Disable 99/00 Camry/Solara DRL - HowTo!
rich...@gowinnt.removetoreply.kahm
Yup. It's another FUCKING DRL thread. I have the TSB that documents the
procedure to both kill the DRL's AND ditch the automatic-on headlights.
Guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of all of these little nanny-state
safety-nut pinheads - or your money back!
I'm going to try it out this weekend. I'll probably set up a PhotoPoint
album so that you too will be able to help get Big Brother outta your
Toyota!
:-)
Barrie Templeton
not take out the bulbs in the clearance lights, disable the dimmer
switch, and cut the line to one side of the master cylinder, too! Damn
these people for trying to take the fun out of accident avoidance! It's
so much better when the other guy doesn't see you or misjudges your
distance/speed and you have to take emergency action. Oh, yeah, the
high mount brake lights are another BB infringement, but why stop
there? Disable the brake light switch altogether. Those guys behind
you shouldn't be following so close, anyway!
I'm sure there are lots of other things our cars come with that we can
get rid of, since they are obviously only put in to inconvenience us and
raise the price of the cars.
Gord Beaman
Exactly and precisely sir...let's hope one of these red-necked
yahoos don't cause the death of someone dear to them by their
irresponsible action, the guilt might be more than they can bear.
Actually I think that what's needed is for the son of some hugely
rich and famous person to deliberately damage the safety of his
car by deactivating the DRL circuit. Then to be involved in an
accident in which it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt
that it was this action that caused the accident which killed the
daughter of some other hugely famous person who sued the family
for say 100 million.
Maybe THEN these knuckle-draggers would FINALLY get it through
their caveman like skulls that this isn't the most brilliant
activity that they might pursue on a sunny Saturday afternoon.
Chris Phillipo
Paul Doering wrote:
> In article <3AFF2357...@home.com>, Barrie Templeton
> <bugs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey, yeah, let's disable the safety features, but why stop at DRLs?
>
> Folks, I agree the DRLs are a good idea for increasing the visibility of
> cars, but there's a downside too. Motocyclists have commented to me that
> with nearly all vehicles now lighted in daytime, the motorcycles stand out
> less.I believe they're right. Motorcycles are more maneuverable than cars,
> and
> some riders take abrupt advantage of that. I pay extra attention to bikers,
> and the DSLs mean that I'm later in spotting a motorcycle than I used to
> be. That compromises my safety and the biker's.
>
Here we go with the ignorance about DRLs again. You better have your eyes
checked, if you need a light to be on the front of a vehicle to see it during
the day it's time for those corrective lenses. The entire concept of DRLs is
not to make cars more noticeable, they are designed to give your brain a better
chance of determining the speed and direction at which they are approaching to
prevent people pulling out in front when it's too late or to be able to spot
someone about the cross the center line sooner. The most publicized test of
DRLs was on Greyhound buses. Do you really think people "didn't notice" a BUS
coming because they didn't have DRLs? People were misjudging the speed and
distance of a bus approaching an intersection and cutting them off,
installation of DRLs on the fleet of buses saw a reduction in that.
I swear everyone must be reading from the same book that says ABS was invented
to decrease stopping distance and seat belts are solely for the purpose of
keeping you from being ejected from the vehicle.
--
_______________________________
Remove "X" from email to reply.
richa...@usa.nut
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Barrie Templeton wrote:
>Hey, yeah, let's disable the safety features, but why stop at DRLs?
>>Guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of all of these little nanny-state
>>safety-nut pinheads - or your money back!
QED!
The diagrams make it look like the main DRL relay is under the console
near the firewall. Which side? The angle of the drawings makes it
difficult to pinpoint....
MDT Tech
>
> Exactly and precisely sir...let's hope one of these red-necked
> yahoos don't cause the death of someone dear to them by their
> irresponsible action, the guilt might be more than they can bear.
I think the post was "how to disable DRL's" not "how to disable
headlamps"
Careful, if you knock that connector loose by the wiper motor (daytimew
resistor) darn DRL's will quit working!
Ray J
useless when they are automatic with no override (like up here in
Canada)
Why are they so bad?
1)Burned out/misaligned headlights now blind people during the day as
well as at night. Good way to get a ticket on your way to the parts
store to get a new headlight...
2)Because I have DRL's I don't need my park lights or headlights until
it's real dark. Therefore, I have no lights on in the back. That's
safer.
3)I can annoy people at the drive in, army base etc. by leaving my
DRLs on when the car is running. (apparently the military bases
REALLY don't like this)
4)your bulbs burn out sooner.
5)your gas mileage is lower. It's not much, but the energy required
to run the DRLs will use extra gas.
6)DRLs are totally useful in rush hour bumper to bumper traffic.
7)My car has flip up headlights that are "automatic." Good thing
I'm not driving it in the winter when the doors might freeze up.
DRLs are a good idea - I always use my headlights on the highway,
but don't see the need to use them ALL the time.
Ray
richa...@usa.nut
On Mon, 14 May 2001, MDT Tech wrote:
>I think the post was "how to disable DRL's" not "how to disable
>headlamps"
Actually, it was "how to disable DRL's and the auto-on headlamp features
at the same time." The subject was a bit misleading.
The DRL resistor thing is easy. It's the auto-on headlamps that annoy. I
wanna be able to turn them off at will.
