Talk:Daytime running lamp

message: I have removed the unencyclopedic content from User:Rubenmc's own DRL advocacy site which he pasted wholesale into the article—text, pictures and all. This is not the place to advertise one's own site or advocate for one's own personal causes, and his site is already appropriately linked in the article. --Scheinwerfermann 23:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate lobbying

message: On the NHTSA website from 1998 to 2006 people not only complain about the DRLs on other cars, they beg for ways to turn their own DRLs off, particularly GM cars, which punish drivers for temporarily turning them off by pinging loudly.
:Yahoo Answers describes how the park brake can be used to turn off headlights (including DRL). "Pinging loudly" can be a warning that the park brake is applied. The pinging is a safety feature to ensure drivers do not drive with the park brake applied, and is not there to 'punish' drivers. Shadyman 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yahoo Answers is about 10 years behind the times. The parking brake "1-click" trick worked on GM cars with DRLs through about 1996 or so, but not on newer models.--Scheinwerfermann 22:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRL complaints still pour in 

message: In Australia, a lot of motorbikes seem to have their headlight on all the time - is this a legal requirement? - RobBrisbane 11:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a legal requirement, very briefly. Australian Design Rule #19 was changed in 1992 so new motorcycles were fitted with automatic 'headlights on' but this requirement was made optional in 1997 after research was not able establish that there was a benefit. --Scheinwerfermann 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia - motorbikes? 

message: I have reverted User:Kstrsn's modifications to the power consumption figures for the various DRL systems. The turn signal DRL system mentioned in the cited Federal Register entry is a 55w system (two 27w filaments plus module power consumption of approximately 1w), not a 42w system. It is likely Kstersn arrived at the 42w figure by calculating based on two standard European P21W or W21W bulbs, which have a nominal power rating of 21w at the European test voltage of 12.0. However, the rated wattage at 12.8v of these "21w" bulbs is very similar to the rated wattage of US "27w" bulbs at 12.8v, and the operational wattage elevation with voltage above the 12.0v test voltage likewise applies. The highest-power reasonably common system consists of two 65w headlamp filaments, two 8w parking lamps, four 8w tail lamps, four 5w sidemarker lamps, and between 0 and 15 watts' IP illumination, for a total of 198 to 213 total watts. And DRL systems in the 8- to 20-watt range may be implemented with LEDs or with high-efficacy, low-wattage filament bulbs. All wattage figures herein are nominal at the North American spec voltage of 12.8. Actual line voltage in operating vehicles tends to run significantly higher, between 13.5 and 14.5, which elevates actual operating wattage exponentially to the power 1.6.--Scheinwerfermann 03:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRL wattage & technology 

message: This is probably the most difficult section to bring (and keep) in compliance with Wikipedia's requirement for adherence to the neutral point of view. The old text was rather too skeptical of the concept of DRLs, while the text I just reworked was rather too enthusiastic in endorsing DRLs unconditionally. I've worked to make the language more neutral (and removed an inappropriate commercial link), but this section still needs work and additional citations. There have been recent, scientifically-sound studies, including one by the IIHS — which I have read as a primary source, but do not have readily to hand at the moment — showing no benefit or even negative benefit to DRLs. These ought to be mentioned and referenced, though I'm disinclined to mention them until they are in hand and can be cited. 
Worldwide, DRL studies have not unanimously concluded that DRLs are a beneficial safety device, though most studies have supported the concept. Probably of greater interest is the various studies' different conclusions with regard to the degree and scope of benefit provided. Of course, it is well to lend little credence to the extreme-outlier positions on both ends of the issue, as they tend to be more a product of financial and/or ideological interest rather than sound science. A particular North American automaker has a particularly delicate financial interest in promoting DRLs; they generate study after study "showing" an enormous safety benefit and a huge margin of cost-effectiveness. Likewise, a particular North American advocacy group attracts members who view DRLs as an example of undue government interference, and this group generates papers "showing" there's no merit at all to the concept of DRLs. Both positions are difficult to justify with any degree of factual accuracy and intellectual honesty. 
But even if we discard the extreme outliers, there's a large range of findings with regard to DRL efficacy. That's probably worth talking about — with appropriate citations, of course. 
There were other issues with the text I cleaned up, too; the thing about glare to motorcyclists was odd and, I believe, baseless — glare and motorcycle effects are two different possible issues with certain DRL implementations. The main thing is we must all try not to let our personal beliefs about DRLs, whatever they might be, enter the text we add to the article. 
I also removed the external links in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on external links. Many of the external links were simply duplicates of valid references already easily accessible in the reflist, anyhow, and most of the rest were links to advocacy (pro- or anti-) groups. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current text has minimized the Scandinavian success story. Interestingly the given references refer only to studies on  multi-party car crashes - but the Swedish people that I have talked to always emphasized another primary advantage which is for children. They said that when they were very young they could easily identify moving cars by their lights. So even when studies would not show any advantage in car-to-car crashes then Scandinavians tend to stick to the rule. This matches with other political engagements - Sweden was first to embark on a "Vision Zero" policy sketched by the road safety administration that tries to create a traffic system with no accident fatalities at all. So there is an obvious cultural gap to other countries and it would be good to find a way to highlight that for DRLs and the history how them came about. Given that Vision Zero was picked up by other European countries as well it might have had a notable influence on the mandatory DRL installation (not yet for their mandatory usage) in Europe that ought to come about by 2011. Guidod (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific study 

