Daytime running lights, 1999
#2
06-30-2007, 01:41 AM
RE: Daytime running lights, 1999
Dodge isn't all that big on DRL. The most they have done are the parking lights being on at a high intensity.
NHTSA in it's long study has shown that DRL with the headlights at 80% high beams have been know as highway distraction. In some instances taking other drivers focus away from properly navigating. GM was a big contributor to this with their vehicles until recently. DCX took the approch of amber marker lights and has had good success with it.
Here is a blurb from the www-nrd.nhtsa.gov during a congressional hearing ...
The title of the report is, "DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS (DRL'S), DRL's Are Out of Control."
"...I believe one of the greatest distractions on the highway today is the incessant use of DRLs. The sudden appearance of a blinding high beam light in the rearview mirror draws your attention to the object projecting the light. If this were a one time event, it might be less stressful. Since it is now common place, the results can and probably have been the cause of accidents. What if a child darts out in front of your car while your attention is drawn to the DRLs in your rear view mirror? Just as bad, and possibly worse, is the blinding DRLs coming at you from the opposite direction. I am sure there is a study somewhere that measures the amount of time it takes the human eye to adjust to its normal surroundings after being subjected to an unusually bright light source. Why does the Government allow this to continue? ..."
Also see the DOT Sept 2004 study of DRL Effectiveness in Fatal Two-Vehicle Crashes. In summation, head-on accidents are more with DRLs.
The old saying of, a moth will always fly into a candle flame, holds true here. 129 accidents were evaluated from the MAIDS database. The highbeam DRL's were not very effective over the amber postition marker light DRL's doing the same thing.
So, if you plan on doing DRL's use the regular beams or the amber parking and side marker lights.
The strangeness of the study shows that motocycle's actually benefit from DRL's vs. vehicles. It makes you wonder if one beam is better for DRL, but the study doesn't go into that detail.
The other technologies that bring about crash avoidance will have a bigger impact overall vs. the DRLs. Many of the costly vehicles today are implementing these systems. Most of the SUV's have rear sensors that detect objects or vehicles from behind them. Larger highway trucks are using live feed cameras in the rear and sides to the driver too.
I must say, DRL was a good idea at least. But one must understand how to use it correctly for the best benefits.
NHTSA in it's long study has shown that DRL with the headlights at 80% high beams have been know as highway distraction. In some instances taking other drivers focus away from properly navigating. GM was a big contributor to this with their vehicles until recently. DCX took the approch of amber marker lights and has had good success with it.
Here is a blurb from the www-nrd.nhtsa.gov during a congressional hearing ...
The title of the report is, "DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS (DRL'S), DRL's Are Out of Control."
"...I believe one of the greatest distractions on the highway today is the incessant use of DRLs. The sudden appearance of a blinding high beam light in the rearview mirror draws your attention to the object projecting the light. If this were a one time event, it might be less stressful. Since it is now common place, the results can and probably have been the cause of accidents. What if a child darts out in front of your car while your attention is drawn to the DRLs in your rear view mirror? Just as bad, and possibly worse, is the blinding DRLs coming at you from the opposite direction. I am sure there is a study somewhere that measures the amount of time it takes the human eye to adjust to its normal surroundings after being subjected to an unusually bright light source. Why does the Government allow this to continue? ..."
Also see the DOT Sept 2004 study of DRL Effectiveness in Fatal Two-Vehicle Crashes. In summation, head-on accidents are more with DRLs.
The old saying of, a moth will always fly into a candle flame, holds true here. 129 accidents were evaluated from the MAIDS database. The highbeam DRL's were not very effective over the amber postition marker light DRL's doing the same thing.
So, if you plan on doing DRL's use the regular beams or the amber parking and side marker lights.
The strangeness of the study shows that motocycle's actually benefit from DRL's vs. vehicles. It makes you wonder if one beam is better for DRL, but the study doesn't go into that detail.
The other technologies that bring about crash avoidance will have a bigger impact overall vs. the DRLs. Many of the costly vehicles today are implementing these systems. Most of the SUV's have rear sensors that detect objects or vehicles from behind them. Larger highway trucks are using live feed cameras in the rear and sides to the driver too.
I must say, DRL was a good idea at least. But one must understand how to use it correctly for the best benefits.
#3
05-28-2023, 06:26 PM
(Sigh) another old thread, but...
So DRLs benefit motorcyclists but not four-wheelers? That is odd. I can understand a *larger* benefit for motorcycles, which are inherently harder to see by oncoming drivers, but maybe the sample size was too small? I will have to look at that old study if I can find it.
DRLs are supposed to run the high beams at about 80% intensity (reduced amperage) in daytime. They should definitely not be blinding; that's more likely some impatient a*hole behind you who just wants to pass, using his Bimmer's full high-beams just like on the autobahn.
I understand that the original Scandinavian studies showed DRLs were effective in reducing head-on collisions on two-lane country roads, and not just with motorcycles. When I re-enable mine, I will probably add a switch so I can turn them off on in multi-lane highways, where they are not needed. I also do not want to get shot at if/when we visit the southern US, which is probably why a previous owner had disabled them in the first place.
So DRLs benefit motorcyclists but not four-wheelers? That is odd. I can understand a *larger* benefit for motorcycles, which are inherently harder to see by oncoming drivers, but maybe the sample size was too small? I will have to look at that old study if I can find it.
DRLs are supposed to run the high beams at about 80% intensity (reduced amperage) in daytime. They should definitely not be blinding; that's more likely some impatient a*hole behind you who just wants to pass, using his Bimmer's full high-beams just like on the autobahn.
I understand that the original Scandinavian studies showed DRLs were effective in reducing head-on collisions on two-lane country roads, and not just with motorcycles. When I re-enable mine, I will probably add a switch so I can turn them off on in multi-lane highways, where they are not needed. I also do not want to get shot at if/when we visit the southern US, which is probably why a previous owner had disabled them in the first place.