RM
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>>
>
>Here we go with the ignorance about DRLs again. You better have your eyes
>checked, if you need a light to be on the front of a vehicle to see it during
>the day it's time for those corrective lenses.
For Christ's sake Chris, why can't you see that you (or anyone)
can spot a light MUCH FARTHER away that you can see the vehicle
itself?...you've used exactly this argument before and the FACT
still remains that anyone can see a set of DRL's much FARTHER
away than the vehicle itself. It makes NO SENSE to say that you
need glasses and all that rot. That's like saying that seatbelts
are too strong. We might as well be as safe as we can reasonably
be right?.
>The entire concept of DRLs is
>not to make cars more noticeable, they are designed to give your brain a better
>chance of determining the speed and direction at which they are approaching to
>prevent people pulling out in front when it's too late or to be able to spot
>someone about the cross the center line sooner.
This factor is an additional safety factor too but still the main
purpose of them is to make the vehicle more visible and at a
greater distance.
But, really, who cares what's number one?...together they make
it safer, which is the name of the game.
>The most publicized test of
>DRLs was on Greyhound buses. Do you really think people "didn't notice" a BUS
>coming because they didn't have DRLs? People were misjudging the speed and
>distance of a bus approaching an intersection and cutting them off,
>installation of DRLs on the fleet of buses saw a reduction in that.
>
As I said, it's an additional factor. Humans, with all our
faults, need all the help we can get. It's things like this that
has caused the average age expectancy to go from the fourties to
the seventies.
>I swear everyone must be reading from the same book that says ABS was invented
>to decrease stopping distance and seat belts are solely for the purpose of
>keeping you from being ejected from the vehicle.
>
Whaaatever. I don't agree that these are the right reasons either
but we sure need these safety features too.
After all, I'm trying to get as old as I can, and I must be
succeeding because I'm the oldest now that I've ever been!...
:)
Gord Beaman
>In article <3AFF2357...@home.com>, Barrie Templeton
><bugs...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, yeah, let's disable the safety features, but why stop at DRLs?
>
>Folks, I agree the DRLs are a good idea for increasing the visibility of
>cars, but there's a downside too. Motocyclists have commented to me that
>with nearly all vehicles now lighted in daytime, the motorcycles stand out
>less.
>
>I believe they're right. Motorcycles are more maneuverable than cars, and
>some riders take abrupt advantage of that. I pay extra attention to bikers,
>and the DSLs mean that I'm later in spotting a motorcycle than I used to
>be. That compromises my safety and the biker's.
>
>Just a thought. With best wishes,
>Paul
>
This could be true Paul, but I'd guess that statistically it
could be proven (by someone better at math than I) that what is
lost in bike safety is more than made up in vehicle safety. So in
general, that we all come out ahead.
Chris Phillipo
Gord Beaman wrote:
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> --cut--
> >>
> >
> >Here we go with the ignorance about DRLs again. You better have your eyes
> >checked, if you need a light to be on the front of a vehicle to see it during
> >the day it's time for those corrective lenses.
>
> For Christ's sake Chris, why can't you see that you (or anyone)
> can spot a light MUCH FARTHER away that you can see the vehicle
> itself?...you've used exactly this argument before and the FACT
Why the hell would it matter if I see a car 10 miles away or not? This is the kind
of distance that a DAYTIME running light would have the effect you describe. IT IS
NOT WHAT THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR. Are you even reading what you write? I've never
argued that this particular piece of mis information was true and I'll thank you not
drag me into your bullshit, I don't' support it.
> still remains that anyone can see a set of DRL's much FARTHER
> away than the vehicle itself. It makes NO SENSE to say that you
> need glasses and all that rot. That's like saying that seatbelts
> are too strong. We might as well be as safe as we can reasonably
> be right?.
>
You obvious DON'T read Gord because you seem to be under the impression that
somewhere in my last message I was saying DRLs don't work. I said exactly how they
work, if you choose to ignore that then maybe it is you that needs the glasses.
> >The entire concept of DRLs is
> >not to make cars more noticeable, they are designed to give your brain a better
> >chance of determining the speed and direction at which they are approaching to
> >prevent people pulling out in front when it's too late or to be able to spot
> >someone about the cross the center line sooner.
>
> This factor is an additional safety factor too but still the main
> purpose of them is to make the vehicle more visible and at a
> greater distance.
>
Bullshit. Find me one designer that agrees with this. Read the literature Gord, I'm
tired of educating people of this, what you are spouting was made up by salesmen,
stupid god damn salesmen who didn't know the right answer so made up a halfway
plausible one. It is not even mentioned anywhere in the original concept. The
military uses lights to HIDE things at a distance for christ sake.
It's just like all this garbage about motorcycles not being as noticeable now
because all cars have DRLs. For this to be true then your little theory about DRLs
would have to be true, and yet the collision rate has remained unchanged. The fact
is motorcycles are ignored on the road unless they are on fire or being ridden by a
naked man and his wife. Car drivers need to make up bullshit excuses like "they
just aren't as noticeable anymore" to explain away their poor driving. Is that what
you are doing Gord?
Chris
Gord Beaman wrote in message <3b00807e...@news1.pei.sympatico.ca>...
