I'm going with the latter. I know that many cars with daytime running lights distract me and make the car itself harder to see. At the same time, I've wondered if that's because I'm more sensitive to light, possibly based on the fact that I have light-colored eyes. I also wonder if it has to do with the fact that to become apparent in the bright North Carolina sun, DRLs have to be quite bright to be seen at all.

Most of the statistics that promote them seem to be based on some flawed methodologies, like assuming the light level in Finland is like the light level in most of the US, or that a small percentage of cars on the road with DRLs will be similar to having a large percentage of cars with DRLs.

Anyway, what do the rest of you think?

I seem to remember that we have similarly sensitive eyes, based on your posts in the other thread about headlights. I have to agree with you on this one. I can't stand them either.

I'd have to say that I like how my dad's car works. If it gets darker, the sensors in his car will turn the lights on. I also think that DRLs do not help me see other cars better, so they are useless, but in lower-light situations, having headlights on are good, so I like the sensor approach. They are pretty sensitive too. If there is a good deal of cloud cover, the lights go on.

I always figured it was the work of the light-bulb companies.

Burning a high-beam filament (which you probably wouldn't have burned out anyway) at a lower voltage seems unlikely to make those companies much money.

Boon.

I have a Subaru Outback with DRLs, and I love them. I never forget to turn my lights off, since they shut off when I turn off my car, and when I need them, they are always there. I also like them on other cars, especially around dusk, when DRLs make cars more visible. This is especially true when it's raining, or in parking lots. It's a law in some states that when you have your windshield wipers on, you must have your headlights on. DRLs make the car more visible and provide assurances that you don't forget to turn your lights on. I almost ran into a truck the other night in a parking lot hat had forgotten to turn it's lights on.

My only beef with mine is that I cannot use the dimmer wire with my Empeg.

Other than making your car more visible during the day (which I don't believe for a minute), aren't all of those problems unrelated to having your lights on during the day? Dusk is not daytime, and raininess is an obvious exception.

I always figured it was the work of the light-bulb companies.

Some folks claim that it was the work of GM, who lobbied to change the NHTSA's stance (after several unsuccessful lobbies by the IIHS), and will now kindly sell you a kit to retrofit your older car with DRLs.

For the record, there's a highway near my home which is tagged as "daylight safety section" and there are signs stating that you're required to turn on your lights at all times on that road. I've heard of people getting ticketed for failing to heed the signs.

In the case of that particular stretch of road, I can understand it. It's rather dangerous. Narrow but high traffic, and traveled at high speeds. I think that tagging specific road sections makes more sense than requiring DRLs on all cars.

That's very interesting. Do you know if they're collecting statistics for the rate of accidents before and after that was enacted?

Personally, I can't imagine that it'll do any good. I find it hard to believe that people are not seeing large 3000-pound masses in the middle of the day and that, somehow, putting lights on them is going to help.

For the record, there's a highway near my home which is tagged as "daylight safety section" and there are signs stating that you're required to turn on your lights at all times on that road. I've heard of people getting ticketed for failing to heed the signs.

IIRC part of the Pacific Coast Highway as you're headed south toward Monterey is signed similarly/the same.

I have a Subaru Outback with DRLs, and I love them. I never forget to turn my lights off, since they shut off when I turn off my car

That isn't a feature exclusive to DRLs. This is also how my father's car works. When he pulls into the garage at night and turns off the car, the lights stay on for about 30 seconds so he can see around in the dark, then they go off. Plus they have the automatic-on feature when it is dim out.

Heck, my minivan doesn't have automatic lights or DRLs, and they turn off after about 10 seconds when the car is turned off.

So basically, I think those automatic lights are the best alternative. I don't see any need for lights being turned on in a sunny mid-day.

My Daytime running light have been disabled. I hate them. Makes it much more difficult to stalk people.

Anyone with a previous generation Saab 9-3, fuse #15 will kill your running lights and the annoying upshift light if you have a manual trans.

The problems I guess are not related to having your lights on during the day, but are related to DRLs as you are freed of the choice to turn your lights on or off.

