Daytime Running Light Stats

From : xxx

Q: http//slate.msn.com/id/2090493/ .

Replies:

From : tbone

i mentioned it because in many such reports they include everything like the old hurt report did concerning motorcycle helmets which included all motorcycle related deaths / injuries regardless of the cause. i think that you are once again getting it backwards. the only way that the report can be valid is to include all motorcycle related deaths / injuries. restricting the report to very specific types is a primary method to cloud the accuracy of the reports. the end result made it look like helmets were far more effective than they really are. please explain how this can happen although i know that you will not. btw my point was that in indiana when they had the homebrew drls they quickly became so common they were no longer noticed. when something loses its novelty you no longer see it. oh really then how do you find your house being invisible and all lol. just because you dont remember seeing it like a novelty item they are still more noticable than cars without them. stop and think for a moment how many cars do you remember seeing the drls on today why do i need to remember them all that matters is that i see them sooner than i did before and with them i do. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

curmudgeon wrote duhhhh....it takes two to collide...and either one of the two can avoid the accident...so they excluded anything that wasnt required to have day lights. you cant see the drl if the vehicle doesnt have one!! but hey its all a big conspiracy anyway right budd damn and i was looking forward to his explanation of drls on pedestrians and pedalcyclists. pedalcyclists... you are starting to show you age with this term lol. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

i laugh when i see debates on subjects like this. they seldom really have anything to do with the actual effectiveness or lack of of the subject. they almost always have everything to do with paranoid people fearing the loss of perceived freedoms and a loss of control. iow how dare they take the all important decision and control of when i turn my headlights on lol. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving sockmonkey wrote ive even heard that in canada where they were mandatory for years before the us there was no drop in accident rates. aurora h. et al. effectiveness of daytime running lights in canada. tp 12298 e. transport canada ottawa 1994. in a study in canada comparing 1990 model year vehicles required to have drls with 1989 vehicles a statistically significant 11-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes other than rear-end impacts was estimated. this estimate was adjusted to take into account the fact that about 29 percent of 1989 vehicles were fitted with drls. collisions involving pedestrians pedalcyclists motorcyclists and heavy trucks and buses were not included in this study. the accident reduction effects of drl are most certainly not definitive. a survey of some of the studies of drl effects are provided at the following location http//www.ibiblio.org/rdu/usenet-arc/sub00089/msg00004.html quote i was asked to repost the following info concerning daytime running lights. last time i posted this it resulted in a thread of over 100 articles most of them trying to dispute the research results thru the recitation of antecdotal reports. my reading of these summarys leaves me with little doubt that the supposed benefits of drls are not borne out in practice and in fact drls may cuase more accidents then they prevent. of the studies cited below from a literature search of anything within about the last 7 years the most compelling would seem to be the one from the country having had madatory drls for the longest time norway and as you can see they did not find the expected benefits. the studies that did turn up some benefit were for example from canada where drls are still in the novelty stage as far as the number of cars so equiped. its not suprising that when only a very few cars have drls that such cars get noticed and dont get hit. that effect can be expected to disappear in future years as drls appear on all cars and my expectatin would be that they will wind up with the same results as norway. /quote smh .

From : tbone

the same number of dumb asses that somehow never notice they cant read their dash guages and speedometer. its called natural selection and hopefully such rear end collisions were fatal for said dumb asses. ps - by your reasoning cars shouldnt have gas tanks but very long hoses attached to pumps...so dumb asses wouldnt run out cause they didnt read their fuel guage. lol and by the reasoning of some since no safety device can completely prevent injury or accidents they should all be removed. just think of the improved mileage with the significant reduction in weight - -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : ken

dumb ass read my post again i did not offer any reasoning in my first post. i was just stating a problem that i had noticed with the early drl systems. here is some reasoning if anyone is to stupid to notice they cant read their gauges because their lights are off then they deserve what happens to them but the poor bastard that rear ends him in the dark or fog does not deserve it. ken the same number of dumb asses that somehow never notice they cant read their dash guages and speedometer. its called natural selection and hopefully such rear end collisions were fatal for said dumb asses. ps - by your reasoning cars shouldnt have gas tanks but very long hoses attached to pumps...so dumb asses wouldnt run out cause they didnt read their fuel guage. .

