daytime running lights on my 2005 Expedition

Page 1 of 3  
Can I modify my 2005 Expedition for daytime running lights ?
If so, where do I get the parts ?
Thanks, Lynn

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lynn McGuire wrote:

You can buy the DRL module at any Ford parts counter. However, it WON'T make you any less susceptible to a collision from another vehicle, but it WILL annoy some people, to the point of triggering "road rage".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can I buy it on the internet somewhere ? I have looked but did not see anything. Is it just a plugin module ?

Why ? About half of the new vehicles have DRL including all motorcycles. If a person has road rage over DRL then they have serious issues.
Lynn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I love DRLs, and installed them on all my vehicles. But can anyone explain why they don't turn on taillights as well? Those certainly wouldn't blind anyone and can prevent rear end collisions in bad weather or dark tunnels. Because of this I frequently have to turn on the main lights in daytime, but doing so dims out the panel illumination -- not a good option.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Happy Traveler wrote:

The purpose of DRLs in the USA is to save GM a few $ per vehicle by using the SAME lighting wiring harness for vehicles sold in the USA and Canada (where daytime frontal DRLs ARE MANDATORY). GM doesn't care how half-assed the implementation is, since just improving the corporate bottom line is the name of the game.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

but
Now I'm really confused. There is no instrument illumination with the DRL. Turning on your lights will however illuminate the instrument panel and tail lights. The DRL module feeds a low voltage to the high beam circuit and I can't say I've ever been bothered by DRL's in oncoming traffic. They just aren't that bright.
Richard

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry for the inaccurate statement. I was referring to the digital instrument panel of some fancier models, not to the mechanical gauges of most vehicles. But even with the latter one has to turn the brightness all the way up to see the radio, message center, or electronic climate control displays in daylight if headlights are on. DRLs eliminate this problem -- unless one wants the taillights to be on as well -- which for some reason DRL does not do. Hence my original question.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Happy Traveler wrote:

Volvo's do illuminate the tail lights during the day. However, the brake lamps on Volvo's are housed in separate units, or separate section of the single unit. Some studies on file at the NHTSA seem to indicate that *daytime* illumination of tail lights, when the same unit also serves as the brake light, reduces the reaction times to brake lights of those people following the vehicle. Apparently the hard "off-on" is a better setup in daylight situations than "dim-bright" setups commonly used at night. So Volvo fixed that issue by having the separate always on tail light from the Brake light (the separation of the two functions which is a required configuration in Europe, BTW)
A comment on DRLs' The NHTSA has been "studying DRL's for 12 or more years years now. Apparently they haven't proved their usefulness as they've yet to make the final rule on the matter (that was due many, many years ago).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lynn McGuire wrote:

It's true that all motorcycles have DRLs (exterior lights on with ignition; law in most states, but NOT at Federal level), and they were once relatively safe to drive due to the added daytime conspicuity they enjoyed. Now, with 4-wheel behemoths having HIGH-MOUNTED DRLs as standard equipment (mostly from those morons at GM) being placed on the road, the motorcycles are losing the visibility battle, in that motorcycle accident rates have climbed at about a 7% rate every year for last 8 years; when ALL vehicles have DRLs, then NO vehicles will have that perceived visibility advantage. If you think there are only a few people that dislike DRLS (for MANY good reasons), go here and enter Docket 4124, and read the responses: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm
Ive written to DOT/NHTSA myself complaining about the damn things, but the people there in DC wont do anything except wait and see.
Yes, there are MANY people out there with serious issues, and many of them drive vehicles as big (or bigger) than yours.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I beg to differ.... I live in Canada where DRLs are required... Seeing those lamps far ahead on even the brightest of days has helped me avoid many situations that could have become extremely uncomfortable... or even life altering.... DRLS can and do save lives and avoid mishaps....
Your thinking is convoluted, the logic is missing and, I dare say that you don't have a lot of experience with DRLs on the roadways...
DRLs work.... period.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Warman wrote:

Horseshit! Transport Canada THOUGHT they worked when the numbers came in for 1991 (DRLs became mandatory in 1990 in Canada) showing a 9% reduction in frontal daytime collisions. Meanwhile, for the same reporting period in the USA - with NO mandatory DRLs - there was a 12% reduction in frontal daytime collisions, indicating to MY "convoluted thinking" that there is a 3% DISbenefit with DRLs down here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If the "disbenefit" isn't convoluted thinking, I don't know what is....
In case it escaped your attention, I have cited a regular, real world occurance of DRLs saving people (including yours truly) from commiting to an action that could have gone very, very wrong. The increased visibility is of enormous benefit.... with the added bonus that the operator doesn't need to remember to "light up for safety"....
You are repeating some obscur rhetoric that, fundamentally, states that "if a politician thinks it's good, it must be bad..." or some other obscur notion that roughly works out to "I'm am American, dammit, and I have an overwhelming need to express my freedom of choice bny doing really odd things".... like denying the very real increased visibility offered by DRLs.....
If there is a concern with road rage, deleting DRLs isn't the cure.... there will surely be other catalysts for this modern day malady. The "cause" lies in people themselves.... If a motorist is succeptible to road rage, perhaps they shouldn't be motorists. Frustration is there to be had at every twist in the road and every driver either in front, behind or coming towards us.... Road rage is a sophomoric reaction to an adult situation...
Once again, logical thought and reason are lost on those who refuse to see the light.... pun intended...
I, for one, am very happy that Canada has adopted DRLs as a CMVSS standard.... and I speak from experience with the feature.... not from learned rhetoric nor assumed "disbenefits".
When I was active with our local fire service, I had the misfortune of being one of the rescue technicians with a strong stomach.... Scraping up the remains of those that deny safety devices and their victims became an all too familiar task. Even with all the foritude I could muster, these events didn't leave me unscathed.... Remeber this... not one of the people that I slid on to a stretcher... not one of the cadavers I poured into a body bag ever had the notion that "today" was going to their brief bout with infamy....
Don't pooh-pooh the idea of DRLs until you have the opportunity for them to save you from a tragic mistake....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Warman wrote:

I'm not pooh-poohing the concept of DRLs (inferring that I believe them to be frivolous); I'm saying they are just as likely to CAUSE an accident as to PREVENT one, being that I've had a few "nearlys" that were CAUSED by vehicles with DRLS masking the presence of other vehicles until the last possible second, so don't delude yourself into thinking that DRLs are all that benevolent, or even benign. What else can I say, other than that I believe that your Ministry of Truth has conditioned your reason centers beyond redemption, so theres no further point in having this discussion with you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can you explain how the vehicle with DRL's masked the presence of other vehicles which I assume didn't have DRL's. Am I to assume that because you saw the DRL vehicle all the others became invisible because they didn't have DRL's.
Just curious about the circumstances here.
Richard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard wrote:

Exactly as you stated; quite common in the USA on 2-lane roads, if you care to be objective about the pitfalls of DRLs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you
have
Doesn't that speak volumes for the visibility aspects of DRL's especially on two lane roads? I can't help but think that you might have attempted to pass sooner if you had not seen the vehicle with DRL's thus finding yourself in a potentially deadly front on collision. The issue as you describe says all vehicles should have DRL's or none and pay greater attention when passing. It also works the other way. How often have you been surprised by on oncoming vehicle starting to pass and seeing you because you had DRL's pulled back into it's lane or conversely you didn't have DRL's and had to take some corrective action to avoid that potentially deadly accident. I don't think that DRL's create a blas situation but you might be correct. Being more visible to me just seems the prudent approach.
Richard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard wrote:

It can happen in EITHER direction; me pulling out to pass with a DRL-equipped vehicle directly behind me, and a car without DRLs pulling out and attempting to pass the car behind me as I pull out. Suddenly, there's a car in the passing lane going in my direction just as I pull out. DRL-equipped vehicles can also SELF-mask, as in the case of a DRL-equipped vehicle cresting a hill from the West in late afternoon. A vehicle with no lights on would show a frontal silhouette against the low Sun, but a DRL-equipped vehicle will hide the outline. This is proven fact, done in actual testing. ALL vehicles having DRLs? The reason (Im told) that vehicles have DRLs is to provide increased conspicuity thru frontal self-illumination. If ALL vehicles had DRLs, the net effect would be the same as if NO vehicles had DRLs, with the added annoyance of having to constantly drive in a sea of light. Im sure the motorcycle riders of the USA would appreciate that notion, as if the damn DRLs that are out there now arent killing them off fast enough, to the tune of an 8% annual increase in motorcycle accidents PER YEAR, every year, for the last 8 years. I could go on for hours about the actual safety DISbenefits of DRLs, but its basically what Ive been researching and writing about since 2001. I suggest that, for views other than mine on this subject, go to: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm and search Docket 4124 to see what other people have to say about the concept of DRLs, Pros & Cons (but mostly Cons).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Test conducted by several universities for the US Senate, when it rejected a regulation requiring DRLs in the US, showed DRLs to not be the aid to safety that many assume.
While DRLs may help in some instance, however during times of limited vision on a two lane road, such as in fog or at sunset, DRLs are easily confused by approaching drivers as being headlamps on a vehicle that is at a greater distance.
Most state have laws requiring use of headlamps under such conditions, drivers with DRLs often tend not to turn on the headlamps until there is less visibility for the driver of the vehicle so equipped, thus making them must less visible to drivers of other vehicles.
In that report to the Senate DRLs were also deemed to be a particular hazard for riders of motorcycles, since the single light on a motorcycle tends to disappear among groups of vehicles operating with DRLs.
While DRLs may have some usefulness is sparsely populated Canada but the Pennsylvania State Police are stopping Canadian drivers using I-81, headed to Florida and the south, that failed to turn on the headlamps "during hours of limited vision" as required in PA.
One can see them most anytime at dusk being stopped by the PSP and donating $135 to the state treasury ;)
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Actually, I thought most of the fines go to the local government, not to the commonwealth. Also, some of the fines go to the catastrophic loss fund, not the commonwealth's general treasury.
And don't forget the funds that go for higher insurance costs.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You thought wrong. In Pennsylvania, the state referenced, the fine is distributed equally between the jurisdiction and the Commonwealth to be used for highways. The "other" costs over and about the fine(s), like the CAT fund fee go to the state to be used for those person being treated from the fund that were eligible before the fund was eliminated, as do the EMS fee(s) to be distributed to the local EMS service provider(s).
The Pa Constitution requires taxes and fees be dedicated to the intent of the law for which they were enacted. The fine portion of the costs to the person in violation of the 'use of headlamps' section of the code is only $25, as is the case for they majority of moving violations in PA, the balance of the $136 levy is as stated and for District court costs. Appeals to the next higher court(s) add an addition filing fee of $35. All of which is returned, IF the County Court sustains one appeal.
The information can be found on line at the PA web site in Title #75, the PA Vehicle code as well as the portion covered under the PA criminal code I E Death by motor vehicle while intoxicated etc..
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.