Well, you said yourself that DRL's do increase visibility and reduce
accidents in certain situations. You also said that, according to
statistical data, the only place where there was a net reduction in
fatalities was for pedestrians. So what do we do? Cancel the DRL's, and
have innocent pedestrians (who aren't even driving a vehicle, by the way)
get killed, or force people to learn about there vehicles? Like I already
said, car's are full of safety features that, when used incorrectly, can
pose a huge safety risk. Some people still pump ABS equipped vehicles, so
do we get rid of ABS, just because some people don't know how it works?
That would be akin to getting rid of books, because some people can't read.
It's also like blaming the gun for the homicide, instead of the person
pulling the trigger. If DRL's are that much of a problem (which, they
aren't in Ontario), then people need to be taught how to use them correctly.
What you do is to implement a safety system that doesn't actually make
things worse. It would not be hard to have a warning light or sound that
warned when a driver only had their DRLs on at night or in low
You also mandate standards for DRLs so that especially bad
implementations of them, like GM has done on vehicles where they use the
high beam headlights, are illegal.
You keep saying that it's the driver of the vehicle with DRLs that
doesn't use them properly that's the problem, but you're not going to
fix that behavior problem, and meanwhile their cluelessness makes things
more dangerous for everyone.
The reason that the only statistical benefit of DRLs is pedestrians is
not because DRLs don't work, it's because their benefits in the
reduction of head-on collisions is being offset by how they contribute
to other accidents.
It really isn't asking too much for the manufacturers to implement them
properly, since this is already being done on many imports, such as
Volvos, Saabs, etc. There needs to be a way to over-ride them and there
needs to be a warning when the driver has _only_ their DRLs on at night
(or the warning can be simply when the driver doesn't have their
headlights on at night, regardless of the state of the DRLs).
You basically want the vehicle to have a warning system telling the driver
the DRL's are on, but it's nighttime, and the full headlights should be on?
GM's vehicles already have auto lights. When it gets dark, the headlights
come on by themselves. As for the high beam DRL's, they don't bother me in
the slightest, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Yes, because that's the most common problem with DRL equipped vehicles.
The driver thinks that their lights are on because the DRLs (which are
usually brighter than European DRLs) are providing road illumination.
But they don't realize that their tail lights aren't on.
Nah, we don't have to disagree, anyone that doubts that high beam DRLs
annoy other drivers can simply read the NHTSA report, including the
NHTSA proposal that the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted
in the U.S..
That is called "driver error". Has nothing to do with the DRL system.
Oh boy the NHTSA did a report! Seriously, neither you nor the NHTSA can
tell me what bothers my eyes at night, or anytime. DRL's have been standard
in Canada for years, and no one here complains about them. If you live in a
US state where DRL's are not required by law, and wish to disable them, that
is what you need to do. Like I said, agree to disagree.
There's nothing wrong with DRLs'. Any I've seen.
The only problem is the anti-GM crowd that jumped on them because GM
was the first to make them standard in the U.S./Canada.
Did you know that GM plastic is "plastic" and Honda plastic is
They're seeing problems nobody else sees.
Prowlers and burglars have to disable them, in order to furtively
skulk around. Might be a real problem for them.
If you want to stare at DRL's, go ahead. Your eyes.
OTOH, there's those intense Euro headlights blinding everybody
BTW, the only time I touch the headlight switch in my DRL-equipped '97
Lumina is to turn on the interior lights.
There's a sensor that turns on all the normal night time lights when
it darkens. And they do go on in heavy rain.
Personally, I could do without that automation, but so far it has been
Good assumption, but nothing to do with it. Daytime lights on bikes
have only proven good. Makes them more visible so you don't pull out
in front of them and cause an accident. I've seen it work.
Same for cars, especially the ones colored the same as the pavement,
including bumpers. Seen that too.
As I said, they are standard on U.S./Canada GM vehicles - as far as I
know. DRL's are the law in Canada.
Easier to standardize production.
Congress should give Canada the "facts" about DRL's.
Include that crap free with the "Waterboarding Manual."
Congress conclude? Might be a good idea.
Probably got paid by some anti-DRL greenie wackos via lobbyists.
DRL's burning use some gas, adding to global warming.
Are you part of that crowd?
Don't worry about it. You can bypass DRL's in the U.S. and do your
part to reduce global warming. Turn down the heat in the house just
to be sure.
I don't care much about DRL's one way or another, except for arguing
More concerned that my toaster doesn't zap me when I stick a fork in
there. So I don't.
GM is part of that crowd. They got permission to disconnect DRLs when
conducting their EPA mileage tests. Considering that the amount of extra
fuel that DRLs use is extremely small, you have to wonder why they felt
compelled to disconnect them.
When the US Congress was considering making DRLs standard in the US, several
studies showed DRLs caused more accidents then the prevented. Particularly
at times of limited vision and increases in motorcycle accidents. Do a
search of the Congressional Record for the facts.
"80 Knight" <nospam> wrote in message
The NHTSA study showed no increase or decrease from DRLs. DRLs increased
rates for some types of accidents and decreased them for others. The
only clear benefit of DRLs that was found was that pedestrians were more
likely to see vehicles with DRLs at dawn and dusk, and hence there was a
reduction in pedestrian fatalities.
I replaced 3 out of 4 2005 Accord hybrid bulbs without looking at the manual
(upgraded them to HIR). Got stuck on the 4th one and looked at the manual
and found that all were easier than what I did.
I just had to change a brake light bulb on my wife's 1996 Camry. First
time I had to change a rear bulb of any kind in 13 years! I was
surprised to have to use a wrench rather than just a screwdriver, but it
was still pretty easy to change.
I need to complain to Toyota that a bulb burned out after only 13 years.
That's the first problem we've had with that vehicle.
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.