From : spinmantux in a ram

yes you can buy a swb 2500 but it will be in the quad cab only. here is the reply from a dealer. any comments original message dear audun ***** hello my name is chris prince and i am the internet mgr. here at riverside chrysler dodge inc. i want to thank you for your inqury. to answer your question the maximum weight for the 1500 is 7720 lbs. and yes you can buy a 2500 short wheel base model. if you would like more information on a 2500 model you can e-mail me or you can call me at 252-633-4411 and i will be happy to answer any questions that you might hace. again thank you for your inqury from everybody here at riverside chrysler dodge inc. your five star dealership. chris prince .

From : tux in a ram

not sure how true this is but it is thought-provoking. somewhat out of date though if daytime running lights were mandatory in the u.s. and all vehicles had them how much extra gasoline would that use each year by marshall brain howstuffworks.com for several years now canada has required all new cars sold to have daytime running lights. any time the car is running the headlights are on but the taillights and other lights are off. you have to turn on these other lights from the dashboard at night. studies seem to indicate that having the headlights on during daylight hours reduces the number of multiple vehicle accidents although there has been some controversy about people forgetting to turn on their other lights at night -- a mistake that causes extra accidents and a good example of the law of unintended consequences!. the us has not adopted this law but if it did they would definitely consume gasoline. headlights require power and a cars engine produces power using gasoline. if you make a few assumptions it is possible to estimate how much gas the law would consume. a typical headlight bulb uses about 55 watts; sometimes the daytime running lights run at a lower wattage so they use a little less power. lets say the daytime running lights use 100 watts since there are two bulbs. to calculate the energy used we need to figure out how much time people will spend with their lights on. according the to nhtsa vehicles in the us drove 2560 billion miles in 1997. we need to make a guess at the average speed people drive including stops in order to figure out how much time people spent driving their cars. lets guess 30 mph which means each mile takes two minutes. that makes 5120 billion minutes or 85.3 billion hours. now if each car normally drives at night about half the time that means that the daytime running lights would be on 42.6 billion hours a year. multiplying by the 100 watts we get 4260 billion watt-hours or 4.26 billion kilowatt-hours. the u.s. uses about that much electricity nationwide in 12 hours. now we need to figure out how much electrical energy we can get out of a gallon of gas. a gallon of gas contains about 60 kilowatt-hours of chemical energy but this energy has to go through two conversion processes before we can use it in a light bulb. first the chemical energy must be turned into mechanical power by the engine of the car. car engines dont do this very efficiently -- only about 25% of the chemical energy can be turned into mechanical power and the rest is wasted as heat. after the engine gets done with our gallon of gas we have 15 kilowatt-hours left. now the alternator on the car has to turn the mechanical power from the engine into electrical power. the alternator does this a lot better than the engine but it is still only about 70% efficient. in the end we get about 10.5 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy out of a gallon of gas. to calculate how many gallons of gas this is you can divide the 4.26 billion kilowatt hours of energy that the daytime running lights consume each year by the 10.5 kilowatt-hours of energy each gallon of gas yields. if daytime running lights were on all the vehicles in the u.s. we would burn an extra 406 million gallons of gas each year. thats only a couple gallons for each vehicle but in total it is more than all of the vehicles in the country burn in a day. at $1.50 a gallon thats $600 million per year. looking at it another way an extra 8 billion pounds of carbon dioxide would be added to the atmosphere by this law. its an interesting question because it shows how a simple idea like lets have everyone turn on their headlights all the time can have a real cost when you try to implement it! whether the benefit is worth the cost is an important question in almost any public policy decision. .