>Chris Phillipo <Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>--cut--
>>>
>>
>>Here we go with the ignorance about DRLs again. You better have your eyes
>>checked, if you need a light to be on the front of a vehicle to see it
during
>>the day it's time for those corrective lenses.
>
>For Christ's sake Chris, why can't you see that you (or anyone)
>can spot a light MUCH FARTHER away that you can see the vehicle
>itself?...you've used exactly this argument before and the FACT
>still remains that anyone can see a set of DRL's much FARTHER
>away than the vehicle itself. It makes NO SENSE to say that you
>need glasses and all that rot. That's like saying that seatbelts
>are too strong. We might as well be as safe as we can reasonably
>be right?.
>
Toyota now puts force limiting plates in the seat belts, so there goes that
theory.
Chris
(different Chris)
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>
>
>Toyota now puts force limiting plates in the seat belts, so there goes that
>theory.
>
>Chris
>(different Chris)
>
>
that system do you?...you surely don't think that making the
seatbelts weaker would have the same effect as the limiting
devices do you?...
MDT Tech
Oh, well, you will have to remove a pin fromt eh DRL relay.
--
Rick J--MDT Tech
Toyota Master Diagnostic Technician/ASE Master/L-1
to email me, go to:
http://pweb.netcom.com/~ssauer40/mailpage.html
clicking on just reply wont work anymore. I have done this
to slow down the spam I get.
Liberals and Liberalism!
I said to my liberal friend that we are
fundamentally the same, I spend money like
its mine and you spend money like its mine--Dick Armey
The liberals can understand everything except
the people that don't understand them--Lenny Bruce
At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child-miserable,
as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding,
ill disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is
a philosophy sniveling brats--P.J. O'Rourke
The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he
who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits--Plutarch
It isn't that liberals are ignorant, It's just that they
know so much that isn't so.--Ronald Reagan
I can remember way back when a liberal was generous with
his own money.--Will Rogers
A mans liberties are none the less aggressed upon because those who
coerce
him do so in the belief that he will be benefitted.--Herbert Spencer.
MDT Tech
Kinda neat seeing a couple of Canadians fighting over DRL's. :-D
Alex Rodriguez
>
>Hey, yeah, let's disable the safety features, but why stop at DRLs? Why
>not take out the bulbs in the clearance lights, disable the dimmer
>switch, and cut the line to one side of the master cylinder, too! Damn
>these people for trying to take the fun out of accident avoidance! It's
>so much better when the other guy doesn't see you or misjudges your
>distance/speed and you have to take emergency action. Oh, yeah, the
>high mount brake lights are another BB infringement, but why stop
>there? Disable the brake light switch altogether. Those guys behind
>you shouldn't be following so close, anyway!
>I'm sure there are lots of other things our cars come with that we can
>get rid of, since they are obviously only put in to inconvenience us and
>raise the price of the cars.
DRL's are not a proven safety feature, and are a known annoyance that
could possibly cause an accdient. If the lighting is so bad that you
can't see a car without DRL's, then you should turn on your regular
headlamps. Plain and simple. CHMSL aren't much better. I can plainly
see the regular stop lamps, so they are just redudant.
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Alex Rodriguez
says...
>Here we go with the ignorance about DRLs again. You better have your eyes
>checked, if you need a light to be on the front of a vehicle to see it during
>the day it's time for those corrective lenses.
I'm amazed at how many people miss the obvious.
Gord Beaman
>Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>
>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>
>> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > --cut--
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >Here we go with the ignorance about DRLs again. You better have your eyes
>> > >checked, if you need a light to be on the front of a vehicle to see it during
>> > >the day it's time for those corrective lenses.
>> >
>> > For Christ's sake Chris, why can't you see that you (or anyone)
>> > can spot a light MUCH FARTHER away that you can see the vehicle
>> > itself?...you've used exactly this argument before and the FACT
>>
>> Why the hell would it matter if I see a car 10 miles away or not? This is the kind
>> of distance that a DAYTIME running light would have the effect you describe.
Why can't you at least try to debate reasonably?...are you so
bereft of good common sense that you can't give reasonable
arguments?. You sound like an angry child who lashes out with
assinine ridiculous arguments when someone points out their
errors. Try maturing some before you attempt debating with we
adults sonny.
>> IT IS
>> NOT WHAT THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR. Are you even reading what you write? I've never
>> argued that this particular piece of mis information was true and I'll thank you not
>> drag me into your bullshit, I don't' support it.
>>
HooWee!!...see what I mean?...better watch your pressure there
son.
>> > still remains that anyone can see a set of DRL's much FARTHER
>> > away than the vehicle itself. It makes NO SENSE to say that you
>> > need glasses and all that rot. That's like saying that seatbelts
>> > are too strong. We might as well be as safe as we can reasonably
>> > be right?.
>> >
>>
>> You obvious DON'T read Gord because you seem to be under the impression that
>> somewhere in my last message I was saying DRLs don't work.
My lord, now your reading comprehension seems to be faulty as
well!...you aren't in great shape here are you?... :)
>> I said exactly how they
>> work, if you choose to ignore that then maybe it is you that needs the glasses.
>>
You told me 'your theory of how they work'...perhaps if you could
prove that you are 'the lord god' then I might be persuaded to
take your word for it, otherwise...
