Daytime Running Lights changed ???

[HummBebe]

Originally Posted by Michael1

I'm the troll here? Obviously, when you have HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of light bulbs burning, it is going to use up a lot of energy (that is if you can multiply). In this case, it is for no reason. But even if there was a reason, the fact a couple of people here fail to acknowlege the magnitude of the energy consumption makes THEM the TROLLS.

Of course, you won't get these trolls to make any distinction of the effectiveness of DRLs in different climates. Funny how these studies all seem to take place in the far northern reaches of the globe, where ambient light levels are a lot lower during much of the year compared to the lower 48 of the U.S. You'll never hear any of that perspective from the DRL trolls.

Of course, the DRL trolls won't tell you that most of these studies were performed with a percentage of cars with DRLs, and a percentage without. They leave out the results of what happens with ALL vehicles have DRLs.

The DRL trolls don't tell you when the flawed data shows improved results that have nothing to do with DRLs, such as single vehicle collisions, like someone running off the road.

Even if I went to the trouble to dig up the data from NHTSA (which it is all there), because we have trolls here, it wouldn't do a bit of good. These people are the type who just have nothing better to do than sit on their keyboards and arses all day, and argue based on what happens to pop into their heads at the moment ("Duh, I can see better with the lights" mentality), while ignoring all other data, a bit like conspiracy theorists.

Oh, and guess what else have failed for all you trolls? Antilock brakes. Sorry no reduction in accidents over the long term. Chew on that bone for a while.

So if and when this discussion returns with a shred of intellectual dialog, let me know, and I will present some of the findings to the non-trolls. The trolls can just close their eyes and ears, which shouldn't be too hard, since that's their modus operandi.

Michael

"The world is still flat for some people. They'll point to the horizon as proof."

[HumbleAg]

[quote=f5fstop]As for why did they change, the magic word is GLOBAL. In some countries, the DRLs must be headlamps. So, a wiring change was made to make the DRLs all as common as possible. Don't ask me why the electrical guys didn't think of this in the beginning, since they knew the H3G was in the works.
As for a change, right now I can't say. The BCM controls the DRLs on my vehicle, via the signals bulbs. The turn signal lever and hazard switch signal the BCM that the flashers must be used, and the BCM then flashes the signals as required (flashers override the DRLs).
So far, the wiring has not been updated for the headlamp DRLs, but I have to assume the BCM is controlling these also, with the headlamp switch or light sensor overriding the DRLs. The BCM also controls the headlamps on the older style H3, via relays.

My guess is it can be done, but my guess is it might require a new BCM and/or a new wiring harness, or at the least a new BCM calibration.


I personally, prefer the signal bulbs as DRLs. In my opinion, they are easier to see, but that is probably a process of my old eyeballs, and certainly isn't based on anything else. Especially since I have seen some studies where the headlamps are more noticeable than the signals.
quote]


Thanks for the info. Was wondering why this thread went so wrong and if I'd ever get an answer to the original question. I personally like the dim headlights better than corner lights, but only because I grew to despise people driving with parking lights and fog lights on. Seems like that was an early 80's Trans Am thing. Was totally ignorant as far as I can tell, why would you need fog lights and not regular headlights? Just having the corner lights on seems similar to me (although I know DRLs make the truck easier to see).

Maybe mullet-head is still trolling around and can answer why they thought that was cool.

[Michael1]

I think I just heard the bell ring. Isn't time for you children to get back to class?

[dеiтайожни]

Originally Posted by Michael1

I think I just heard the bell ring. Isn't time for you children to get back to class?

You think you just heard a school bell? It's 2:30am est, maybe you should go see if you have a tumor tomorrow...

[evldave]

I think the marker (aka stud) lights are best. I don't like (aka hate) the dimmed headlights. Way back in da winna of '45 I'd drive my Nova w/stud lights on, no DRLs, just studs. Why? It looked good and was more visible. My H3 is the first vehicle I got w/DRLs and I actually checked what the lights would look like before I bought the rig. I'm happy w/the marker lights as DRLs, and know they also help (but not as much as DRL headlights) reduce accidents. Maybe someday they will make warning sirens when you are stupid enough to pass the center lane, then there's no need for DRLs...

