Cancelling DRL on Impala 2003

"Gerry" wrote in message news:Ocr0c.60666$ snipped-for-privacy@nntp-post.primus.ca... | | "James C. Reeves" wrote in message | news:Q9udnVMANJhQsN snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com... | >

| > "Gerry" wrote in message | > news:NGc0c.59162$ snipped-for-privacy@nntp-post.primus.ca... | > | | > | "SgtSilicon" wrote in message | > | news: snipped-for-privacy@news.charter.net... | > | > On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:21:04 -0500, "Gerry" | > | > wrote: | > | >

| > | > >Come on Guys! having DRL's do increase vivibility in less than | optimum | > | > >visibility. Most drivers don't put their headlights on untill it's | dark. | > | It | > | > >really doesn't cost you anything because they are on reduced voltage. | > | Don't | > | > >be so anal. Shees! some people. | > | >

| > | > Hello. If you've followed this thread at all you should have learned | > | > a couple of things by now: | > | >

| > | > 1. Despite casual inclinations to the contrary, DRL aren't proven to | > | > enhance safety. In fact, some have sited evidence which indicates | > | > there is no meaningful difference between those vehicles so equipped | > | > and those which are not. | > | >

| > | > 2. Many drivers in here like to control if / when to turn on / off the | > | > lights, and do in fact mind when their options are taken from them. | > | >

| > | > 3. Just because you are someone who doesn't require proof or else | > | > maybe just doesn't mind having his options taken away, doesn't give | > | > you the right to insult those who do. | > | >

| > | > Have a nice day. Sheesh. | > | > =================================== | > | | > | I didn't intend to insult you.....I think we are all anal about \ | > | something or other, maybe anal was a bad choice of words. | >

| > I can accept "anal" directed at me personally. It fits. :-) | >

| > | This thing about "having | > | control" is a bit strange don't you think? | >

| > Not when your state vehicle lighting laws _specifically_ say you're the | one | > responsible and are supposed to be in control (of the lights). Otherwise, | > perhaps. One could _decide_ to allow a automatic lighting system to do | the | > work for them, (both DRLs and headlamp controls) but for many GM models, | the | > choice simply isn't made available (and it should be). | >

| > | I don't like having my choices taken away from | > | me either, but I'm not going to flip over my car | > | turning the lights on. | >

| > Agreed...which really begs the question as to why not the option for those | that | > want it. | >

| > | If that were my biggest worry, I'd be a very happy man :-)) | >

| > Me too! :-) | >

| > | As far as proof is concerned, I know I can see cars sooner | > | if they have their lights on. | >

| > Me too..two miles down the road when it makes little difference if the car | is | > even there or not...or will turn off before even reaching it...which I | frankly | > consider to be a unnecessary distraction from vehicles/objects that are | closer | > and more relivant to be focused on. When the vehicle is close enough to | really | > matter, it is plenty visable either way (lights or not). But to be fair, | > personal perceptions are different for different people So my individual | > perceptions are as irrelivant as yours. The only thing we have that is | > relivant is overall data to show what the situation really is. Anecdotal | > "stories" are simply not very useful. | >

| > | Wouldn't that make me less likely to make a mistake. | >

| > The data seem to indicate that it isn't nearly as cut and dried as that. | Yes, | > it would seem so, but things are rarely "as they seem"...always subtle | dynamics | > that interplay that often produce unintended consequences. | >

| > | Have a nice day too :-)) | > | | >

| > Thanks...you too! :-) | >

| > In summary: Since vehicle lighting laws in most states specifically | identify | > the operator/driver as the entity that is responsible for the operation of | the | > lights, some of us simply prefer the "peace of mind" of actually being in | > control of something that a law says we should be in control of, | especially | > should a lawyer throw that back at us if "lighting status questions" | become a | > relevant part of some liability case we get sucked into. Although, I | suppose | > that if GM is actually the ones in control of the lights (not the driver) | we | > could bring them into the case as a party to the case...hmmm....maybe | that's a | > good thing after all! ;-) Although GM would probably make the case that | upon | > taking delivery of the car the buyer relinquished control since they | > essentially agreed by accepting the car with the "feature" and effectively | > agreed to allow the car to assume their legal responsibility on their | behalf. | > Hmmmm...I wonder if there is any case history on that! ;-) For now I | choose | > to avoid all of that mess by buying a car without automatic lighting | systems or | > DRL so I can decide how and when to use the lights...for now that means | buying | > just about anything but a GM vehicle, unfortunately. :-( | > ===================================== | Sorry Guys...I guess I was the one being anal. Us old Guys get bored. | Gerry, | >