Motorcycles always have their headlights on, what is the reasoning behind that if not to make the vehicle more visible?

Ahh. Blessed freedom from choice.

You may notice that motorcycles are much smaller, especially when viewed from the front.

I have a Subaru Outback with DRLs, and I love them. I never forget to turn my lights off, since they shut off when I turn off my car, and when I need them, they are always there. I also like them on other cars, especially around dusk, when DRLs make cars more visible.

You've just alluded to the reason why I think that they are crap. People rely on DRL when they really should turn on their lights. Ok, so DRL may help an oncoming vehicle see you, or for a pedestrian to see that you are coming. But they wont do anything for the car that's speeding behind you in the rain. DRL are front facing only. I also have a suspicion that people would be more likely to turn on their lights earlier if they didn't have DRL.

It's a false sense of security.

In my past I have taken a few track driving courses, and one of the things they teach you is if you are coming to an incident try not to look at it too much as your brain will naturally steer you where you are looking (the motorcyclist look 'through' the corner scenario).

Anyway when I see a car with DRL it tends to draw my attention to it, I would have seen it if it didn't have DRL, just now it is distracting me from cars without DRL, also as I am spending more time looking at it I am sure my brain will steer me towards it (or maybe that is just my evil side wanting to ram them to turn the DRL off )

Don't like 'em.
Although I do have them on my Golf, just haven't had the chance to fix it.

I think DRL are another reflection in society stooping to the LCD.
Let Darwin deal with the LCDs and let the rest of us exercise our grey matter.

Ok, so DRL may help an oncoming vehicle see you, or for a pedestrian to see that you are coming. But they wont do anything for the car that's speeding behind you in the rain.

Ok, you've made me realize that I'm using mine in a different way than most. I don't use my DRLs, I use the feature of my car that lets me leave my lights on all the time, while shutting them off when I turn off the ignition. I leave my light switch switched to ON all the time. This means my taillights are on all the time, too.

Ahh. Blessed freedom from choice.

Yeah, it's great! BTW, I need someone to tell me what restaurant I should go to tonight. And my opinion about the food I will eat there. I'm so glad that Clear Channel has taken over most of the radio in my area, freeing me from the choice of what music I should listen to.

DRLs were an option on my car that I chose to have.

Anyway, what do the rest of you think?

Boon.

It's a false sense of security.

They're worse than that. They condition people to expect the lights to be on when the vehicle is moving, which tends to also create the inverse and incorrect assumption that if the lights are off, the vehicle is stationary, regardless of whether they can see it moving. I know someone from sweden whose 16-year old son was hit and nearly killed by a car he walked out in front of, which was doing about 25MPH with the lights out during the day. According to the driver, the boy looked right at him from fifty feet away and simply stepped off the curb.

The kid claimed with some irritation something along the lines of, "It's lights were out, I thought it was stopped." Apparently the fact that it was getting steadily bigger wasn't enough of a clue to override the conditioned response of ((lights on=moving) <> (lights off=stopped)).

Apparently this sort of thing isn't uncommon in countries that have daylight running lights as a standard.

pca

Boon.

I'm coming from a place where all new vehicles have had DRL for years. DRL on your own vehicle should be neither a positive nor a negative to your own driving behaviour when not factoring other drivers.

DRL on your own vehicle are not there to help you see. They're not lessen or remove your responsibility to turn on your hadlights at dusk and dawn or when it's raining or when going through a tunnel. They're there for other drivers during daylight hours. Let's assume everyone always remembers to turn on their lights when they're supposed to.

DRL, in my opinion, make a car far easier to see on the road. Where one car will blend into the background, one with DRL is instantly identified as 1. a car and as 2. a car that is in operation.

A split-second glance into any mirror will instantly pick up a pair of lights where the car itself may take a few more split seconds to register. I'll see that lights are present long before I'll identify what kind of car it is for instance. I'm not speaking about someone right next to me of course. Their biggest plus comes when checking mirrors - so we're talking about cars coming from behind. BUt I also find them useful for vehicles aproaching from the front.