From : sps 700

both my dodge truck and my plymouth car are over thirty years old. i feel one heck of a lot safer driving them than i would driving a new truck or car. in fact if i won the lotery today my first purchases would be other 30-40 yr old vehicles. how many billions of dollars have been wasted trying to improve safety and emissions over the last 40 yrs. on the emission front you take a 1959 engine as a base. you add a pcv valve simple carb modifications preheated intake air & a few distributor modifications and you have cut the exhaust emissions of the base engine by 75-80% with no loss of gas mileage or performance. for the last 40 yrs we have spent god knows how many billions of dollars trying to cut this last 20-25% and at best it only possible to cut this to 10-15%. the same thing applies to car safety in my opinion. all this you pay for in buying & maintaining a vehicle. i for one could not afford to drive if i had to run newer vehicles. thank god my old ones are built like tanks and if properly maintained will last another 20-25 yrs. besides due to my medical condition driving my older vehicles is a lot mre comfortable for me due to the upright seats and the ease of entry. not sure how true this is but it is thought-provoking. somewhat out of date though if daytime running lights were mandatory in the u.s. and all vehicles had them how much extra gasoline would that use each year by marshall brain howstuffworks.com for several years now canada has required all new cars sold to have daytime running lights. any time the car is running the headlights are on but the taillights and other lights are off. you have to turn on these other lights from the dashboard at night. studies seem to indicate that having the headlights on during daylight hours reduces the number of multiple vehicle accidents although there has been some controversy about people forgetting to turn on their other lights at night -- a mistake that causes extra accidents and a good example of the law of unintended consequences!. the us has not adopted this law but if it did they would definitely consume gasoline. headlights require power and a cars engine produces power using gasoline. if you make a few assumptions it is possible to estimate how much gas the law would consume. a typical headlight bulb uses about 55 watts; sometimes the daytime running lights run at a lower wattage so they use a little less power. lets say the daytime running lights use 100 watts since there are two bulbs. to calculate the energy used we need to figure out how much time people will spend with their lights on. according the to nhtsa vehicles in the us drove 2560 billion miles in 1997. we need to make a guess at the average speed people drive including stops in order to figure out how much time people spent driving their cars. lets guess 30 mph which means each mile takes two minutes. that makes 5120 billion minutes or 85.3 billion hours. now if each car normally drives at night about half the time that means that the daytime running lights would be on 42.6 billion hours a year. multiplying by the 100 watts we get 4260 billion watt-hours or 4.26 billion kilowatt-hours. the u.s. uses about that much electricity nationwide in 12 hours. now we need to figure out how much electrical energy we can get out of a gallon of gas. a gallon of gas contains about 60 kilowatt-hours of chemical energy but this energy has to go through two conversion processes before we can use it in a light bulb. first the chemical energy must be turned into mechanical power by the engine of the car. car engines dont do this very efficiently -- only about 25% of the chemical energy can be turned into mechanical power and the rest is wasted as heat. after the engine gets done with our gallon of gas we have 15 kilowatt-hours left. now the alternator on the car has to turn the mechanical power from the engine into electrical power. the alternator does this a lot better than the engine but it is still only about 70% efficient. in the end we get about 10.5 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy out of a gallon of gas. to calculate how many gallons of gas this is you can divide the 4.26 billion kilowatt hours of energy that the daytime running lights consume each year by the 10.5 kilowatt-hours of energy each gallon of gas yields. if daytime running lights were on all the vehicles in the u.s. we would burn an extra 406 million gallons of gas each year. thats only a couple gallons for each vehicle but in total it is more than all of the vehicles in the country burn in a day. at $1.50 a gallon thats $600 million per year. looking at it another way an extra 8 billion pounds of carbon dioxide would be added to the atmosphere by this law. its an interesting question because it shows how a simple idea like lets have everyone turn on their headlights all the time can have a real cost when you try to implement it! whether

From : steven scharf

http//slate.msn.com/id/2090493/ amusing especially since the nhtsa found that drls were ineffective. see the conclusion on page 24 of http//www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/ncsa/rpts/2000/drl7rpt.pdf the worst thing about drls is that they are not implemented properly in the u.s. yet the automakers especially gm are against the proposal to adopt the european standards for drls. also see http//nordicgroup.us/drl.htm pros and cons of daytime running lights drls .

