These days, CCTV surveillance/security systems... but I've done stints in IT, construction, and car audio/alarms as well... and just generally tinkered with electronics most of my life.

^ wicked stuff, electronics is awesome.

I'll take a look in my notes, we just learned this a couple weeks ago, we've used it on stepper motors.

Well I learned something today, thanks Soundy and Lomac :)

I'm actually an electrician... electronics is all new stuff to me, I usually just toss the broken card and slide in a new one and leave the fixing to guys like you ;) The series/parallel slip was because I was so worked up about not knowing what we were talking about... sigh...

Yeah, I was hoping howstuffworks.com would have one of those spiffy little animations of theirs showing it, but they don't :(

BTW, another great site for almost all this stuff (12V electronics, car audio and whatnot), with lots of really cool animated, interactive diagrams, is http://www.bcae1.com (Basic Car Audio Electronics)... they seem to have just about everything BUT a duty-cycle dimmer circuit :)

That is exactly the issue.

If it makes the car easier to see == safer.

You can claim all the stats, you only look like the ignorant speeders that use every stat available to justify driving ridiculously fast. They claim the same, that's there's few stats proving speed was not the "cause" of the accident, that speed is only a contributing factor to the extent of the damage.

What they forget is that less damage == more people alive, cause they are only looking at it from one angle.

With DRLs more people can see a car further away. That's safer no matter what angle you try to take. End discussion.

QFET.

I'd rather replace two lights (my lows) rather than four lights (highs + lows)

Ok, so what if they're not looking? DRL's don't mean shit if you don't pay attention or are distracted by other things, ie cell phone, passengers, dog, kid, food, etc.

Go read some of the NHTSA reports on the subject.. then report back once you have some real stats for both sides of the argument.

What kind of "stats" do you require to prove that a car with lights on is easier to see than a car without lights?

An emergency vehicle with flashing lights and sirens won't be noticed by a drive who's "distracted by other things, ie cell phone, passengers, dog, kid, food, etc." either, so why bother with the lights and siren, right? Or maybe instead of just DRLs, ALL cars should have flashing lights and sirens.

If you're not looking in the direction of the car, then no you won't see it even if it was shooting rainbows out of it. But DRL's draw more attention to the vehicle, so when people aren't fully paying attention, the DRL's will catch their eye.

See as you seem to keep claiming all these stats exist, why don't you find some and post them up?

Ok, that's a great idea. Since you're too lazy to Google...

Here's a report on "The Effectiveness of Daytime Running Lights for Passenger Vehicles" from the NHTSA: http://members.shaw.ca/johnz24/rs/NH...-0153-0004.pdf Keeping in mind this is from the USA.. who doesn't mandate DRL's, at least not yet. The big theme in this one is "all the results were not statistically significant". Which for those of you who don't understand statistics means, that DRL's don't make enough of a difference to mean squat!

Ok, here's another one... from Austria: http://www.kfv.at/index.php?id=720&contUid=1966 where they estimate that DRL's save 30 human lives annually. That's out of 21,007,310 people (from a July 2008 estimate). Oooh... that's less than 0.000001%, big deal. Not to say that any human life saved isn't a good thing, but it's far from anything spectacular.

I guess the only thing that these statistics can't show.. and this is where all you bleeding-heart DRL-humpers can live in your ignorant bliss.. if the accident doesn't occur (because of the DRL's), you can't count it... so how do you account for all those near-misses (which is actually near-hits, if you think about it) that never occurred?

As for me... I don't need lights on to see if a car is coming or not. And yes, I do wear glasses. All three accidents I've been involved in, none of which were my fault, would not have changed with or without DRL's.. but that said... I do drive around all day with my marker lights on (not my DRL's though, which I've disabled). So don't think I don't believe in them... I just don't think they're some amazing invention that prevents millions of accidents from occurring. It's just some lights for the stupid, mmmkay?

I run my fogs or parking lights in lieu of a DRL. I don't bomb around in stealth mode anymore. It's just too risky to have some blind moron get in your path by accident.

