Cancelling DRL on Impala 2003

Page 3 of 5  
| > wrote: | > | > >Come on Guys! having DRL's do increase vivibility in less than optimum | > >visibility. Most drivers don't put their headlights on untill it's dark.
| It | > >really doesn't cost you anything because they are on reduced voltage. | Don't | > >be so anal. Shees! some people. | > | > Hello. If you've followed this thread at all you should have learned | > a couple of things by now: | > | > 1. Despite casual inclinations to the contrary, DRL aren't proven to | > enhance safety. In fact, some have sited evidence which indicates | > there is no meaningful difference between those vehicles so equipped | > and those which are not. | > | > 2. Many drivers in here like to control if / when to turn on / off the | > lights, and do in fact mind when their options are taken from them. | > | > 3. Just because you are someone who doesn't require proof or else | > maybe just doesn't mind having his options taken away, doesn't give | > you the right to insult those who do. | > | > Have a nice day. Sheesh. | > ==================================| | I didn't intend to insult you.....I think we are all anal about \ | something or other, maybe anal was a bad choice of words.
I can accept "anal" directed at me personally. It fits. :-)
| This thing about "having | control" is a bit strange don't you think?
Not when your state vehicle lighting laws _specifically_ say you're the one responsible and are supposed to be in control (of the lights). Otherwise, perhaps. One could _decide_ to allow a automatic lighting system to do the work for them, (both DRLs and headlamp controls) but for many GM models, the choice simply isn't made available (and it should be).
| I don't like having my choices taken away from | me either, but I'm not going to flip over my car | turning the lights on.
Agreed...which really begs the question as to why not the option for those that want it.
| If that were my biggest worry, I'd be a very happy man :-))
Me too! :-)
| As far as proof is concerned, I know I can see cars sooner | if they have their lights on.
Me too..two miles down the road when it makes little difference if the car is even there or not...or will turn off before even reaching it...which I frankly consider to be a unnecessary distraction from vehicles/objects that are closer and more relivant to be focused on. When the vehicle is close enough to really matter, it is plenty visable either way (lights or not). But to be fair, personal perceptions are different for different people So my individual perceptions are as irrelivant as yours. The only thing we have that is relivant is overall data to show what the situation really is. Anecdotal "stories" are simply not very useful.
| Wouldn't that make me less likely to make a mistake.
The data seem to indicate that it isn't nearly as cut and dried as that. Yes, it would seem so, but things are rarely "as they seem"...always subtle dynamics that interplay that often produce unintended consequences.
| Have a nice day too :-)) |
Thanks...you too! :-)
In summary: Since vehicle lighting laws in most states specifically identify the operator/driver as the entity that is responsible for the operation of the lights, some of us simply prefer the "peace of mind" of actually being in control of something that a law says we should be in control of, especially should a lawyer throw that back at us if "lighting status questions" become a relevant part of some liability case we get sucked into. Although, I suppose that if GM is actually the ones in control of the lights (not the driver) we could bring them into the case as a party to the case...hmmm....maybe that's a good thing after all! ;-) Although GM would probably make the case that upon taking delivery of the car the buyer relinquished control since they essentially agreed by accepting the car with the "feature" and effectively agreed to allow the car to assume their legal responsibility on their behalf. Hmmmm...I wonder if there is any case history on that! ;-) For now I choose to avoid all of that mess by buying a car without automatic lighting systems or DRL so I can decide how and when to use the lights...for now that means buying just about anything but a GM vehicle, unfortunately. :-(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

optimum
dark.
one
the
the
that
is
frankly
closer
really
Yes,
dynamics
identify
the
especially
become a