From : tbone

as good as this sounds when you really look at it its just smoke and mirrors and fuzzy math. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving not sure how true this is but it is thought-provoking. somewhat out of date though if daytime running lights were mandatory in the u.s. and all vehicles had them how much extra gasoline would that use each year by marshall brain howstuffworks.com for several years now canada has required all new cars sold to have daytime running lights. any time the car is running the headlights are on but the taillights and other lights are off. you have to turn on these other lights from the dashboard at night. studies seem to indicate that having the headlights on during daylight hours reduces the number of multiple vehicle accidents although there has been some controversy about people forgetting to turn on their other lights at night -- a mistake that causes extra accidents and a good example of the law of unintended consequences!. the us has not adopted this law but if it did they would definitely consume gasoline. headlights require power and a cars engine produces power using gasoline. if you make a few assumptions it is possible to estimate how much gas the law would consume. a typical headlight bulb uses about 55 watts; sometimes the daytime running lights run at a lower wattage so they use a little less power. lets say the daytime running lights use 100 watts since there are two bulbs. to calculate the energy used we need to figure out how much time people will spend with their lights on. according the to nhtsa vehicles in the us drove 2560 billion miles in 1997. we need to make a guess at the average speed people drive including stops in order to figure out how much time people spent driving their cars. lets guess 30 mph which means each mile takes two minutes. that makes 5120 billion minutes or 85.3 billion hours. now if each car normally drives at night about half the time that means that the daytime running lights would be on 42.6 billion hours a year. multiplying by the 100 watts we get 4260 billion watt-hours or 4.26 billion kilowatt-hours. the u.s. uses about that much electricity nationwide in 12 hours. now we need to figure out how much electrical energy we can get out of a gallon of gas. a gallon of gas contains about 60 kilowatt-hours of chemical energy but this energy has to go through two conversion processes before we can use it in a light bulb. first the chemical energy must be turned into mechanical power by the engine of the car. car engines dont do this very efficiently -- only about 25% of the chemical energy can be turned into mechanical power and the rest is wasted as heat. after the engine gets done with our gallon of gas we have 15 kilowatt-hours left. now the alternator on the car has to turn the mechanical power from the engine into electrical power. the alternator does this a lot better than the engine but it is still only about 70% efficient. in the end we get about 10.5 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy out of a gallon of gas. to calculate how many gallons of gas this is you can divide the 4.26 billion kilowatt hours of energy that the daytime running lights consume each year by the 10.5 kilowatt-hours of energy each gallon of gas yields. if daytime running lights were on all the vehicles in the u.s. we would burn an extra 406 million gallons of gas each year. thats only a couple gallons for each vehicle but in total it is more than all of the vehicles in the country burn in a day. at $1.50 a gallon thats $600 million per year. looking at it another way an extra 8 billion pounds of carbon dioxide would be added to the atmosphere by this law. its an interesting question because it shows how a simple idea like lets have everyone turn on their headlights all the time can have a real cost when you try to implement it! whether the benefit is worth the cost is an important question in almost any public policy decision. .

From : clare snyder on ca

on tue 4 nov 2003 225655 -0500 tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote tbone wrote i laugh when i see debates on subjects like this. they seldom really have anything to do with the actual effectiveness or lack of of the subject. they almost always have everything to do with paranoid people fearing the loss of perceived freedoms and a loss of control. iow how dare they take the all important decision and control of when i turn my headlights on lol. there probably is religion in the debate on both sides. lol agreed. however the part about drl being effective in locations where they are novel few of the cars on the road have them versus ineffective in locations where they are common makes a lot of sense to me. they are effective - period. bright sunlight or hazy dusk you can see a car with lights on. without lights they tend to blend into the backround - particularly certain colours in fog or with glare on wet pavement. there is no downside to drls. when i was rallying we always drove with full headlights day or night - and i took to doing it all the time. became second nature to turn on the lights before putting the car in gear. i put a buzzer on the headlights to help prevent me from walking away with the lights on. not to me. while it is true that the you are more likely to remember a car with drl where they are novel i doubt that you see them any less and they are still more noticeable then cars without them. but hey if you are driving with your head up your butt nothing short of a smack in the face is going to make you notice them. and its awfull hard to smack the face that is furmly implanted in the butt. my mother has a 2001 buick lesabre and you dont turn the lights on or off at all. during the day drls are automatically on. at night a light sensor automatically turns on the normal lights. at daybreak the sensor turns them off in favor of drls again. drls on the buick are the normal lights run at a lower amperage i think. becoming a popular way of doing it. my pontiac is the same way. my newyorker is too old for drls and has hideaways.. tempting to install a small set of driving lites for drls. i guess that they did that so people would not forget to turn the headlights on at night. personally id rather turn my lights on and off as i please. the control issue is also the reason i drive a standard transmission. about 10 years ago i was at the point id drive a standard for fun but preferred an automatic for work like plowing snow etc. now im a bit older and the knees a bit more painful so ill settle for an automatic for all my driving. still enjoy driving the daughters 5 speed neon on occaision - i insisted she learn on a standard and she has grown to prefer it. i drive a standard transmission myself because i am no fan of the current automatics and all of their bs although in heavy traffic i would much rather have the trans deal with all of the constant shifting and between gear speeds for me. .