What I do not like is the fact that because of DRL, some people will forget to turn on their lights in the evening. Some model's DRL light up enough that some poeple (retards I guess) think their lights are on. I wish the DRL principle was extended to include tail lights. Any time the vehicle is in operation, I believe the tail lights should be ON. Again, fr plain identificatoin at all times, but mostly because a large percentage of people do not turn on their lights during circumstances warranting it (fog, rain, snow, etc..)

That's my 2 cents on the matter. Now, I lso think DRL should be either the high-beams at low voltage or dedicated bulbs approximating the same look. I do NOT think they should be oange or yellow or amber corner markers like on some stinking US minivans. I also think all turn signal lenses should be amber with no exceptions and that turn signals should NEVER EVER be allowed to use the same bulb or reflector as a tail light.

Bruno

Many many typos. Absolutely no time.

Boon.


Uhhh, yeah. What HE said.

tanstaafl.

Pithy, the both of you.

I find it interesting that, so far, the people that like DRLs are from Alaska, Toronto, Washington State, and Ohio.

Those first three places are places I'd expect DRLs to actually be useful. I don't know so much about Ohio (I was in Canton once, I believe, but when I was, like, six), but it's not exactly in the Sun Belt.

The people that don't like them live in North Carolina, Virginia, Southern California, Texas, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, and the South of England. Okay, those last three don't fit, but the rest are pretty sunny.

I'm originally from Maine, but in Ohio I've found that the winters here are very dreary and gray. It seems like from late October to March, the sky is dark, with only a few days here and there with any amount of sun at all. In Maine every day was bright and sunny, even throughout the winter, except when it was going to snow or rain.

I've been to the Akron/Canton area, and it's a little different than central Ohio in that they have more hilly areas. Central Ohio is very flat and boring, while the northern and southern parts of the state have more varied terrain.

Boon as long as everyone else doesn't turn their lights on also.

I worked for an OSHA monitored company and some pointed haired safety guru decided anyone driving a company vehicle had to drive with their lights on. They even wired the car's lights to always on. This was in '90 before everyone was on the DRL bandwagon. The basic premise was to make you stand out so other people could see you because if they could see you they wouldn't hit you. Of course, they didn't figure in the fact that was in Southern Louisiana where the locals would chase you down to tell you that your lights were on. This initiative was quickly followed up with Safety Initiative #2 which was to plaster all the cars with large stickers that said "My Lights are on for Safety". Made you feel like you were in Taurus shaped "I'm with Stupid" t-shirt.

Patrick's story pegs it...as soon as it becomes common place, people begin to ignore them or worse.

I wasn't sure what you meant by DRL, so I looked it up.
Well, I didn't know there was a 'DJO Recreational League', nor that it was part of the 'Dark Jedi Organization'

what a strange place this is

The people that don't like them live in [...] Southern California

I live in SoCal, and I like 'em, though they're kinda pointless most of the time. (Of course, I learned to drive in SoOntario and Toronto.)

I agree with Bruno (including the point about color and need to have rear lights on, too). In Croatia we don't have DRL, but recommendation is to have your low beams (and so red rear lights too) on at all times. I find I see other cars emerging from the background much sooner if they have their lights on, even in bright sunlight (actually, especially when they are comming from the direction of low sun).

However, Patrick also has a point, too. Obviously, those lights should be automatic in order to avoid this kind of accidents.

Satan has been cast out of my car!

Definitely the work of Satan - they're not up there along with the people who use full beam and foglights in the day and no lights in fog or at dusk, but they're scummy.

I never use mine on my Subaru - they are dim, they stay on when the key is removed, thus draining the battery, and they serve no purpose. In fact I reckon that sometimes lights increase my invisibility factor!

Training is the way forwards - as mentioned a wee bit back in this thread, if a car is getting bigger, it is moving closer (or I guess it could be getting bigger, but that is awfully unlikely, so we'll go with Occam on this one) so deal with it.

Volvos and Saabs may well have a good reason for running lights in countries well up near the Arctic circle, but they are just a pain in the neck at all other times.

