Talk:Daytime running lamp

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can someone add this?

(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)[reply]

Ribbon light

(Major cleanup, rm essay & unsupportable assertions, fix major grammar & syntax errors, there's nothing such as a "ribbon light", etc.) (undo) 04:39, 29 July 2010 Scheinwerfermann

to fix wording in paragraphs and that plain removal of sections should be separate things. Guidod (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your text because it was unsourced, poorly written, contained a great deal of vague and inaccurate assertion (e.g. your baseless and unsupportable assertions about high beam DRLs), and -- of greatest consequence to the quality of the article -- was largely redundant. The poorly-written material you added without citation was (and is) already well covered, with appropriate support by citation. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, so it is appropriate that we refer to R48 with citation, but there's no good reason for us to copy the detailed prescriptions of where R48 says a manufacturer or retrofitter may place DRLs. For the same reason, it is inappropriate to go into favoured ways of retrofitting DRLs on European cars.

Your extensive use of the phrase "ribbon light" is illustrative of the problematic nature of your additions to this article. There is no such thing as a "ribbon light", and while you may think it a clever way of referring to a DRL with a linear form factor, there is nothing in the relevant regulations that allows or calls for a linear shape specifically; DRL form factor is wholly up to the manufacturer's stylists and engineers as long as the lit surface area requirements are met. This is an encyclopædia we're writing here; our job is to describe the world as it is -- not as we think it should be. That means we do not make up our own terminology. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow your argument. There is no description how to install DRLs, the ECE reference is shortened to a few items whereas Wikipedia has long lists of reference data in its text base (list of country calling codes) etc, so the mere assembly of numbers does not constitute a "manual". The ribbon variant of DRLs have brought about a strong drive to retrofit cars with those types of DRLs, so deleting its existance from Wikipedia simply ignores a good part of reality. So calling for "redundance" and deleting sections with non-redundant information is obviously a contradiction in itself. To help with wording would be welcome however and if there are really some parts being duplicated it would be good to work on those sentences as well as adding references where you would like to seen one. Going deletionist on everything does not allow for that kind of work however. Guidod (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is in plain English, and it accords with Wikipedia policy -- perhaps spend a bit of time brushing up on the basics of this project, then have another go at understanding the problems with your contribution as I've enumerated them. In a nutshell: Cite it or drop it, dude. You can't just dump in a bunch of personal essay and expect someone else to come clean up your mess by adding citations. If you can find a reliable source supporting your assertion that "the ribbon variant of DRLs have brought about a strong drive to retrofit cars with those types of DRLs", then great, let's have it. Otherwise, no. Likewise, you'll need to find sources of adequate veracity to support your assertions regarding high-beam DRLs and many of the other technical matters you try to tackle. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly you cite only WP-links that support hostility towards authors, nothing like Wikipedia:Etiquette to call for credit and cooperation.

As for the fact of the TFL/DRL boom it is easy to see if you drive along German Autobahn. It even lead to new court verdict a few days ago that TFL/DRLs are not sufficient lights in tunnels. That boom is shared in many boards across the net - some news have taken it up like N24 calling for "LED-Tagfahrleuchten sind in" and or schlaunews quoting Die Gründe hierfür liegen auch bei den für die Nachrüstung der Lichtanlage benutzten Teilen und deren fehlerhaften Montage. Eine Richtlinie der EUKommission schreibt zwar erst ab Februar 2011 vor, dass alle neu auf den Markt kommenden Modelle im Pkw- und Kleintransporterbereich Tagfahrleuchten haben müssen. Solche Leuchten sind aber schon jetzt bei vielen Fahrzeugbesitzern beliebt. “Der Nachrüstmarkt boomt also - leider mit ebenso viel Schatten wie Licht”, warnt die Kraftfahrzeug-Überwachungsorganisation freiberuflicher Sachverständiger KÜS in einer Mitteilung. Es gebe bei den einschlägigen Händlern und vor allem im Internet viele Angebote für den nachträglichen Einbau. “Ohne Rücksicht auf die korrekte Verwendung im Straßenverkehr wird alles gekauft und verbaut”. - If you need more numbers than opinions then you need to wait till next year since most of the cheap LED DRLs (especially in the ribbon style that are easy to add to old cars) were introduced to the market in late 2009. Guidod (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your anecdotal observations as you drive along the Autobahn are immaterial to the construction of articles on Wikipedia; it is original research which is not permitted here. I linked to core structural policies of Wikipedia; whether or not you like my tone, they remain the prescriptions for what does and does not pass muster here. It is regrettable you feel attacked or wronged -- it is a reaction to your persistence in diluting and reducing the quality of the article by failing to adhere to basic Wikipedia principles. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than my personal observations I have linked to references. You like to pick what fosters your position, right? Guidod (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and principles. Please coöperate and refrain from unwarranted mudslinging and personal criticism, thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please cooperate. The vast part of my text above was quoting from news corporations. You still ignore that fact. Guidod (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you fully engage in this English-language discussion of an English-language article on the English-language Wikipedia, then perhaps your links and comments on them will merit discussion. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And nethertheless you can read German and take an opinion about it, right? Guidod (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need help with translation? From your name I have guessed that it is not necessary. Guidod (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need help? Guidod (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks, no help needed. When you have some sturdy support for your assertions, I'm sure we'll have a productive conversation. The one of your links is nothing more than a commercial outfit's product announcement parroted by an enthusiast site—basically a commercial advertisement—and the other focuses on the problems of poor quality and improper installation of some aftermarket DRLs. There's no support for the existence of a term such as "ribbon light", no support for the notion that the availability of "ribbon"-shaped DRLs has anything to do with the popularity of aftermarket DRL installations, no support for your assertions regarding high-beam DRLs, etc. Mit freundliche Grüßen, —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I have not asserted high-beam DRLs, this thing had existed even before I have modified the article, and there reference exists even in the current article. "may be implemented by functionally-specific lamps, by operating the low-beam headlamps or fog lamps at full or reduced intensity, by operating the high-beam headlamps at reduced intensity". If you defend this wording then may be you have added that part yourself so that you could comment on it?

