Talk:Daytime running lamp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Inappropriate lobbying 2 DRL complaints still pour in. 2.1 In response to DRL Complaints Still Pour In 3 Australia - motorbikes? 4 DRL wattage & technology 5 Scientific study

[edit] Inappropriate lobbying

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)

[edit] DRL complaints still pour in.

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.

[edit] In response to DRL Complaints Still Pour In

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)

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)

[edit] Australia - motorbikes?

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)

It was a legal requirement, very briefly. Australian Design Rule #19 was changed in 1992 so new motorcycles were fitted with automatic `highlights 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)

[edit] DRL wattage & technology

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)

And once again I have cleaned up Kstrsn's modifications. The reference s/he added to the UK study within the EC report is good, but s/he seem to have misunderstood it. Turn signal DRLs are permitted only in the US and Canada, not elsewhere in the world; the UK study did evaluate a system of 42w nominal power consumption, and while the nominal vs. actual wattage discussion applies, the fact remains they did not test a turn signal DRL system. Please do not continue to revert technically-valid and sourced edits without first discussing your intent and attaining consensus here on the talk page. --Scheinwerfermann 01:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific study

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)