Uhhh, yeah. What HE said.

I was going to shock the world by sticking with a one-word answer, but I just thought of some other drivel on the subject and I don't think I can contain myself.

In the late 60s and early 70s in my neighborhood, some people dropped big Chevy V8s into small Chevys (Novas / Chevy IIs) and then removed every piece of chrome and painted the whole shebang with flat-black primer. They installed a cut-out switch on the license plate light and then dressed in black leathers and *really* pointy black leather boots. These people were referred to as The Rats, and the low-visibility Novas were intended to at least convey the impression that the owner was completely at ease with a routine that consisted of breaking into pharmacies to steal narcotics and then escaping into the night.

It is my studied opinion that all people who remove their DRL modules are expressing the primal Rat Urge -- are struggling to free the Gangsta Within. Their subsequent installation of cut-out switches and the many reported late-night escapes from sushi bars only confirm this.

On a marginally related topic, I must further inflate by posting my recent missive to Click and Clack:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: cartalk@cars.com
Subject: Whatsa behind? No matta!

Guys,

The caller Kathie from Kirkland, WA called supposedly to settle a beef with her boyfried about flashing lights to pass.

This was a little disingenuous. What "Kathie" failed to disclose is that she lives in the Washington-Oregon No-Pass Zone where student drivers are whipped with 21-inch premium wiper blades if they so much as *glance* into their rear-view mirror during their instruction. Local preachers exhort their congregations to move to the left-most lane and set their cruise controls exactly to the speed limit so that none of us heathens will be allowed to sin by exceeding it! "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signs are exposed for what they really are -- exhortations to sin from heathen, secular humanist government officials!

So, what Kathie failed to mention if that her boyfriend is currently serving time in Walla Walla for the crime of trying to *not* pass on the right and for trying to get another driver's attention. In his defense, he *tried* to stay at a reasonable distance, but the left-lane hugger in front of him just *assumed* that meant that he didn't want to pass. So, he crept closer, even flashed his lights... Sorry, that qualifies for 1 day in the stocks and 6 months-to-life in this state!

So, most people here wouldn't last a minute in a country where drivers actually pay some attention. No matter, though, all those Europeans are going to Hell, aren't they?
--
-*- Jim Hogan
Seattle, WA

Oh, and Bruno, good work on the subject. Agree completely.

I'm sorry, but I have yet to see a statement that rings true in the situation of bright sunlight. I don't know if you people up north know what kind of bright, sunny days we're talking about , but I think that DRLs become more dangerous in this bright sunlight.

I suppose your answers will be opposite to this anyway. I still believe that headlights do not help your visibility, and that I have absolutely no trouble recognizing a car without lights. I also maintain that the optimum solution is automatic headlights, but nobody has commented on that anyway, so I'll let it go.

Now, I lso think DRL should be either the high-beams at low voltage...

I'm sorry, what??

Having never noticed DRLs in bright and sunny Texas, one of three things must be true:

1. People in Texas don't have them.

2. People in Texas have them, but they don't make cars any more visible (as I would have seen them).

3. People in Texas have them and they make cars more visible, but I'm not a very observant driver (which I don’t think is the case, but who thinks they’re unobservant?).

Unfortunately, I really cannot comment much beyond the above.

I don't know if you people up north know what kind of bright, sunny days we're talking about

At least twice a year (like today!) it is really bright here!

, but I think that DRLs become more dangerous in this bright sunlight.

I don't get it. I have never been blinded or distracted by DRLs or daytime headlights whether in gray Seattle or in Mexico at high noon. I *really* don't get it.

I suppose your answers will be opposite to this anyway.

Of course (doing the work of Beelzebub as always!!).

Our weekend provided part of the various DRL cases-in-point. Conditions ranged from really bright (Eastern) Washington sunshine to sudden charcoal-grey thunderstorm conditions (that created all the swell new water hazards). On fast transits on 2-lane highways, I was happy to see DRLs oncoming, whether in the shimmer of hot blacktop or the dull murk of thundercloud overcast. It is my opinion (backed up by nonexistant research!) that "lights-on-for-safety" / DRLs help to moderate FPB (Fatal Passing Behavior) -- make it clearer, *earlier* that you have oncoming so you can pause to reflect on rate-of-close issues...

