Daytime Runnig LIghts.

That is questionable. Tests by the engineering department of two universities in the US says otherwise. The results of those studies shows DRLs can cause as many accidents as they may prevent. That was the main reason they were not made mandatory in the US by the Congress several years ago when GM made that request.

mike hunt

I've been in a couple of situations where if I did not have the DRL the driver may not have seen me for a brief second. This is subjective. Just my observation of the moment.

It is not a question of you vehicle being SEEN but how it is perceived by the viewer. The primary objections to DRLs is they cause other drivers to confuse a car with DRLs to be one operating with headlamps. Because of the way the human eye perceives things, drivers improperly operating their vehicle with only DRLs in fog, at disk, dawn and others hours of limited vision when headlamps are required, can cause other drivers who may be passing on a two lane road, making left turns or entering unto the roadway to perceive the approaching DRL lighted vehicle as one operated legally with headlamps that would actually be at a greater distances.

In addition there is a marked increase in the danger to operators of motorcycles whose headlamps seem to disappear among a sea of vehicle operated with DRLs. Engineers concluded if a driver is operating in a condition where extra lighting may be advisable, like approaching on coming traffic with a letting sun at you back, they would be safer if they activate the headlamps.

In my opinion, if DRLs were to become mandatory in the US they should be of another color to distinguish them from headlamps.

, mike hunt

I've come upon several vehicles with DRL's of a night where the driver forgot that the DRL's didn't turn on the tail lights. I almost rearended one coming over a hill on one. . . .

Charles of Kankakee

I coulda sworn "Mike Hunter" typ'd:

That's my main objection to DRLs. But to up the ante, I have installed a modulated headlight on my motorcycle that I run during the bright daylight hours. It shouts "MOTORCYCLE" to oncoming traffic and helps make sure I'm seen in the sea of other vehicles. I still ride as if I'm invisible, though, and it must be working 'cause I've ridden over

25 years and a few hundreds of thousands of miles without a crash on my motorcycle.

-Don

It is a moot point, whatever one chooses to believe. The facts are if one lives in Canada they must have DRLS. If one lives in the US they are not required. One can pay extra for them, if they are not standard, if they wish. In any event one would be better served if they used headlamps, if they really want to be safely visible to other drivers. Personally I would not buy a vehicle equipped with DRLs since I do not want to put myself in a situation where other drivers have a problem judging the distance between my vehicle and theirs. We had that problem years ago, when people operated their vehicles with white parking lights only at times when headlamps were required, before the front parking lights where changed to yellow.

mike hunt

I knwo what you mean, I always added extra lighting to my bikes, front and back. I rode motorcycles from right after the war until I was 73. I stopped riding in 1999 after I ran into 4 deer on the road. I hit one of them and one hit me. Promised my wife after 8 days in the ICU I would not ride again.

mike hunt

Mike,

That's why I turn on the headlights. Even if I had DRL's, I'd still turn on the headlights.

I understand and concur. School buses around here in order to be distinct have a flashing amber strobe on top the bus, LOL. What next will they require. Drivers are looking for headlamps and completely miss those without.

"Charles @ Kankakee" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Watch out for all those Canadian cops that have their lights off. OI find that an easy way of teling the cops from innocent people.

White car, no lights = cop.

"Philip" wrote in news:jcXWe.13784$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

I think it's the same one for all Toyotas.

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Charles Pisano) wrote in news:956-432B928B- snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3275.bay.webtv.net:

You can get both if you join the Yahoo Group Toyotas_Only.

My procedure is found here at that site: Check your email for the TSB.

By the way, my email address has been munged to foil spammers. Just change the zero to a letter "o".

"\"Dbu''" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news-rdr-02.rdc-kc.rr.com:

Problem is, up here people tend to look for the lights, not for the car.

DRLs make you more careless/less careful.

Motorcycle lights are even more annoying than DRLs. Their intensity is so high that I am truly blinded when they approach from the front. My opinion is motorcycles would be more visible if they had better lighting systems on their side and backs.

You really are dense. I never said anything about DEPENDING on DRL's..or anything else to keep me safe. They are simply part of my car's equipment. I depend, to a degree, on things like brakes, steering etc. However, all the safety devices in the world can't change the idiots behind the wheels of the OTHER vehicles on the road.

Did the deer survive?

That's not the fault of the lighting system, that is the fault of BONE HEADED drivers.

The same can be said about seat belts or air bags--totally anecdotal evidence that some people believe that belts and bags make them immortal, even in head on collisions. However, I, for one, still USE my belts and keep the bags activated but drive with the assumption that I'll have the protection of an eggshell in any collision.

You don't know much about LOGIC, do you? NO doubt there are NON smokers who get lung cancer. There are smokers who live to be 100, too. There are also people who emerge from head on collisions in beaters with NO BELTS, no bags etc unscathed. ON AVERAGE, one is better off in a vehicle with functioning DRL's, seat belts and air bags. Period. And, frankly, I don't give a flying f*ck what you have to say on the subject.