>> > >The entire concept of DRLs is
>> > >not to make cars more noticeable, they are designed to give your brain a better
>> > >chance of determining the speed and direction at which they are approaching to
>> > >prevent people pulling out in front when it's too late or to be able to spot
>> > >someone about the cross the center line sooner.
>> >
>> > This factor is an additional safety factor too but still the main
>> > purpose of them is to make the vehicle more visible and at a
>> > greater distance.
>> >
>>
>> Bullshit. Find me one designer that agrees with this. Read the literature Gord, I'm
>> tired of educating people of this, what you are spouting was made up by salesmen,
>> stupid god damn salesmen who didn't know the right answer so made up a halfway
>> plausible one. It is not even mentioned anywhere in the original concept. The
>> military uses lights to HIDE things at a distance for christ sake.
>>
>> It's just like all this garbage about motorcycles not being as noticeable now
>> because all cars have DRLs. For this to be true then your little theory about DRLs
>> would have to be true, and yet the collision rate has remained unchanged.
Absolute bullshit Phillipo...show me where I said anything about
motorcycles at all!...you're so frothing at the mouth that your
memory has been affected I'm afraid...get a grip man.
And to comment on that, it is indeed true of course...for a long
time motorcycles ran with their headlights on, before DRL's on
cars were so (deservedly) popular. Because of this, they were, of
course, more noticeable. (surely you can see that?).
But now that all sensible people use DRL's on their cars etc, the
motorcycles AREN'T as noticeable of course. If you cannot
understand that simple concept then I'd suggest you not move
around in public unaccompanied, nor go beyond sight of your
house.
>>The fact
>> is motorcycles are ignored on the road unless they are on fire or being ridden by a
>> naked man and his wife. Car drivers need to make up bullshit excuses like "they
>> just aren't as noticeable anymore" to explain away their poor driving. Is that what
>> you are doing Gord?
>>
Christ, save your worry for yourself kid, it appears that you
need it much more than I...
richa...@usa.nut
On Tue, 15 May 2001, MDT Tech wrote:
>>The DRL resistor thing is easy. It's the auto-on headlamps that annoy. I
>>wanna be able to turn them off at will.
>Oh, well, you will have to remove a pin fromt eh DRL relay.
Yeah, I figured that out. Question is, where exactly is the Main DRL
relay?
RM
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>
>DRL's are not a proven safety feature, and are a known annoyance that
>could possibly cause an accdient.
???
How can you be so unaware of how the world works as to say
that?...don't you know that if what you say had any grain of
truth to it then car manufacturers would be getting sued all over
the place for causing deaths?...please try to at least 'appear'
mentally competent out in public like this. This is embarrassing.
>If the lighting is so bad that you
>can't see a car without DRL's, then you should turn on your regular
>headlamps.
A veritable gem this one is!...what are you talking about
Alex?...please explain yourself sir, at the same time please tell
us how you manage to walk and breathe at the same time...
>Plain and simple. CHMSL aren't much better. I can plainly
>see the regular stop lamps, so they are just redudant.
>-----------------
>Alex __O
> _-\<,_
> (_)/ (_)
>
Whatever in hell 'that' means...
Gord Beaman
>In article <3B00770D...@ns.sympatico.ca>, Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca
>says...
>
>>Here we go with the ignorance about DRLs again. You better have your eyes
>>checked, if you need a light to be on the front of a vehicle to see it during
>>the day it's time for those corrective lenses.
>
>I'm amazed at how many people miss the obvious.
Yes...isn't it absolutely mindboggling?...it never ceases to
amaze me...
n...@spam.nz
<9du94p$df4$5...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>:
>DRL's are not a proven safety feature, and are a known annoyance that
>could possibly cause an accdient.
What a load of nonsense.
I just read this news brief yesterday:
Studies in Germany show a 25 per cent reduction in fatal accidents at 20
accident black spots when drivers were encouraged, by roadside posters, to
use dipped headlights during daylight hours. A similar project in Holland
showed that in half of all fatal accidents in daylight, and up to 80 per
cent at road junctions, the drivers who caused them either completely
failed to see other vehicles or saw them too late. In Scandinavia, parts of
the United States, and a number of Eastern Europen countries, daytime
running lights are mandatory.
Atlantis
n...@spam.nz
>Do you have a reference for this article ?
It was in the motoring section of my city's daily paper "The Press". It may
show up on their Web site in the next few days, though I think they only
publish the main articles online, not news briefs.
TeGGeR
"MDT Tech" <ssau...@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:3B02109C...@switchboard.net...
<blah, blah, blah--snip>
> > It's just like all this garbage about motorcycles not being as
noticeable now
> > because all cars have DRLs. For this to be true then your little
theory about DRLs
> > would have to be true, and yet the collision rate has remained
unchanged. The fact
> > is motorcycles are ignored on the road unless they are on fire or being
ridden by a
> > naked man and his wife. Car drivers need to make up bullshit excuses
like "they
> > just aren't as noticeable anymore" to explain away their poor driving.
Is that what
> > you are doing Gord?
> >
>
> Kinda neat seeing a couple of Canadians fighting over DRL's. :-D
What, this damned issue again?
I shake my head in wonder and disgust as everyone tries to run everyone
else's life, and freedom takes yet another blow. Meddle, meddle, meddle.