suppose
we
that's a

upon
behalf.
choose
systems or

buying
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| > | > wrote: | > | > | > | > >Come on Guys! having DRL's do increase vivibility in less than | optimum | > | > >visibility. Most drivers don't put their headlights on untill it's | dark. | > | It | > | > >really doesn't cost you anything because they are on reduced voltage. | > | Don't | > | > >be so anal. Shees! some people. | > | > | > | > Hello. If you've followed this thread at all you should have learned | > | > a couple of things by now: | > | > | > | > 1. Despite casual inclinations to the contrary, DRL aren't proven to | > | > enhance safety. In fact, some have sited evidence which indicates | > | > there is no meaningful difference between those vehicles so equipped | > | > and those which are not. | > | > | > | > 2. Many drivers in here like to control if / when to turn on / off the | > | > lights, and do in fact mind when their options are taken from them. | > | > | > | > 3. Just because you are someone who doesn't require proof or else | > | > maybe just doesn't mind having his options taken away, doesn't give | > | > you the right to insult those who do. | > | > | > | > Have a nice day. Sheesh. | > | > ==================================| > | | > | I didn't intend to insult you.....I think we are all anal about \ | > | something or other, maybe anal was a bad choice of words. | > | > I can accept "anal" directed at me personally. It fits. :-) | > | > | This thing about "having | > | control" is a bit strange don't you think? | > | > Not when your state vehicle lighting laws _specifically_ say you're the | one | > responsible and are supposed to be in control (of the lights). Otherwise, | > perhaps. One could _decide_ to allow a automatic lighting system to do | the | > work for them, (both DRLs and headlamp controls) but for many GM models, | the | > choice simply isn't made available (and it should be). | > | > | I don't like having my choices taken away from | > | me either, but I'm not going to flip over my car | > | turning the lights on. | > | > Agreed...which really begs the question as to why not the option for those | that | > want it. | > | > | If that were my biggest worry, I'd be a very happy man :-)) | > | > Me too! :-) | > | > | As far as proof is concerned, I know I can see cars sooner | > | if they have their lights on. | > | > Me too..two miles down the road when it makes little difference if the car | is | > even there or not...or will turn off before even reaching it...which I | frankly | > consider to be a unnecessary distraction from vehicles/objects that are | closer | > and more relivant to be focused on. When the vehicle is close enough to | really | > matter, it is plenty visable either way (lights or not). But to be fair, | > personal perceptions are different for different people So my individual | > perceptions are as irrelivant as yours. The only thing we have that is | > relivant is overall data to show what the situation really is. Anecdotal | > "stories" are simply not very useful. | > | > | Wouldn't that make me less likely to make a mistake. | > | > The data seem to indicate that it isn't nearly as cut and dried as that. | Yes, | > it would seem so, but things are rarely "as they seem"...always subtle | dynamics | > that interplay that often produce unintended consequences. | > | > | Have a nice day too :-)) | > | | > | > Thanks...you too! :-) | > | > In summary: Since vehicle lighting laws in most states specifically | identify | > the operator/driver as the entity that is responsible for the operation of | the | > lights, some of us simply prefer the "peace of mind" of actually being in | > control of something that a law says we should be in control of, | especially | > should a lawyer throw that back at us if "lighting status questions" | become a | > relevant part of some liability case we get sucked into. Although, I | suppose | > that if GM is actually the ones in control of the lights (not the driver) | we | > could bring them into the case as a party to the case...hmmm....maybe | that's a | > good thing after all! ;-) Although GM would probably make the case that | upon | > taking delivery of the car the buyer relinquished control since they | > essentially agreed by accepting the car with the "feature" and effectively | > agreed to allow the car to assume their legal responsibility on their | behalf. | > Hmmmm...I wonder if there is any case history on that! ;-) For now I | choose | > to avoid all of that mess by buying a car without automatic lighting | systems or | > DRL so I can decide how and when to use the lights...for now that means | buying | > just about anything but a GM vehicle, unfortunately. :-( | > ====================================| Sorry Guys...I guess I was the one being anal. Us old Guys get bored. | Gerry, | >
You weren't being anal. From one old fart to another, no need to apologize. Newsgroups are a good place to kick up a little dust once in a while and air things out a bit...in addition to getting some pretty good help with stuff. This topic actually comes up fairly often (in many car forums & newsgroups, not just GM) from people like the private investigator that started this thread. Often they have a real legitimate need to be able to kill the DRL and auto headlamps. This one for surveillance reasons is a excellent example. Another one recently was from a GM customer, also with a Impala, that just wanted to be able to watch movies at a hot summer drive in theater with his family and leave the air conditioning running...but he couldn't do that and turn his lights off at the same time (lights out is a requirement at a drive-in theater). Had one a while back from a star-gazer...those clubs require their members to enter the stargazing site at night with lights out so not to disturb the other "gazers"...can't do that with a GM vehicle. Usually I'm blamed for starting it from the regulars, but I'm actually not the one that starts the discussions...I only contribute to them once they're started...drives some of them crazy (to most here GM can do no wrong). I don't intend that result, but the truth often has a way of doing that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JCR,
I envision myself in the future fabricating some sort of headlight housing sheild to block the lights from shining out during the day. Be kind of neat to have some kind of glideaway cover controlled by a manual Push/ Pull choke cable lever. Be very usefull for backing up the driveway at night with the lights shinning out at the bedroom windows across the street. Push the lever, shield slides over the headlight blocking the light.
Or, perhaps an adhesive black vinyl decal can be stuck on to shield the DRL lights, of course you'd block the high beams too.
I'm already preparing for the many different things I'll have to make when the day comes I buy a new car.
========Harryface ======== 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE 3800 V6 ( C ), Black/Slate Grey _~_~_~_~277, 300 miles_~_~_ ~_~_
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| JCR, | | I envision myself in the future fabricating some sort of headlight | housing sheild to block the lights from shining out during the day. Be | kind of neat to have some kind of glideaway cover controlled by a | manual Push/ Pull choke cable lever. Be very usefull for backing up the | driveway at night with the lights shinning out at the bedroom windows | across the street. Push the lever, shield slides over the headlight | blocking the light.
Disturbing neighbors and family at night with headlights shining in their bedroom windows when coming in and out of the driveway is a issue for a lot of us that wasn't a issue for me personally until I bought a 2003 GM vehicle. One of the big reasons I got rid of it with less than 5,000 miles on it...took a pretty good bath on it too. :-(
| Or, perhaps an adhesive black vinyl decal can be stuck on to | shield the DRL lights, of course you'd block the high beams too.
The Malibu I had used the low beams as the DRL. Would have had to come up with something else for that one. :-)
| I'm already preparing for the many different things I'll have to make | when the day comes I buy a new car. | | ========| Harryface | ========| | 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE | 3800 V6 ( C ), Black/Slate Grey | _~_~_~_~277, 300 miles_~_~_ ~_~_ | | |
Maybe with a little luck (and prodding from folks like you) GM will make your future new car so you (and thousands of others) won't have to go to the extraordinary trouble making such mods. For me, until then, I'll just buy more Chryslers...they have far fewer "gimmicky" things on them to begin with and <knock on wood> have actually been quite good to me over the years...although I understand that I've probably been luckier than most in that regard. I hate sending some of my money to Germany though...rather keep as much of it as possible right here, but that's just the way it goes, I guess. :-(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| [SNIP] | So as long as we're getting into theoretical | territory... I have another potential theory that might explain it, | even considering the simple BCM change ability. | | I'm sure we're all aware of the tort and liability problems we all | (especially deep pockets) face in the U.S. today. Could it be that GM | gets some kind of liability insurance break for having this "safety" | feature essentially mandatory on it's vehicles? Even if they are self | insured they may see it as a reduction in liability risk. |
That is as good of a theory as any I guess. Although wouldn't the other manufacturers do the same if this were so?
I'm familiar with the text of state vehicle lighting laws. They seem quite clear to me in defining the operator/driver as the one who is responsible for the operation of the lights on a vehicle. Nowhere in the state statute is the manufacturer of the vehicle mentioned of having responsibility. They also define specifically when lights (meaning all front, side and back) are required to be used. So it would seem to me that liability involving use of lighting on a vehicle would rest solely with the operator/driver, since the law says that is who is responsible. On the other hand, if a manufacturer comes along and insinuates themselves into (or indeed takes over completely) the decision process that the law says belongs to the driver, it seems to me that that would actually open a fairly wide door of opportunity of being brought into a liability case, not the other way around. But, who knows, the legal arena can be a odd place at times. One would hope that GM management worked through this same exercise already when they decided to take away control of a key system away from the driver/operator/owner.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:12:02 -0500, "James C. Reeves"

