DRL on 2003 Buick Century

Page 1 of 2  
Anyone know how to disable these? I know on other GM's it's under the dash by the pedals. Can't figure this one out
TIA,
Orv

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not sure, but on some GM models there is a fuse for the DRL's. One thing that I do not recommend is pushing the park brake in until they go off - too risky.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If I recall correctly, doesn't Buick use the parking lights for the DRL's on the Century & Regal? I'd rather have the parking lights lit up than the headlghts.
Sorry I don't know how to disable them.
Good Luck.
========Harryface ======== 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE ~_~_~273,437 miles_~_~_
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| If I recall correctly, doesn't Buick use the parking lights for the | DRL's on the Century & Regal? I'd rather have the parking lights lit | up than the headlghts. |
Except Harry it's not the parking lights they're using...it's the brighter turn signal filaments. That implementation introduces some level of ambiguity with signaling intentions never before seen. A quick glance in your rear view mirror at the car behind you and see the right turn signal lit...which lane is the car signaling to go for? Is it signaling to go to the right lane because it's right signal is on? OR is it signaling to go to the left lane because it's left signal is OFF (and the right one is on because it's a DRL)? It's always a good idea to add confusing signals to the front of a car! Nice work GM...(idiots)!!! I do agree that the amber DRLs are more pleasing to deal with when spending hours on the road...but signal lamps should NEVER be used for another purpose (in my opinion) other than for signaling (although the NHTSA allows it...also idiots!). They should be using completely separate lamps for DRLs if going this route!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you are talking about idling for example and the lights are on. Annoying with no light switch isn't it . I believe you turn the car off and put the emergency brake on then start the car again , the lights should be off.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
damn, this kinda sucks, just for the fun of it, I pulled the schematic... there is no way to disable them... They are the turn signals... during they day(light sensor used here), they are on..During the night.. the headlights turn on automatically..so no matter what, either the drl or the headlights are on.. you do have the E-brake trick though... put that on, then start the car... the headlights or the drl will stay off until th E-brake is released...for a more permanent fix, you might think you could wire a switch to the e-brake switch, but the brake light on the dash,plus the chime you will hear while driving will kill ya for sure.... if you simply snip the wires, then you have no turn signals on the front of your car... like I said in the beginning,this kinda sucks... Bobo

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Anyone know how to disable these? I know on other GM's it's under the dash | by the pedals. Can't figure this one out | | TIA, | | Orv
I used to own a 2003 Malibu LS. Aside from the water leaking problems, etc., I tried pulling the DRL fuse. I tried pulling the DRL relay. I tried disconnecting the DRL resistor behind the radiator. I couldn't find the so called DRL diode pack! Those solutions, although did disable the DRL, would cause the "Service Vehicle Soon" light to come on and set a code in the BCM saying a headlamp bulb was out. The GM dealer (or GM corporate) wouldn't turn the DRLs off like Volvo, VW, BMW or Toyota will if you ask (even though it's a simple programming change so they CAN do it easily for military and government applications). My only personal solution in the end? Dispose of the car...which I did in August (had it 9 months). I replaced it with a 2004 Sebring LXi sedan and the lighting controls on that car work just like a real car should...simple, perfect!!!
Anyway, you probably have no choice but to live with the DRLs. The great GM God says so. And they put up roadblocks these days to thwart your efforts since so many people were successfully killing the DRLs on the earlier implementations. You can write a letter to Bob Lutz if you want...but he will ignore you. (I wrote two unanswered letters, so I know). And Mr. Lutz was such a great "car guy" when he was at Chrysler. Well, get used to it...you're a customer out of luck...like tens of thousands of others that have complained and are still waiting for satisfaction. Welcome to the "GM knows better than you on how to operate the lights on your car" attitude!!! No, you don't live in a communist country, just GM thinks it is (since there is no law requiring DRL).
Good luck. If you find a better solution (other than getting rid of the car like I did), let us know. You DO have a legal right in the US NOT to have DRLs on your car!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 22:33:18 -0500, "James C. Reeves"

So, only the red commies have laws about DRL? Don't bother crossing the border into Canada, then.
And just what exactly is wrong with DRL? For many idiot drivers - no, James, I'm not saying you are - who don't even bother turning the lights on at all, this is at least a step in the right direction. Chrysler went from having the normal headlights on at part intensity to using those damned turn lights that for some reason are BRIGHTER than the normal headlights.