(b) If the term "ribbon light" is not an established English term then you may correct that of course. The target is about LED DRLs that are sold cheap and everyday reality shows that the "ribbon style" has take a good proportion of the retrofit market, possibly induced by the examples by Audi (and later Mercedes, etc).

Additionally, disparaging opinions of third parties might be your style, I would just appreciate if you come to the conclusion that nobody is trying to lie at you on the existence of a trend in led light retrofit kits. It's just that the actual amount (in hard numbers of installations) can not be asserted so far. I am convinced that it is only a matter of time though (and may be a couple of hours to google for other references which I had not time so far, probably same as you) Guidod (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not under the impression anybody's trying to lie to me. Remember, we're building an encyclopædia here. The standard for inclusion is not what we (think we) know, it's what we can prove with apposite citations of reliable sources. That "reliable" part is crucial; it means just any ol' website that happens to hold an opinion that mirrors something you think would be interesting in the article does not constitute adequate support for your assertion. Perhaps you're right that it's only a matter of time before reliable support becomes available for your assertions. If that comes to pass, then the assertions you wish to include in the article will cease to be problematic.

The problematic (unsupported; factually incorrect and therefore unsupportable) high-beam DRL text appeared to be from your keyboard. Perhaps it was not. In any event, it's been removed; the factually correct and supported text regarding high beam DRLs remains. Again: no problem (I'm not sure what the point is of your bizarre suggestion that I added and then deleted text so as to bitch about it on the talk page. Please keep in mind we don't do that here, thanks.)

I am sorry you feel wronged (or attacked or disparaged or whatever); that's not my intent. I think you've probably got a good angle for expansion on the topic of non-compliant aftermarket DRL devices and installations. I'll bet you can probably find good support for some text on that matter. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is to find hard numbers for the DRL aftermarket. May be announcments of DPA, Hella, Dictane, Märkische Allgemeine would be enough for you? "LED-Leuchten erobern Nachrüstmarkt / Trend zum Tagfahrlicht beschert dem Zubehörhandel ein gutes Geschäft" The KÜS information was also picked up by a press release of the de:ARCD "Tagfahrlicht: Experten mahnen zur Vorsicht beim Nachrüsten". The results of internet references just depend on what gets indexed by Google et al and if I pick a few good words to get a good match - so from my POV it is not a point of "if" one can find a reference that holds your expectations, it is only a matter of "when". Guidod (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime glare?

It might be worth expanding the section on "daytime glare" with reliable research references. It seems counterintuitive that a lamp which produces "intolerable" glare during a "bright" day would somehow be easier to take at night, with a much greater contrast.

It might also be interesting to expand on research showing how DRL installations at normal intensity improve the relative visibility of moving vehicles vs parked vehicles, especially for pedestrians and oncoming traffic.

In addition, a section should be included describing any research on the comparative benefits for daytime lighting might be affected by seasonal variations, such as the Summer, when most commute-time driving benefits from full daylight, vs in the Winter, when most driving is in dark or low-light conditions, even at temperate latitudes.

California, Oregon and probably others now have a requirement to use headlights whenever the windshield wipers are in use. Does this belong in this article? The following from an online version of the CA drivers handbook advises suggested and mandatory headlight usage:Use Your Headlights

When it is cloudy, raining, snowing, or foggy. If weather conditions require you to use your windshield wipers, you must turn on your low-beam headlights — it’s the law. On frosty mornings, when other drivers’ windows may be icy or "fogged." Any time conditions (clouds, rain, snow, dust, smoke, fog, etc.) prevent you from seeing other vehicles. Other drivers may have trouble seeing you, too. On small country or mountain roads, even on sunny days. This helps other drivers see you and may help you avoid a head-on crash. When necessary to get another driver’s attention.^[1]MisterHOP (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime headlight usage laws might warrant mention here, noting that DRLs often don't count as satisfying these laws (which makes sense because many DRL systems don't light the vehicle's tail lights and sidemarker lights, which shoudl all be on when it's raining). These laws also warrant mention in the relevant section of Headlamp.

I can't think what lights you might think of in saying "it seems counterintuitive that a lamp which produces "intolerable" glare during a "bright" day would somehow be easier to take at night". AFAIK there are no lights that do both of those things. High beam DRLs are the ones most often complained about for causing glare in the daytime, and it's illegal to use high beams at full or reduced intensity (i.e., DRLs) at night in traffic. 01:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/hrn_hlts_es.htm#useheadlights

DRLs on motorcycles.

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)[reply]

Fuel consumption reduction

The article says "Fuel consumption reductions of up to 0.5 mpg may be found when comparing a 55 W DRL system to a 200 W DRL system". 0.5 mpg-US is about 470 l/100 km which seems to be too much.--Carnby (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, the DIFFERENCE of 0.5 MPG is less than 0.2L/100KM. The fuel consumption difference assuming typical engine and alternator efficiency between 55W and 200W is about 0.1 liter per hour of operation, so depends on the speed, 0.2 liter per 100km is within the ballpark.

Going to remove the dubious marker from original article. -jzmtl Nov 09 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.252.62 (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Daytime running lamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safety performance text is self-contradictory

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)[reply]

Origins and history

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/hrn_hlts_es.htm#useheadlights

[1]