Disabling Daytime Running Lights

US, I believe you are allowed. Canada, no.

I don't believe that the 2002 model Century has a way for the owner to disable the DRLs.

Their use is required in Canada. Their use is voluntary in the USA.

That pretty much sums up the difference between our two systems of government.

Regards, Al.

I just set the twilight sentinal feature to put the regular lowbeams on all the time. I hear, though, that the last year or two they have a temporary disable function on the switch itself.

Actually, to be technical, driving with your lights ON, 24/7, is required in Canada, reguardless of DRLs.(though DRLs satisfy the requirement of course) They love to give tickets up there to tourists for this.

They're not required in any state but some states require all exterior lighting to work as designed in order to pass a yearly vehicle inspection (Pennsylvania is one of them).

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 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 ~

Which province?

I've never heard of anyone getting a ticket in my province, and the cop cars don't seem to have DRLs either.

I have not heard of anyone getting a ticket for not having them, but you CAN get ticketed for not. I almost got one. Had a "roadside vehicle inspection" done by the RCMP one day, told me my DRLs are not operating. I had to remind him that my 1988 Cavalier didn't come with them.

However, the DRLs on my Monte haven't worked since I got it and it passed three safety inspections in two provinces.

I am read-------------------------------------------- Except as provided in this Section, every vehicle upon a highway within this Province during the period from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise and at any other time when visibility is so limited by fog, rain, snow or other atmospheric condition or by insufficiency of light as to render not clearly discernible any person on the highway at a distance of

300 metres ahead shall be equipped with lighted head lamps and lighted rear lamps as in this Section respectively required for different classes of vehicle and subject to exemption with reference to lights on parked vehicles as declared in subsection (10).

--------------------------------------------

Steve

What does it matter if they are on or not? When you are driving you can't see them anyway.

Ah. I noticed this when I was last in B.C. - a sign on the side of the road stating that all cars must have their lights on during daytime hours, or something to the effect.

Shoot I see DRLs just about everywhere these days when I'm driving. ;-)

Yeah, but whats the big deal weather the DRL's are on or off. Why does it matter? What does it hurt?

Its like saying "I don't/won't wear my seat belt, remove it".

Light sensitivity is a problem for some people...especially for those over

1. Remember also, light shining in the eyes for prolonged periods has always been a very effective form of torture...especially for those with sensitivity to it.

600,000,000 extra gallons of gasoline (and added polution) a year to generate the electrical energy to power them, for one. And that's within the USA alone.

Hardly. Apples and oranges analogy again. One can opt not to use their belts. One cannot opt to not use the DRLs. I haven't said get rid of the DRL's only to provide a switch for those that don't want to use them. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? ;-) Although it wouldn't break my heart if they disappeared tomorrow.

Check out:

I disabled my DRLs on my Grand Prix so I could have just the amber corner and fog lights on during low-light periods, ie dusk.

Man, this is just too much! It's because of a__holes like you that manufacturers invented DRL's!!!! You think it looks cool driving around with your fog lights on, so you disable your DRL's. Is that it? You think it looks cool to drive with your fog lights on? You are one stupid so'm bitch bubba! Then you forget or choose not to put on your headlights with darkness approaching. People like you are such dumbasses man! DRL's were invented because of you! Earth to Fowler - (Now try to follow me on this with your little pea-brain) What does "F-O-G" spell? Fog, man! Fog! You're supposed to use "Fog lights" when it's foggy out! Are you so stupid that you didn't know that? Then you shouldn't be driving. Especially without DRL's. You're a menace on the road!!!

driving.

Lets see, DRL's run during DAYLIGHT hours. Light sensitivity would be more caused by natural sources. DRL's aren't even noticed during the sunny time of the day.

600 million gallons? You found this in what source. Running your headlamps on high beam 24 hours a day doesn't cause a pinch of difference in gas mileage but it will cause the bulb to fail sooner. Now running AC does cause lower gas milage. So we should disable all AC units in cars ;-p

NOT apples and oranges! DRL is a SAFETY device as is the seatbelt. Those lights have caused me to see cars and cycles I may not have seen. If it saves one life it's a good thing.

You might want to reconsider using that type of lighting at dusk. Most states require the use of HEADLAMPS at dusk and during other hours of limited vision. I see Pennsylvania State Police stopping Canadians on I-81 all the time for driving with only DRLs, at dust, when headlamps are required. It costs them $136 for during without headlamps ;)

mike hunt

"S.B. Fowler" wrote:

That'd be a valid argument, if it were true. Safety belts do save lives; there are many studies to back that. DRLs are an affectation that some hotshot at GM cooked up and he/she had too much power for any safety people to say NO! For every study that says that the use of DRLs helps avoid collisions, there are other stats that indicate the opposite. A follow-up study of the initial state-mandated implementation of DRLs in Canada showed a 9% reduction in frontal collisions for the following year. Meanwhile, south of the Canadian border, a similar study showed that collisions for the same period - in a country where DRLs were not required - the frontal collision rate went down 12%. This would seem to indicate a safety DISbenefit of 3% with the use of DRLs.

Motorcycle rider associations are up in arms about these things, since, as more and more dual-track vehicles equipped with DRLs are introduced onto US roads, the number of collisions with motorcycles increases. GM knows this but won't back down and 'lose face'. US-DOT/NHTSA knows this, but they became an ineffective bureaucracy many years ago, and won't do anything about it except 'wait and see'. For lay and professional opinions & some facts about DRLs, go to:

and look at Dockets; 4124, 8885, 17243

That may be your opinion but test conducted by the engineering department of several universities for the US Senate show otherwise. When the Senate committee was considering GMs request to make DRLs standard in the US they determined that DRLs cause more problem than they prevented. I. E. Drivers confusing an approaching vehicle, operating improperly with DRLs in low light situation, with a vehicle being drive properly with headlamps. Resulting in the driver misjudging distant while passing or pulling into traffic. Failure of a high percentage of operators of DRL equipped vehicle to turn on their headlamps when required.

They found the exact opposite of your opinion for motorcycles. Motorcycles do not have DRLs, they operate with the headlamp on and they have a tendency to individually disappear in a sea of DRLs The result of those test are available in the Congressional Record for anyone interested

mike hunt

No >

cars and cycles I may not have seen. If it saves one life it's a good thing.