The thing is, I'm sure that for some people (you), they work for noticing other cars better.

However, for some people they are distracting. My eyes seriously don't like the lights coming at me, mainly on bright days.

There are other drivers who panick when they get too much light. I can honestly say without the shadow of a doubt that the sun, and the sun alone, causes my morning commute to be 20 minutes longer than it should/could be. I'm certain that if all the oncoming traffic also had lights on, it would be even worse and possibly confusing to these people who refuse to wear sunglasses or put their visors down.

There is another possible reason that I don't like DRLs, and that may be that I'm not seeing DRLs at all. It is possible that most of the time I see lights on, they are regular headlights. I gather from what people have said here, that DRLs are dimmer than normal headlights.

Anyway, I think it's a subjective thing, so we're not going to agree on it I just hope it doesn't become a law or anything, because I'll have to stop driving when it's bright out

There is another possible reason that I don't like DRLs, and that may be that I'm not seeing DRLs at all. It is possible that most of the time I see lights on, they are regular headlights. I gather from what people have said here, that DRLs are dimmer than normal headlights.

That's one problem. Until very recently, the intensity of DRLs was not really regulated, so some manufacturers chose to use their high beams at full strength as DRLs. New legislation should help that, though. That might be all that's needed, really, but that still means that we'll have to deal with those cars for years. It's not like anyone even aligns their headlights anymore, much less would think to actually spend money on making their headlights less annoying to other drivers.

It's not like anyone even aligns their headlights anymore, much less would think to actually spend money on making their headlights less annoying to other drivers.

Quite right, thus bringing us back to the other thread

On a marginally related topic, I must further inflate by posting my recent missive to Click and Clack:


Either great minds think alike, or we're both ready for the looney bin, Jim... I suspect we both responded to the same Car Talk episode. Here was my response:

April 23, 2003

YOU'RE the rude, illegal moron, Tommy.

For your information, it is illegal to even BE in the left lane unless you are overtaking another car. It is hard to imagine ruder behavior than that exhibited by the moron who parks himself in the left lane, matching his speed perfectly with the car to his right, holding up every car behind him who might wish to travel faster than what he considers to be a reasonable speed.

"Oh, I'm going the speed limit, so I don't have to get out of the way" he says. Well, when he gets a nice police car with flashing lights, and a badge to go with it, then he'll be entitled to enforce the law. Until then, it isn't his job and all he's doing is creating road rage and causing dangerous traffic congestion wherever he drives.

On the very rare occasions when I have been inattentive enough that someone had to use the right-hand lane to go by me, I have been mortified with embarassment that I could have done such a poor job of paying attention to what's going on around me.

Now, I'll concede that if both lanes are filled and there is no easy way to pull over, and especially if there is another car directly in front of the left-lane bandit so that he couldn't increase his speed even if he wanted to -- then there is no reason to flash at him, and no excuse for doing so.

But in general, if you're gonna run with the Big Dogs in the fast lane, then by God you damn well better RUN with them.

Doug Burnside




I've often wondered whether complaining to the police, asking them to write tickets to people going too slow [in the left lane] as well as to people going too fast would accomplish anything. Probably not...

tanstaafl.

And you were both responding to a re-run of a pretty old episode.

And you were both responding to a re-run of a pretty old episode.

I thought that might be the case, but I was so incited that I figured if they are going to run horseshit twice, they need to be reflamed. I send Tom & Ray encouraging notes about once a year and hate mail about once every 6 months!

I like your e-mail better. More direct! I love the boys, but Tom (in particular) has this habit of talking out his butt on some serious issues.

I've often wondered whether complaining to the police, asking them to write tickets to people going too slow [in the left lane] as well as to people going too fast would accomplish anything. Probably not...

