Daytime Running lights
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Pennsylvania
Daytime Running lights
Has anyone ever bought & installed daytime running lamps on a f250? When I ordered my 2007 superduty it says for fleet trucks only,but I'm interested in it.If so,where can I get them & how much? Thanks,Al.
Junior User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
DRL's are not what they are cracked upto be. Trust me I live in Canada where they are LAW. not only are they running on reduced power they are a drain on your charging system never mind that fact that they take away from the lives of you bulbs.
most people find them anoying... my self included.
check this web site for further information heres some tid bits
The Case Against DRLs
Unlike our opponents, we have clear reasons for our position, some of which you've already read:
1. The original concept for DRLs was to compensate for a lighting deficiency. We don't have such a deficiency in the United States!
2. Since we have greater natural light, the auto manufacturers have increased the intensity of their DRLs. Just what we need: Bright lights hitting your eyes while you're trying to drive a car on a busy highway!
3. Safety features need not create hazards and, more to the point, should not be so very, very annoying to so many people. Humans, by our very nature, tend to avoid disturbing stimuli, thus taking our eyes off the road! Some people respond to DRLs by avoiding looking directly at other cars on the road. Some avoid using their rear- or side-view mirrors. Some are even using devices which are already on the market to reduce the glare from oncoming DRLs. These actions by people will result in them being less observant, therefore, worse drivers and more accident prone.
4. Current data on the safety benefits of DRLs has been misinterpreted by proponents of DRLs. They have absolutely no positive effect on bright sunny days. The data should be interpreted thusly: People are not turning on their lights in conditions requiring illumination -- e.g. rain, snow, fog, dusk, dawn, etc. -- and therefore the problem is driver error. The solution, logically, should be driver improvement.
5. Of all the myriad categories of motor vehicle crashes, DRL use is arguably associated with improving one, maybe two types. The better solution to highway safety is driver improvement; this would substantially and dramatically decrease accidents of all types.
6. People will literally die because of DRL use. By failing to institute the correct solution to problems illustrated by DRL data -- driver error -- people will continue to die and be injured who might otherwise have been spared from such incidents. Furthermore, we believe the annoyance and distraction caused by DRL-equipped vehicles will be significant, but we also believe this will never be admitted or assigned to DRL use by their proponents.
7. DRLs are an inefficient use of resources. Lights will have to be replaced more frequently, and it will have to be done by auto service personnel. Fuel consumption will increase and, although it's not much per car, it is an astronomical dollar figure when multiplied by the millions of vehicles in this country. Conservative estimates place the figure at 604 million gallons of fuel per year, resulting in 8 billion pounds of CO2 being exhausted into the atmosphere. What's even worse, in testing vehicles for fuel efficiency, GM has requested -- and received -- permission from the federal government to disconnect DRLs so as not to be penalized for poorer fuel efficiency. So consumers are not able to know how DRLs will affect their fuel efficiency when buying a car. See NHTSA's correspondence with the EPA regarding DRLs' CAFE exemption.
8. DRLs represent stone-age technology in the 21st century. Since cars do not need illumination at all hours, why not install sensors to activate headlights when ambient light is insufficient? The technology exists, and is already in use on several vehicle models.
9. DRLs are insulting to our intelligence. DRL proponents assume that drivers are not intelligent enough to know when to turn on their lights. By implication, then, DRL proponents are saying, in effect, that the states are licensing unqualified drivers! Driving is a skill. Observation is a skill. With proper experience and training, these skills are integrated in the person of a safe driver. Both of these skills can be nurtured or improved in every driver. But, neither skill will be enhanced in today's environment if it believes safety lies in the gadgets and misinterpreted data. Safety, in reality, is nothing more than the collective responsibility of each individual to be the best driver -- the most observant, the most cautious, the most defensive, the most skilled -- that he or she can be.
10. What is the industry's motivation? Safety? We think not. Again, follow the money trail.
Again this isn't only my opinion there are groups against them
most people find them anoying... my self included.
check this web site for further information heres some tid bits
The Case Against DRLs
Unlike our opponents, we have clear reasons for our position, some of which you've already read:
1. The original concept for DRLs was to compensate for a lighting deficiency. We don't have such a deficiency in the United States!
2. Since we have greater natural light, the auto manufacturers have increased the intensity of their DRLs. Just what we need: Bright lights hitting your eyes while you're trying to drive a car on a busy highway!
3. Safety features need not create hazards and, more to the point, should not be so very, very annoying to so many people. Humans, by our very nature, tend to avoid disturbing stimuli, thus taking our eyes off the road! Some people respond to DRLs by avoiding looking directly at other cars on the road. Some avoid using their rear- or side-view mirrors. Some are even using devices which are already on the market to reduce the glare from oncoming DRLs. These actions by people will result in them being less observant, therefore, worse drivers and more accident prone.
4. Current data on the safety benefits of DRLs has been misinterpreted by proponents of DRLs. They have absolutely no positive effect on bright sunny days. The data should be interpreted thusly: People are not turning on their lights in conditions requiring illumination -- e.g. rain, snow, fog, dusk, dawn, etc. -- and therefore the problem is driver error. The solution, logically, should be driver improvement.
5. Of all the myriad categories of motor vehicle crashes, DRL use is arguably associated with improving one, maybe two types. The better solution to highway safety is driver improvement; this would substantially and dramatically decrease accidents of all types.
6. People will literally die because of DRL use. By failing to institute the correct solution to problems illustrated by DRL data -- driver error -- people will continue to die and be injured who might otherwise have been spared from such incidents. Furthermore, we believe the annoyance and distraction caused by DRL-equipped vehicles will be significant, but we also believe this will never be admitted or assigned to DRL use by their proponents.
7. DRLs are an inefficient use of resources. Lights will have to be replaced more frequently, and it will have to be done by auto service personnel. Fuel consumption will increase and, although it's not much per car, it is an astronomical dollar figure when multiplied by the millions of vehicles in this country. Conservative estimates place the figure at 604 million gallons of fuel per year, resulting in 8 billion pounds of CO2 being exhausted into the atmosphere. What's even worse, in testing vehicles for fuel efficiency, GM has requested -- and received -- permission from the federal government to disconnect DRLs so as not to be penalized for poorer fuel efficiency. So consumers are not able to know how DRLs will affect their fuel efficiency when buying a car. See NHTSA's correspondence with the EPA regarding DRLs' CAFE exemption.
8. DRLs represent stone-age technology in the 21st century. Since cars do not need illumination at all hours, why not install sensors to activate headlights when ambient light is insufficient? The technology exists, and is already in use on several vehicle models.
9. DRLs are insulting to our intelligence. DRL proponents assume that drivers are not intelligent enough to know when to turn on their lights. By implication, then, DRL proponents are saying, in effect, that the states are licensing unqualified drivers! Driving is a skill. Observation is a skill. With proper experience and training, these skills are integrated in the person of a safe driver. Both of these skills can be nurtured or improved in every driver. But, neither skill will be enhanced in today's environment if it believes safety lies in the gadgets and misinterpreted data. Safety, in reality, is nothing more than the collective responsibility of each individual to be the best driver -- the most observant, the most cautious, the most defensive, the most skilled -- that he or she can be.
10. What is the industry's motivation? Safety? We think not. Again, follow the money trail.
Again this isn't only my opinion there are groups against them
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Pennsylvania
thats a great article freak,I agree they should have a sensor in all of them.The wifes escape limited has the sensor for the lights to come on automatically.our diesels at work have them,but they also have dual batteries,thanks.
