Headlights going out

So, you buy a new car and immediately start tearing out the DRL's? Maybe
the light bulb in your head will one day tell you that not paying
attention to your driving is what causes accidents and not DRL's.....

I bet you drive while talking on your cell phone and don't wear seat
belts because you once heard that a person who wasn't wearing their seat
belt survived a fiery crash when they were thrown clear.

Uh-huh. That makes a lot of sense.

My Dad's been driving since 1945 and was rear-ended by a drunk driver in
1961..... I'll bet my Dad could beat your Dad in a fair fight!

Not in Pennsylvania - unless you drove a pick-em-up truck with the
bulbies on all the time (pickup truck with fog lamps). BTW, DRL's aren't
for seeing, they're for being seen.

Glare? In the daytime? This is crap. The sole reason I run with my
headlights on is so that moron drivers will take notice of my car at a
further distance than is normally possible. If you are drawn to my
headlights like a moth to a flame then you're a nitwit.

Truck? I should've known......

 

- Yes, I disabled my DRLs when I took delivery of my used truck in
2000. I will do it to any car that I buy.

- Yes, I was distracted in both instances. It would have happen whether
the other cars had DRLs or flashing lights or whatever. The fault was
not paying attention, you are correct and you are right that it had
nothing to do with DRLs. Thanks for verifying my point.

- I do drive while talking on my cell phone, absolutely. I always wear
my seatbelts, law or not.

By the way, with 2 accidents in 22 years, I stand by my driving. Oh,
also I drive over 30,000 miles a year, so my percentage of accidents
versus total driving is even lower.

- Note, I said most states, that obviously does not include all states.
Yes, DRLs are for being seen, I am glad you figured that out, LOL .

- Absolutely, maybe not for you, hmmm. Well anyway, if you ever have to
adjust your mirror or look away from a car during the day, it is
because of the glare. It is real, but perceptions do vary.

Quite honestly, if a person needs you to have your lights on so that
they can notice you way far away, then they shouldn't be driving. Your
car is visible without the lights, either way.

So, let me get this straigtht, you need DRLs so that people can see you
a long distance away when they aren't anywhere near you so that they
will focus on you and miss the car that is closer. I understand, LOL.

To clarify, it is not a "moth to a flame" it is a momentary visual
distraction that briefly pauses your gaze on a single object and allows
you to miss other objects that you should be seeing.

Nice name calling, LOL .

- Yep, a truck. You should have known, because that is what I said.

I only replied to you because you "tried" to talk about stuff. However,
you are just spouting off about certain things and calling names. That
type of activity adds nothing to the discussion. You need to do a
better job of not characterizing and belittling others. Your
condescending tone and stereotyping are noted.

Cheers

 

I almost hate to be the one to say it, but that's just plain stupid and
utterly pointless. Do you disconnect the airbags, too?

You really don't get it, do you. Several people have already said it,
but I'll reiterate: DRLs are not so the driver can see, they're so the
vehicle is easier for OTHERS to see at a distance. What is so hard to
understand about that. A good example is that a silver car on a gray
highway on an overcast day is difficult to separate from the background
at any distance, unless it has it's lights on, in which case it stands
out clearly.

 

Time to learn to shop. You can get bulbs a lot cheaper than that. Even
better quality bulbs like Sylvania Silverstars can be had for $25/pair
online.

 

- What is utterly pointless is the comment you just made. And it would
have been pointless to have my lights on during the day, just a waste.
I didn't disconnect the Airbags, but I wouldn't mind if they were .
Now, can you reply without calling someone stupid, please grace us with
some intelligent conversation, next time.

- Why you people keep trying to correct me, is not making any sense. I
never said that DRLs are to help the driver see forward from out of
their car, that is plain silly, why do you think that? I do know that
DRLs are supposed to help others see you, but in fact they just keep
you from seeing all of the inputs that you need to see to drive
properly in the daylight.

You wish to see cars at a distance, that have no relevance to your
current driving position. They are far enough way that they don't even
need to be considered by you. In fact, if you are having to strain to
see a car in the daylight, then either you can't see or the car is so
far away that you shouldn't be noticing it. All you people keep saying
is that you want to see cars in the distance, well you already could,
but you want to see them farther and farther away, I suppose. So, it is
so important that you see cars that are miles away from you that they
need to have their lights on in broad daylight, yeah sure, ROTFLOL.

Look, all I have said that we need to be able to see all traffic,
pedestrians, byciclists and other hazards equally and the only way to
do this is to leave the lights off during the day. The answer is not to
doubly concentrate to overcome the visual distraction of the lights.
The answer is not to see cars that are miles away. The answer is not to
call people stupid and make up silly things that were never said. And
finally the answer is not to run around with our lights on during the
day like a bunch of people with poor eyesight.

