Daytime Running Lights changed ???

[HummerNewbie]

What was the point of posting this "report"? GM paid for a study so that means that it automatically has to be biased? The whole thing came across to me as a biased report. Was there one fact in there that proved the study was biased or that it was incorrect? I might have missed something but don't think I will waste my time rereading it

As I have said before, I could care less what the studies say. Based on my personal experience I believe they do have a safety benefit. You don't feel that way and that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion. What I do have to ask though, is why to do DRLs enrage you so much? Did a DRL attack you or something? I for one just don't get why anyone would spend some much time arguing against something so insignificant

[f5fstop]

Michael, that is a GM study, what would you think a manufacturer would release?
Where are those independent studies you are talking about, and what would they prove anyway. I posted only independent studies, except for the cost figures that yes, were run by GM.
Your contention that running DRLs uses too much fuel, is ludicrous, when you also make the assumption you are driving a H3.
Therefore, I have to assume you are a troll, since it makes absolutely no sense to anyone so far, that your worries about the $3.00 in extra costs for DRL usage when driving a vehicle that maxes out about 20 mpg highway, are warranted.
So, if you don't like DRLs fine, not everyone will, so sell the H3. If you are really worried about fossil fuels, then sell the Hummer and get a Honda Insight or some other vehicle that will save fossil fuels. But to link the fact that DRLs uses a small minute amount of fossil fuels while driving around in a H3, is laughable.
Pesonally, I'm done. I have better things to do than discuss this issue with someone who makes no sense about an issue.

[Michael1]

Originally Posted by f5fstop

Michael, that is a GM study, what would you think a manufacturer would release?
Where are those independent studies you are talking about, and what would they prove anyway. I posted only independent studies, except for the cost figures that yes, were run by GM.

Does anyone read anything here? GM's study showed DRLs improving the accident rate at NIGHT! How does a DAYTIME Running Lamp improve your accident rate at night? What more proof do you need to know the study is flawed?

Your contention that running DRLs uses too much fuel, is ludicrous, when you also make the assumption you are driving a H3.

First off, not everyone is driving an H3. Second, the H3 uses fuel because it has an off-road purpose. Turning on lights for no reason only has the purpose of making GM happy.

30 million vehicles on road during day x 2 DRL lamps x 20 watts each (half power headlamps) = 1200 megawatts.

That's as much as good sized nuclear plant. That doesn't sound insignificant to me. In fact, one year of DRLs in the US is enough to provide all the residential electricity for the state of Vermont for almost three months.

1,200,000,000 watts x 10 hours of daylight / 0.6 alternator efficiency / 0.2 engine efficiency / 1000 watts/kW/ 32.6 kW-hr per gallon of gasoline w/10% ethanol = 3,072,000 gallons of gasoline burned PER DAY for DRLs.

Therefore, I have to assume you are a troll, since it makes absolutely no sense to anyone so far, that your worries about the $3.00 in extra costs for DRL usage when driving a vehicle that maxes out about 20 mpg highway, are warranted.

You're smarter than this. Stop hiding behind this "troll" nonsense. Give it a break.

This GM $3 figure per year sounds bogus.

15,000 miles per year / 35 avg. miles per hour x 0.8 daytime = 343 hours/year

Let's say gas is $3/gallon (even though it is far more in my area). That gets you 32.55 kW-hr of energy.

32.55 kw-hr of energy bought for $3 / 343 hours/year x 0.6 alternator efficiency x 0.2 engine efficiency = 11.4 watts. If GM is now running half power headlamps, that's on the order of 40 to 55 watts. Interesting disparity.

So, if you don't like DRLs fine, not everyone will, so sell the H3.

No need to sell. I just disable them, although if they end up making too hard, I'll give my $$$ to another manufacturer.

The point here is GM is trying to ram DRLs down everyone's throat. Now that their marketing experiment has failed, they have been lobbying NHTSA to mandate DRLs just so they don't end up with egg on their face. That's the part I find reprehensible.

Michael

[dеiтайожни]

Michael, you're an idiot.

[HummBebe]

There is a new law in CA. If your windshield wipers are on, your lights must be on. Dunno, but it sounds like CA is on the DRL bandwagon.

[deserth3]

New York was that way 10 years ago. haven't been there recently so I don't know if they still are.

[evldave]

Originally Posted by Michael1

No need to sell. I just disable them, although if they end up making too hard, I'll give my $$$ to another manufacturer.

I hope someday I know what your H3 is. Then, I'll drive down the road, see you coming the other way (without your DRLs), I'll hit you head on, then have H3.007 sue your sorry a$$ for not being responsible because you have a chip on your shoulder about GM.

Question, were you canned by them at some time in the past? You seem to know a fair amount of valuable info, but you seem to be a bitter person, lashing out a GM or hummer's at every opportunity.

Yet, you still chose to own one. Is this because you secretly love The General, but deny your own desires for acceptance and inclusion because you were once rejected? I can see how this could be a hard time for you. Therapy works well - everyone on this forum loves you - we may not all show it in the same way - for example, I think you are a complete dick - but everyone is here if you want to talk about your latent tendency to blame The General for something from your past.

[evldave]

1

[evldave]

2

[HummerNewbie]

Originally Posted by Michael1

Does anyone read anything here? GM's study showed DRLs improving the accident rate at NIGHT! How does a DAYTIME Running Lamp improve your accident rate at night? What more proof do you need to know the study is flawed?

Ok, I have to comment on this statement. I did see that in your original post and it is a ludicrous finding but how is that proof that the study is flawed? Sure, it is an idiotic thing to put in the report but how does that effect the rest of the study?

