A Brief History Of A Popular, But Useless "Safety" Feature
December 5th, 2007 Posted in Daytime Running Lights
One of the pervasive urban myths plaguing our highways and byways is the belief that daytime use of headlights reduces motor vehicle accidents.
It all started with a Greyhound Bus Company public relations gimmick to promote its “safety image.”
There was an apparent reduction in bus accidents and the conclusion was made that the daytime headlight use must be the reason. There was a burst of publicity and daytime headlight use was christened as a great highway safety strategy.
Subsequent studies, slightly more thorough, determined that daytime headlight use on busses had no effect on accident frequency. Those studies have never received nearly as much attention.
Think about this; if you can’t see a bus during the daytime, because it doesn’t have its headlights on, there is a greater problem at play here than “visibility.”
Next, there were mandates of daytime headlight use in a few tundra-laden Scandinavian countries. Subsequent government sponsored studies proved the government was inspired in its mandating of daytime headlight use.
Again, subsequent review of these favorable DRL studies indicated the high probability that factors, other than daytime headlight use, were responsible for any reduction in accident frequency.
The same scenario was subsequently repeated in Canada—the government mandates vehicles be equipped with automatic daytime running lights (DRLs) and low and behold government studies find that DRLs may be responsible for saving the human race from roadway annihilation.
Auto manufacturers, never loath to exploit a fad, climbed on the DRL bandwagon and hyped the safety benefits of irritating other drivers by shining headlights in their eyes, during daylight hours. General Motors was the most aggressive on this front.
While seldom admitted, the primary motivation for putting DRLs on American market cars is that it saves money.
Rather than building one lighting system for Canada, where DRLs are mandated, and a different system for the US market, GM decided to save a few bucks by just installing the DRL equipped system on both the US and Canadian models.
The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry Highway Loss Data Institute. The results; vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal, but the meaning was straight forward.
DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights, waste fuel, “mask” other road users that don’t have headlights on, or don’t have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on accident reduction is zero or worse.
Because DRLs negatively effect other motorists, they should be omitted from all new cars by government mandate. Furthermore, all states should explore legislation that limits daytime headlight use to low beam or parking lights.
The government, in concert with various corporate interests has sold the driving public a bill of goods that doesn’t live up to its advertised claims. It seems only fair that the government and the same corporate interests undo the damage they have done.
Other Related Articles
28 Responses to “A Brief History Of A Popular, But Useless "Safety" Feature”
By Mike on Jan 7, 2009
Mandatory DRL helped kill off GM’s market share.
By Jim on Oct 18, 2008
>By Dave on Oct 14, 2008
>By pete on Dec 11, 2007
>I like the idea of removing the headlight
>switch and having the headlights on when
>the motor is running.
>Pete, I don’t like the idea of backing into >my driveway at night and being forced to >illuminate my neighbor’s living room >through their picture window. Or parking at >the beach at night and being forced to >disturb people on blankets. In short, I >don’t like the idea of being forced to be >rude.
No headlight switch? It seems to be a popular thought that the brighter your lights are the more your visable or the more scared you are.
How about the take the switch out because people are to stupid to use it any way right? Now lets do away with lowbeam lights and add another set of highbeams after all we dont need lowbeams anyway right?
You DRL lovers need to start taking responsability for your own driving and quit relying on “safety” gimmicks safe you butts out there on the roads. You will be alot safer if you start taking responsability for your own driving.
By Dave on Oct 14, 2008
By pete on Dec 11, 2007
>I like the idea of removing the headlight
>switch and having the headlights on when
>the motor is running.
Pete, I don’t like the idea of backing into my driveway at night and being forced to illuminate my neighbor’s living room through their picture window. Or parking at the beach at night and being forced to disturb people on blankets. In short, I don’t like the idea of being forced to be rude.
By Jim on Oct 11, 2008
I beleive in minimal lighting. Lighting is simple really here, let me break it down for you.
Full headlights:
Night time
Raining
Fog
Snow
Marker lights:
Dusk and dawn when YOU can see to drive
Possibly when its very cloudy.
High Beams:
Country roads
Occasional Intersate
Day time to warn people a head
No lights are needed:
Clear sunny day
Simple enough for you people? You act like using lights is hard. You even want the goverment to turn them on permanantly so you don’t have to try to figure out how to use them. That has got to be lazyness.
By Fleet Admiral on Jun 23, 2008
It’s american stupidity that is giving you this reason to complain.
You want to see how DRL are done right? LOOK at a GERMAN CAR, in GERMANY. Not the ishty bastrdized american version that is forced to comply with stupid us regulations.
You will notice they have a separate SMALL 5w bulb in the high beam housing. NOT the high beam and NOT the low beam xenon or halogen which wastes much more energy.
These small 5w bulbs are just the right touch on the eyes to let people know your vehicle is on. If you look at a VW Passat from 2001-2005 you will notice this with their headlights on. Somehow they slipped them into the country, avoiding the “parking light” crap that we use. The parking lights(turn signals) do not illuminate when the headlights are on, and there is that 5w bulb in the high beam.