We've all had this arguement before. Don't give me the crap about having the "freedom" not to operate your lights. What is REALLY the reason you don't want the DRL?
Vuarra
Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur. (That which is said in Latin sounds profound.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | >No, you don't live in a communist country, just GM thinks it is | >(since thereis no law requiring DRL). | | So, only the red commies have laws about DRL? Don't bother crossing | the border into Canada, then.
Been to Canada, it's beautiful up there. But that isn't what I intended to say (although perhaps it came out that way). GM is acting like the "red" commies...in a country that has free choice on the matter (the NHTSA rule state that DRL use is to be _voluntary_ at least as of today). But GM believes, apparently, that they know better then their customer do and have crowned themselves as the King Enforcer over something that isn't even legally required. It isn't their perview to assume such a role and insinuate themselves into what all state vehicle lighting laws I've read clearly state is the operator's responsibility (not the manufacturers responsibility).
| | And just what exactly is wrong with DRL?
Too lenghty to go into "exact" detail in a NG. :-) Generally and in short...thousands of pages of studies and data on record say it all (I've read through nearly all of them). When taken as a whole and with applicable individual contexts applied, overall results across all studies are clear in showing the benefits are at best mixed. I used to believe the DRL idea was worthwhile. Now, I'm quite certain that they likely are not of any real value (except possibly at dusk, dawn and overcast situations, but certainly not at high noon). After 9 years sitting...waiting at the NHTSA and after many studies and volumes of insurance data on the matter, etc., I'm sure that if the NHTSA was so sure about their value, they would have made a final rule (one way or the other) long before now. They're taking much longer with the DRL item than anythng else on their dockets.
By the way, most of all other car manufacturers, even though they could save money just like GM is doing from what GM has done, understand (and have stated such in news article interviews) that the overall results on DRLs are a mixed bag...no concise or clear direction of benefit. Most then leave the choice up to their customers, as a car company really should do in a case like that. They choose the customer desires over their expense reduction...unlike GM that puts the customer last in that equasion.
| For many idiot drivers - no, James, | I'm not saying you are - who don't even bother turning | the lights on at all, this is at least a step in the right direction.
I agree with you that far too many people don't turn on their lights when they should. But GM's own auto light control systems don't always do very well at that either. My 2003 Malibu LS almost never would activate the real lights in daytime fog, for example (or snow or rain). Or, I would leave the house on a foggy morning shaded by trees and would have the lights on, BUT the car would turn them off on it's own without me noticing somewhere during the trip into the office. Since it was still foggy, I could have gotten a ticket since the car can't tell when it's foggy and subsiquently turned my lights off when it shouldn't have. Sure I could have turned on the switch when I left, but the lights were already on...seems silly to turn on a switch when it doesn't do anything. But, I learned that I had to anyway (which questions the value of the auto system IF one still must turn on a switch most of the time)?
So for those of us that do operate the lights properly (I am anal about it...can you tell!?), or just simply feel more comfortable driving a car with manual light controls and knowing for certain EXACTLY the state of their lights at all times (since they have total control over them) and can be certain that they won't be turning themselves off by themselves when they shouldn't and without the operator's informed concent, shouldn't have to be confronted with dumbed-down idiot and sometimes confusing "auto" controls.
| Chrysler went from having the normal headlights on at part intensity | to using those damned turn lights that for some reason are BRIGHTER | than the normal headlights.
I've not seen a single Chrysler vehicle with this configuration here in the states. But then, Chryslers don't have DRLs at all here. (Neither does Ford, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Mercury, Honda, Most Toyotas, etc. etc.) GM's are the ones here with the turn signal DRLs. I haven't found them to be brighter personally though, especially compared to older Saturns, Blazers and other GMs that use the high-beam designs. But, I guess it's possible that some are brighter and I just haven't personally seen them. I'll take your word for it. What I have found is as stated earlier, improper turn signal intrepretation on occasion with that configuration.
| | We've all had this arguement before. Don't give me the crap about | about having the "freedom" not to operate your lights.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people that benefit from "freedoms" don't care when they're slowly, piece-by-piece taken away....ESPECIALLY when it's not even a government doing it, but a car company! Do you REALLY want a car company enforcing it's will on you against YOUR better judgement? BTW: state vehicle lighting laws deal with when lights are required...so while a person can be free not to turn their lights on, the cop is free to give them a ticket. But it certaninly shouldn't be the car manufacturers (or any non-government or non representative entity) enforcing the laws.
