On Canadian models,what lights are drl's?The HID or the fog lamps?Is there a way to make fogs on only on USA models?

 

Neither, the daytime running lights are to the left of each HID light in the main headlight housing and are a separate bulb in a separate area. We have had these since 1992 and am surprised the US does not have them yet for safety.

 

The independent analyses of the safety stats I have seen do not indicate these help, and may in fact have increased accidents involving emergency vehicles and motorcyles.

Why would the US want another expensive govt safety program that is more political than engineering based? Plus, it adds to the total cost of ownership and eats gas.

No thanks.

BTW - the promised safety benefits of the High mounted stoplight never materialized, and yet we have had them since 1986. It is the opinion of some safety experts that people quickly learned (adapted) to ignoring them or their visual impact lessened, whcih mayt also be the case for the DRL's.

 

This has caused me to ponder...
DRL's are standard on most U.S. General Motors and Toyota vehicles. As far as DRLs increasing accidents? I don't know--that doesn't seem to make common sense. Comparing emergency vehicles and motorcycles isn't an apples to apples comparison. Those vehciles have other issues besides DRLs. One thing that's obivous to me is that vehciles with their headlights on during the day (DRLs or normal low beams) are just more visible--especially in the bright afternoon sun. As far as cost is concerned, I can't imagine that having two lower voltage bulbs burning uses much fuel. I've never heard of anyone complaining about lower gas mileage because they had their fog lights on. Perhaps it does tax the electrical system a little more but so do all the other electrical gadgets in the car. Perhaps you could add the cost of replacing the bulbs when they burn-out but how often would you do that over the life of the car. The only problem I have with DRLs is that some manufactures choose to use the high beam at half power instead of the low beams (or a seperate bulb altogether.) Even with high beams at half power, the light is too bright at that high angle when DRLs are shining from behind me, such as at a stoplight. Are DRLs needed here in the States? Maybe in some parts of the country where frequent blinding snow (such as Canada), dust, fog or smoke is a problem many times a year but probably not in most places. But I don't think it would hurt.

Road Rage mentions that the high-mounted stop light never proved any safety benefits. Well, I can only speak from personal experience but that third light has definitely allowed me to see that traffic is stopping ahead of me long before sudden breaking "cascades" to me. In my daily, stop-n-go commute, I can see the break light (peering through everyone's windows) come on 3 or 4 cars ahead before I have to make a sudden stop. No, I definitely like the extra brake light.

Ah, I'm through. Flame if you must.

 

No flame, just science.

1) Some motorcycle and emergency safety experts have indicated that they are having more wrecks with cars. The arguments seem to be that now that many cars have DRL's, motorcycles and emergency vehciles that have DRL's or flashning headligghts do not attract the sort of attention they used to.

2) The cost and mileage point is based on a national basis - admittedly small to one person, greater in magnitude as the scale numbers in the tens of millions. I forget the engineering study I read from the SAE, but DRL's use a surprising amount of juice and does take an MPG toll, plus the initial and ongoing cost.

3) The HMSL issue is really not arguable - you may like it, but the fact is, the NHTSA's own studies have shown that after an initial small drop in rear-enders, which may or may not have been the result of the HMSL, these sorts of accidents went back to pre-1986 levels, and in fact have gone up, more likely due to driver inattention and increased vehicle density. Even Joan Claybrrok, former NHTSA head and quite a vehicular numbskull, admitted that "we have been disappointed in the preliminary findings" when question about the HMSL by the National Morotists Association.

The point is, safety mandates should be demonstrably beneficial before they become national law - otherwise, we would all have "Baby on Board" signs etched in our windows, in addition to the ghastly air bag warnings that adorn our sunshades!

It is also much harder politically to remove a sanctioned mandate than initiate one. If I ran for office promising to eliminate the DRL and the HMSL, someone like Paul Wellstone would accuse me of "reckless disregard for personal safety" and Barb Boxer would likely label me a "baby killer".

That was my whole point.

 

Good points RR. Please remember that I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing, just a friendly debate. I'm just stating what I think--I don't have any studies to back-up my experiences. And I can see the logic that since DRLs are more commonplace that motorcycles and emergency vehicles don't stand out as much as they used to. But I bet it would be hard to prove, much less do a study, that someone didn't see an EV or MC because DRLs are on other vehicles too.

I do have some questions perhaps you could answer. If DRLs use "a surprising amount of juice" I'm sure engineers would be able to design a system that doesn't impact fuel economy. I mean, if I turn off the radio, does that save MPG?