You know, people don't go to church much any more; God is essentially
non-existent for most. However, there still appears to be a deep-seated
social need to have something to get morally indignant about, so a new Holy
Duality is now being worshipped: Environment and Safety.
There is as much emotion and as little reason in this new religion than
there was in the old.
My regards to MDT Tech, for being the ONLY one to simply answer the
Original Poster's actual question instead of becoming morally indignant
about his chosen way of life.
--TeGGeR
Michael Groszek
you have advance warning for stopping. Damn useful to me at least as I don't
like rear-ending other cars.
Alex Rodriguez
>
>ad...@columbia.edu (Alex Rodriguez) wrote in
><9du94p$df4$5...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>:
>
>>DRL's are not a proven safety feature, and are a known annoyance that
>>could possibly cause an accdient.
>
>What a load of nonsense.
Really. How many people have you see driving at night with only their
DRL's on? Did you know that some DRL's use the high beams which causes
a lot of glare? If you can't see the cars without DRL's, then you really
need to get your eyes examined.
>I just read this news brief yesterday:
>Studies in Germany show a 25 per cent reduction in fatal accidents at 20
>accident black spots when drivers were encouraged, by roadside posters, to
>use dipped headlights during daylight hours. A similar project in Holland
>showed that in half of all fatal accidents in daylight, and up to 80 per
>cent at road junctions, the drivers who caused them either completely
>failed to see other vehicles or saw them too late. In Scandinavia, parts of
>the United States, and a number of Eastern Europen countries, daytime
>running lights are mandatory.
In the USA the only time DRL are mandatory is when you are using your
windshield wipers. Thankfully they are not mandatory otherwise.
Basil M.
Probably too lazy to type out "center high-mounted stop lamps". Geeze,
the world we live in, acronym addicts!
--
Basil Mournian - San Diego, CA
1986 Silver Cressida 5M-GE DOHC - 144,188 miles
Basil M.
anything through them. I've learned to judge the speed of the car in front of
me, by comparing how it looks to the ambient traffic...not exactly a perfect
science, but it seems to help. :)
--Basil M.
Bruce Bergman
>Studies in Germany show a 25 per cent reduction in fatal accidents at 20
>accident black spots when drivers were encouraged, by roadside posters, to
>use dipped headlights during daylight hours.
What did they dip their headlights in to get this miraculous
decrease - chocolate syrup? Wheel bearing grease? Nutella? ;-)
Yes, I know what you meant... :-P (Someone had to say it.)
They do that in the USA on certain rural roads that are heavily
traveled, have a lot of merging and exiting traffic (especially heavy
trucks and farm equipment), curvy, wavy and otherwise restricted sight
lines, and high speed - a recipe for disaster. They put up 'Daytime
Headlights Area' signs at both ends - the second set of signs
reminding you to turn your lights back OFF when you leave the area.
--<< Bruce >>--
--
Bruce L. Bergman blCHURRObergman@ NOearthSPAMlink.netEVER Remove the caps.
Troubleshooter - Electrician, Phones, HVAC, Plumbing,...
'Current'ly with Westend Electric (#726700) Agoura, CA 818/889-9545
WARNING: No Unsolicited Commercial E-mail is EVER accepted.
MDT Tech
> No it doesn't...apparently you don't understand the purpose of
> that system do you?...you surely don't think that making the
> seatbelts weaker would have the same effect as the limiting
> devices do you?...
Well, atleast, one can remove (disconect) the seatbelt if your just
setting in the car. Gord, will headlamps at 100% be more visable thaan
headlamps at only a mere 40%
MDT Tech
>
> >If the lighting is so bad that you
> >can't see a car without DRL's, then you should turn on your regular
> >headlamps.
>
> A veritable gem this one is!...what are you talking about
> Alex?...please explain yourself sir, at the same time please tell
> us how you manage to walk and breathe at the same time...
I think he meant if visibility is poor, turn on the headlamps at 100%,
if you cant see someone then, turn in your drivers license and take the
bus.
MDT Tech
> In Scandinavia, parts of
> the United States, and a number of Eastern Europen countries, daytime
> running lights are mandatory.
Actually, daytime running lights are not mandatory in the US
TeGGeR
> n...@spam.nz wrote:
> > In Scandinavia, parts of
> > the United States, and a number of Eastern Europen countries, daytime
> > running lights are mandatory.
>
>
> Actually, daytime running lights are not mandatory in the US
So far as I know, DRLs are mandatory only in Sweden, Canada, and a few
other socialist backwaters.
--TeGGeR
sch...@hotmail.com
There are no parts of the U.S. where they are mandatory. Until GM got the
federal government to pass a law, they were illegal in many states. Maybe
your newspaper thinks that Canada is part of the U.S., but the union of
these two countries is a long ways off.
In any case, such studies are not very scientific since they don't evaluate
the net increase or decrease in accidents. How many accidents do DRLs cause?
I think the whole argument here is centering on the wrong subject. What's
needed are DRLs that are seperate low wattage lamps, not the regular high
beams or low beams. The driver needs to be able to temporarily turn them off
under certain circumstances.
The problems with the way DRLs are implemented in the U.S. are many.
