A NHTSA study in 2004 entitled "An Assessment of the Crash-Reducing Effectiveness of Passenger Vehicle Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs)" found the followinng:
DRLs reduced opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by ?6.3 percent that is DRLs increase opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by 6.3 percent.
DRLs reduced opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal crashes by ?7.9 percent that is DRLs increase opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal crashes by 7.9 percent.
DRLs reduced non-motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, daytime fatalities in single-vehicle crashes by 3.8 percent.
DRLs reduced daytime opposite direction fatal crashes of a passenger vehicle with a motorcycle by 26 percent.
If it's the "same engine" it's the "same Horsepower" If you mean the "same displacement" , yes the horsepower may be different, but if a highstrung Itallian sportscar is putting out 700HP at 8500 RPM that is
432 foot lbs of torque - it might put our 500 ft lbs at 5000 rpm which is about 475 HP., and 300ftlb at 3500 RPM which is a paultry 200HP
The American "anchor" that is only putting out 600 HP is doing it at
5500 RPM which is 575 ft lbs of torque - and down at 3500 RPM it may be putting out 725 ft lbs ) about 483HP
So the american "anchor" has lots of "balls" down deep where they are useable on American roads - and still puts out more than adequate HP at "sensible" engine speeds - where the exotic Italian needs to rev like crazy to get any work done..
I can't remember exactly what the comparisons were but they sounded ridiculous. Maybe it was just the same engine size. Maybe it was better tuned in some makes, I don't know. But they always claimed the American cars never managed to get the HP they should do.
The reasons for the opposition to DRLs go way beyond the imperceptible difference in fuel consumption. Yet it was interesting that General Motors sought, and received, permission to disconnect DRLs for fuel economy tests: "As a result, EPA will permit for now, emissions and fuel economy testing with DRL systems disabled."
The actual arguments against DRLs, at least in the U.S., have almost nothing to do with fuel economy. They are the following:
Statistically, they increase opposite direction daytime crashes.
You lose critical traffic signaling methods.
You can't turn off your head lights when it is advantageous or courteous to do so.
There are places where you need to drive with only your parking lights. For vehicles with DRLs that can't be turned off, this is a problem. Dealers will disable DRLs for owners that have this requirement.
Drivers with DRLs often forget to turn on their low beam headlights in rain or fog and at dusk or dawn. This is especially dangerous because on many vehicles the taillights do not come on until the low beams are turned on.
DRLs make your bulbs wear out a little faster.
They annoy other drivers. ?In 1998, after receiving hundreds of complaints, NHTSA acknowledged that the intensity limits were too high and proposed reductions in DRL intensity. NHTSA cited a study by Kirkpatrick, et. al. (1989), that said that at 2000cd, the glare from DRLs was rated at no worse than "just unacceptable" in 80% of the responses. At 4000cd, the glare was rated no worse than "disturbing" in
80% of the responses. These subjective ratings are based on the DeBoer scale. Corresponding to these ratings, they found that at 4000cd the probability that the rearview mirror would be dimmed was about 70%. At
2000cd the dimming probability was 40%. At 1000cd, the dimming probability dropped to 10%.? The NHTSA has now proposed that the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted. Expect the automakers to oppose this since it would add cost to do DRLs properly.
The advantage of DRLs, based on NHTSA statistics, is that they reduce vehicle/motorcycle, and vehicle/pedestrian crashes.
This is only for the U.S. of course. More northern countries may have different statistical results.
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca posted for all of us...
I see ads on trucks stating they pay 50 cents/mile IIRC. I thought about it and said 'that ain't much' with all the bullcrap they have to put up. Especially when they are sitting in traffic alongside me going nowhere. I really don't know how they handle it.
You are just being an ass. DRLs are not "shining in your eyes" in daylight from half a mile away. They are headlights at half intensity. They have virtually no effect on your eyes, as in "closing the iris" -
Sure you do - but you don;t know exactly where, and when you pull out to pass (or overtake as you Brits and Scotts and Irishmen say) it is a lot easier to see a day-lit car coming than a non-lighted car
And it is a lot easier to see you don't have a clear road when all cars are "day-lit"
It's obvious you are either totally clueless or enjoy "playing the prick"
DRLS can be any brightness from sidelights to more than headlights (50% more to be precise). And they do prevent you seeing the outline of the vehicle they're on. You cannot tell the speed of it or see where the edge of it is so easily, both are very important when approaching it!
If you see anything but clear road, or you aren't sure, then don't pass, it's not rocket science.
If you can mistake an unlit car IN BROAD DAYLIGHT for a blank piece of road, for f*ck's sake stop driving before you kill someone.
Lower gear? I bet 80% of the drivers have no idea they even have gears, just D and R
I go down a long hill every day. I shift from 8th to 4th and maintain the same safe speed. I see others constantly hitting the brakes. Some never get off the pedal.
At least in the US if the VIN has a J it's from Jacknell Rd, Hinckley, T for Chonburi. There's a Brazil branch but afaik that's strictly an assembly operation to beat the import tariffs.
I looked at them a couple of years ago and didn't see any quality difference. Nice bikes, but I went with a Suzuki. Not as cool looking as a Bonnie, but it gets the job done.
I read it that he was claiming American iron was anemic. Most Brits and europeans seem to believe that. (they go by HP numbers and don't consider the torque - which is a definite requirement in a "yank tank" as they call our cars.
No, it isn't. Sitting in traffic is part of the game but it's sitting in a truck stop waiting for your next load that's the killer. If you're not moving, you're not making money. If you consider the hours in the week when you're not free to do what you want, the hourly rate is well below minimum.
Sitting in the cab in traffic is worse than sitting at the truckstop. The truckstop os rest time - you can make that up in miles later. Sitting in the cab is driving time - it's logged the same as if you were doing a mile a minute down the highway and cannot be made up later without fudging the logs.
Two of our vehicles are hybrids. The lower gear is labeled "B". I couldn't imagine what "B" stood for. It's "Braking."
I had a rental minivan once and I could not find the low gear. There was no manual in the vehicle, and I later learned how to go into low and it was convoluted.
I do remember reading of some aircraft camo techniques experimented with during WWII where forward facing lights were attached to the wings causing the aircraft to blend in with the sky; seemed to be somewhat effective during daylight bright skies.
Since some stats show they increase safety and some show they decrease safety, it looks rather like they have zero overall effect. So no point in them! Perhaps we should concentrate on removing people from driving who can't see a car in broad daylight without being helped out by lights.
There was no electronic logging when I was driving so you just made up the time and logged accordingly. I only ever had one cop question the times and that was a bored yahoo that appeared out of a cornfield in the middle of Nebraska. First, he didn't know you log your home time and not the local time. Then he questioned how I got from Council Bluffs to David City in an hour. It was my second log book, a complete act of fiction, and that was the closest thing to reality in it.
The company expected you to get the job done. As they got larger they started to play by the rules. They realized a DOT audit of the real logs wouldn't hold up.
Some drivers were upset since running legal meant less money in their pocket but I didn't mind a more leisurely approach. Being a lab experiment in sleep deprivation isn't fun. The 1930's style DOT regulations didn't help either. Legally a day became 19 hours or so, 10 hours driving, 8 off, and 2 1/2 hour breaks. Canada was much more realistic with the 14 hour limit that fit into the normal, human circadian pattern.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.