message: (from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety U.S.A.)
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html
;How effective are DRLs? 
Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. 
A study examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15 months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A 1994 Transport Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989 vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.4
In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles without DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles.6 Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all police-reported crashes in the United States. 
A 2002 Institute study reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal researchers, using data collected nationwide from 1995-2001, concluded that there was a 5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.8 However, a 2008 more recent federal study concluded that DRLs have no significant effect on either of these crash types.9""""""""Homebuilding (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add this? 

message: Why are manufacturers still putting the headlight constantly on in the US when most bikes already have DRLs/parking lamps that are always on to fill that role?
They should get the cojones to have the regular headlight off if the bike has DRLs.
71.173.19.10 (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRLs on motorcycles. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Daytime running lamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041105101405/http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf29/41090_web.pdf to http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf29/41090_web.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121023132331/http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/consultations/drl_20060727/drl_trl.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/consultations/drl_20060727/drl_trl.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current 'Safety performance' section contradicts itself. It starts with 'DRL is worthwhile' ("Numerous studies done worldwide since the 1970s have tended to conclude that daytime running lights improve safety") then follows with 'DRL isn't worthwhile' ("The analysis determined that DRLs offer no statistically significant reduction in the frequency or severity of the collisions studied, except ... trucks/vans by 5.7%"). Unfortunately, the citation link in the 'isn't' text is broken (when I tried it) so I can't examine the citation and work out what to correct the text to. I'm new to the subject so I don't know the answer and haven't the time to research it the near future. Anyone know what the fixed text should read?ToaneeM (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety performance text is self-contradictory

message: The article is rather thin on the history of daytime running lamps and says nothing about their origins at all.  A story I recall hearing over 30 years ago suggests the trend was started in the United States by Greyhound Lines, due to their buses being repeatedly damaged by automobile drivers who ran into them and then would claim, "I didn't see it."  Accordingly, company management ordered their bus drivers to operate with headlights on at all times, day and night.  From there, the idea was picked up by Volvo in Sweden who implemented it on their passenger cars, and then, since a small fraction of Americans thought everything Scandinavian was "cool", they were introduced on American-made passenger cars.  So, the whole idea of daytime running lights improving motorist safety is horse-shit, starting with a bogus claim of some Americans not noticing a very large bus on the roadway! — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's see. On one hand we have statements in the article supported by citations of reliable sources. On the other hand we have a story you think you remember being told by somebody, way back years ago. This encyclopedia runs on documented assertions, not twelfth-hand recollections of stories of indeterminate veracity. The narrative you put forth here doesn't make coherent sense and doesn't fit with the chronology of how, where, and when DRLs are known (and documented) to have been introduced around the world over the years. As far as whether DRLs are a safety-beneficial device, here again a pretty big pile of evidence (like, data and facts) contradicts your claim that they're useless, so...at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned, you're probably not going to win this one.24.86.84.43 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This story can be traced to the anti-regulation group the National Motorists Association, here, but the don’t give any specifics or citations, and I can’t date the page with the way back machine. Seems to be consistent with drunk driving, speed limit, red light camera, etc. denialism, not far removed from the dank globalist conspiracy. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins and history 

message: daytime running light is a bicycle lighting device which come on when the vehicles handbrake has been pulled down or engaged in-gear?
"A daytime running lamp (DRL, also daytime running light) is an automotive lighting and bicycle lighting device on the front of a roadgoing motor vehicle or bicycle, automatically switched on when the vehicle's handbrake has been pulled down, when the vehicle is in gear, or when the engine is started" 77.193.104.36 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  daytime running light is a bicycle lighting device which come on when the vehicles handbrake has been pulled down or engaged in-gear?