See: http://www.geocities.com/scharf_steven/drl.htm
Gord Beaman
>Gord Beaman wrote:
>
>> No it doesn't...apparently you don't understand the purpose of
>> that system do you?...you surely don't think that making the
>> seatbelts weaker would have the same effect as the limiting
>> devices do you?...
>
>
>Well, atleast, one can remove (disconect) the seatbelt if your just
>setting in the car.
That's true of course, what does that have to do with the
'limiting devices' in the seatbelt system though Rick?...and
what's the proper name for those anyway?...isn't that what they
call the SRS? (supplemental restraint system?).
>Gord, will headlamps at 100% be more visable thaan
>headlamps at only a mere 40%
>
>
No of course not, but then, DRL's don't need to be as strong as
headlights do they?...after all, the light from headlights need
to be strong enough that the light will reflect back from the
road and objects on the road to the drivers eyes, while DRL's
need only be strong enough that other drivers can see them
directly. BIG difference...right?...
Gord Beaman
>Gord Beaman wrote:
>
>>
>> >If the lighting is so bad that you
>> >can't see a car without DRL's, then you should turn on your regular
>> >headlamps.
>>
>> A veritable gem this one is!...what are you talking about
>> Alex?...please explain yourself sir, at the same time please tell
>> us how you manage to walk and breathe at the same time...
>
>I think he meant if visibility is poor, turn on the headlamps at 100%,
>if you cant see someone then, turn in your drivers license and take the
>bus.
>
>
>
Maybe so...I wasn't sure what he meant.
sch...@hotmail.com
under the dash, on the drivers side. At least it is
on the 4Runner.
Remove pin 23 from the connector or cut the wire going
to it. Usually the pin numbers (at least some of them)
are molded into the plastic of the connector.
The official Toyota documentation on how to disable them
is at:
http://webm3233.ntx.net/putnam/ttora/disable_page_1.htm
http://webm3233.ntx.net/putnam/ttora/disable_page_2.htm
http://webm3233.ntx.net/putnam/ttora/disable_page_3.htm
OH MY G-D! You mean the manufacturer actually has a document
that tells people how to turn off a vital safety feature that
has saved BILLIONS of lives.
For a fact based, unbiased analysis of DRLs, visit:
http://www.geocities.com/scharf_steven/drl.htm
I do think there is one thing people are missing in the DRL
debate. The federal government, whatever your opinion of it,
does not require this dubious safety feature. All the government
has really done in this regard is, at GM's urging, passed a law
that overrode the numerous state laws that forbade DRLs. Even the
NHTSA recognizes the problems with DRLs, at least as they are
currently implemented.
It is highly unlikely that DRLs will ever be required in the
U.S. because such a requirement would be accompanied by regulations
on the brightness and aiming which would in turn require seperate
lamps for DRLs. The automakers don't want this expense; they want
to do DRLs on the cheap and advertise them as a wonderful safety
feature.
In article <Pine.BSF.4.33L2.01051...@shell-3.enteract.com>,
rich...@gowinnt.removetoreply.kahm says...
>
>
>Yup. It's another FUCKING DRL thread. I have the TSB that documents the
>procedure to both kill the DRL's AND ditch the automatic-on headlights.
>
>Guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of all of these little nanny-state
>safety-nut pinheads - or your money back!
>
>I'm going to try it out this weekend. I'll probably set up a PhotoPoint
>album so that you too will be able to help get Big Brother outta your
>Toyota!
MDT Tech
>
> OH MY G-D! You mean the manufacturer actually has a document
> that tells people how to turn off a vital safety feature that
> has saved BILLIONS of lives.
>
True, they actually have a TSB telling you how.
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>
>I think the whole argument here is centering on the wrong subject. What's
>needed are DRLs that are seperate low wattage lamps, not the regular high
>beams or low beams. The driver needs to be able to temporarily turn them off
>under certain circumstances.
>
>The problems with the way DRLs are implemented in the U.S. are many.
>
>See: http://www.geocities.com/scharf_steven/drl.htm
>
>
What a load this is. Here this guy knocks drl's and tries to
confirm what he's saying by citing his own mishmash of drivel,
which contains, among many many other examples of great drivel,
the following knee slapper:
>8. The people in favor of DRLs are so dimwitted and have such weak positions that DRLs must really be bad. Yeah, no one should be against something just because some really stupid people are in favor of it, but doesn't it make you uneasy to support something when someone else is supporting the same thing based on inaccurate and misleading "data."
How's that for authentic unarguable reasoning?... :)
bwhahahaha!...you're a scream Steven!...you SHOULD give up your
day job son, you have a god given talent for humour there, be a
shame not to exploit it.
Michael Groszek
replacement for seatbelts like so many people in the US seem to think.
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>I think SRS is the airbag - notice that the airbag is a supplement not a
>replacement for seatbelts like so many people in the US seem to think.
>
Yes, I think you're likely right Michael.
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>
>I think the whole argument here is centering on the wrong subject. What's
>needed are DRLs that are seperate low wattage lamps, not the regular high
>beams or low beams. The driver needs to be able to temporarily turn them off
>under certain circumstances.
>
>The problems with the way DRLs are implemented in the U.S. are many.