Depends perhaps on which if any are self insured or if one company places more or less relative weight on disappointing some customers vs. lessened liability. Hard to say really. It's all just speculation because they won't say for themselves. Uhhg.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don't believe everything you read. GM sells more cars than Toyota, so does Ford Motor company, but with different brand manes. GM and Ford both sell more trucks in two months than Toyotas sells trucks in year. Ford and GM sell more trucks than all of Toyota vehicles combined. Ford sell more 'F Series' truck than all of Toyotas sales combined
mike hunt
"James C. Reeves" wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually it was on TV so must be true! ;-) Actually I agree. My guess is that it was a play on words, so to speak since they were comparing the brands..which breaks up GM, Ford, etc. in to smaller pieces. It's possible that Toyota sells more than Chevy, more than Buick, more than Pontiac, etc.
| > | So it really begs the question.... why the hell are they so motivated | > | in this, that they risk alienating customers or would-be customers? | > | What do they get from forcing this DRL shit on us that they want soooo | > | bad? You would think they would want to please customers, especially | > | when it costs LESS to do so. Hmm. | > | | > | > That is the $64,000 question. I've asked that very question of GM by | > telephone, email and by letters to Mr. Lutz himself. The call center person I | > was assigned wouldn't return my calls, the email response was "we will no | > longer accept email from you on this subject" (I saved that email and the | > hundreds of people I showed it too were quite taken aback that GM would send a | > customer such a email. The two letters to Mr. Lutz went unanswered. Your | > excellent insight is so obvious that one would think that such a elementary | > concept would be realized by the GM executives (wouldn't you think?). | > Obviously their reaction to the subject is to crawl into a hole and bury their | > heads. They quite obviously don't want to deal with it at all for some reason. | > | > On the cost question, one common theory that is thrown around is that forcing | > DRLs on the US allows GM to produce one inventory stock of each model for both | > Canada/US consumption since Canada does require DRLs by law, thus saves GM some | > amount of re-tooling at assembly and inventory control costs. But that doesn't | > make complete sense to me since their competitors manage around that just fine | > and with today's technology the "feature" activation is largely a simple BCM | > programming change to set one way or the other (since GM needs to accommodate | > police/military applications that need DRLs to be off regardless). Plus they | > need to provide other changes for the different markets anyway, such as | > different speedo faces. | > | > So, who knows. I'm sure it is a contributing factor to their continued loss of | > market share though. | > | > One interesting note. The first couple of years that Toyota had DRLs they were | > also mandatory. Now it's a $40 option (or so I've heard). Toyota's management | > out smarted GM's...they provide what ALL customers want (so they don't loose | > some of them) and also make a little extra cash on the side to boot! :-) | > Although a small percentage of the buyers actually take the option. Now | > recently Toyota is claiming in their commercials that they "outsell every other | > car line in America". GM..wake up!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
At least it isnt for cost reduction reasons (reduced inventory), because, most of the GM cars that are made in the US and sold in Mexico dont have DRLs, my dad has a 2000 malibu, assembled in OK, and it doesnt have DRLs (but I like the autolight feature).
The brand that has most of its models with DRLs here is Toyota, I remember seeing the camry and the corolla and both have it.