From : tux in a ram

as good as this sounds when you really look at it its just smoke and mirrors and fuzzy math. not to be starting a fight but what part seems fuzzy to you im being serious here i dont care if it is true or not i had a friend send it to me and i just would like to know how truthful it is. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving not sure how true this is but it is thought-provoking. somewhat out of date though if daytime running lights were mandatory in the u.s. and all vehicles had them how much extra gasoline would that use each year by marshall brain howstuffworks.com for several years now canada has required all new cars sold to have daytime running lights. any time the car is running the headlights are on but the taillights and other lights are off. you have to turn on these other lights from the dashboard at night. studies seem to indicate that having the headlights on during daylight hours reduces the number of multiple vehicle accidents although there has been some controversy about people forgetting to turn on their other lights at night -- a mistake that causes extra accidents and a good example of the law of unintended consequences!. the us has not adopted this law but if it did they would definitely consume gasoline. headlights require power and a cars engine produces power using gasoline. if you make a few assumptions it is possible to estimate how much gas the law would consume. a typical headlight bulb uses about 55 watts; sometimes the daytime running lights run at a lower wattage so they use a little less power. lets say the daytime running lights use 100 watts since there are two bulbs. to calculate the energy used we need to figure out how much time people will spend with their lights on. according the to nhtsa vehicles in the us drove 2560 billion miles in 1997. we need to make a guess at the average speed people drive including stops in order to figure out how much time people spent driving their cars. lets guess 30 mph which means each mile takes two minutes. that makes 5120 billion minutes or 85.3 billion hours. now if each car normally drives at night about half the time that means that the daytime running lights would be on 42.6 billion hours a year. multiplying by the 100 watts we get 4260 billion watt-hours or 4.26 billion kilowatt-hours. the u.s. uses about that much electricity nationwide in 12 hours. now we need to figure out how much electrical energy we can get out of a gallon of gas. a gallon of gas contains about 60 kilowatt-hours of chemical energy but this energy has to go through two conversion processes before we can use it in a light bulb. first the chemical energy must be turned into mechanical power by the engine of the car. car engines dont do this very efficiently -- only about 25% of the chemical energy can be turned into mechanical power and the rest is wasted as heat. after the engine gets done with our gallon of gas we have 15 kilowatt-hours left. now the alternator on the car has to turn the mechanical power from the engine into electrical power. the alternator does this a lot better than the engine but it is still only about 70% efficient. in the end we get about 10.5 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy out of a gallon of gas. to calculate how many gallons of gas this is you can divide the 4.26 billion kilowatt hours of energy that the daytime running lights consume each year by the 10.5 kilowatt-hours of energy each gallon of gas yields. if daytime running lights were on all the vehicles in the u.s. we would burn an extra 406 million gallons of gas each year. thats only a couple gallons for each vehicle but in total it is more than all of the vehicles in the country burn in a day. at $1.50 a gallon thats $600 million per year. looking at it another way an extra 8 billion pounds of carbon dioxide would be added to the atmosphere by this law. its an interesting question because it shows how a simple idea like lets have everyone turn on their headlights all the time can have a real cost when you try to implement it! whether the benefit is worth the cost is an important question in almost any public policy decision. .

