day time lights

I have a 96 Buick LeSabre and would like to add daytime running lights. I see some cars have them but this one dose not. Is this a simple thing I can do? or do I need to by some kind of wiring kit?

TIA

Hi...

If you go that way, remember that will turn on all the lights, and the headlights at full brilliance.

Perhaps most annoying will be that it also turns on the dash lamps, so during daylight you'll not be able to read any of the displays, like the radio, etc.

Take care.

Ken

the manual says for cars in Canada only. This makes me think it must be wired for it but only needs the module to make them work.

Very often that is the case. There are also aftermarket units.

He's full of shit. How do you diagnose a non-existant problem? All you want is an add-on. Do they have to do a diagnosis to sell you floor mats, too? Call another dealer. This time, do NOT talk to the service department. Ask for the parts department instead.

I called my local dealer to see if I could get some information from them. The service manager told me he could not help me to look for something but had to bring it in and have them diagnose it cost $125. I said forget I will call another dealer but never did.

I have purchased three new cars and two used ones from this dealer. The last one was three months ago. I total this car when a idiot pulled in front of me and guess what the replacement was purchased somewhere else.

Your car is in great shape, please leave the DRLs off. The Buick's usually use the high beams at lower wattage but are still brilliant enough to be annoying and a distraction to driving. Just wanted to say that there are many of us that would really rather you don't enable DRL's.

Cheers

Some people feel this way.

Some of us dont. If people drove, and used their lights, as they should, then it would become less of an issue, perhaps.

My big complaint is that, here, in low light situations, rain, etc (where the law says you are to turn on your lights), I have estimated that 1-2 out of three drivers never turn them on. DRL's often dont help either, as they may illuminate from the front, but not from the back.

Our previous Buick, and our present Avalon, had automatic lights so that this was not the case.

Daniel Stern used to post a lot on here, and he had strong feelings about DRLs, particularly in the way they are normally implemented.

I have driven with them for years in Europe where they are mandated, and never found them to be distracting or annoying.

You won't see any "reduced intensity" HIGH beams in Europe either. That's about half the problem with DRLs in the USA; "reduced intensity" high beams are still HIGH BEAMS and cause annoying (maybe even disabling) glare, and also causes copycat drivers to turn the FULL high beams on. The auto makers that did this (mostly GM, to save a few bucks a car with a common US/Canada wiring harness) high beam DRL business should be forced to recall every one of these death makers. The idea of DRLs is pretty nonsensical below 45º N. latitude (all of US except AK) anyway, with abundant daytime lighting for most of the year, and the things seem to CAUSE accidents as a result of distraction, masking, and hiding motorcycles that actually benefit from the use of daytime lighting to increase conspicuity, while I have a hard time believing that a 3-ton SUV requires DRLs AT ALL to be seen "better".

The lamps in Europe ARE different from the American ones. They use a sort of shrouded bulb...dont remember the designation.

I have seen no evidence that DRLs "seem to cause accidents" here in the lower 48. If you have some hard data, or links, please post them.

It is a complex question, and there are even challenges to the European data showing that they reduce accidents. I am accustomed to them, and like them.

If one did a search of the US Senate investigation of hazarders presented by DRLs, they may discover that they would not want DRLs.

If one feels they are "safer" operating with lights doing daylight they should simply turn on their headlamps, which will negate the negative effects of DRLs, yet still illuminate their vehicle for others ;)

mike

Search the Congressional Record for a list of the many negative aspect of DRLs, discovered by the US Senate investigation, when they turned down GMs request to make them mandatory in the US several years ago, WBMA.

mike

I personally have been involved in an accident as the result of daytime lights, plus several "nearlys", so I just flat-out HATE the damned things. As far as hard data goes, it's not possible to prove causality directly (just like ?proving? the ?benefits? of DRLS), but motorcycle accidents in the Continental US have been climbing at a steady rate of about 7% per year for at least the last 8 years; if the cause isn't DRLs, what then? The US government (DOT/NHTSA) KNOWS what the cause of the increased motorcycle accident rate is, but they?re saying the matter ?requires further study?. Ask any motorcycle association or ask any member of same what THEY think about DRLs, and you?ll hear a lot that?s contrary to your apparent belief regarding DRLs. Better yet, go here:

input 4124 for the Docket Number to read some opinions and a few facts about these godawful things that you think are so wonderful.

Here in Canada, the DRL's have been used for years, and no one I know has a problem with them. I am curious to know how the accident you were in was caused by the DRL's. Care to share?

How so?

As far as hard data goes, it's not possible to prove causality

I dont know, but this is not proof, nor really even well developed evidence. It may become evidence or even proof, but it is too soon to say for sure.

That's what GM keeps telling DOT/NHTSA

That's why DOT/NHTSA says they have to study it more, while the motorcyclists bodies keep piling up more every year.

I repeat.. How did DRLs put you into a serious accident.

Thanks, Knight. My question as well.