forcing
both
some
were also mandatory. Now it's a $40 option (or so I've heard).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| At least it isnt for cost reduction reasons (reduced inventory), | because, most of the GM cars that are made in the US and | sold in Mexico dont have DRLs, my dad has a 2000 | malibu, assembled in OK, and it doesnt have DRLs | (but I like the autolight feature).
That is interesting. Thanks for the information.
| The brand that has most of its models with DRLs here is | Toyota, I remember seeing the camry and the corolla | and both have it.
Strange then that GM doesn't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cancelling DRL on Impala 2003

I don't know about your state laws, but my state says that lights must work as designed and OEM lights must operate when the vehicle is inspected. Also, if you install auxilliary wxterior lights, they must work for inspection. I spoke to the police about disabling DRL's and I was told that in PA they must work for inspection and if you are involved in an acident, with them disabled, you could be in deep shit legally.
DRL's work. I know that they've saved my butt more than once and suspect that they may have saved me again today. Rich B
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% There are two classes of pedestrians in these days of reckless motor traffic - the quick and the dead. ~ Lord Dewar 1933 ~
Climbing into a hot car is like buckling on a pistol. It is the great equalizer. ~ Henry G. Felsen 1964 ~
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I don't know about your state laws, but my state says that lights must | work as designed and OEM lights must operate when the vehicle is | inspected. Also, if you install auxilliary wxterior lights, they must | work for inspection. I spoke to the police about disabling DRL's and I | was told that in PA they must work for inspection and if you are | involved in an acident, with them disabled, you could be in deep shit | legally. |
Interesting then that many police departments disable them. I guess they're exempt? How about Toyotas, BMWs, Benz's, Volvos, etc. that will disable DRLs upon owner request (and most buyers do)...they exempt too? I think the police are pulling your chain.
As long as you can show the headlamps come on when the headlamp switch is turned on (they work, in other words), I'm sure it will pass. Headlamps are a legal requirement, DRLs are not required by any US laws.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:56:07 -0500, "James C. Reeves"