If you would stop just blindly accepting the next "safety innovation"
as a type of gospel and actually use your God given brains, you would
understand that people could see other cars before DRLs and they will
be able to see the cars just fine after we finally stop shining lights
in peoples faces.

What has been accomplished here is that you and others of your ilk,
have proven that all you can do is poke and prod and call people names.
This isn't a little schoolyard, so can you people please stop talking
like you are in elementary school and get on with some real
conversation.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry over you comments, they range
between a comedy and a tragedy.

Enough of this, either come up with something substantial to say or
don't say anything. The collective intellect of this list is creeping
downward with your posts, LOL .

God bless,

Larry

 

I didn't call you stupid, I called what you're doing stupid. Infer
whatever you want from it.

Because if you go back and read your own words, you'll see that's
exactly what you said several times.

Nonsense. Perhaps you're different from the rest of us, but I can see
just fine when other cars have DRLs on and I can see them at longer
distances, which is precisely what the DRLs are designed to do. FWIW, my
eyes are particularly sensitive to glare and bright lights, but I have
no problems with DRLs on other cars.

Exaggeration is not going to help your case. Of course there are
situations where DRLs aren't necessary, no one is disputing that.
Seatbelts, airbags, rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety
features aren't necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that
they should all be removed, too?

DRLs help one see the "big picture". Perhaps the vehicle in question is
not close enough to need to be actively dealt with, but if it's heading
toward you, it may be soon. Additionally, most input when driving is
processed on the subconscious level and automatically
filtered/prioritized by the brain based on need.

Again, that's nonsense. DRLs have nothing to do with one's ability to
see other things in one's environment.

Perhaps YOU find them to be a visual distraction, but that's probably
because you don't like them, for whatever reason, so you consciously
notice them. I don't find them distracting at all.

No one said that. It's just a red herring that you threw into the
discussion.

As I said above, I didn't call you stupid and you need to go back and
read what YOU wrote.

There you go again. DRLs have nothing to do with drivers' eyesight. They
have everything to do with making vehicles more visible to everyone,
regardless of their visual acuity.

I don't. I specifically eschew "features" that try to be smarter than
the driver or substitute technology for driver skill. That's why my car
doesn't have ABS or TCS. I prefer to learn how to handle my car in low
traction situations than to rely on technologies that work best when you
don't need them and are least effective when they're most necessary. I
also drive a manual transmission, for similar reasons.

And if you would quit obsessing over something as innocuous as DRLs, we
could have avoided this whole silly debate.

Oh, brother! Let me guess, next you'll say that you're taking your ball
and going home.

What you've proven is that you have your opinions engraved in stone and
you're completely unwilling to listen to reason. Given that, why bother
to even have a discussion?

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Sorry Larry, but you don't get to control the discussion. You have the
choice to participate or not, but that's it. You obviously have no
interest in what anyone else has to say, so why are you here? Your
opinion has been discredited, so you try to demean the whole group in in
order to divert attention from the discussion. It seems to me that
you're the only one with a problem here. Stay or go as you wish, but
don't expect people to agree with you just because you tell them that
you're smarter than they are.

BTW, I love the way you insult people, then tack on a blessing at the
end. How very Christian of you. Is that supposed to make it all better?

 

SNIP>

Your wish is my command.
Read: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html

I'm not saying that there should be laws designed to force everyone to
drive with their headlights or DRL's on in the daytime. I can't stand
when the f%)!@%! government trys to tell me what to do. What is annoying
is when people who have no idea what they're talking about tell me that
something I'm doing is either annoying or dangerous. And, especially
someone who has had at least two major accidents caused by not paying
attention to the road - you do realize that you could've been
responsible for the death of a human being through your inattentiveness.
And still, you're proud to say that you drive while talking on a cell
phone - real responsible.... I honestly don't give a shit what you think
about DRL's or that you disconnect yours for whatever reason. It's a
free country and it is NOT illegal to drive with or without headlights
on in the daytime - so, I'll continue to do so no matter what you think.
If that annoys you, then all the better. I think this is done.

HJS

 

What is being wasted? The bulbs are u sually low powered highbeams and last
a long time that way. It is n ot a strain on the alternator or battery.
Cost over 20 years may be two bucks?

Perhaps you are distracted by them, but I've never heard that complaint from
anyone else. Taking your position, that standout distraction is magnified
even more at night so perhaps we should not use light at night either. Ig
you can show me a situation where thee was an accident cause by DRL on
another car, I'll believe you.

