Daytime running lights might not only be a waste of energy but also unsafe
As with most things, take this with a pinch of salt, but the truth is that Ecologistas en Acción, a Spanish environmental group, has published a thorough article claiming that daytime lights on cars are not safe, and that the extra burden on the alternator to keep them on only adds fuel consumption.
The group affirms that while countries such as Italy or Spain (with more light hours than their Northern counterparts) are thinking about making daytime lights mandatory, Austria has decided to abolish the measure because it's unsafe.
What are the reasons? First, a psychological mechanism: the lights make motorists more secure about their driving, increasing confidence, more or less thinking "I can be more careless since others can see me better". Second, weaker elements on the road, such as bycicles and people on foot, won't have such lights and so they might become more prone to being hit by vehicles. Austria's Ministry of Interior confirmed that they will stop mandating daytime lights (during good weather conditions) because drivers are more easily distracted.
Finally, the environmental group says that since electricity on cars is not free and must be generated via the alternator that takes power from the engine, the lights thus increase consumption. Nevertheless, the group states alternatives that should be applied to reduce traffic accidents: electronically limited speed on cars, stricter speed limits, criminalisation of radar detectors (which are not legal in the EU) but, above all, an increase mass transit which they consider always safer than cars.
[Source: Ecologistas en Acción (link is in Spanish)]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Rocket Scientist 7:47PM (2/29/2008)
If the DRLs are necessary for the car to be seen,why are the tail lights not turned on? I have read most of the collisions are rear enders......geeeee. You follow cars at night with DRLs on (the driver can see)and no lights in the back? Have we lost our ability to think and reason? I should be grateful though, we are not claiming they are "for the childern". So lets get to the facts, the folks who defend the DRLs are generally the drivers that have the outlandish Xenons and funny colored ones that let the world know how they paid for their car and how cool a fashion statement is being made. My friends and I all had ours replaced as to not offend and impair other drivers. The true answer is a lesson from the trucking industry, corner marker amber lights, and your leased BMW would run just as fast. When Cowboy Bob has his first cataract surgery (toss in a bit of CME)and feels the blinding eye pain of many oncoming traffic DRLd cars at once, he will have a new experience which will deserve all our caring sympathy. PS there has never been a study that DRLs decreased head on or side accidents, anywhere. Challenge anyone to find one !!! all talk!! DRLs are right up there with the sun visor stickers that tell us the air bags are not safe....
Reply
detroit9000 6:09PM (9/17/2007)
Why don't they study the matter. DRLs are proved to decrease accidents. It's also been proven that dead people are not terribly efficient. Therefore, if you want to quit, say, killing your highly educated brain which could ultimately make the world better using its education to innovate, then you're not going to discontinue DRLs.
Also, I know that when my lights are on during the day, I can't HELP but do constant donuts, due to the extreme feeling of comfort I get that others can see me.
What a crock!
Reply
mike 8:15PM (9/17/2007)
All I can say is Day Time running lights, at least on Black and Dark cars, are extremely helpful. There were a number of times a black car can come out of the shadows virtually unseen, unless it's got it's lights on.
Reply
MikeW 11:22PM (9/17/2007)
No. DRLs are bad.
http://www.lightsout.org/
The US's implementations are horrible.
High beams: Too glaring, bad concept.
Low beam: A good European type low beam has good light control, minimal light into other driver's eyes, so full power or partial power doesn't really do anything. And think of vehicle headlight disparities in following traffic.
The SAE beam definition is so lax in comparison, a partial intensity low beam would be somewhat acceptable. But shouldn't the US move to the ECE headlight design for improved night time driving. Yes.
Fog lights: A good fog light is mounted low to the ground, with no light above the horizontal. Marginal except for maybe open highway in the summer with the lensing effect of heat shimmer.
Turn signal: GM's cop out {remember the EV1] by a lame attempt to redefine the turn signal to a negative signal.
So if you want a DRL, you need to have a dedicated DRL lamp, preferably selective yellow.
Hella knew this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Varselljussats.jpg
though I don't mind BMW's extra bright corona rings (angle eyes)
And you could use a dual beam bulb in a quad bulb system. In a Euro system use an H4 or H13 with the low filament as normal. Wire the DRL function so the filaments are in series. The high filament can be positioned so that its light illuminates the area that the normal filament does not (ie into oncoming traffic)
This would be dim enough to not be annoying, yet perfom its drl function. I don't know of any applications in the US market.
Reply
Der_Alte 1:41AM (9/18/2007)
We have had mandatory daytime running lights in Canada for many years now. I've never been blinded by DRLs. They've saved my goose a few times by spotting a silver or gray car on a gray rainy day when I otherwise might not. People who go around and drive like idiots will do so whether or not they have DRLs....but the DRLs on their vehicle might help other motorists avoid an idiot driver. I challenge the people who put out this study to actually try and calculate the extra burden put on the alternator for DRLs and the resulting extra fuel consumption. People who oppose DRLs are just opposed to change period. The Canadian experience has been that they increase safety and do a world of good....surprisingly carnage has not ensued because of mandatory DRLs.
Reply
cowboy bob 6:06AM (9/18/2007)
I was opposed ro DRL when they became manditory here in upstate NY. I did not think they were necessary, and only were one more thing that was shoved down my throat. HOWEVER, after several near misses with difficult to see colors of some cars without DLR I have changed my mind. I think reduced voltage DLR has proven itself to be benificial and now support their use. As far as some crazy idea that they somehow increase my driver confidence level to a point where I become more careless- what bullsh*t. The lights come on with my ignition, and I really don't even think about them at all. This is a passive system, unlike traction control, or the really dangerous anti-lock brake system, that can sometimes take control of the driving characteristics of a vehicle when a driver DOESN'T want them too. FACT-Anti-lock brakes have caused accidents, and have scared the hell out of many drivers. I have been there. I have never had DRL scare me, or anyone else that I have talked to.