Have you looked at a police cruiser recently? In our area many don't even have unique plates, most are your typical NY plate with POLICE stamped on it. Many cruisers also have no registration or inspection stickers where they typically are on an auto.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
>Interesting then that many police departments

You're partly right Jim, DRL's aren't required by any US law. However, In Pensylvania, the lights that are installed on a vehicle at the factory must work for inspection (as designed). If you install auxilliary lights on you vehicle, then they must work too and must comply with state codes. Also, I checked at the inspection station today and was told (again) that if my car came equipped with DRLs, they must work for inspection. I realize that vehicle laws are more lax in Maryland but eventually, you'll catch up.
And yes, the police are exempt (something about sneaking up on the bad guys, non-vehicular safety issues, etc).
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% There are two classes of pedestrians in these days of reckless motor traffic - the quick and the dead. ~ Lord Dewar 1933 ~
Climbing into a hot car is like buckling on a pistol. It is the great equalizer. ~ Henry G. Felsen 1964 ~
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your are correct that the Pennsylvania vehicle inspection code requires lights installed on a vehicle and all aftermarket installed lights must comply with state codes and operate for inspection.. However DRL's are redundant lamps. As long as the lamp works as required, as headlamps and running lights, their is NO requirement in the Pa inspection code relating to the operation of DRL's and they can be disable in Pa. Several years ago there was legislation introduced in the Pa state legislature to require DRL's in Pa. The state Senate held hearing into the advisability of the legislation. Tests conducted by the Engineering Departments of Penn State and Lehigh Universities determined that DRL's CREATED as many problems as benefits, and the legislation was defeated. Problems with distinguishing the difference in distance between an approaching vehicle being operated illegally with DRL's and one driven legally with headlamps on, was one reason. Pa requires the use of headlamps between sunset and sunrise and other times of limited vision. The fact the motorcycles have a tendency to disappear among a sea of DRl's in daylight, was another. I often see State Police citing Canadians driving on I-81 at dusk with just DRL's. Each citation brings $136 to our commonwealths treasury. ;)
mike hunt
Rich B wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:57:48 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@lycos.com wrote:

Kind of off the thread topic but... I have a question for you. Have you seen YOURSELF lately?
Just couldn't resist.
Signed,
Porky
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've heard all the jokes. My best friends name, in school, was Richard Gray. Is that Dick Gray with Mike Hunt? ;)
mike hunt
SgtSilicon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| You're partly right Jim, DRL's aren't required by any | US law. However, In Pensylvania, the lights that | are installed on a vehicle at the | factory must work for inspection (as designed). | If you install auxilliary lights on you vehicle, then | they must work too and must comply with state | codes. Also, I checked at the inspection station | today and was told (again) that if my car came | equipped with DRLs, they must work for inspection. | I realize that vehicle laws are more lax in | Maryland but eventually, you'll catch up.
I wonder how they check it. Most light operation inspections are done in a garage and the auto control will surely activate the headlamps even in a fairly well lit service garage. I suppose thay can shine a bright light on the ambient sensor and wait for the delay to see it it switches to DRL, but do they really do that in practice? Plus, how do they know which vehicle is set up with DRLs and which ones aren't since for most manufacturers DRLs are optional...for a given model, one might have them and another might not...how does the inspector know which is which? Doesn't make sense to worry about that, I wouldn't think. But, if you're so sure, I'll defer.
| And yes, the police are exempt (something about | sneaking up on the bad guys, non-vehicular | safety issues, etc).
But about the guy that started this post that wants to sneak up on the bad guys...he can't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:17:35 -0500, "James C. Reeves"

VIN? It's a thought.
Rick
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.