You weren't being anal. From one old fart to another, no need to apologize. Newsgroups are a good place to kick up a little dust once in a while and air things out a bit...in addition to getting some pretty good help with stuff. This topic actually comes up fairly often (in many car forums & newsgroups, not just GM) from people like the private investigator that started this thread. Often they have a real legitimate need to be able to kill the DRL and auto headlamps. This one for surveillance reasons is a excellent example. Another one recently was from a GM customer, also with a Impala, that just wanted to be able to watch movies at a hot summer drive in theater with his family and leave the air conditioning running...but he couldn't do that and turn his lights off at the same time (lights out is a requirement at a drive-in theater). Had one a while back from a star-gazer...those clubs require their members to enter the stargazing site at night with lights out so not to disturb the other "gazers"...can't do that with a GM vehicle. Usually I'm blamed for starting it from the regulars, but I'm actually not the one that starts the discussions...I only contribute to them once they're started...drives some of them crazy (to most here GM can do no wrong). I don't intend that result, but the truth often has a way of doing that.

JCR,

I envision myself in the future fabricating some sort of headlight housing sheild to block the lights from shining out during the day. Be kind of neat to have some kind of glideaway cover controlled by a manual Push/ Pull choke cable lever. Be very usefull for backing up the driveway at night with the lights shinning out at the bedroom windows across the street. Push the lever, shield slides over the headlight blocking the light.

Or, perhaps an adhesive black vinyl decal can be stuck on to shield the DRL lights, of course you'd block the high beams too.

I'm already preparing for the many different things I'll have to make when the day comes I buy a new car.

========= Harryface =========

Disturbing neighbors and family at night with headlights shining in their bedroom windows when coming in and out of the driveway is a issue for a lot of us that wasn't a issue for me personally until I bought a 2003 GM vehicle. One of the big reasons I got rid of it with less than 5,000 miles on it...took a pretty good bath on it too. :-(

| Or, perhaps an adhesive black vinyl decal can be stuck on to | shield the DRL lights, of course you'd block the high beams too.

The Malibu I had used the low beams as the DRL. Would have had to come up with something else for that one. :-)

| I'm already preparing for the many different things I'll have to make | when the day comes I buy a new car. | | ========= | Harryface | ========= | | 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE | 3800 V6 ( C ), Black/Slate Grey | _~_~_~_~277, 300 miles_~_~_ ~_~_ | | |

Maybe with a little luck (and prodding from folks like you) GM will make your future new car so you (and thousands of others) won't have to go to the extraordinary trouble making such mods. For me, until then, I'll just buy more Chryslers...they have far fewer "gimmicky" things on them to begin with and have actually been quite good to me over the years...although I understand that I've probably been luckier than most in that regard. I hate sending some of my money to Germany though...rather keep as much of it as possible right here, but that's just the way it goes, I guess. :-(

At least it isn´t for cost reduction reasons (reduced inventory), because, most of the GM cars that are made in the US and sold in Mexico don´t have DRLs, my dad has a 2000 malibu, assembled in OK, and it doesn´t have DRLs (but I like the autolight feature).

The brand that has most of it´s models with DRLs here is Toyota, I remember seeing the camry and the corolla and both have it.

were also mandatory. Now it's a $40 option (or so I've heard).

That is interesting. Thanks for the information.

| The brand that has most of it´s models with DRLs here is | Toyota, I remember seeing the camry and the corolla | and both have it.

Strange then that GM doesn't.