Only the 2001 version uses that small 5w when the headlights are off, but the newer ones they forced you to use the low beam at 70% power, and some of us took out a relay to disable that crap since it leads to burnt out bulbs sooner.
Some of us Audi drivers also swap our headlights for the euro code versions that have the drl and disable those stupid turn signal parking lights when the headlights are on. Since in Europe they use a different feature where you turn the signal stalk on, and it lights up your signal if you’re parked on the side of the road when your car is off.
Next I’ll bet someone is going to make a crack about REAR DRIVER side fog lights, such as equipped on all Audis and is wired for on most other euro cars. Most of us use them to keep tailgaters at bay during the day.
By anatoly arutunoff on May 24, 2008
The most annoying thing about lighting today is that the turn signals are so close to the headlights that they’re difficult to spot–I remember when the turn signals/parking lights were several inches to over a foot from the headlights and they were unmissable then
By Saddlesore on May 22, 2008
Harry b.
I had a pair of after-market wipers on one of my trucks, the problem is that the constant vibration just shook the wipers apart after only several months and the wind buffeting severely degraded the wiping.
Also even with clear mirrors the spray from the tires degrade your rear & side vision.
By Ben Blind Ed on May 20, 2008
You all have logical points; however, I am an advocate of drl’s on the open road. Around town, .. whatever. Here in the most rural state in the lower 49 we have lots of canyons, mtn passes, etc., and in these starkly contrasting light conditions (very rapid transitions of shade and bright sunlight), drl’s really do help you to be seen - and me. Simple physics + physiology of our li’l eyeballs. Turn ‘em off in town if you want.
While we’re at it, hey, if it’s raining, snowing, foggy, etc., use your headlights, period, no matter what the law is in your state. Do you really think the cops know better than us? Wanna be illusive? Hunt a grizzly or a wolf without them knowing you’re there. On public roads, it is in your best interest to be seen, uhhuh.
By Harry B on May 9, 2008
So Saddle sore if the semi truck is generating so much road spray from the wheels why are semi trucks not required to have fenders which supress the problem? Similarly why are semi’s not required to have wipers on their mirrors if the overspray obscures a clear rear view on the mirrors?
By Fred Crookes on Jan 16, 2008
Amazing the stupidity of some people when they get a bee in their underwear. Get real, DRLs making it hard to see? Get off the road, bozos, your eyesight isn’t good enough to allow operation of roller skates, much less a car! I am tired of trying to spot a grey car against a grey sky on a grey road on a dull morning because people like you are too lazy and idiotic to have some lights on to make themselves visible. You are probably the same people too stupid to clean headlights and tail lights when you wash your windows as well. It’s the old “I can see you, so obviously you can see me” line, in it’s most dangerous form.
By Phenom-Anon on Jan 7, 2008
I work in a flight line and DRLs are a nuisance there. Cars equipped with daytime-running lights actually pose a danger to aircraft, but I digress. DRLs is a safety feature that is unnecessary. A shiny vehicle in broad daylight reflects enough light to be seen. The glare from the sun is a natural daytime-running light that lets people know you exist.
By Doug on Dec 12, 2007
As a paramedic for 26 years I can tell you that DRL do make vehicles more visible. A big part of the problem is that you cannot legislate commmon sense. Yes, in those times of less than perfect visibility or at dusk/dawn you should put your lights on. Many don’t. If DRL’s can prevent one needless tragedy than I’m all for it. Who knows it might be you.
By mot250 on Dec 12, 2007
Headlight on proponents always cite motorcycle safety, dusk, dawn, fog, grey drizzly conditions or the stupid few who forget to turn on their lights at night as reasons why everyone should always drive with their headlights on. The artical above was not addressing these less-than-perfect visability conditions. These conditions call for headlights-on as common sense but they should not be included as a stop-gap measure mandating DRLs just because it can’t be illegal here in the USA to be stupid. What’s next, mandating battery powered strobe lights for pedestrians, pets, bicycles and wild-life? Uh-oh, I hit a mailbox…it’s the home owner’s fault because there was no light on the mailbox…
Under normal daylight conditions, the artical above is dead on but neglected to mention one more fact…DRLs are also bad for the environment. Running with lights when not required during normal daylight conditions wastes fuel. It also contributes to more landfill waste as headlight bulbs are consumed and discarded more frequently (sure, headlight bulbs are not that big but you need to also concider the plastic and paperboard used in the packaging of the bulbs, as well as the fuel used to ship these bulbs all over the US). Maybe the fuel milage issue is not enough for you or I to notice but it is enough that GM and other auto manufactures petitioned the US government (and won) to disable the DRLs for fuel milage testing in order to meet Federal CAFE requirements. On a National scale, this would be a huge MPG savings and reduce the US dependancy on fossil fuel.
