Disabling Daytime Running Lights

They're one in the same, aren't they? ;-)

That wouldn't surprise me a bit. The Malibu I had had only one type...the low beam type, which isn't quite as bad from a glare to others perspective. On that model, at least, I wasn't able to switch the DRL mode between hi/lo.

mishaps.

statement.

I did not spew anything. I merely quoted from the report to the US Senate. It is available in the Congressional Record for you to read as well if you wish to be enlightened.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, I could not care less about you opinion. I prefer to believe the engineering schools of two of the best engineering schools in the country, as did the Senate, rather than your personal opinion, however.

mike hunt

Grayfox wrote:

What ever gave you the idea I was speaking of myself having a problem with DRLs? I was quoting the report to the Senate. The fact is the US Senate did not pass the legislation requiring DRLs for the reasons stated. You opinion is not material to that fact.

mike hunt

Grayfox wrote:

You ranting for DRLs says more about you than the Senates decision to not make DRLs mandatory in the US. Why do you think they should be standard equipment? Do you believe the average driver has a vision problem that they can't see a two ton vehicle, in broad daylight, unless it has DRLs? Talk about inability to judge distance ;)

You might want to do some research on the human eye, lights and perception. Why do you think magicians use strong lighting, in broad daylight, when the want to create an illusion?

mike hunt

Grayfox wrote:

Thanks for your opinion but apparently they take lives as well, or they would have been made mandatory in the US.

I don't know which state you are referring to but in the six eastern states where we have our vehicles insured there is no discount for DRLs ;)

mike hunt

"James C. Reeves" wrote:

The military uses lights as camouflage as well. In some lighting conditions (common in the desert southwest, by the way) a dark silhouette against a light background (like sand/snow/sky) is more visible that a lighted vehicle that then blends in with it's background. In WWII, the military used lights on bombers to make them disappear (or nearly disappear) in the daytime sky.

Lighting is a very tricky science. GM only tells half the story about the effects of daytime illumination. Unless they can make them with variable intensity system that "auto-senses" the background/foreground lighting conditions, they will mask a vehicle on some occasions. Perhaps their engineers aught to study the masking effects of lighting that had been known for decades!

-Jim

You're right. Insurance companies I've spoken to don't discount for DRLs, except I think in New York where the state legislature there required them to. Back in 2003, I spoke to my insurance carrier specifically on this topic. They told me that insurance loss data shows no benefit to DRLs. Since then I've seen several loss data reports that seem to back up that statement. Most studies on file at the NHTSA that seem to prove benefit are those from the likes of GM and other entities with financial interest in the matter (or they funded the "so-called" independent study...which means it's not truly "independent). The *real* independent studies on file are a mixed bag of results (which means there is nothing really conclusive).

BTW, it is still possible that the NHTSA could rule to require DRL's as part of docket 17243. However, that body has been sitting on it for almost 10 years now.

Have ya'll ever noticed that even big ol' trains have DRLs? Wonder why? But I'm glad they do. My 96 chevy p/u has DRLs. I've only had to replace one headlamp in 4 years and 160,000 miles of driving. When driving on 2 lanes roads I really appreciate the DRLs on oncoming vehicles, lets me know if they are moving with me or against me. Haven't misjudged the distance on one yet. Will let you know if it happens.

Good question. I guess the loud whistle and engines weren't enough. ;-)

Sounds reasonable. A guy at work with a VW Beetle has replaced one or the other headlamp DRL 5 times in 40K miles. They are notorious for having this problem. He has one out right now, as a matter of fact. Another guy at the office has replaced both of his on his Silverado once in 50K miles and three times in 100K miles on his previous Silverado (those DRLs are separate lamps). I see 3-4 cars that have amber turn signal DRLs with one burned out every day. A person I know with a Camaro says she has been through "dozens" of front turn signal bulb replacements (probably an exageration, but is probably do burn out more than they should). Some DRL implementations are better than others in this regard. Reduced intensity headlamps seemd to do best in regards to longevity. I have replaced two headlamps in 30+ years. All very interesting, but so what?

Interesting. I never had that problem telling the difference...and I've driven 2-lane roads for 20+ years before DRLs even existed. But I have no doubt that some people may have had that problem...and I guess you're one of those people.

Please do. ;-)

James After careful thought, I have come to the conclusion that you are totally correct. DRL's should be removed from all vehicles. So should head rests, padded dashboards, ABS systems, turn signals, brake lights, radial tires, electronic ignitions, fuel injection systems and auto trannys. Remove all of these fangled contraptions and cars will run better and last longer. Now if we can get gas back below 25 cents a gallon ;-p

Some of those items are legally required. So we'll have to settle for the partial list. Where do I sign the purchase contract! ;-)