Reply
HyperLemon 6:35AM (9/18/2007)
Calling anti-lock breaks dangerous is something really silly. Maybe they can scare people, but only if they DON'T know how they work and what they do. But if you don't know how to operate your car properly, you should not be driving, at all. Learn the machine you are using if you intend to use it.
Maybe anti-lock breaks were the cause of accidents, but I am pretty damn sure that thanks to anti-lock breaks a lot more accidents were averted.
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 8:23AM (9/18/2007)
Bright yellow fog (diffused) lights would be best.
Rather off-topic, but have you ever noticed how in those situations where you expect lights to be on--rain, dawn, dusk--you almost look for lights and not cars? I don't know how many times I've almost not spotted cars that don't have their lights on, when everybody else does. Automatic headlights are a better safety evolution than DRL's IMHO.
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 8:26AM (9/18/2007)
On the subject of antilock brakes:
If you drive frequently on dirt or gravel roads, antilock brakes ARE dangerous. Sometimes the best way to scrub off speed is with a little bit of lockup. I know it sounds backwards, but that's the way it feels to me. Maybe if I had a vehicle with superduper stability control and traction control too, I'd think otherwise!
Reply
cowboy bob 12:19PM (9/18/2007)
Hyperlemon-Don't call me silly or unable to drive. I did not insult anyone, and I take great offence to your attitude. I have driven for fifty years with all types of vehicles from tractor-trailer to competition race cars,(and won many times by the way) and know how to drive with or without the aid of the newest "technology". Owian has it right, and there are a lot of staticial reports showing the anti-lock brake issues in accidents. There may well be stastics showing the benefit as well, but you show none to support your "pretty damn shure" attitude. It's the "know it all" people like you who are all of the sudden "surprised" when a new analysis of equipment shows you something you "damn well know" isn't what you thought.
Reply
MikeW 12:00PM (9/18/2007)
DRLs could be useful, but on the list of the ten most pressing optical improvement, they are number 11.
More pressing:
Amber rear turn signals.
Positive brake lights (anyone seen an E39 BMW 5 series, or an 2002+ E46 sedan, no confusion-no ambiguity
Lateral front turn signal repeater (there are some crappy vehicles than you can not see the turn signal anywhere else than from the front-new honda accord, also the G35-why seeing as the Altima has the LED turn signal mirror?
No combination front amber park/turn signals (the human eye works on optical motion, so the dim-bright of the combination park/turn is junk. off-ON is correct) So having the city light in the high beam housing is more appropriate
Dynamic auto leveling for HID headlights (with cleaing sprayers) How did HID headlights get approved without the supporting hardward?
Correctly positioned retroreflective material. The Mazda6 has is placed correctly, mounted low to the ground to be lit by the low beam headlights, not high up where only the high beams would reach it.
Then the elimination of dual beam headlights.
Auto leveling of incandescent projector headlights (auto leveling is different than dynamic auto leveling)
The elimination of HID reflector headlights
The adoption of an adaptive CHMSL for indication of Brake Assist
LED brake lights for a sub 10ms driver's foot to following vehicle driver's eyes response.
then comes an implementation of a good DRL system.
The US-Canada border is a good division of where to use them.
Get a globe and orient it to the shortest day in winter. Look at canada, almost horizontal. Most of the US mounted under 45N, even on the shortest day of the year really don't need them.
and on the longest day, 65N is a good division (that is basically all of canada)
So give the driver a switch to turn and off as needed.
Reply
steven 4:30PM (9/25/2007)
One thing I like about my DRLs is they automatically switch to NRLs when it gets dark. I NEVER have to turn my lights on or off and the tail lights come on as well. Which means i NEVER have to think about them so I can't possibly develop any "psychological mechanism" to make me drive in a more dangerous manner thinking that I'm safer with DRLs. This type of legislation sounds a lot like those areas that try to outlaw the spinner hubcaps because they were "dangerous". BTW, If anyone is counting, I'm a BIG amber rear turn signal fan too.
Reply
drlguy 8:08PM (10/01/2007)
Turn signal DRLs are the answer. 1) They are proven by Australian Automotive Engineer Michael Paine to be superior to all other white light types, especially in regions closer to the equator. 2) GM's own studies have proven them most effective over all other types, and have proven them to be 3.8 times more effective than full power low beam headlights (i.e., driving with day headlights). 3) A 1998 Federal Register entry/study proved them to save up to 0.5 mpg over full day headlight DRLs (like older Volvos, where DRLs=all park lights plus low beams). 4) In 1995, Transport Canada [Canada's NHTSA equivalent] found turn signal DRLs to offer the lowest overall DRL costs for fleets [considering fuel and bulb costs], finding that they offer even lower costs than reduced energy low beam headlights, and 5) Amber light is more visible to the human eye from a physics viewpoint - it is in the dead middle of our visible human color spectrum, and amber has been noted as being conspicuous in all lighting conditions and able to be seen from the farthest distances. Documentation: http://www.bestdrls.com.
Reply
Andre 3:47PM (11/03/2007)
I cant believe some people nickel and dime the cost of having a lightbulb on. If a car uses lets say 30 hp to overcome wind drag, it would be equal to 25 kWh. If a lamp eats up 0.1 kWh then it s less than 0.5% of the vehicle operating costs. The gas mileage can vary in more significant ways: incorrect tire pressure, use of AC, even listening to your car stereo. Hairsplitting folks - get real. A head-on car collision easily costs $30,000 dollars. Why save pennies, when you can saving thousands of dollars, by avoiding an accident.
Reply