Daylight running lights

Hi all,

Is there a way to turn off the DRL on a 1996 Chevy Blazer 2WD 4.3? They go off if the slightest pressure is use on the emergency brake.

Thanks Hank

Reply to
Hank
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

Reply to
Ray

You probably can turn them off. But why would you want to?

All the tests, American and international, indicate that DRL's reduce accidents from 7-10% in general, depending upon conditions. There is so much data that only the tunnelblind would dismiss it out of hand.

In left turn accidents, reductions of ca 37% were found.

Although a lot of people bitch about them, in fact, they do not seem to contribute significantly to glare problems.

They don't affect your gas mileage significantly either.

I have personally been exposed to mandatory DRL's since the early 80's, and much prefer them.

Reply to
Larry Smith

Because they annoy other drivers.

The really stupid implimentations that use high beams do cause glare problems. I guess if you are blind, it is not a problem.

No, they don't help either, unless your eye sight is really bad.

This stupidity has been foisted upon us by GM for way too long and I really hate them. If a driver really wants to be seen, it is much easier, and less annoying to other drivers, for them to switch on their low beams.

----------------- Alex __O _-\

Reply to
Alex Rodriguez

Oh boy! It's the DRL debate aGAIN!

Actually, Larry, speaking as someone who has copies of virtually all the studies on the topic from all over the world over the last two decades within arm's reach of this desk...

...you're quite incorrect. In actual fact, studies have shown widely disparate safety performance -- from slight disbenefits to zero benefit to slight benefits -- from DRLs not only with predictable variables (ambient light levels, DRL implementation, etc.) but even in similar conditions.

There *are* indeed a lot of data, but contrary to your assertion, it doesn't even come close to all saying the same thing -- or even all pointing in the same general direction.

Not sure where you pulled this one from -- the glare problem from certain specific DRL implementations is well documented and has been corroborated by numerous theoretical and practical studies all over the world.

General Motors would very much like to pretend no such problem exists, though. You may read all about it in their submissions to Federal docket

984124.

Er...that's also wrong. The degree to which they affect gas mileage is both measurable and calculable, and it is significant. You may figure the fuel consumed to run DRLs during the day by simply factoring in the DRL system wattage (generally between 55 and 110 Watts in North America), the alternator efficiency and the engine efficiency. You may also, by this same method, calculate the increase in exhaust emissions due to DRLs.

Suppose you're lazy, though, and don't want to do the math. In that case, here's an alternate question for you: If the impact of DRLs on fuel economy are insignificant, why did General Motors lobby *VERY* hard for (and eventually win) the right to carry out their US Federal fuel economy certification tests (which are used to determine an automaker's CAFE compliance and the degree, if any, to which it must pay and charge gas guzzler taxes) with DRLs disconnected, when the tests otherwise require that cars be in exactly the same configuration as when you or I purchase them from a dealer?

Sorry, guy -- just using the words "science" and "data" isn't enough to disguise your guesses, opinions and preferences.

DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

Not according to the tests performed by several Universities in the US for the Congress, the are not safe. Search the US Congressional Record for the report. DRL's can cause as many accidents at dusk, on two lane roads, and in low light conditions as they may prevent. DRL's are especially dangerous for motorcycle riders as they disappear in a sea of DRL's

mike hunt

Larry Smith wrote:

nt to?

Reply to
MikeHunt

Fair's fair, Mike. If I'm going to correct the guy who claims the studies show DRLs are a proven lifesaver, I'm also going to have to correct you when you claim they've been proven "unsafe" by studies present in the US "Congressional Record".

Please go ahead and show us where in the Congressional Record you found the information you've posted here.

DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

I don't catalog everything I research. I told you where to find the report, do you own home work. GM wanted the Congress to required DRL's in the US. Based on the Senate report, US declined to do so. You might check the Lehigh University and Penn State University sites as well. Lehigh did an engineering study and PS a statistical analysis for the state of Pennsylvania DOT a few years before, that became part of the federal study.

mike hunt

Daniel Stern Light>

Reply to
MikeHunt

No, see, that's the thing, Mike. I work in this field, have ready access to virtually every relevant document on the subject, and can assure you I've done considerably more homework on the topic than you ever will. Now: I want you to show us the document where you got the information you originally posted, which is:

"according to the tests performed by several Universities in the US for the Congress, the are not safe. Search the US Congressional Record for the report. DRL's can cause as many accidents at dusk, on two lane roads, and in low light conditions as they may prevent. DRL's are especially dangerous for motorcycle riders as they disappear in a sea of DRL's"

Some of the above is a distortion of what's actually been found. Some of it is just made up. Show us where you found it or admit you made it up yourself.

DS

Reply to
Daniel Stern Lighting

See, that's the thing about "mike." Your previous post describes just about all his "knowledge." Oh, and you're just jealous because you can't afford a big Ford SUV with those crappy lights you like to bitch about.

Best just to ignore him until he starts babbling some really dangerous misinformation. That's what I do, and I don't miss his posts at all.

nate

Reply to
Nathan Nagel

So your a poor farmer or a crop picker, so what? I'm still not going to do your homework. I gave you three sites to research, go to it ;)

mike hunt

Daniel Stern Light>

DRL's in the US. Based on the Senate report, US

statistical analysis for the state >of Pennsylvania DOT a few years before, that became part of >the federal study.

mike hunt

Reply to
MelvinGibson

"Daniel Stern Lighting" wrote

accidents from 7-10% in general, depending upon conditions.

Take it from someone who drives a lot on country highways... DRLs do help reduce accidents from the aholes coming toward you passing other cars.

Reply to
Cammie

You're talking to the wrong dude, Melvin. Daniel Stern has forgotten more about DRLs than you'll know in your entire lifetime. You can take his word to the bank -- it's gospel.

Reply to
Bob Flaminio

My vehicle has low beam DRLs. At night I run high beams most of the time, conditions permitting, figuring if I'm burning out my low beam filaments during the day I might as well get my moneys worth.

For some reason, in my area, that seems the best way to get oncoming traffic to dim their high beams. When I drop mine they tend to reciprocate.

The extra glare does make them quite conspicuous ;)

Reply to
Helmet Head

I have extensive experience with driving on "country highways." I disagree with your assessment. DRLs make it harder to judge the distance of opposing traffic (especially those Saturn makes that have the high beams placed too close together).

Reply to
Arif Khokar

Perhaps it may mess with the distance judging, but at least they will see you. And sometimes with how close the oncoming passers get, you sometimes wonder if they see you or not and I've tried it without DRLs, just parking lights and no lights. Would just parking lights serve daytime driving better?

Reply to
Cammie

Thanks for your reply

Religion, politics, medicine safety, and lots of other topics (including DRL's) elicit debate, resentment, and just down-right meanness. Here is an interesting site (NMA, which I support) you might find amusing as to the "why".

Hank

formatting link

Reply to
Hank

City light DRLs are a good implementation because they certainly do the job of making the car visible, without causing glare. Low beam DRL is ok, but high beam DRLs suck (too much glare for one thing). Manufacturers like high bum DRLs though because they are cheap'n'easy and warranty friendly to implement (high beams tend to be used less than low beams, for obvious reasons; personally, living where I do, I find plenty of opportunities to light up fully, but even so, just about everyone's gonna be using low beams most of the time). The Splaturn implementation that Arif just mentioned is particularly dire, partly because of the glare, but also because the lamps being so darn close together completely defeats the purpose of a DRL. DRLs are supposed to be positional marker lights for conspicuity purposes.

Canada should have either never made DRLs mandatory, if it wanted to kowtow to GM's objections (since why would GM have objected to a complete rescindment of the DRL proposal at that time?), or just kicked GM hard in the teeth and told 'em to go pheck themselves, and mandated ECE DRLs as originally planned, which woulda been just fine.

Sometimes, if governments would kick big corporations really hard in the teeth (and harder if they dare squeal), we'd all be much better off. A 90% minimum tax rate on CEO bonuses would be a great start. (It'd be closer to 99% if I had my way...)

Reply to
Ricardo

I read the studies too, and have a long history of driving with the DRLs in Scandinavia. The results there, which are closely monitored, show significant reductions in accidents. Denmark is similar.

********* Well, I drive in the USA now, am not anywhere near blind, and see no problem with them. Neither does any of my family or friends, nor anyone with whom I have discussed it.

The annoyance, I believe, is largely 'old maidish' pique.

Most I have seen are 55 watts each. Call it 110 for two of them. Horsepower is about 0.15. If you make the very rough estimate that a car developing

150 horsepower gets 20 miles per gallon, this horsepower waste is equivalent to about 0.1% of the total. The same gallon might then get you only about19.98 miles, or about 100 feet less.

I don't consider that significant.

Reply to
Larry Smith

Where are these test data, Mike.

Reply to
Larry Smith

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.