disabling the daytime driving lights

I *just* asked the same of my Toyota dealer about my new 4 runner as it states in the manual that it can be done by the dealer. The dealer told me that it was not as simple as removing a fuse...they needed to rewire some things, etc. because by removing the fuse you would not have lights. Said it would cost about $180 or so. That was the end of if for me :-)

...Allen

"badgolferman" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net:

It's an easy fix.

Do you feel like subscribing to this Yahoo group?

Apparently US dealers have a TSB (EL011-00) describing the procedure, so they know already how to do it. That TSB is also in the Files section of the Yahoo group.

Good luck.

Disabling/defeating any safety device exposes yourself to servere litigation issues. Now you might think, wtf I own nothing, but imagine having any property you come into ownership leans against, and having your wages/pension/retirement garnished 10% till your multimillion lawsuit is paid off. I wouldn't do it.

Right now I wouldn't be surprised a few lawyers are drooling now reading this post. :-P

Some might be telling you how to do it. ;)

later,

tom @

What about in states that don't require you to have them? But, in agreement with you, I 'had' a Cadillac and wanted them disabled here in Texas, and the dealer said they couldn't *because* they were a 'safety' feature. So your statement could be interpreted either way, I presume...by lawyers!!

...Allen

Damned right...in these litigation happy times you're asking for it when you deliberately defeat a safety device.

Imagine some sharp lawyer explaining to a sympathetic judge that this bad young pup who hates DRL's and thinks he doesn't need them because his eyesight is better than superman's (and everyone's should be too else they shouldn't be driving)

I cannot believe why anyone would deliberately defeat DRL's...how fricking stupid can you get?..

I know I opening myself for flames, but lawyers aren't the problem, and don't scare me as much as the 6 average citizens who do the actual awarding, nuts in most big cases.

One story I heard, a woman as award(here you see from people) by a jury a large sum of money for an injury she sustained in a furnature store. She tripped over an out of control child while she was checking out the furnature. The kicker,,,,, it was her kid.

Juriors should have some common sense test, but common sense isn't common.

Purely in my humble option,

tom

yea, and what about when my vehicle came without DRL and I found a way to enable the feature then decided I did not want it enabled so I disabled it, am I putting myself in legal jeopardy?

"Stupid is as stupid does" Forrest Gump

Isn't it the very old cars that don't have'em?

Just curious, how can DRL annoy the driver? They are visible to drivers of /other/ vehicles.

Tercel Owner

I am not a lawyer.

Just saying to the typical jurior(person), could see disabling a factory installed safety device as a step that put others in danger.

No in your case, they would have to know that you first made your car 'safer' and then made it more 'unsafe' for it to ever be an issue. :-P

tom

Well, no expert, but DRL are so others can see you.

Quick story. A friend of mine was driving down the road, and an old lady pulled out of a parking lot and hit him. The cops showed up, and the lady said my friend had no lights on, and it was dusk(it was already sunset by the time got there), my friend faught that it was still daylight when the accident happened. The cop wrote down the statement, and the observation my friends lights were out. (His car was currently parked, and the time of the report(now after sunset), and it later bit my friend. He was found at fault by his insurance carrier. Although no court case, both drivers had the same insurance carrier, without collision, he would have been totally responsible for the repair of his car.

IMHO: Don't mess around with factory installed safety devices.

;)

tom

Interesting story, what state was this? I was involved in a similar accident -with two changes. I was pulling out of a side street and it was late in the night, well past dusk. All the other cars had headlights on. I look left/right and then left again - no headlights coming. I pull out and a car running at night without any lights hits me. This went to court and the judge said I took the right away from the the other car on the road. The fact that he did not have any lights on at night did not matter. This is Virginia. The same set of traffic laws states that you can lose your license if you turn off your lights to avoid being detected or caught by the police. Who says logic applies, it is your right to drive down a main road at night without lights and anyone you hit, its their fault - unless you happen to be trying to avoid detection by the police, in which case you lose your license.

The accident was in NJ.

If it wasn't how weird it was I wouldn't have remembered being told it.

Well there is a difference in your stories, my friend's only involved the police taking an accident report. I don't recall if he was cited, just that he recieved a letter stating he was found to be at fault(if that means he's responsible totally or 51% no clue) by his insurance carrier. He never said there was a judge involved like your story.

tom

Perhaps you should research the US Congressional Record about how DRLs can KILL you, particularly at dusk and dawn or if you drive a motorcycle. The conclusions of the US Senate, based on reports from the Engineering departments of several universities on their rejection of making DRLs required standard equipment in the US, was that the dangers created by DRLs outweigh any advantage the may produce. If one needs his vehicle to more visible during daylight hours they can simply turn on their headlamps to safely and properly illuminate their vehicle to others.

Personally I believe the dangerous disadvantages of DRLs could be overcome if they simply went with full headlamps but others say that dilutes the effectiveness of motorcycle headlamps. Perhaps if they used a distinct color, something like green, in the front that would distinguish DRLs from headlamps

mike hunt

Tercel Owner wrote:

if a driver is looking for headlights then he/she may not even see a vehicle without headlights or DRLs, not to mention a MC without a headlight. I call this driver dumb-down.

GM offers DRLs as standard equipment on all of its vehicles and has a GM policy for dealers not to negate them for owners. I have driven many GM rental car on which the rental car company had disabled the DRLs. I just had a LeSabre for three weeks in Key West like that, I guess they don't want their cars out of service from a DRL related collision at sunset.

In the US, NO state can require DRLs, and since DRLs are not required by the NHTSA YOU can disable them as you wish, without legal or civil penalty. Anybody who tries to tell tell you differently is BS you or stating an opinion not fact.

mike hunt

"Allen L." wrote:

Have you tried applying the parking brake to the first notch, backing off the adjustment and covering the indicator light? ;)

mike hunt

"Allen L." wrote:

The dealer told me

The Real Tom wrote: snip

You wanna bet your lifetime financial health on that?...I sure wouldn't...