From : tbone

as good as this sounds when you really look at it its just smoke and mirrors and fuzzy math. not to be starting a fight but what part seems fuzzy to you im being serious here i dont care if it is true or not i had a friend send it to me and i just would like to know how truthful it is. ok fair enough. lets look into the article itself and see where the problems are. if daytime running lights were mandatory in the u.s. and all vehicles had them how much extra gasoline would that use each year by marshall brain howstuffworks.com for several years now canada has required all new cars sold to have daytime running lights. any time the car is running the headlights are on but the taillights and other lights are off. you have to turn on these other lights from the dashboard at night. this is no longer true in most vehicles. most if not all current gm models with drls turn the rest of the lights on for you when the light sensor detects that it is getting dark. i would suspect that the same holds true for other makes but have no proof of that at this time. studies seem to indicate that having the headlights on during daylight hours reduces the number of multiple vehicle accidents although there has been some controversy about people forgetting to turn on their other lights at night -- a mistake that causes extra accidents and a good example of the law of unintended consequences!. there has been no study concluding that drls cause people to forget to turn their headlights on at night. there are people that do this anyway regardless of drls and there is no valid study saying that drls increase this possibility. if you bother to look at your dash you will see that the headlights are off because you will not be able to see your instruments. this is just an unfounded urban legend. the us has not adopted this law but if it did they would definitely consume gasoline. headlights require power and a cars engine produces power using gasoline. if you make a few assumptions it is possible to estimate how much gas the law would consume. while this is true there are some assumptions made that are completely invalid. lets look and see where they are. a typical headlight bulb uses about 55 watts; sometimes the daytime running lights run at a lower wattage so they use a little less power. lets say the daytime running lights use 100 watts since there are two bulbs. here is the first one. many drls run at a reduced power and removing a whole 5 watts per bulb is a joke. i would say that this estimate is quitehigh but we will go with it anyway. to calculate the energy used we need to figure out how much time people will spend with their lights on. according the to nhtsa vehicles in the us drove 2560 billion miles in 1997. we need to make a guess at the average speed people drive including stops in order to figure out how much time people spent driving their cars. lets guess 30 mph which means each mile takes two minutes. now we have a significant underestimate. first of all where does this estimate come from how many times do you drive at this speed even on local roads not side streets. the typical speed on the parkway is about 70 to 80 mph which would make the average speed including traffic and tolls about 50 mph. that makes 5120 billion minutes or 85.3 billion hours. only if you buy into this exagurated estimate fuzzy math. now if each car normally drives at night about half the time that means that the daytime running lights would be on 42.6 billion hours a year. this does not include weather conditions and state laws. in nj if your wipers are on your headlights need to be on as well this includes all of the lights. most people with functioning brains also turn their lights on in the fog during the day as well. multiplying by the 100 watts we get 4260 billion watt-hours or 4.26 billion kilowatt-hours. the u.s. uses about that much electricity nationwide in 12 hours. while this sounds impressive it means nothing smoke and mirrors. now we need to figure out how much electrical energy we can get out of a gallon of gas. a gallon of gas contains about 60 kilowatt-hours of chemical energy but this energy has to go through two conversion processes before we can use it in a light bulb. first the chemical energy must be turned into mechanical power by the engine of the car. car engines dont do this very efficiently -- only about 25% of the chemical energy can be turned into mechanical power and the rest is wasted as heat. after the engine gets done with our gallon of gas we have 15 kilowatt-hours left. while this also sounds impressive or horrible it means next to nothing as we shall soon see. now the alternator on the car has to turn the mechanical power from the engine into electrical power. the alternator does this a lot better than the engine but it is still only about 70% efficient.

From : stephen harding

tbone wrote i laugh when i see debates on subjects like this. they seldom really have anything to do with the actual effectiveness or lack of of the subject. they almost always have everything to do with paranoid people fearing the loss of perceived freedoms and a loss of control. iow how dare they take the all important decision and control of when i turn my headlights on lol. there probably is religion in the debate on both sides. however the part about drl being effective in locations where they are novel few of the cars on the road have them versus ineffective in locations where they are common makes a lot of sense to me. my mother has a 2001 buick lesabre and you dont turn the lights on or off at all. during the day drls are automatically on. at night a light sensor automatically turns on the normal lights. at daybreak the sensor turns them off in favor of drls again. drls on the buick are the normal lights run at a lower amperage i think. personally id rather turn my lights on and off as i please. the control issue is also the reason i drive a standard transmission. smh .

From : tbone

tbone wrote i laugh when i see debates on subjects like this. they seldom really have anything to do with the actual effectiveness or lack of of the subject. they almost always have everything to do with paranoid people fearing the loss of perceived freedoms and a loss of control. iow how dare they take the all important decision and control of when i turn my headlights on lol. there probably is religion in the debate on both sides. lol agreed. however the part about drl being effective in locations where they are novel few of the cars on the road have them versus ineffective in locations where they are common makes a lot of sense to me. not to me. while it is true that the you are more likely to remember a car with drl where they are novel i doubt that you see them any less and they are still more noticeable then cars without them. but hey if you are driving with your head up your butt nothing short of a smack in the face is going to make you notice them. my mother has a 2001 buick lesabre and you dont turn the lights on or off at all. during the day drls are automatically on. at night a light sensor automatically turns on the normal lights. at daybreak the sensor turns them off in favor of drls again. drls on the buick are the normal lights run at a lower amperage i think. i guess that they did that so people would not forget to turn the headlights on at night. personally id rather turn my lights on and off as i please. the control issue is also the reason i drive a standard transmission. i drive a standard transmission myself because i am no fan of the current automatics and all of their bs although in heavy traffic i would much rather have the trans deal with all of the constant shifting and between gear speeds for me. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : adam kaempferstamey