[dеiтайожни]

x2, the corner drl are the best. They look especially great on a black truck with black grille. I like looking at them in the reflection of other cars.

[Michael1]

College Station, TX - General Motors has recently announced the results of a study claiming that 17,000 vehicle crashes have been avoided due to the use of daytime running lights (DRLs). The GM press release is based on a presentation given to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on November 9, 1999. Before we all jump for joy and sing the praises of DRLs, let's take a closer look at GM's news.

First, GM's press release claims that the results were from an "independent study." Well, "independent" is a relative term. The study was independent in that it was not conducted in-house by GM. Rather, GM commissioned Exponent Failure Analysis Associates of San Francisco to conduct the study for them. Immediately, we see that GM has an economic interest in the success of DRLs, and is willing to finance an "independent" study to support their crash avoidance claims. Because of the relationship between the external analysis firm and GM, one must already question the validity of the results.

Next, GM gives a little history of DRLs. In 1990, GM petitioned NHTSA to allow DRLs based on data from Scandanavian countries. The studies from several countries where DRLs are required have been called into question by a report entitled, "Thirty years on: Do motorcar daytime lights reduce accidents?" from Stephen Prower, Research Officer for the British Motorcyclists Federation. Mr. Prower's report questions the methods used by researchers to support the mandated DRLs in the Scandanavian countries and Canada, casting doubt on the DRL proponents' claims of collision avoidance.

The data used in the GM sponsored study compares collision rates of GM, Volvo, Saab, and Volkswagen vehicles before and immediately after the introduction of DRLs on particular models. Immediately, the analysis becomes artificially biased due to the lack of data from non-DRL vehicles. Such data could have been used as a control to filter out other contributing factors to crash avoidance. Such factors might include a change in driving habits, year-to-year weather changes, and other crash avoidances devices, such as anti-lock brakes, becoming more prominent.

A closer look at GM's presentation in DOT's docket reveals that GM claims that DRLs reduce multivehicle collisions --- at night. GM didn't bother to mention this silly statistic in their press release. While there are some drivers who fail to turn on their headlights at night, their numbers are probably very small and quantifying them in a statistical study is nearly impossible. Some DRL equipped vehicles do not have an automatic headlight option. Intuitively, one would assume that such vehicles may be involved in more nighttime collisions since the taillights are not illuminated with the DRLs. GM's claim of a reduction nighttime collisions casts a serious shadow of doubt on the entire study.

GM's press release claims that their DRLs do not cause "disabling glare." This statement is very questionable. Many of GM's vehicles have a DRL intensity at or near the limit of 7000 candela specified by the NHTSA 1993 rule change. However, NHTSA has acknowledged that "discomfort glare" sets in at 2600 candela. Discomfort glare causes drivers to avoid looking into oncoming traffic as well as switching their rearview mirrors to the Night position to avoid the glare from DRLs. Unfortunately, both of these practices run counter to safe driving. Further, in an already bright environment the DRLs add to the visual clutter that drivers must endure and can increase driver anxiety and even provoke road rage.

GM's summary in their presentatation even acknowledges, "the crash reduction benefit of DRLs is difficult to determine with precision." Let's take GM at their word and disregard this inaccurate study. Researchers have spent years trying to massage crash data to support DRL effectiveness, and this appears to be yet another failed attempt.

The GM presentation to NHTSA has been filed at the Department of Transportation's docket management system as NHTSA-98-4124-350.

[evldave]

Originally Posted by Michael1

College Station, TX - General Motors has recently announced the results of a study claiming that 17,000 vehicle crashes have been avoided due to ...

blah blah blah

...even acknowledges, "the crash reduction benefit of DRLs is difficult to determine with precision." Let's take GM at their word and disregard this inaccurate study. Researchers have spent years trying to massage crash data to support DRL effectiveness, and this appears to be yet another failed attempt.

The GM presentation to NHTSA has been filed at the Department of Transportation's docket management system as NHTSA-98-4124-350.

And your point is?