Some people fight and die for freedoms. Others, I guess, don't care and just roll over and take it...even from their car company! I'll give a hint, you really don't have to take it from your car company! ;-)
| What is REALLY the | reason you don't want the DRL? |
In short, personal choice and informed judgment. To explain, I happen to believe the studies (and there are many) like the very comprehensive 1997 Highway Loss Data Institute (HDLI) study that resulted in a 8% increase in overall accident rates of DRL equipped cars, insurance industry statistics that have a unexplained very slight (statistically insignificant though) higher loss rates for those cars so equipped as well. The Perot and Prowler study done this year is the most recent. The Wisconsin and Oregon's 2-way highway studies...no change in accident rates during the study periods in both cases (done in the 1980,s before the issue was politicized). There are many more. Then factor in the fact that nearly all of the studies that are pro-DRL were commissioned and paid for by those with interests (financial, political or otherwise) in promoting DRLs, OR paid for by lawmakers with the ego never to accept that a law they passed may not have had the effect they sold it on. All which certainly makes the results of those pro studies VERY suspect. Remove those "tainted" studies and DRLs are likely actually causing certain types of accidents (motorcycle, pedestrian, children/cycles, emergency vehicle collisions, funeral processions, etc.)
But let's say for argument sake that DRLs have some benefit. For those (usually older) people that have a problem with glare, and pay a personal price by getting headaches driving to see their grandchildren, etc. should have the choice of doing their own cost/benefit analysis as to the value vs. cost and make personal choices...as it should be. After all, we all accept risk every day in life. For example when we cross a street...the benefit of what is on the other side is often worth the slight risk of being hit and killed while crossing.
A final thought...as long as we keep doing things for everyone, the sooner more people will not be capable of doing anything for themselves (a larger issue) and we'll have ten times the idiots out there than we have today! The solution is enforcement and fine, not pandering like a mommy and wiping Johnnys little chin for him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:35:12 -0500, "James C. Reeves"

To be fair, the GM DRLs are not very bright. The Chrysler ones are insanely brilliant.
I will state for the record that you have really done your homework, and I will defend your right to your opinion. Most of the time that I have went through this arguement before, the participant has stated that "I want my way and eff the person who tells me I can't do everything my way". You have actually given valid reasons, and I commend you for your post.
Vuarra
Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur. (That which is said in Latin sounds profound.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I will state for the record that you have really done your homework, | and I will defend your right to your opinion. Most of the time that I | have went through this arguement before, the participant has stated | that "I want my way and eff the person who tells me I can't do | everything my way". You have actually given valid reasons, and I | commend you for your post. |
I appreciate that. :-) The debate will likely continue until the NHTSA makes a final rule one way or the other...and that's okay. I just wish that GM wouldn't _force_ it's opinions on the rest of us (by mandating DRL use) which actually imposes them on those people that don't even own GMs vehicles. Apparently they don't share your defense of opposing positions...it's their way or the highway (pun intended). <sigh> I would, however, defend those individuals that _choose_ to use them, but never will I defend a corporate entity that mandates/imposes them on those that don't want them. That right belongs solely to the government that is made up of our representatives that we elect...not GM! At least, in America is _should_ work that way!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that
would,
will
There is one thing about this discussion that I do not understand. You say you don't like DRL's, but many of your complaints are about Automatic Light Control, which is not the same thing. And you say that GM doesn't listen, but all you talk about is your 10-year old car. The last 2- GM products that I looked at have a separate AUTO position on the lighting switch. As in OFF-PARK- HEAD-AUTO. Yeah, the DRL's are still there, my Bravada uses the high beams at half-power, but, as you yourself said, the results are mixed, and they probably do no harm, so, so what ?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | There is one thing about this discussion that I do not | understand. You say you don't like DRL's, but many of | your complaints are about Automatic Light Control, | which is not the same thing.
True, but both are closely related in the context of GM's proprietary (non industry standard) vehicle lighting control systems in general. The auto control topic came up as the discussion from Vuarra went to make the great point in the debate that DRLs being better than people not turning their lights on when they should. My rebuttal was that GM's "auto" light control system wasn't much better either in the specific situations I cited (daytime fog conditions, for example) when tail/marker lights are also needed (point-of-fact are required by law in Maryland). And, DRLs don't illuminate the tail/marker lights anyway so the point Vuarra was making was not completely valid (was my counterpoint).