if its truely cold enough to need a block heater where you live then also consider one on the oilpan and a battery blanket. 2001 dodge ram 5.9 just curious about my block heater. first year ill have to use it. im getting a electric plug in timer to program when to have it come on for about 2 hours prior to running the engine. what my question concerns is can i still start the truck with the block heater plugged in would damage occur to the cord or anything else it would be handy to start it from inside my home with my remote starter and let it run a few minutes. i realize that a remote starters purpose is to warm the vehicle but the block heater will come in handy for sub zero temperatures. any tips or ideas are appreciated. .

From : stamey

http//www.lightsout.org nuff said. http//slate.msn.com/id/2090493/ .

From : tbone

just more control freaks whining again. true hid have less glare than conventional bulbs. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving http//www.lightsout.org nuff said. http//slate.msn.com/id/2090493/ .

From : chas stokes

says... just more control freaks whining again. true hid have less glare than conventional bulbs. hmmm. a website dedicated to getting rid of drls... and i thought my site was a waste of disk space. plus my other car is one of those saturns. p chas .

From : Annonymous

how many dumb asses got rear ended because they were driving at night with only there dlrs on and no tail lights ken http//slate.msn.com/id/2090493/ .

From : Annonymous

iwouldnt won a car with dtrl or if idid i would disable them.on wed 29 oct 2003 214229 -0600 ken knjwood@charte.net wrote how many dumb asses got rear ended because they were driving at night with only there dlrs on and no tail lights ken http//slate.msn.com/id/2090493/ .

From : paul johnson

how many dumb asses got rear ended because they were driving at night with only there dlrs on and no tail lights day-time running lights automatically kick on to full lighting at dusk. paul johnson .

From : budd cochran

a fine example of how to manipulate statistics to suit an opportunity to increase profit. read it carefully folks. theyre not really measuring the safety factor. ive even heard that in canada where they were mandatory for years before the us there was no drop in accident rates. in the early 60s indiana required a small white light in the center of the grille on all cars and trucks. the accident rate went up. -- budd cochran http//slate.msn.com/id/2090493/ --- outgoing mail is certified virus free by avg and norton checked by avg anti-virus system http//www.grisoft.com. version 6.0.532 / virus database 326 - release date 10/27/2003 .

From : sockmonkey

ive even heard that in canada where they were mandatory for years before the us there was no drop in accident rates. aurora h. et al. effectiveness of daytime running lights in canada. tp 12298 e. transport canada ottawa 1994. in a study in canada comparing 1990 model year vehicles required to have drls with 1989 vehicles a statistically significant 11-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes other than rear-end impacts was estimated. this estimate was adjusted to take into account the fact that about 29 percent of 1989 vehicles were fitted with drls. collisions involving pedestrians pedalcyclists motorcyclists and heavy trucks and buses were not included in this study. .

From : budd cochran

as i said i heard there wasnt any reduction. but are you sure those numbers werent manipulated i think they were manipulated since the word adjusted is in the quote. why were some collisions excluded dont pedestrians pedalcyclists motorcyclists truck drivers and bus drivers have the ability to see the drls thank you. -- budd cochran ive even heard that in canada where they were mandatory for years before the us there was no drop in accident rates. aurora h. et al. effectiveness of daytime running lights in canada. tp 12298 e. transport canada ottawa 1994. in a study in canada comparing 1990 model year vehicles required to have drls with 1989 vehicles a statistically significant 11-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes other than rear-end impacts was estimated. this estimate was adjusted to take into account the fact that about 29 percent of 1989 vehicles were fitted with drls. collisions involving pedestrians pedalcyclists motorcyclists and heavy trucks and buses were not included in this study. --- outgoing mail is certified virus free by avg and norton checked by avg anti-virus system http//www.grisoft.com. version 6.0.532 / virus database 326 - release date 10/27/2003 .