Meantime, take a look here for some interesting studies.
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm
Summary of the Studies
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol.
110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995).
In summary, although the studies of DRLs have differed in design, analysis
techniques, and outcome measures, the later studies are largely in
accordance with the earlier ones, indicating that the overall effect of DRLs
on motor vehicle crashes is positive.

I'm sure none of this will change your mind though. I only know what I can
see myselft and I've nver been distracted by a DRL. This is not to say that
a few idiots that hae their high bemas on (an entirely different situation)
will n ot give you some glare in daylight, just as at night.

 

OK guys I think this has really gone to the end.....time to turn it over to
" Mythbusters " let them finger it out.
Besides if I can throw in my 2 cents, wernt DRL's really designed at first
for the Northeast when some states passsed laws that you had to turn on your
headlights when it was raining ??? I remember a firend getting a ticket when
involved in an accident because he didnt have his lights on when it was
raining.
Just my 2 cents

']['unez

 

- The exaggeration is all yours. You have repeatedly spoken about
seeing cars at a long distance, that was what you wanted to talk about.
You haven't addressed the fact that you can see just fine and drive
safely if the cars don't have their lights on.

You keep wanting to talk about everything but DRLs, why is that. You
can't provide anything that actually supports their use and even
acknowledge that, with the exception of long distance, that there are
times that DRLs are not necessary, hmmm.

Look, you are curious, so I will indulge you: Seatbelts - necessary /
airbags - can cause injury to certain passengers, but overall are a
safety item, but can be done without based on preference / rollover
protection - necessary / CHMSL - necessary. All of these items have a
proven safety record, however DRLs do not. So, what is your point, I
like them (although I am not a huge fan of airbags, but I haven't been
in any rush to get rid of them either).

The bottom line is that DRLs are not needed for safety and there are
plenty of cars manufactured without them. It is a perfectly normal
thing to fix that defect and make the car operate normally.

- No, DRLs help one focus on a single car for a moment, to the
exclusion of the big picture. If that car in the distance is catching
your eye, it shouldn't, you should be scanning the immediate area for
things that impact your current drive and not where you will be later.
Quite honestly, if you are not having to deal with that car in the
distance, it will probably be gone by the time you get there, but the
car in front of you is there and you should be looking at it.

- No, not "nonsense", it is a basic fundamental of driving. You are to
be alert and scan the area to be ready for any possible hazard or
change in the driving condition. People driving with lights on their
cars add a stimulant distraction that harms your ability to process all
inputs during the moment your eyes focus on the extra input.

The mere fact that a persons lights are in the environment that you are
viewing makes DRLs play a role in seeing things since you have see the
lights along with everything else.

- Good for you, but you are not me. Nor are you the many other people
that feel the same. There are plenty of folks turning their lights off,
and car companies like Toyota that are, as well, they must all be
mistaken then. You can't base the impact of your lights, solely on your
own perspective.

- No, you want to see cars that are far away. For some strange reason,
you focus in on that as the only positive reason to have DRLs.

- Ok, so since we can see the cars just fine without the lights. The
only reason you would need to add additional stimuli would be because
other persons have poor vision. It goes hand in hand. "Visible" is
related directly to sight.

- So, you hate ABS or TCS and want to disable them, even though they do
make your driving safer. Hmmm, you must hate everything, just following
your line of reasoning from above. How about this: "Seatbelts, airbags,
rollover protection, CHMSLs and many other safety features aren't
necessary most of the time, either. Would you argue that they should
all be removed, too?"

What you have just said applies directly to DRLs. They are not
affective in the majority of situations and they are placed on certain
vehicles and the driver does not always have a choice if they are on or
not. You would disable your ABS because you want control over your
vehicle for a feature that you don't have to have to drive safely and
you know that to be true. How is this unlike removing DRLs when you
know full well that they do not enhance your safety, hmmm. You can't be
thinking it is stupid for a person to remove something from their car
for a similar reason while you doing the same is "smart", sounds pretty
hypocritical to me.

- The only one obsessing is you. I made some comments, but you got so
irritated that you had to call what I said stupid and argue with me.
The only reason that I am speaking with you right now is because for
whatever reason you want to defend your right to see cars a long way
off while irritating others in closer range. You are so adamant that
the far off cars need to be lit that you would carry on this kind of
conversation with a perfect stranger. I really think that deep down you
know that the lights are not helping you and that many people don't
like them. You just can't stand it if someone takes exception to what
you are doing.

- No, I wish you would .