Bill, I’m sorry for your loss but with your limited account of your accident, I don’t think it was the “dumb blond” who was solely at fault. If you could not be sure you had clearance to pull out due to weather, you should have stayed put at that stop sign. You took a chance and lost. Sounds to me like you got lazy or impatient and were just looking for “headlights” because that is what you expected. If there is more to the story, maybe I’ll reconsider…
By Don on Dec 11, 2007
All that bunk above against headlight use is exactly that, a bunch of bunk by people who can’t find anything else to do except complain about something. As for parking lights, they are for parking, not for running use. I asked a guy once why he drove around with his parking lights on. He said “So others can see me better.” I suggested that they might see him even better if his headlights were on. One thing they could do that would improve things would be to enforce the headlight aiming rules to include fog lights. A guy switches to low beam headlights as he approaches but his fog lights blind the heck out of you.
By pete on Dec 11, 2007
I like the idea of removing the headlight switch and having the headlights on when the motor is running. It would hinder the back seat romancing on a cold night, though.
By Bill C on Dec 11, 2007
It so happens that on a gray drizzly day in Feb at 3pm I lost a great vehicle because a dumb blond was driving with out head lights and was not visable at all and she plowed into my rear quarter panel as I was leaving a stop sign. If she had the lights on she would have been visiable and would never have moved from that stop sign. DUH
By Kooba on Dec 10, 2007
The headlight switch should be removed from all vehicles. The lights should come on when the vehicle is started. I am tired of seeing people driving around with just their front markers on at night, nevermind in the daytime. As to having them on when using the wipers, Duh! you should have them on whenever the weather is dull or rainy, you just can’t see most other cars when the rain is streaming past the car.
By saddlesore on Dec 10, 2007
As a professional driver with over 4 million miles under my butt.. the use of headlights when the wipers are being used is just good common sense.
with the road spray near an 18 wheeler, we as truckers CANNOT SEE cars next to us or slightly behind and to the side of us.. the use of headlights at least give us an idea that someone is “hiding” in our problem areas/ blind spots.
Unlike cars/pickups & some RV’s the 18 wheelers only have outside mirrors which accumulate water/road spray.. making rear vision a challenge at best.
By George on Dec 7, 2007
The problem with some motorcycles having the ‘headlight on for safety’ is that ECE headlights are allowed [legally] for single track vehicles.
ECE headlighs have something that SAE headlights do not, and that is glare control. [beam definition]
If you drive at night, and a vehicle with ECE headlights is approaching, you almost don’t see the beam. That is glare control!
Even a simple H4 bulb dual beam system has it. Thank the Graves shield. http://72.215.196.56/hummers/headlights/hella_ecode_pattern_only.jpg
http://www.ratwell.com/technical/BoschH4/H4Lowbeam.jpg
http://www.ratwell.com/technical/BoschH4/H4Highbeam.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/2005_winter_road_dipped_beam.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/2005_winter_road_full_beam.jpg
So the reason motorcycle headlight [used to] improved visibility is that the higher mounted headlight (typically 3 feet) is high enough to put light into car drivers’ eyes. But now plenty of vehicles operators sit above the tradtional car height.
By Paul Cocklin on Dec 7, 2007
I totally disagree with this article. I think DRL make it much easier to detect other vehicles in many kinds of situations where headlights would usually not be turned on by most motorists…. these include, the periods between dusk and dawn, fog, heavy cloud cover, rain, snowstorms, etc. I would not purchase a vehicle without DRL.
By Al on Dec 7, 2007
I have to disagree with the premise of this article. I drive a lot under a variety of conditions and there are MANY times when a car approaching is made much more conspicious by the presence of DRLs. Granted they might not ALWAYS increase visibility under all conditions all the time but the times that they do work they are worth while. Anyone who rides a motorcycle realizes the advantages of having the headlight on so why it wouldn’t make a car more conspicious is beyond my comprehension. Whether it makes a motorcycle “blend in” with the cars with DRL’s is totally irrelevant….if they are BOTH more conspicious then it is a good thing. I would rather have you mistake my motorcycle for a car if you are thinking about pullingo out in front of me, in fact…
By Greg on Dec 7, 2007
I still don’t understand how this could’ve eve r saved money?! I knew since day 1 this was a joke I grew up in New York and remember all the car’s from Canada when this first started lol!
By George on Dec 6, 2007
or at least do not allow modulated high beam.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-technical-articles/Modulator-regs.htm
or maybe a compound cycle. high-low-high-low. (unless that too closely resembles police wig-wags)
By Bill on Dec 5, 2007
I agree that the headlight on law is a good safety feature for a motorcycle in an urban environment, having been riding bikes since before that law. It is reasonable that 4 wheel vehicle headlights on in the daytime might dilute the safety margin provided for motorcyclists but I don’t believe it.
The modulated headlights on motorcycles are annoying but are the logical reaction to the escalation of the DRL situation that we have now and they certainly do draw attention but I’d like to see the modulating headlights either gone or at least their intensity reduced.
By George on Dec 5, 2007
“Light off for safety”
It almost works, in that drivers know to avoid people who drive around with the DRLs activated, at high noon, on the summer solstice.
I figure they don’t know how to disable the DRLs, or they actually believe that they work as advertised.
I don’t like the fact that motorcyclists have to resort to headlight modulators to be seen.
There is lighting anarchy, and FMVSS108 needs to be addressed.