From : stephen harding

sockmonkey wrote ive even heard that in canada where they were mandatory for years before the us there was no drop in accident rates. aurora h. et al. effectiveness of daytime running lights in canada. tp 12298 e. transport canada ottawa 1994. in a study in canada comparing 1990 model year vehicles required to have drls with 1989 vehicles a statistically significant 11-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes other than rear-end impacts was estimated. this estimate was adjusted to take into account the fact that about 29 percent of 1989 vehicles were fitted with drls. collisions involving pedestrians pedalcyclists motorcyclists and heavy trucks and buses were not included in this study. the accident reduction effects of drl are most certainly not definitive. a survey of some of the studies of drl effects are provided at the following location http//www.ibiblio.org/rdu/usenet-arc/sub00089/msg00004.html quote i was asked to repost the following info concerning daytime running lights. last time i posted this it resulted in a thread of over 100 articles most of them trying to dispute the research results thru the recitation of antecdotal reports. my reading of these summarys leaves me with little doubt that the supposed benefits of drls are not borne out in practice and in fact drls may cuase more accidents then they prevent. of the studies cited below from a literature search of anything within about the last 7 years the most compelling would seem to be the one from the country having had madatory drls for the longest time norway and as you can see they did not find the expected benefits. the studies that did turn up some benefit were for example from canada where drls are still in the novelty stage as far as the number of cars so equiped. its not suprising that when only a very few cars have drls that such cars get noticed and dont get hit. that effect can be expected to disappear in future years as drls appear on all cars and my expectatin would be that they will wind up with the same results as norway. /quote smh .

From : ken

the chevys that first came with drls did not switch to full lighting at dusk. ken how many dumb asses got rear ended because they were driving at night with only there dlrs on and no tail lights day-time running lights automatically kick on to full lighting at dusk. paul johnson .

From : jerry

curmudgeon wrote duhhhh....it takes two to collide...and either one of the two can avoid the accident...so they excluded anything that wasnt required to have day lights. you cant see the drl if the vehicle doesnt have one!! but hey its all a big conspiracy anyway right budd damn and i was looking forward to his explanation of drls on pedestrians and pedalcyclists. jerry .

From : budd cochran

i mentioned it because in many such reports they include everything like the old hurt report did concerning motorcycle helmets which included all motorcycle related deaths / injuries regardless of the cause. the end result made it look like helmets were far more effective than they really are. btw my point was that in indiana when they had the homebrew drls they quickly became so common they were no longer noticed. when something loses its novelty you no longer see it. stop and think for a moment how many cars do you remember seeing the drls on today -- budd cochran duhhhh....it takes two to collide...and either one of the two can avoid the accident...so they excluded anything that wasnt required to have day lights. you cant see the drl if the vehicle doesnt have one!! but hey its all a big conspiracy anyway right budd as i said i heard there wasnt any reduction. but are you sure those numbers werent manipulated i think they were manipulated since the word adjusted is in the quote. why were some collisions excluded dont pedestrians pedalcyclists motorcyclists truck drivers and bus drivers have the ability to see the drls thank you. -- budd cochran ive even heard that in canada where they were mandatory for years before the us there was no drop in accident rates. aurora h. et al. effectiveness of daytime running lights in canada. tp 12298 e. transport canada ottawa 1994. in a study in canada comparing 1990 model year vehicles required to have drls with 1989 vehicles a statistically significant 11-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes other than rear-end impacts was estimated. this estimate was adjusted to take into account the fact that about 29 percent of 1989 vehicles were fitted with drls. collisions involving pedestrians pedalcyclists motorcyclists and heavy trucks and buses were not included in this study. --- outgoing mail is certified virus free by avg and norton checked by avg anti-virus system http//www.grisoft.com. version 6.0.532 / virus database 326 - release date 10/27/2003 --- outgoing mail is certified virus free by avg and norton checked by avg anti-virus system http//www.grisoft.com. version 6.0.532 / virus database 326 - release date 10/27/2003 .

From : curmudgeon

the same number of dumb asses that somehow never notice they cant read their dash guages and speedometer. its called natural selection and hopefully such rear end collisions were fatal for said dumb asses. ps - by your reasoning cars shouldnt have gas tanks but very long hoses attached to pumps...so dumb asses wouldnt run out cause they didnt read their fuel guage. how many dumb asses got rear ended because they were driving at night with only there dlrs on and no tail lights ken http//slate.msn.com/id/2090493/ .