>
>See: http://www.geocities.com/scharf_steven/drl.htm
>
>
What a load this is. Here this guy knocks drl's and tries to
confirm what he's saying by citing his own mishmash of drivel,
which contains, among many other examples of great drivel, the
following knee slapper:
>8. The people in favor of DRLs are so dimwitted and have
>such weak positions that DRLs must really be bad. Yeah,
>no one should be against something just because some
>really stupid people are in favor of it, but doesn't it make
>you uneasy to support something when someone else is
>supporting the same thing based on inaccurate and
>misleading "data."
How's that for solid, authentic, unarguable reasoning?... :)
sch...@hotmail.com
I hate to admit that I used to be like you. I was always amazed and amused
when some idiot posted a request about how to turn off DRLs. Of course
that was before I started researching the subject and before I bought a
vehicle with an especially bad implementation of DRLs (80% brightness,
no way to turn them off temporarily (not even pulling up the parking brake
lever a notch)).
Not only are you pretty lame in your personal attacks, you didn't
refute a single fact (not suprising since you couldn't).
I'm not even totally against DRLs. I agree with the findings of the
NHTSA regarding the current problems with the ways DRLs are implemented.
If the automakers were to solve all the problems with DRLs, the glare,
the loss of signaling methods, the inability to turn them off when required,
then I wouldn't be opposed to them at all. On the web site I even include
a way to temporarily, not permanently, disable the DRLs when needed.
In the future I advise you to get all the facts before posting.
http://geocities.com/scharf_steven/drl.htm
In article <3b067b23...@news1.islandtelecom.com>, Gord Beaman says...
<snip>
Gord Beaman
>Gordon:
>
>I hate to admit that I used to be like you. I was always amazed and amused
>when some idiot posted a request about how to turn off DRLs. Of course
>that was before I started researching the subject and before I bought a
>vehicle with an especially bad implementation of DRLs (80% brightness,
>no way to turn them off temporarily (not even pulling up the parking brake
>lever a notch)).
>
>Not only are you pretty lame in your personal attacks, you didn't
>refute a single fact (not suprising since you couldn't).
>
Well Steven, I didn't refute your statements because they're so
lame...so it seems you need that done...oookkkkk then...
>I'm not even totally against DRLs. I agree with the findings of the
>NHTSA regarding the current problems with the ways DRLs are implemented.
>If the automakers were to solve all the problems with DRLs, the glare,
'The glare'
Why should the low beams or the high beams at much reduced power
'glare' in daylight?. My DRL's are on the high beams but the
voltage fed to them is 3.9 volts, they look pretty sick, if
'that' would bother anyone in the daytime then they have big
medical problems.
>the loss of signaling methods,
'Loss of signalling'
You DON'T have any loss at all, if the DRL's are on the low beams
then you have NO LOSS (you signal with your highs), and if DRL's
are on the highs at much reduced power then signalling is very
evident as they flash to full power...strange that you didn't
know this now isn't it?...gee...
>the inability to turn them off when required,
It's NEVER required (as long as the engine is running)
>then I wouldn't be opposed to them at all.
So why are you then?...I've just shot your lame 'reasons' all to
hell. Mind you, you don't have any reason to run that swell
webpage now do you?...
> On the web site I even include
>a way to temporarily, not permanently, disable the DRLs when needed.
>
Give me one good reason to NEED it.
>In the future I advise you to get all the facts before posting.
>
I 'have' all the facts son, your move.
>http://geocities.com/scharf_steven/drl.htm
>
see quote from "The web site" below:
>>8. The people in favor of DRLs are so dimwitted and have
>>such weak positions that DRLs must really be bad. Yeah,
>>no one should be against something just because some
>>really stupid people are in favor of it, but doesn't it make
>>you uneasy to support something when someone else is
>>supporting the same thing based on inaccurate and
>>misleading "data."
How's that for an authorative 'quote'?.
HooWee!...you're a real gas kid. You might try finding some
really worthwhile windmills to tilt at.
Mike Graham
>Another "loss of signaling" issue is the loss of effectiveness of
>motorcycle headlight use in the daytime. If all cars had DRLs, the
>motorcycles headlights would become much less conspicuous.
>Potentially causing an increase in the number of motorcycles that get
>hit by cars that don't see them.
So, DRLs can't be shown to work on cars and they shouldn't be implemented
because they reduce the effectiveness of DRLs on motorcycles? So who were
the geniuses that managed to do a conclusive study of DRLs on motorcycles
and why can't the same study work on cars? Why are the negatives of DRLs on
cars not applicable to motorcycles?
Besides, motorcyclists just run with high beams on in the daytime.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mike Graham | Steel-fitter and CWB-certified weldor
metalmangler at headwaters dot com | Raiser of horses
<webpage temporarily unavailable> | Tester of limits (esp. patience)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bob M.
If I shined a 3 volt flashlight in your face, would you look away? Most
people would.
DRLs wouldn't be so bad if the owner could turn them off.
"Gord Beaman" <gbe...@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
news:3b06fca...@news1.islandtelecom.com...
Bob M.
headlight-on law about five years ago because they couldn't find any
evidence that having the light on saved lives.
"Mike Graham" <metalm...@headwaters.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9ge7q4.km...@localhost.localdomain...
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>>'The glare'
>>Why should the low beams or the high beams at much reduced power
>>'glare' in daylight?.