The bad situation here is complicated by bad traffic engineering -- left-hand exits. I doubt the State Patrol will ever get excited about it given that most of the left hand campers have their cruise controls set to the speed limit +/- 1 MPH. What legitimate need could I claim to pass them? I would (shock!!) be breaking the legal speed limit. Also given the tendency of everyone to slow to a crawl when a patrol car is spotted, the only way to catch someone would be with an unmarked car, I think...and then only egregious violators running below the speed limit. Cops, I think, spend time thinking about whether a particular ticket is a loser, court appearance-wise. STKR violations would be a bad bet.

But, DRL only make sense if they are mandatory (and, preferably, automatic); otherwise, if only most drivers use them, those who don't become kind of invisible (and so dangerous for themselves and others).

If DRL are hurting your eyes in broad daylight, then there's something clearly wrong with them. As I said, we use regular low beams here, and they seem (to me) to be just brigh enough to make car visible sooner, and not bright enough to be annoying or distracting.

My estimate is that I notice the incomming car with low beems on at 1.5 to 3 times greater distance than the one without, depending on direction and quality of ambient light, car colour, background etc. The similar is true for that Porshe comming from behind at 200+ km/h on highway.

BTW, headlight alignment check (together with brakes, steering and exhaust) is a part of mandatory annual test every car must pass here in order to renew its 'roadworthiness' license.

But, DRL only make sense if they are mandatory (and, preferably, automatic)

OK, I've mentioned automatic lights, but you're the only other person who has mentioned them. What is your definition?

If DRL are hurting your eyes in broad daylight, then there's something clearly wrong with them. As I said, we use regular low beams here, and they seem (to me) to be just brigh enough to make car visible sooner

OK, that's fine with me, as long as they aren't as bright as what I've seen. And Bruno, I must strongly disagree that it is a good idea to make DRLs use high beams at any intensity. That's just insane to me.

I still think it would not be good to make them mandatory.

BTW, headlight alignment check (together with brakes, steering and exhaust) is a part of mandatory annual test every car must pass here in order to renew its 'roadworthiness' license.

As it is here, but inspectors are remarkably lazy, trying to push as many cars through the system as fast as they can in order to make more money. They can't charge more for better service because the total fee is government mandated. So I try to keep my headlights aligned myself. Judging by the cars on the road, most people don't.

OK, I've mentioned automatic lights, but you're the only other person who has mentioned them. What is your definition?

Simple (and probably different than your definition ), as in Volvos made for domestic market: DRL turn on when you turn the engine on.

OK, that's fine with me, as long as they aren't as bright as what I've seen. And Bruno, I must strongly disagree that it is a good idea to make DRLs use high beams at any intensity. That's just insane to me.

Regular low beams or a bit stronger 'position' corner lights seem better, I agree.

I still think it would not be good to make them mandatory.

Again, if you cannot count on incomming traffic being made more visible by using the lights, you loose half the purpose. I had several, well, not exactly close calls, but unpleasant surprises when starting to overtake a car in front of me after letting ten incomming ones pass (all with their lights on), only to have eleventh one, grey, dirty and without lights emerge suddenly from haze and backdrop of tarmac.

Why it it would be bad idea to make the lights mandatory? What could possibly be gained by not using them when most of other drivers do?

As it is here, but inspectors are remarkably lazy, trying to push as many cars through the system as fast as they can in order to make more money. They can't charge more for better service because the total fee is government mandated. So I try to keep my headlights aligned myself. Judging by the cars on the road, most people don't.

Heh, good, old economic incentive! Here the inspection is done in licensed shops that are also equiped to fix whatever is wrong, so they have incentive to find a fault and charge you for fixing it quickly.

Yeah, the shops here are licensed too, but I don't think that the government really clamps down on it too much, except for one every five years or so when most of the shops lose their licenses and then get them back a few months later.

It's encouraged here for people to take inspection faults to a different shop for repair so that inspectors can't make up faults and charge you money for making an imaginary repair. In fact, it might be the law that a shop that performs an inspection isn't allowed to make those repairs, but I could be wrong about that.

Yeah, the shops here are licensed too, but I don't think that the government really clamps down on it too much,....