Rear-end collisions are one of the several accident categories that statistically occur at a much higher rate with DRL-equipped cars. I can only assume that the reason for that may be that the average driver is _less_ likely to turn their lights on with DRL/Auto equipped vehicles because the configuration makes them think (in fact truly believe) the lights ARE on (either because the DRLs are providing a false visual queue reflecting in the fog in front of them AND/OR the average person thinks/believes that the auto system actually turns the tail/marker lights on when it's foggy...and it typically doesn't). Who really knows why, but the statistic is real. So both systems (DRL/Auto) are likely closely linked to the overall topic/situation in reality anyway. The solution for me (total manual controls) fixes the issue completely in my specific case, since I'm so anal about how my car operates and the state of it's devices that I'm responsible for.
| And you say that GM doesn't listen, but all | you talk about is your 10-year old car.
A 2003 Malibu LS is a 10-year-old car? Is it 2013 already! ;-) I've since sold it though...I don't currently own any GM product. Probably won't for a long while.
| The last 2- GM products that I looked at have a separate | AUTO position on the lighting switch. As in | OFF-PARK-HEAD-AUTO.
There wasn't a OFF position on the Malibu, or the Impala, Monte or Cavalier of that year (2003). "OFF" is only available on truck/suv models that I saw. The stalk switch had only "AUTO-PARK-HEAD". I suppose some GM car models may have the "OFF" option. If so, that is a good step. People that want auto can have it and people that don't can choose not to...good! :-) Now if they would just put a "OFF" switch for the DRLs...that would be perfect!
| Yeah, the DRL's are still there, | my Bravada uses the high beams at half-power,
And you're frying the retnas of the eyes in the sedan in front of you. Very annoying. You have one of the worst irritating configurations to your fellow drivers. Try kneeling down 30 feet in front of your Bravada with those things shining in your face. Since you sit up so high, you're out of the hotspot of any DRL when in the driver seat.
| as you yourself said, the results are mixed, | and they probably do no harm, so, so what ?
Because I personally believe that overall they add risk, not remove it. Thus, I want them off in the middle of the day. I also believe that they are annoying to others that I'm following, etc. Although anecdotal, I personally seemed to have experienced a much higher level of road rage directed towards me when driving the Malibu compared to when I drive the Caravan or Stratus (or my son's Dakota). But, I wouldn't claim my observation to be accurate or scientific since human nature can often skews observations to support beliefs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jimmy, I see that you've finally emerged from hibernation and you're still bitching about the same old crap. I know one guy in my area that wishes he had DRL's on his car. His wife drove with NO lghts on and was struck head-on by a large truck that was turning onto the street.
If people driving through dark tunnels, at night, in shade and in heavy rain would turn their lights on, DRL's might not be necesary. But, you have idiots that will not turn on their lights as long as they can see their hand in front of their face. If Canada had not made DRL's mandatory, GM may not have put them on their vehicles. After all, DRL's DO prevent accidents (and save lives), regardless of anything you or your anti-DRL organization might say. Incidently, I'm still installing DRL's on cars for the countless numbers of people that see the true benefits of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rich B wrote:

His wife has no business driving if she is so stupid as to not turn on the lights at night. Perhaps if people were ticketed for driving without proper lighting in rain fog snow and evening they would get the message.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Jimmy, I see that you've finally emerged from hibernation and you're | you're still bitching about the same old crap.
Thanks for noticing Richie! What is one person's crap is another's treasure. We all have to be passionate about something silly to champion in our lives, don't we? BTW: I didn't bring up the DRL topic. A post by "ORV" did (wanting to know how to disconnect them...hmm at least two of us!). :-) The discussion/debate came from that.
| I know one guy in my area that wishes he had DRL's on | his car. His wife drove with NO lghts on and was | struck head-on by a large truck that was turning onto | the street.
I'm very sorry to hear that. Even if she had DRLs, had she been turned in a different direction she would likely have been rear ended or side-swiped by the truck instead (no tail/side lights with DRLs).
Curious, why was the truck on he wrong side of the street? If the truck driver was intoxicated or something, lights _may_ not have helped much anyway.
| If people driving through dark tunnels, at night, in shade and in heavy | rain would turn their lights on, DRL's might not be necesary.