- No, actually they aren't. However I do know that we can all drive
safely without the lights, that hasn't changed. I understand that there
are people out there that will do whatever they want to without paying
attention to reason or the impact on others. Quite honestly, if people
would stop using their headlights as DRLs or drive around with their
brights on then it would not be as big a deal. I have no control over
what you do, but I do expect you to look at your car and see if it is
possible that your lights could be glaring and have some consideration
for others.

I see no reason for lights during the day, you do. It is fine to
disagree. It is not illegal to use your lights during the day, so go
for it, but do so with consideration of how your lights will impact
others.

Reason, wow it would be nice if you were exhibiting some. In general,
you haven't added anything to the discussion, other than lighting far
away cars .

- Don't care to .

<snip> > Your opinion has been discredited,

- Discredited by what, you haven't actually said anything substantial.

- This has been what you have been doing. I haven't seen you do
anything but be demeaning and stereotyping on this list. You can't
accept that there are different opinions and you keep coming time and
again. I don't ever remember addressing you in my original comments.
You came out of left field to take me head on in a vain attempt to
discredit me, not with facts or reasoned opinions, but with comments
about things being "stupid" and trying to put words in my mouth. Your
actions are clear.

- Same to you, and don't expect people to shut up because you call them
stupid or attempt to stereotype or verbally beat them into submission,
LOL.

- I never insulted you, that is your department. I do believe in God
and fully believe in honest debate.

So, God bless,

Larry

 

Homer S. wrote:

Hey Homer,

There is more out there than just one link. And by the way, I do know
what I am talking about, so I have to ignore your negativity. There is
no reason for you to be so irritated over this.

Here are some links, pro, con and discussion:

I was a participant in this discussion (be aware there were some folks
that just wanted to be negative, not unlike some of the comments on
this list) :

http://www.300cforums.com/forums/ge...ytime-running-lights-dlr.html?highlight=larfx

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html

http://www.lightsout.org/

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl/

http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2004...-GRE-53-08e.pdf

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm

http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/

http://www.answers.com/topic/daytime-running-lamp

http://www.acrs.org.au/collegepolicies/vehicles/daytimerunninglights.html

Another discussion, but I had no involvement in it:
http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/show...7&highlight=drl


God bless,

Larry

 

Homer S. wrote:

Hey Homer,

There is more out there than just one link. And by the way, I do know
what I am talking about, so I have to ignore your negativity. There is
no reason for you to be so irritated over this.

Here are some links, pro, con and discussion:

I was a participant in this discussion (be aware there were some folks
that just wanted to be negative, not unlike some of the comments on
this list) :

http://www.300cforums.com/forums/ge...ytime-running-lights-dlr.html?highlight=larfx

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html

http://www.lightsout.org/

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl/

http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2004/wp29gre/TRANS-WP29-GRE-53-08e.pdf

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm

http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/

http://www.answers.com/topic/daytime-running-lamp

http://www.acrs.org.au/collegepolicies/vehicles/daytimerunninglights.html

Another discussion, but I had no involvement in it:
http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4127&highlight=drl

God bless,

Larry

 

Some of the links in my first reply to Homer are broken. I fixed it in
a second post and I am sorry for the multiple postings.

Thanks for your time,

Larry

 

Reply to message from Brian Nystrom <> (Thu, 18
Jan 2007 21:11:18) about "Re: Headlights going out":


BN> Time to learn to shop. You can get bulbs a lot cheaper than that. Even
BN> better quality bulbs like Sylvania Silverstars can be had for $25/pair
BN> online.

Hey Brian, this looks like a lost cause. No matter how you, Edwin and
others try you won't convince 'google' that DRLs are a service to others so
they can see people like him coming down the road when visibility is not
the best.

One thing that you proponents (and I am one also) failed to mention is the
efficacy of DRLs to the peripheral vision of other drivers when approaching
in the other lane from the rear.

Nevertheless you and others have raised excellent points so please keep up
your positive contributions to the group.

That said, I am amazed that certain opinionated and argumentative persons
in this newsgroup did not see fit to insert their inputs into this thread.
Maybe they might have been more 'convincing' one way or the other.

Best Regards
Wayne Moses <> Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:29:03 -0600

=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3

 

Many states have laws which say "if your wipers are on, your
headlights must be on." They do issue tickets for this in my area.

I wish my car had DRLs so I didn't have to burn my main headlights
during the day. Too many people think some Sunday driver granny is
driving my Sonata.... well at least until I blow right past them

 

Many states have laws which say "if your wipers are on, your
headlights must be on." They do issue tickets for this in my area.

