nor the NHTSA can
tell me what bothers my eyes at night, or anytime. DRL's have been standard
in Canada for years, and no one here complains about them. If you live in a
US state where DRL's are not required by law, and wish to disable them, that
is what you need to do. Like I said, agree to disagree.