[HummBebe]

Originally Posted by dеiтайожни

x2, the corner drl are the best. They look especially great on a black truck with black grille. I like looking at them in the reflection of other cars.

Heh, X2

[HummBebe]

Originally Posted by Michael1

College Station, TX - General Motors has recently announced the results of a study claiming that 17,000 vehicle crashes have been avoided due to the use of daytime running lights (DRLs). The GM press release is based on a presentation given to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on November 9, 1999. Before we all jump for joy and sing the praises of DRLs, let's take a closer look at GM's news.

First, GM's press release claims that the results were from an "independent study." Well, "independent" is a relative term. The study was independent in that it was not conducted in-house by GM. Rather, GM commissioned Exponent Failure Analysis Associates of San Francisco to conduct the study for them. Immediately, we see that GM has an economic interest in the success of DRLs, and is willing to finance an "independent" study to support their crash avoidance claims. Because of the relationship between the external analysis firm and GM, one must already question the validity of the results.

Next, GM gives a little history of DRLs. In 1990, GM petitioned NHTSA to allow DRLs based on data from Scandanavian countries. The studies from several countries where DRLs are required have been called into question by a report entitled, "Thirty years on: Do motorcar daytime lights reduce accidents?" from Stephen Prower, Research Officer for the British Motorcyclists Federation. Mr. Prower's report questions the methods used by researchers to support the mandated DRLs in the Scandanavian countries and Canada, casting doubt on the DRL proponents' claims of collision avoidance.

The data used in the GM sponsored study compares collision rates of GM, Volvo, Saab, and Volkswagen vehicles before and immediately after the introduction of DRLs on particular models. Immediately, the analysis becomes artificially biased due to the lack of data from non-DRL vehicles. Such data could have been used as a control to filter out other contributing factors to crash avoidance. Such factors might include a change in driving habits, year-to-year weather changes, and other crash avoidances devices, such as anti-lock brakes, becoming more prominent.

A closer look at GM's presentation in DOT's docket reveals that GM claims that DRLs reduce multivehicle collisions --- at night. GM didn't bother to mention this silly statistic in their press release. While there are some drivers who fail to turn on their headlights at night, their numbers are probably very small and quantifying them in a statistical study is nearly impossible. Some DRL equipped vehicles do not have an automatic headlight option. Intuitively, one would assume that such vehicles may be involved in more nighttime collisions since the taillights are not illuminated with the DRLs. GM's claim of a reduction nighttime collisions casts a serious shadow of doubt on the entire study.

GM's press release claims that their DRLs do not cause "disabling glare." This statement is very questionable. Many of GM's vehicles have a DRL intensity at or near the limit of 7000 candela specified by the NHTSA 1993 rule change. However, NHTSA has acknowledged that "discomfort glare" sets in at 2600 candela. Discomfort glare causes drivers to avoid looking into oncoming traffic as well as switching their rearview mirrors to the Night position to avoid the glare from DRLs. Unfortunately, both of these practices run counter to safe driving. Further, in an already bright environment the DRLs add to the visual clutter that drivers must endure and can increase driver anxiety and even provoke road rage.

GM's summary in their presentatation even acknowledges, "the crash reduction benefit of DRLs is difficult to determine with precision." Let's take GM at their word and disregard this inaccurate study. Researchers have spent years trying to massage crash data to support DRL effectiveness, and this appears to be yet another failed attempt.

The GM presentation to NHTSA has been filed at the Department of Transportation's docket management system as NHTSA-98-4124-350.

DAYUM, you have way too much time on your hands

PONTIFICATOR

[Michael1]

Originally Posted by HumbleAg Was totally ignorant as far as I can tell, why would you need fog lights and not regular headlights?[/COLOR

Maybe mullet-head is still trolling around and can answer why they thought that was cool.

Uh, maybe for use in fog?

[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.

[HumbleAg]

Originally Posted by Michael1

Uh, maybe for use in fog?

Hey Mullet Head, is that you? If not, you are a great stand-in.

Fog lights are for use aiding the low beam headlights in fog, not to replace them. Read the owners manual in the Mulletmobile.

I'm somewhat bored with this discussion.

[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