Ah, and the joy of 1 country, 51 governments. I *think* I remember Washington inspecting my brand-new GTI when I moved here in 1988, but then they completely ignored it for the next 13 years save for biannual emissions tests (mandatory in *some* counties). The wheels could have fallen off... I think the only real "safety inspections" here are when the State Patrol pulls over a heap with missing headlights...

Yeah, some places have different inspection standards. VA, however, has them every year. However, I don't think headlight alignment is really part of it. They probably adjust them if they're off by a lot.

VA, however, has them every year.

Yeah, I grew up in Massachusetts and we had 'em every year IIRC (at least when I was younger) including headlight test/adjustment. I was amazed when I moved to WA. Nada. Oh, I guess it *is* the Wild West, after all.

I don't know if you people up north know what kind of bright, sunny days we're talking about , but I think that DRLs become more dangerous in this bright sunlight.

I don't know what kind of bright sunny days you're talking about, but when I'm driving on Highway 84 through nowhereville NM, and I need to pass a semi going 45 in a 65, I find that it's much easier to see a vehicle that's 1/4 mile down the road or so when they have DRLs. When it's the middle of the day and the heat rising off the road distorts one's vision a ways down, making out the shape of a car can be extremely difficult. But seeing the DRLs eliminates all question as to whether or not I'm going to cause a head-on by passing. I find myself in that scenario quite a lot in the back highways of New Mexico and I've noted to myself many times how the DRLs have been beneficial; but of course, that scenario is a very specific one. And those particular driving conditions are the only conditions that I have noticed the benefit of DRLs in.

I've also never noticed DRLs being too bright during the day. Even if someone was shining their high beams directly at me in the oncoming lane - there's no way it could ever be brighter than the sun shining directly in my face. I find that I'm often much more distracted by sunlight reflecting off of some freshly polished chrome or off a windshield.

- trs

When it's the middle of the day and the heat rising off the road distorts one's vision a ways down

Then that would be a different kind of bright, sunny day

But I know what you mean.

Just thought you guys might like to see the National Motorists Association's stance on this:

http://www.motorists.org/issues/drl/index.html

I pretty much agree with them. For those of you wondering why we think they are dangerous it has nothing to do with them being too bright. I seem to remember reading in popular science a few years back how the military was trying to make their planes invisable to the eye (since they were pushing the limits of radar stealth) and one of the ways they were looking at was, for daytime flying, big bright lights on the front and underside of the plane. So what we are really looking at here is more of a contrast ratio. In the brighter locations (such as sunny florida where i live) DRLs tend to make a car LESS visible because it brings the brightness of the car up to the level of the surounding ambiant light. on the other hand darker vehicals are easier to see because they are darker than everything else. So what is needed is for the controle to be in the driver and they need to be able to judge whether or not they would be most visible at a particular moment with their lights on or off. The problem is most drivers are not properly trained in how to do this (same as the people who cruise in the left lane) and so you have people running around in low light conditions with no lights on (you also have people running around in high light conditions with their lights on thinking it makes them more visible).

In reply to:

---

You've just alluded to the reason why I think that they are crap. People rely on DRL when they really should turn on their lights. Ok, so DRL may help an oncoming vehicle see you, or for a pedestrian to see that you are coming. But they wont do anything for the car that's speeding behind you in the rain. DRL are front facing only. I also have a suspicion that people would be more likely to turn on their lights earlier if they didn't have DRL.

It's a false sense of security.

---

Genixia, I agree with you 100% here. I HATE when it's raining so hard during the day where everyone should have their lights on but all of the DRL people just blindly drive on (and some non-DRL peeps too I admit). It really causes a lot of problems for people driving behind them.

I also HATE the way Subaru WRX's look (my body style at least) with just the top lights on and the bottom fogs off. I've disabled my Subby's DRL's (a very very easy thing to do and 100% reversable). For some reason, our cars automatically turn the lights off (even when in the "On" position) when the ignition is off. So I can leave my lights turned to "on" all the time and let the ignition turn them off when the car is off. A lot safer that way.