Since side marker and tail lights are not lit with DRL systems, DRLs are not the solution to those issues. And the shade/tunnel situations are what, 1% of total drive time at best? Lighting laws in most states deal with the rain/fog/snow/night scenario. I've known people to get tickets for not having their lights on before...give out more tickets. All lights need to be on in those cases...DRL isn't enough. DRL _may_ actually _promote_ driving without lights for some people out there based on increased rear-end collision data for DRL-equipped cars.
| But, you have idiots that will not turn on their lights as long | as they can see their hand in front of their face.
No arguement here, a true statement. I would argue that the better solution is to give out frequent citations in those cases. It would train them to think and take personal responsibility to use their lights correctly OR face the consequences of fines, points and increased insurance costs. Auto systems & DRLs make people _not_ think and are like mommy cleaning up for little Billy so Billy never learns to clean up for himself. Do we REALLY want to create a environment that will produce even more idiots out there then already exist? OR would we want to reinforce responsibility by better driver training and enforcement of the laws?
| If Canada had not made DRL's mandatory, GM may not | have put them on their vehicles.
GM statements seem to imply it was all their idea in the name of safety. :-). But, I'm sure you are correct since GM save's money by making one product set for the two different countries.
| After all, DRL's DO prevent accidents (and save lives), regardless of anything you or | your anti-DRL organization might say.
Yes, that is a factual statement, but it is incomplete. Yes, certan types/categories of accidents statistically show a reduction in cars outfitted with DRLs (and lives saved?). However, it is also true that other types of accidents statistically show a increase (maybe caused) by DRLs (and lives lost?). The net effect across all accident categories, at least if you believe the 1997 HLDI study, is a 8% increased risk overall of accident with DRL-equipped cars.
Have you ever wondered why GM and the politicians only "cherry pick" the studies and cite specific accident categories (the ones that indicate benefit of DRL) and never, ever cite _overall_ statistics across _all_ accident categories? Why don't you ask them? Don't be a lemming...probe and question. Don't accept the opinions of entities that have a conflicting profit motive. I know the answer. It is because doing so is far less favorable (indeed detrimental in my opinion) to their position.
| Incidently, I'm still installing DRL's on cars for the | countless numbers of people that see the true | benefits of them.
People follow the pack...it's human nature to be in the "trendy" crowd, although no one will admit it! :-) As I stated before and will again, I defend individual choice. If a individual wants DRLs for what ever reason, then fine. I thought it was clear that the beef is with a corporate entity like GM insinuating themselves into what should be personal choice (the NHTSA rule says DRL use is to be "voluntary").
However, since you appear from your last statement to have a profit motive (installer of DRLs) your support of them, although very likely genuine...I'm not saying it isn't, is tainted...just like many of the pro-DRL studies funded by entities like GM. One can rightfully ask if your support of DRL is because you believe in them, or because you make money from them. It's the same quandary GM is in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
First, Jim, the truck was making a wide turn (legal turn) with his lights on. The woman (for unknown reasons) did not see an 18-wheeler with his lights on. She also did not notice that none of her dash lights were on. They should lock her up for hoarding the stupid gene. Looking at your dash should tell you if your lights are on. If that fails, look at objects in front of you for a reflection.
The reason you have seen an increase in highway deaths is partly because of the increased speed limits and the people's willingness to speed (just to see how fast it'll go). You also ave the idiots that want to "test" the local police or play games on the highway. When you come up on a "normal" vehicle from the rear, you will see the reflectors that are built into the tailight lenses (that's why they're there). Even the side markers have reflectors in them.
If every driver did what they're supposed to do, there would be fewer accidents. What is that you ask? Try paying attention to your primary job of driving and not to something else like your cell phone or the person next to you. It is possible to talk to someone without looking directly at them, especially when you're driving.
I've driven a lot of years and many miles (one million +) and all of them were with my headlights on. I've never gotten a ticket or had an at-fault accident. I am also certain that having my lights on has saved me more than a few times.
The U.S. has been conducting studies of lights vs no lights (during daylight hours) for decades and all the ones I've read advise using lights during the daytime. They even assign a "safety number" that is based on your level of lighting. So, GM didn't invent any of this. If you hate GM so much and no longer own one, why not go back to the Honda board to rant - I'm sure they love you there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| First, Jim, the truck was making a wide turn (legal turn) | with his lights on. The woman (for unknown reasons) did | not see an 18-wheeler with his lights on. She also did not | notice that none of her dash lights were on. They should | lock her up for hoarding the stupid gene. Looking at your | dash should tell you if your lights are on. If that | fails, look at objects in front of you for a reflection.
Makes sense, a very sad story. If she was killed or injured, my condolences go out to your friend.
In some lighting conditions (daytime fog), the dash lights are not always easy to see and some (not all) people apparently are confusing the DRL reflection in the bright fog with their headlights being on. The system introduces driver confusion for some percentage of the driving public, obviously.
| The reason you have seen an increase in highway deaths is partly because | of the increased speed limits and the people's willingness to speed | (just to see how fast it'll go). You also ave the idiots that want to | "test" the local police or play games on the highway.
I would agree that speed is a contributing dynamic to accident rates, one of many factors. Long term weather patterns seem to be a big one...and is a very changeable dynamic from year to year too. Which make it hard to guage benefits of judgiing one purposefully changing dynamic since the others also change and can't be relied on as a fixed control point.
| When you come up on a "normal" vehicle from the rear, | you will see the reflectors that are built into the tailight | lenses (that's why they're there). Even the | side markers have reflectors in them.
It doesn't substitute for having the lamp lit. Not even close. Especially on a turn that the truck was making since the reflectors would only work once the trucks headlights came around to shine on them. It may be to late at that point (in that example).
Again, the data on increased rear-end collision rates on DRL equipped vehicles is fact and strongly suggest that a configuration that doesn't illuminate the tail lights introduces a dynamic that is counter to improved safety (in those cases). I would argue that the data suggests that reflectors alone are not effective enough. I think Volvo is the only manufacturer that illuminates all lamps all around with their DRLs. But then there are studies that suggest doing that reduces the noticeability of (and/or reaction times to) brake lights during the daytime. I _think_ Volvo solved that problem by implementing completely separate brake lights from the running lights. GM didn't spend the money to do that, so no lights in the back (or side) at all!
| If every driver did what they're supposed to do, there would be fewer | accidents. What is that you ask? Try paying attention to your primary | job of driving and not to something else like your cell phone or the | person next to you. It is possible to talk to someone without looking | directly at them, especially when you're driving.
All good points...and I agree. A driver paying due attention to the task at hand will be more likely to operate the vehicle properly (all aspects, including lighting)
| I've driven a lot of years and many miles (one million +) and all of | them were with my headlights on. I've never gotten a ticket or had an | at-fault accident. I am also certain that having my lights on has saved | me more than a few times.
Also 30+ years, probably somewhere around a million miles, no accidents that were my fault (was rear ended waiting at a stop light), one ticket in my early 20s (speeding). No lights on in the daytime ever (well, except when I owned the Malibu for 9-months this year). But, our personal results are way too small of an sample to be meaningful. Anecdotal items are interesting, but it doesn't really paint the big picture that only full data can. For example, my wife had a person pull out in front of her a couple of years ago at dusk and she t-boned him at a intersection. She had her lights on and her 1997 Dodge Neon was a VERY bright "perriwinkle" blue color. If someone didn't see her headlights, surely the perriwinkle blue would draw attention. But, I don't typically use that example (and suggest no one reading this to either) as a reason for not having DRLs since one accident does not a point make. I will say her Neon took the impact MUCH better than the Honda she collided with did. Chrysler was American owned back in 1997!
| The U.S. has been conducting studies of lights vs no lights (during | daylight hours) for decades and all the ones I've read advise using | lights during the daytime. They even assign a "safety number" that is | based on your level of lighting.
Please find the names of the studies you mention and I'll look them up. I'd like to see if I have seen those or not. I'm open. I've given you the names of some the studies that I cited. Google them, see for yourself. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it face value without looking for themselves. I certainly wouldn't :-)
| So, GM didn't invent any of this.
I agree, but if you listen to them, you would think they did. They're "out in front of the issue", I think is verbatim. :-)
| If you hate GM so much and no longer own one, why not | go back to the Honda board to rant - I'm sure they love | you there.
No Hondas for me thanks! I want a American product that isn't a Ford! ;-) GM is the only game in town to that end. I came from several generations of GM buyers. One Grandfather bought Cadillacs/Pontiacs (in fact my Uncle still has the 1973 GrandAm with the 455 V8 my Granddad had when he died). The other grandfather bought Chevys (I still remember when I was a kid, the brand new 1957 BelAir he had....sweet!). Dad bought Chevys, exclusively. I love GM...I just don't like recent anti customer choice policies...do you have another suggestion on how to impart change in that regard? I already sold the GM stock I owned in protest too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

control
(daytime
illuminate
So, your problem is that you can't remember to put the switch in "ON" when you need to, I really don't see how the DRL's are affecting that decision, if anything that obnoxious DRL indicator light on the dash should be more of a reminder that you need real lights.

