Disabling Daytime Running Lights

Page 4 of 4  


I got it.
You also said something very interesting, "you have a collision because you misjudged the distance."
Think about it.
Steve
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think you missed my point or just want to have you personal opinion on the subject heard. I'm not posting an opinion. What I posted was fact. The fact is the US does not require DRLS because the Senate determined that they can cause moiré problem they they prevent. Not having DRLs means a fewer number of cars having the opportunity to drive without headlamps, when they should use headlamps, reduces the probability of another driver misjudging the distance between their vehicle and another, period. The result is fewer accidents for the car with DRLs as well as the driver that made the error. Not having DRLs reduces the probability that a motorist will not see a motorcycle, in the mix of cars on the highway, compared to a motorcycle with its headlamp on all the time. Whether you happen to think DRLs are advantages is moot. Personally I always illuminate my headlamps during hours of limited vision and when driving out of the sun, so that my vehicle can be more readily seen by other drivers.
mike hunt
Steve Mackie wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

Here we go again. Michael my boy, if you can't judge the distance of approaching vehicles regardless of whether they are using DRL's or any of the various intensity headlights, please make the world a safer place for us and stay the hell off the road. What would you do if S.B. Fowler was approaching you? As S.B. said: "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. " I guess you'd hit him right between the fogs!

The final lament of many a deceased motorist! I thought you were smarter than that. You must really get confused when a BMW appraoches you with it's unique headlights! When in doubt about the distance to an oncoming vehicle, err on the side of caution. It's as simple as that.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Maybe this will help.
Take older Saturns. The DRLs were about 10" apart. In some lighting conditions, Saturn's are perceived (by everybody) to be much further away then they actually are. Lights that appear close together must be a car that is far off in the distance, right? (when the outline of the car isn't visable due to poor visability of snow/rain/fog). So, lesson learned, DRLs *should* be placed at the farthest outboard positions of the vehicle to avoid this natural situation of tricking one's distance perception (we all have).
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Also many are on file and accessible at the NHTSA site.

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

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

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

For some types that is true. So then why spend energy to have them lit if they aren't visable? You do read your own contridictions, I assume?
However, for the high beam type, if one happens to be driving a sedan when a S-10 truck pulls up behind them, the rear mirror and ones eyeballs falls right in the brightest part of the high beam DRL. Even the light of a 3-watt flashlight can be quite bright when shining directly in ones eyes. Then go just 10-degrees "off-axis" of the highbeam, and the light is not visable at all. Idiot to use high beam's with such a narrow beam spread as a DRL!

Incorrect. The howstuffworks.com is one site that has the calculations. DRLs consume between 46 and 110 watts total per vehicle.
Also, you may be interested to know, several years ago GM petitioned the EPA to do the mileage tests for the published EPA ratings for their cars without the DRLs being on. (The EPA rule was that all "accessories" normally operational must remain so for the test). GM was granted that waver (and still uses it), even though customers couldn't operate the car as tested. So, IF there wasn't a impact on gas mileage, then why did GM submit that petition? The answer is that there is a impact.

It can, but not necessarily. It depends on the type of driving and the design of the car. While driving on the highway, vehicles typically get better mileage with the A/C on. The added wind drag of open windows is worse (on many venhicles) compared with running the A/C.

The A/C system is useful. The DRLs are a waste of resources, a annoyance for some people and are of questionable benefit.

I was speaking of your analogy. Turnong off the DRL's is not like removing the seatbelts. I argued that not using the seatbelts (and leaving then installed) is like not using the DRLs (and leaving them installed). You were saying that not using the DRLs were like asking to have them removed...ain't so.

Apparently I don't have that problem...35+ years driving and haven't had a problem seeing a car yet...except when I squint from the glare. By the way, insurance loss statistics don't seem to show any benefit at all...none. Check the NHTSA sight for information. In fact the 1997 Highway Loss Data Institute findings indicated a increase in accident rates on cars with DRL's. So pick your study...nothing conclusive when taken in total.
But non of that matters. The topic is selling cars. GM needs to respect customer's conclusions that are different from theirs if they want to sell those customers cars. It really is that simple.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:sOmdnYmg0bpzBxPfRVn->

Hi James! I have two vehicles with DRL's and as I have previously mentioned, I like DRL's in the daytime simply because it makes me more visible to unsafe lane switchers. On both of these vehicles, I have the option of "low-beam" DRL's or "high-beam" DRL's, simply by flicking the normal hi/lo beam switch. I'm not aware that GM has developed a specific "high beam type" of DRL. I suspect that the vehicles you think have high beam DRL's are simply dolts who have flicked their DRL's into high beam mode. They are probably the same dolts we all see with their high beams on full time when they have their actual headlights on. Just my 2 cents.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

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

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

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

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