Do Alternators Change in Engine Load?

[justpassntime]

It would be interesting to see the data on vehicles equipped DRL vs not involved in crashes. I would bet percentage wise there is no difference.

It's like wearing hunter orange during hunting season. There are just as many hunters shot wearing it than not. I am comparing what I hear in the news from WA and ID. WA requires it, ID not and about the same amount from each state get shot every year.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by justpassntime

What about the DRLs that come on at night and with no taillights and people think they have their lights on? How many accidents do you think this has caused?

Man I hate these long drawn out safety discussions. Look what I drive, do you think I really care?

But your dashboard lights wont be on in this case, that will be immediately obvious.

I will say that the "lights on if your wipers are on" is a good thing from a safety perspective, saved my hide a time or two when I was a bit over-ambitious in my passing, DRLs come in to play there.

[justpassntime]

Well if I rode a motorcycle I would always have the headlight on, I believe most states require it anyway. It makes sense on a motorcycle not on a car. If you can't see a car you shouldn't be driving anyway.

Weather conditions are different, but there are cars that turn all the lights on but the taillights. Chevy made them I rented one. Kept driving around with no taillights. I see many others doing the same.

Ohh, have you seen my piece of crap? LOL

[dcb]

Well, here at least are things labeled studies:
Daytime Running Lights: The Studies

Generally in favor of DRLs from a safety standpoint, maybe %10 reduction in crashes, $3/year to operate (in 1995 gasoline dollars ($0.75/gallon), times 120million drivers though), and a "statistically insignificant" 4% increase in motorcycle crashes

Edit, and a few noticeable increases in pedestrian/pedacycle collisions (boo!)

[justpassntime]

Originally Posted by dcb

Well, here at least are things labeled studies:
Daytime Running Lights: The Studies

Generally in favor of DRLs from a safety standpoint, maybe %10 reduction in crashes, $3/year to operate (in 1995 gasoline dollars ($0.75/gallon), times 120million drivers though), and a "statistically insignificant" 4% increase in motorcycle crashes

Edit, and a few noticeable increases in pedestrian/pedacycle collisions (boo!)

Where there is data there is usually truth, without data mostly BS.

Unless you have the Gov. of WA collecting the data then it's BS too. LOL

[MazdaMatt]

How about I look at it this way... I drive an econobox, therefor I can spare a little gas for the off chance that someone sees my headlights and chooses not to step in front of my car and ruin my life with lawsuits.
Anybody have any test data on how much gas is used by these things? I don't want any assumptions based on wattage, or dropping revs at idle. In a daily commute, how much gas would be saved by not having drl's. We're not talking about full-on headlights here, just drls.

[dcb]

I *just* printed that data. $3 worth of gas a year at $0.75 a gallon times 125million vehicles (for the US). That would be 4 gallons per vehicle per year, or 500 million gallons annually for the United States to keep the DRLs on.

And the data suggests that it INCREASES the risk to pedestrians and bicyclers (and motorcyclers), the lowest fuel consumers who deserve the biggest break from vehicular terrorism IMHO. But there may be other factors of course, gotta study the studies to try and rule out things like increased cellphone usage and whatnot.

[MazdaMatt]

Originally Posted by dcb

Generally in favor of DRLs from a safety standpoint, maybe %10 reduction in crashes, $3/year to operate (in 1995 gasoline dollars ($0.75/gallon), times 120million drivers though), and a "statistically insignificant" 4% increase in motorcycle crashes

Edit, and a few noticeable increases in pedestrian/pedacycle collisions (boo!)

Sorry for missing this summary... so today's prices, 15 dollars/yr, 10% reduced chance of crashing my car. Yeah, I'm leaving them on. The frequency of car crashes is likely much greater than moto/bike/ped accidents, so the 10% is of major significance.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

The frequency of car crashes is likely much greater than moto/bike/ped accidents, so the 10% is of major significance.

Can you do me a favor, and research that "likely" part a bit before you jump to conclusions? Also try and factor in what happens in vehicle to vehicle accidents compared to vehicle to human accidents?

The point is that even if you are correct about the significantly more cars hitting other cars rather than pedestrians (which needs data to back it up ), if most of those pedestrians get killed in the encounter and most of the vehicle occupants are comparatively ok, then what?

[dcb]

While Matt is busy checking on his assumptions I did find this:

" Almost two-thirds of the 1.2 million people killed in road traffic crashes worldwide are pedestrians [1]. "

SOURCE
Pedestrian safety through vehicle design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia