'02 Impala... how do I...

It's still his car and still his choice if he wants DRLs or not.

FWIW, I have discussed this with Manitoba Public Insurance... (in Canada DRLs became mandatory in 1990)... and they charge the same rates for

1989-90-91 Berettas and the same rates for 1989-90-91 Camaros, so it's showing me that they don't see a decrease in collision rates for those cars. They've referred me to the Insurance Bureau of Canada... I feel I'm either entitled to a discount for my "safer" Beretta (1990) with DRL's or that DRL's are going to be proven to be a non-issue for saving lives.

And FWIW, I think DRL's on two lane highways are good. But they are pointless in rush hour, which is where I spend 90% of my driving, so that's why I've disabled them. I know where the headlight switch is and I know when it needs to be used.

Ray

Reply to
ray
Loading thread data ...

and when you're behind a moron in the fog with his DRL's on but no damn taillights... that makes it much safer, right? I guess so, because he usually has his foglights on too.

Reply to
ray

I agree with you, Ashton. This is very dangerous. And the DRLs instill a false sense of compliance sometimes.

Reply to
<HLS

Agree on the DRLs that leave the sides and rear unlighted. Headlight DRLs are okay if they default to low beam. My wife's car does that and lights up the rear, etc.

My poor old Dodge Van is totally manual mht lighting. And as much as I bitch about people driving in the rain with no lights, I have occasionally caught myself without my lights on. Seldom, but it has happened. Doesn't make it any less dangerous.

I would convert my to full time automatic lighting if I could find a kit to do it in such a way as to avoid the problems you mention. I suppose I could rig a simple relay to bypass the headlight switch to low beams every time the key is in Run position.

Reply to
<HLS

You are perhaps an exception. Most of us make the occasional mistake. Some of us just dont seem to know the law in this state and to attempt to comply with it.

Reply to
<HLS

Low light conditions (dusk, overcast, rain) cause the onlookers' eyes to be adjusted for a lesser light level, so high beam DRLs can be more annoying in that case.

Reply to
Timothy J. Lee

I had the opportunity to get a little data on the situation just after lunch today. I drove to our farm which is about 7 miles out of town on a (major) two lane state highway. A cloudburst cut my work short, so driving back into town in this heavy rain and heated mist, I took a count of cars approaching me with lights on. (I was only driving about 55-60 mph so definitely did not catch up with any cars).

Of about 21 cars, only a third had any sort of lights on at all...and conditions certainly demanded illumination.

We have an all too high traffic accident rate (with high mortality) here anyway, when it really shouldnt be so. The roads are not particularly busy. The usual factors are bad weather, aggressive driving habits, speeding and running through signal lights, women trying to diaper the baby and drive at the same time.

I suppose the solution would be for our Texas drivers to wisen up and 'drive friendly', and for our police to get out of the donut palaces and enforce traffic laws.

Reply to
<HLS

My insurance company basically told me the same thing 2-3 years back. DRL equipped vehicled do not have a "reduced loss profile" when compared to non-DRL equipped venicles". What that means is that insurance rates will not be reduced since there isn't a safety benefit (obviously). They also told me that the exception was New York State, where the state legislature

*mandated* some percentage reduction in insurance rates for DRL equipped vehicles by law, even though insurance loss data doesn't support it.

Possible, but I'm not convinced. In 1978 (I believe was the year), Wisconsin state did a "lights on for safety" study on a particularly accident prone stretch of highway 12. The result was that the accident rate was unchanged...no difference. But then there are other studies that seem to indicate otherwise. One thing for sure, all the "studies" taken together appear to be largely inconclusive. Given that, the real world statistics is all we have left..the insurance industry data.

Most people do. Although, some people out there probably do need the "crutch". For those people that know they don't, they should be able to decide for themselves.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

And have you found a automatic system that can tell when atmospheric conditions have limited sight distance to below 1000 feet (a statute requiring lights-on in my state)? I doubt it since none exists that can do that. Manual control is your only reliable option in those situations.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

I think that has happened to most everyone, although I doubt that many will admit it.

Or you could simply get into the habit of turning on your headlights on low beam every time you drive the car. The headlight switch over-rides the DRL's. I do it automatically now. And you get a sound alarm if you forget to shut them off once the engine is shut down.

Reply to
StingRay

Im not really interested in turning them off when driving conditions are good. It doesnt serve any purpose, other than miniscule improvement in economy.

Reply to
<HLS

Laws - poor substitute for using common sense...

Tom Willmon near Mountainair, (mid) New Mexico, USA

Only the mediocre can always be at their very best.

Net-Tamer V 1.12.0 - Registered

Reply to
twillmon

Follow-up: I picked up my new car last night. The '05 uses the LOW beams for the DRL's! Life is good. Maybe GM is getting a clue? Also was able to defeat the headlight delay through the radio, once I got my hands on the owner's manual.

nate

Reply to
N8N

Very true, Tom. A lot of the drivers in this part of the state don't seem long on common sense, and 'the law' has little effect in making the roads safer.

A recent article in the Houston Chronicle mentions that due to lack of funding in the school systems, and because of the need for higher scholastic performance, drivers education classes would be dropped in some of the schools. ('Bubba' won't drop any football programs, I'll bet!)

Reply to
<HLS

Our local schools dropped driver education 10 years ago. Neither Bubba or Clinton had anything to do with driver education decisions of local school systems.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

I was thinking more about those people that don't manually turn them on in those conditions.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

That's what I would do as well.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

That's what I was taught to do in driving school.

Reply to
SBlackfoot

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.