As for the rest of your post, didn't really bother reading all of it, just bits and pieces. I do have to ask though, who wronged you so bad that you feel the need to put so much time and energy into convincing people that DRLs are bad. Was the individual that came up with DRLs your father and he left you and your mother when your were little or maybe he did something worse to you? It is also about time you give up on the whole fuel consumption argument. You can through all the math out there that you want (which I saw a flaw or two in the little bit I looked at) and it doesn't make any difference, you sound like a troll or even an AE just trying to stir the pot. Just so you can prove you are neither, post some pics of you wheeling your H3. Since you used the argument that the H3 gets lower MPG because of its off road capability and you are so concerned about fuel consumption you must have bought it to wheel. So lets see the pics.

Well, that helped pass a little bit of time

[usetosellhummer]

light is good, dark is bad

[Michael1]

Originally Posted by HummerNewbie

You can through all the math out there that you want (which I saw a flaw or two in the little bit I looked at)

OK, so where is the flaw(s), so I can correct it?

Michael

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by Michael1

Does anyone read anything here? GM's study showed DRLs improving the accident rate at NIGHT! How does a DAYTIME Running Lamp improve your accident rate at night? What more proof do you need to know the study is flawed?

This does not discredit the study. There is good reason to include nighttime crash statics in an analysis of DRLs. For example:

1. Many DRLs are controlled by a light sensor, which automatically turns on full wattage and activates marker lights during dusk/dawn/night. With nothing to forget, the driver's risk could decrease.
2. Drivers with DRLs that aren't controlled by a light sensor may forget to turn them on. This leaves their car with headlights at half power and no tail/marker lights during dusk/dawn/night hours. The driver's risk could rise.
3. Headlamps burn out more quickly with DRL than without. If a lamp burns out at dusk/dawn/night, the driver's risk could rise.
4. Including nighttime statistics also eliminates the variables of winter/summer daylight hours and the need to define "dusk" and "dawn".

Most of these variables were called out in the study ... didn't you read it?

[Michael1]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

This does not discredit the study. There is good reason to include nighttime crash statics in an analysis of DRLs. For example:

1. Many DRLs are controlled by a light sensor, which automatically turns on full wattage and activates marker lights during dusk/dawn/night. With nothing to forget, the driver's risk could decrease.

What percentage of cars do you see driving around at night with no lights on? It is not zero, but it is pretty close to it.

4. Including nighttime statistics also eliminates the variables of winter/summer daylight hours and the need to define "dusk" and "dawn".

It doesn't eliminate variables. It ADDS a control variable. The statistics shouldn't change one bit with or without DRLs at night. If it does, you know there is noise in the data, and you use that to build a confidence band.

Michael

[FutureBeachBum]

I don't care!
I'm going to go pick the lint off my socks, it's more interesting

[Michael1]

There was press report last year that EU road casualties were little different from countries using DRL's than those not using DRL's. EU road safety data for 1989 - 1995 shows that Sweden is not as safe as the UK despite the use of DRL?s.

(source - The Times 03/06/98)
Fatalities per million miles
Britain
64
Sweden
65

In Canada there was a 12% reduction in accidents when DRL's were introduced, but during the same period there was a similar decrease in accidents the USA which did not widely use DRL's at that time.

I understand in Australia that DRL's have been tried but abandoned due to no perceivable benefits.

One concern has been that DRLs on motorcycles are being masked by cars with DRLs. Motorcycles become less noticeable, and then involved in more collisions, many of them fatal. Motorcycle fatalities have shot up from 22.66 fatalities per million miles in 1994 to 38.38 in 2003. DRLs first widespread installation on GM cars was in 1995. We may be killing motorcyclists with automobile DRLs.

Michael

[dеiтайожни]

Originally Posted by Michael1

30 million vehicles on road during day x 2 DRL lamps x 20 watts each (half power headlamps) = 1200 megawatts.

1,200,000,000 watts x 10 hours of daylight / 0.6 alternator efficiency / 0.2 engine efficiency / 1000 watts/kW/ 32.6 kW-hr per gallon of gasoline w/10% ethanol = 3,072,000 gallons of gasoline burned PER DAY for DRLs.

You can explain this one further, I must be missing something.

You are saying just the DRLs of 30 million passenger vehicles, around 10% of the nations registered passenger vehicles, account for about 1% of the entire nations gas usage a day? What does the engine of just these 30 million passenger vehicles use? 1,000,000% of the nations daily gas consumption?

[HumbleAg]

Holy crap, now I've gone from somewhat bored to totally bored.

MIchael, you obviously aren't the true mullethead (all his crap was made up), but I nominate you as an honorary mullethead just for continuing an argument no one cares about.

So, what's your take on airbags? (Please don't answer that, it was just a smart-ass comment)

[Michael1]

Originally Posted by dеiтайожни

You can explain this one further, I must be missing something.

You are saying just the DRLs of 30 million passenger vehicles, around 10% of the nations registered passenger vehicles, account for about 1% of the entire nations gas usage a day? What does the engine of just these 30 million passenger vehicles use? 1,000,000% of the nations daily gas consumption?

Here's the part you are missing. That is 30 million passenger vehicles on the road in any one hour during the 10 hours of daylight. I guess that figure could have been clearer.

Michael

[HummerNewbie]

Originally Posted by Michael1

That is 30 million passenger vehicles on the road in any one hour during the 10 hours of daylight. I guess that figure could have been clearer.

Michael

That right there was one item I was talking about because as I scanned through you post it came across like you were saying the vehicles were on the road 10 hours a day. As in each of them running 10 hours a day. Doesn't really change anything since it is such a pointless argument anyway so I'm not going to go back and reread it. Bottom line is you don't like DRLs, will go to most any extent to convince everyone they are the destroying the world and it is all the evil generals fault even though nobody here really seems to cares. I think that about covers it. You are entitled to your opinion but at the same time so is everyone else.