Interesting that all of the people commenting on daytime running lights being useful are Canadians -- people who have actually seen them in action. Imagine that, trying something before complaining about it...

Steve
- Canadian currently slumming in the States

 

Hehee.. Canadians unite! Honestly though, I absolutely hate when people don't have their headlights on.. especially during the "shady" hours. Drls should be on every car imo.

 

Assists? Okay as long as I can turn them off. In normal driving, sure, I'd leave them on. Why not have an extra safety margin? Don't know when you are going to hit oil, gravel, whatever around the next bend. With time, cost shouldn't be a major issue given most of the systems are already there for ABS.

DRL's? I'm for them. Too many clueless who have their lights off well before dawn, after dusk, and in fog or rain.

 

Which analyses are those? They must not include the fact that CHMSL (center high mount stop lamp aka 3rd brake light) is essential in helping you see when the car in front of the car in front of you is stopping. For those of use who frequently drive on packed freeways, it is a huge benefit and safety feature. The existance of a CHMSL has prevented countless accidents for me personally, by allowing me to begin braking sooner, thuse slowing down the people behind me more gradually.

-Nick

 

I agree. The 3rd brake light is very helpful in seeing other vehicles using their brakes. It can't hurt to have it.

 

agree all u want - then read the NHTSA stats - CHMSL worked for a while, but because it was a novelty - rear end collisions of the kind it was meant to stop have leveled out to the pre- CHMSL incidences. Plus, SUV's, VANs etc tend to block the view of cars way ahead, which dimishes the benefits of the CHMSL.

The rates dropped from a high in 1987 to less than 1/2 the benefit by 1995.


In fact, the CHMSL produced 1/7 the benefits in terms of injury/property damage, and cost 200% more. The DOT does not even make any claims for reduction in fatalaties for this technology.


I don't make this stuff up you know...

Actually, anti-skid technology might be more of a boon, but it should be optional.

Did u also know that ABS has resulted in more deaths attributable to certain types of accidents, esp. "hard" crashes into fixed objects? It is also true,

 

We need to separate "makes the car safer" from "reduces number of accidents". The former doesn't necessarily translate to the latter. In the case of ABS, I assume that once people discover their newfound safety nets, they drive harder even though the fundamental laws of physics haven't changed. Regardless, I'm generally in favor of making cars safer even if it doesn't reduce the number of accidents; competent drivers should be better off with the safer cars even if incompetent ones aren't, and I care more about the former constituency than the latter.

Steve

 

So for those of us who drive S2000s not equipped with DRLs, is it necessarily smart or appropriate to turn on the low-beams at all times driving?

This is what I've been doing to stay "safe," but who knows, maybe HIDs are "unsafe" as DRL substitutes.

Thanks,

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wickerbill
[B]Our local news had the same report.

 

I think the HID's are overkill simply because the DRL's run at a very low wattage. The only other benefit of course is that your parking lights can also help when they're turned on.