The inital costs to include and maintain them in all cars would, indeed be something. But I'm not sure that would outweigh the (perhaps small) safety benefit. However, I'm not saying the gov't should mandate them--just that, to me, cars with their headlights on or DRLs are simply more visible. Isn't that why some other countries and vehicle manufactures use them--based on their studies?

Now, the HMSL. Yes, I do like that and don't want to see that disappear. I don't need a report or statistics to tell me that it helps so you're right--it's not arguable because, for me, it helps. I'm glad it's there. Do you know if the HMSL is required in other countries?

But I wholeheartedly agree about those silly warning stickers on the visors for the airbags. I realize we didn't know, at first, that airbags could harm children but the standard warning in the owner's manual should've handled that. It's the person's own fault if they don't read the instructions first. That's like requiring a sticker on the brake pedal stating, "Apply pressure here if you wish to stop the vehcile from moving."

Cheers!

 

My gripe with DRL's is with all the people who have them, and because they have some lighting on the road, they forget to turn their real headlights, and tailights on. Also at dusk, those high beam DRL's can be pretty annoying.

 

What an interesting discussion. I personally dislike DRLs. For me, they don't significantly aid the visibility of other vehicles on the road, sunny day or not. The only time that I have difficulty seeing other cars on the road due to glare is when the sun is setting (or rising) right behind them. But even then the cars that have their headlights on are not that much more visible than those who don't.

During low-visibility conditions, responsible drivers instinctively turn on their lights. However, there are some who don't, and perhaps DRL's will help me see oncoming traffic. But then again, it doesn't help me identify vehicles ahead of me moving in the same direction that I am, since their rear lights are still off.

So what difference does DRL make? For safety, not much. For car manufacturers, plenty. Any new legislation that mandates new automotive features means quickened obsolescence of used cars, extra income from the retrofit business, and another excuse for raising car prices.

Some mandates are of demonstrable usefulness (seat belts, LATCH child seat harnesses), and others are more questionable (air bags). In any case, it's much easier to create a mandate than to remove one.

So, to DRLs I say "No". Until some respectable research organization can show that they improve safety for responsible drivers, there's no reason to mandate them.

As far as irresponsible drivers are concerned, no amount of safety features will save them from their own stupidity. No amount of legislation will make them wear their mandatory seat belts, or stop placing their children in the front seats of their airbag-equipped cars, or drive dangerously in low-visibility conditions.

No new legislation without demonstrable benefits! Let car makers offer DRL as an option to make buyers feel a little better about their safety. Heck, why not offer a dummy PANIC BUTTON on their dashboards while they're at it. I'm sure that its soothing presence will calm any driver's mind and instantly make him a better driver during an emergency.

 

Whichever point of view you have on the DRL issue, one thing that cannot be discounted is the discount that insurance companies offer if you have this option. Some of you may not have this offered, so you may not be aware of it. I was not aware of the power robbing drain on the vehicle that these lights have. From a safety standpoint I agree that there appears to be little impact.

It is surprising that Honda has simply chose to ignore this feature.

 

Umm, I didn't dispute that DRL lowers your MPG. You must have been thinking of someone else.

Why is it that whenever the automakers decide to include something as a "safety feature" on next year's model, the insurance industry almost magically always raises their premiums and offer "discounts" for those features, even while the jury is still out on the feature's effectiveness (the airbag comes to mind)? There's definitely some political hanky-panky going on.

 

daverman - sorry, I was trying to respond to davest - I got lost in the Dave's....

In Virginia, I worked with the NMA (National Motorist's Assoc) to have Virginia's draconian radar detector law set aside. We failed, but get this, they also tried to have points assessed if you were given a ticket for a detector, even though points had never been assessed for a non-moving violation. Then, the insurance companies led by the disgusting Geico would be able to surcharge you for 3 years.

We were able to convince the state legislature to turn that one aside, but this is the sort of inbreeding that the insurance industry foments with thewir politcal hacks, all in the name of "Public Safety".

What phonies, what indredible disingeuity.

 

All - no apologies needed for differing opinions - I think the level of discussion here is fine.

daverman - yes, every accessory hurts mpg - am i saying you should not use the radio - heck no! I am saying that useless devices done to make people "feel good" about safety are a drain on fuel effciency.

Who here hasn't seen a clapped out Volvo on worn tires pulling into your lane with no signal, and an earnest looking young man/woman with a Peace Frog sticker and their headlights on at high noon? Do they contribute or deter overall safety?

And coming from a state with an powerful insurance lobby, let me pop off that they are not as interested in your safety as they are your wallet.