I wish my car had DRLs so I didn't have to burn my main headlights
during the day. Too many people think some Sunday driver granny is
driving my Sonata.... well at least until I blow right past them

 

Wayne Moses wrote:
<snip

I am convinced that you should have your lights on when visibility is
not the best, otherwise known as night, dawn, dusk and inclement
weather . But we already knew all that, glad to be in agreement,
thanks for pointing that out. I already turn my lights on when
visiblity is low and I recommend that everyone else does as well.

Cheers,

Larry

 

No, that's not at all what I said. What I said is that DRLs increase the
distance at which you can see a car, which can be critical to safety
under some conditions. I cited one. Another common scenario is a dark
car driving through a shadow area. It can be very difficult or
impossible to see on its own, but DRLs make it visible.

If you weren't so lazy - or afraid of having your flawed premise blown
out of the water - you could have found an abundance of information
supporting the use of DRLs with a quick Google search. Here are just the
first three that came up when I searched on "effects of daytime running
lights:

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/library/consultations/consultation_paper_drl_20060727.pdf
http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-97-36.PDF

Once more, you're absolutely wrong. Do the research.

I don't see them as a defect and apparently neither do the agencies that
study and regulate vehicle safety.

Not at all. What DRLs do is increase the visibility of objects in your
field of view. There is no need to concentrate on anything. The brain
processes the input subconsciously

Perhaps you're limited in how much information you can process, but I
don't find it to be a problem at all.

Of course they do, but the way you're phrasing things sounds like your
claiming that they aid the vision of the person in the DRL equipped
vehicle, which they don't except perhaps in conditions where one should
really have their headlights on. If that's not what you mean, fine, but
I'm not the only one here that concluded that's what you meant from what
you wrote.

Hmmm. I don't see anyone here jumping to your defense. I guess that
makes you the minority, doesn't it?

No, that's not what I said. You know that, but you keep harping on it
pointlessly anyway.

No, poor visibility and/or low contrast conditions can limit the visual
range of someone with excellent eyesight, as in the examples I cited. It
has nothing specific to do with the visual acuity of drivers, though it
does have the side effect of making things more visible for those with
less than ideal eyesight. Whether they should be driving or not is a
separate issue.

No, you're misinterpreting what I said. ABS and TCS were options on my
car and I chose not to add them. I prefer skill to technology in these
areas and I'm willing to work on the necessary skills through practice.
There are studies that show that a skilled driver can outperform these
systems in many situations. For the average driver, they're well worthwhile.

No, once again you missed the mark by a country mile. Read the reasearch.

No kidding? Don't hold your breath.

Who are you to speak for "we all"? Obviously, the data suggests otherwise.

Which is why I don't use fog lights or high beams on when they're not
necessary, such as on clear nights when glare can be a significant
problem. During the day, it's not an issue, except apparently for you.

I don't know about where you live, but it's perfectly legal here. In
fact, there are stretches of road where daytime headlight use is
mandated. Apparently, it helps to prevent accidents in those areas.

Read the research.

Then don't tell people to shut up, just because they don't agree with you.

Read the research.

Then you must have spent as much time reading this board as you have
reading research on DRL effectiveness.

Of course I can, but I don't suffer fools. Sometimes it's necessary to
agree to disagree and that's fine, but in some cases, people post
information that is clearly wrong and it should be pointed out. There's
also a difference between stating and opinion and stating something as
fact. You've offered a lot of opinions here, but no facts to back them
up. The studies indicate that you're wrong.

It's an open forum, Larry. You have no control over who reads it or who
responds. That's just the nature of Usenet. As for facts, once more,
read the research. The facts do not support your opinions.

 

Yeah, I know what you mean. The most important thing is to present the
case strongly enough so that others who may read this know the facts.
You can't save everyone from themselves, but you can help others avoid
making potentially serious mistakes.

Good point.

Well, the fact that some of us disagree strongly on some issues doesn't
mean that we disagree on them all. I certainly wouldn't argue with
someone I thought was correct, simply to have an argument.

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

<snip>

Brian,

You could argue with a paper sack, apparently. You won't be quiet, you
keep ranting on an on about research this and that I am wrong about
that. I haven't seen anything in your postings that merit any further
replies or even anything that supports your position. You have based
everything on your personal perception and continue to try to read into
my comments things that were never said. You have ignored what I
actually said (pro and con links, actual discussion and even agreement
with others) and have continued to fight. I don't know why you are
fighting and I don't want to know. By the way, this isn't a contest of
who can yell the loudest. There are people on here that can talk
without attacking others, you could learn allot from these people.

I have made the case against DRLs, you have done something, but I am
not quite sure, ha ha. You can agree or disagree with me, I really
don't care. I am glad to have riled you up, because that shows that
this subject really gets under your skin and you have to fight for an
idea that you know is flaky, oh well .

Cheers,

Larry