You mention the estimated lives saved by DRLs are negligable, but if one of those 30 were someone you cared about, you'd think differently.

Ah the end is near. Justifying one negative with another is never a good idea.

The argument of a smoker: "but cars pollute, I should be able to smoke too".

Thank you, at least I understand your ill-conceived logic: If something isn't spectacular, it isn't worth doing.

Umm...?

Honestly, I think you'd be able to save more lives by banning cell phones...

Hmm, well, I don't wear glasses, I've always had better-than-20/20 vision, and grew up learning to drive on BC's interior highways well before DRLs became mandatory, and I can tell you unequivocally, oncoming cars with their lights on are MUCH easier to see, MUCH farther in advance, than cars without lights. Didn't require any studies for me to figure that out. Even back then, the driver-training manual from ICBC stresses that headlights SHOULD be turned on for better visibility, even if it wasn't REQUIRED... and motorcyclists have known for decades that they're far better off with lights on than without.

None of mine would have changed either... but then, they were all rear or side impacts. That doesn't prove anything.

And WHY do you do that, if having lights on doesn't make a whit of difference? Oh yeah... it makes you MORE VISIBLE TO OTHER DRIVERS.

Got news for you: all you've done is switched your DRL functionality from your headlights to your marker lights. Same purpose, different bulbs. It's not original: Dodge Caravans, among others, for several years had their marker lights wired for DRLs, rather than headlights.

Then why do you run with your marker lights on?

QED.

Definitely, yet that's unrelated to DRLs.

Nice duck and dodge, yet only highlights you've run out of viable defenses.

Hey, I don't need to defend my position any more than I already have - the proof is already out there. DRL's don't make much of a difference. You go ahead and believe they do, I don't give a shit. I'm not going to change your opinion, and you're not going to change mine.

Because I drive thru tunnels a lot?

DRL's could be improved if they were front AND rear.. then idiots who forget their lights entirely would be visible..

You've spent a hell of a lot of time arguing, even admitting that they make the vehicle more visible, to give up now.

Quitter.

We don't need to change your opinion, you agreed with us a long time ago:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlenko (Post 6377601) Yes, it makes it easier

how did euro plates become fight club material?

I often wonder how one comes up with stats that show something didn't happen? How can anybody say that having your lights on did not make a difference in crash stats? Nobody takes any stats of the times cars don't pull out in front of you or turn in front of you because they saw your car with the DRL's on. The reason NHTSA mandated motorcycle headlight DRL function is because cars drivers didn't see the bikes. As a bike rider with a headlight modulator I can say that it works 100% of the times I activated it. Cars & trucks slam on their brakes and stay where they are. They see the bike for the first time. Take a second and look at a line of vehicles...I bet if there are any there without DRLs, they are much harder to see. It just makes common sense.

jlenko is a h8r, he doesn't need common sense.

Anyone know what country this plate is from?
Saw this car last summer on Burrard.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/...a8f657e9_b.jpg

jlenko, since you're apparently too lazy to read your own links...

courtesy of page 14 of the NHTSA report

"A Majority of the European studies consistently found that a DRL law was associated with a reduction in crashes. The results varied from 4 to 27% depending on crash type, crash severity, season, roadway conditions, and light conditions."

pages 15 and 16 have more specific info, including:

"Sparks' 1993 study, which examined Canadian Government fleet data found that DRLs reduced twilight, two vehicle crashes by 15%. The effect was statically significant. Two reports by Transport Canada also showed positive DRL results."

woah! who woulda thought THEY ACTUALLY WORK. about time you got your glasses updated.

In Austria they may only save 30 lives a year, but how many collisions are non-fatal vs fatal? those 30 lives represent a lot more non-fatal crashes that were avoided, keeping roads flowing more smoothly and insurance rates down. those are also 30 more people that get to continue to live their lives and see their families and friends. surely paying a couple bucks for some bulbs is worth that.

Also consider if they removed the rest of the safety devices from vehicles. You know, useless stuff like crumple zones, seatbelts, airbags, that kinda junk. on their own each one might not make startling jumps in lives saved but added up, thats a lot of people still alive.