Your DRL's must be a helluva lot brighter than mine are, I can't imagine anyone mistaking the illumination from them to be actual headlights. And, of course there is that bright DRL light on the dash. Sometimes I turn the headlights on sooner than I think I need them, just so I don't have to see that light.

linked
won't
Well, I don't know what's wrong with your calendar, but from here, it sure looks like 200 was 10 years ago. I can only attribute that slip to lack of sleep.
I hope there was a lot wrong with that car for you to sell it so quickly, if you took the loss on a new car just because you couldn't figure out the headlights, I feel for you.

Cavalier
that
Very
of
Not true. I did a lot of observing while driving my Triumph, to see just how "blinding" the lights are, as I was going to disconnect them if they looked bothersome. At any ambient light levels low enough for them to cause distraction, I would already have the headlights on, so nobody is going to get blinded.

skews
Maybe the road rage is directed at your driving, maybe you are leaving high beams on, maybe you have the fog lights on. Now there is a lighting system that ought to be banned. I'll take DRL's on every car on the road, if you will offer to ban the fog lights.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| So, your problem is that you can't remember to put the switch in "ON" when | you need to,
I think I clearly stated (and it's obvious from my earlier explanations) that I'm aware if the issue and switch them on (once I found out the car would switch them off sometimes when it shouldn't).
| I really don't see how the DRL's are affecting that decision, | if anything that obnoxious DRL indicator light on the dash | should be more of a reminder that you need | real lights.
A DRL indicator light would be a good idea, if it had existed in my case.
| | Your DRL's must be a helluva lot brighter than mine are, | I can't imagine anyone mistaking the illumination from | them to be actual headlights.
Light intensity perception can be very different between different people. There are thousands of complaints registered at the NHTSA over glare that I assume are genuine. If you're under 50, you are less likely to be as effected by glare isssues.
| And, of course there is that bright DRL light on the dash. | Sometimes I turn the headlights on sooner than I think | I need them, just so I don't have to see that light.
I typically turned the lights on sooner than the auto system too, but there was no DRL light. Glad to hear some have them though.
| > A 2003 Malibu LS is a 10-year-old car? Is it 2013 already! ;-) I've | > since sold it though...I don't currently own any GM product. Probably | won't for a long while. | > | | Well, I don't know what's wrong with your calendar, but from here, it sure | looks like | 200 was 10 years ago. I can only attribute that slip to lack of sleep.
Been there! :-)
| | I hope there was a lot wrong with that car for you to sell it | so quickly, if you took the loss on a new car just because | you couldn't figure out the headlights, I feel for | you.
I figured them out...but was very uncomfortable with the non-standard way they operated. My wife wouldn't even drive the car at all, so I had to get rid of it. She hates automatic stuff more than I do!
| > And you're frying the retnas of the eyes in the sedan in front of you. | Very | > annoying. You have one of the worst irritating configurations to your | > fellow drivers. Try kneeling down 30 feet in front of your Bravada with | > those things shining in your face. Since you sit up so high, you're out | of | > the hotspot of any DRL when in the driver seat. | > | | Not true. I did a lot of observing while driving my Triumph, to see | just how "blinding" the lights are, as I was going to disconnect | them if they looked bothersome...
You eyes light/glare preception may not be representative of some people tha make up the general population...a important point to remember.
| ...at any ambient light levels low enough for them to cause | distraction, I would already have the | headlights on, so nobody is going to get blinded.
Since you turn your regular headlights on early, that helps a great deal with high-beam DRL configurations.
| Maybe the road rage is directed at your driving, maybe you are | leaving high beams on maybe you have the fog lights on.
In the daytime? The regular lights aren't on (which would have to be for the high beam/fogs to be on).
| Now there is a lighting system that ought | to be banned. I'll take DRL's on every car on the road, | if you will offer to ban the fog lights. |
I haven't seen fog lights used much here. I don't have much use for them. Most don't work, in my opinion.
We will all be old farts some day with old light-sensitive eyes. Something to think about.
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.