>
>Forget "why" they "glare". The fact is, the DO glare. Lots of people
>have complained about it. It's an issue that needs to be addressed
>before we have glaring DRLs on everything. Especially when, as I
>said, there is no demonstrated NET safety benefit to even having the
>stupid things.
Don't be such a silly weiner guy...if car headlights don't
'glare' and blind all and sundry AT NIGHT then how can they cause
you so much misery in THE DAYTIME?...good golly miss molly, you
sound like a little girl for chrissakes. ooh!...those LIGHTS are
so BRIGHT!!...in the bright sunshine no less!...if you want to
complain then let's at least find something worthy of the effort.
You guys sound like a bunch of teenagers about 13 who know
everything worth knowing in the world already, even though
they're barely outta diapers. Try getting some time in before you
start dictating the rules for everyone...guess you just gotta be
you eh?...life just isn't worth living unless there's a little
danger in it right?...lord spare me from them.
>
>My DRL's are on the high beams but the
>>voltage fed to them is 3.9 volts, they look pretty sick, if
>>'that' would bother anyone in the daytime then they have big
>>medical problems.
>>
>
>Well, until someone can positively prove that DRLs really are a net
>benefit, why should anyone be allowed to have lights on their car that
>bother other drivers? Of do you think you are the center of the
>universe?
>
Good lord...the colour green bothers me a lot but I'd not ask
anyone to avoid using it. Same here...the light's just CANNOT
'bother' other drivers...they're on in DAYLIGHT for christ's
sake!. If you just gotta complain then pick some worthy subject.
>
>>>the loss of signaling methods,
>>
>>'Loss of signalling'
>>You DON'T have any loss at all, if the DRL's are on the low beams
>>then you have NO LOSS (you signal with your highs), and if DRL's
>>are on the highs at much reduced power then signalling is very
>>evident as they flash to full power...strange that you didn't
>>know this now isn't it?...gee...
>>
>
>One of the "Loss of signaling" issues has to do with turn signals.
>Many DRL implementations result in the turn signal "signal" being
>crowed out by the glare from the adjacent DRL. Having DRLs is not
>much of a safety benefit if one of the side effects is that oncoming
>traffic can't tell when you are signaling that you are about to turn
>in front of them.
>
For God's sake get real!...headlights appear MUCH brighter at
night than they do in daylight and they don't do this do they?.
So if you can see the turn signals at night then the same ratio
of light is available in the daytime so howcome you can't see
them in daylight?. You're really scratching here son. And it
shows. Getting a little desperate for reasons are we?...humm?...
>Another "loss of signaling" issue is the loss of effectiveness of
>motorcycle headlight use in the daytime. If all cars had DRLs, the
>motorcycles headlights would become much less conspicuous.
Oh?...oh?...motorcycle DRL's are very effective but car DRL's
aren't?...hummm, wonder why?. We didn't know that now did we?...
>Potentially causing an increase in the number of motorcycles that get
>hit by cars that don't see them.
>
Gee...guess DRL's are quite effective on motorcycles, right?,
wonder why they AREN'T effective on cars then, oh brilliant one?.
You guys are looking sicker and sicker you know...
>
>>>the inability to turn them off when required,
>>
>>It's NEVER required (as long as the engine is running)
>>
>
>For those of us who consider them a hazard, turning the off is
>required.
>
But then, you likely consider seatbelts and airbags a hazard too
right?. And probably safety glass and collapsible bumpers and
door beams and speed limits and road markings and hazard warning
signs and emergency brakes and antiskid and headrests and dual
braking systems etc etc right?...gee...guess you just gotta be
you...born free, etc...
>
>>>then I wouldn't be opposed to them at all.
>>
>>So why are you then?...I've just shot your lame 'reasons' all to
>>hell. Mind you, you don't have any reason to run that swell
>>webpage now do you?...
>>
>>> On the web site I even include
>>>a way to temporarily, not permanently, disable the DRLs when needed.
>>>
>>
>>Give me one good reason to NEED it.
>>
>>>In the future I advise you to get all the facts before posting.
>>>
>>
>>I 'have' all the facts son, your move.
>>
>
>From what I saw, you are don't have any facts, just emotional
>rhetoric.
>
Well, yes, I did see a HUGE amount of facts in your offering.
Rick Jones
>
> I think SRS is the airbag - notice that the airbag is a supplement not a
> replacement for seatbelts like so many people in the US seem to think.
>
Speak for yourself Michael, dont include an entire country with your
hypothesis
And I KNOW an SRS is a "supplementtal restrain system", hence, the name
SRS!
--
MDT Tech
>
> AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Another "loss of signaling" issue is the loss of effectiveness of
> >motorcycle headlight use in the daytime. If all cars had DRLs, the
> >motorcycles headlights would become much less conspicuous.
> >Potentially causing an increase in the number of motorcycles that get
> >hit by cars that don't see them.
>
> So, DRLs can't be shown to work on cars and they shouldn't be implemented
> because they reduce the effectiveness of DRLs on motorcycles? So who were
> the geniuses that managed to do a conclusive study of DRLs on motorcycles
> and why can't the same study work on cars? Why are the negatives of DRLs on
> cars not applicable to motorcycles?
> Besides, motorcyclists just run with high beams on in the daytime.
Hell, people dont see motocycles at all because of their size and not
paying attention or a combo of both. Heck, I was ran up on a sidewalk
with my Yamaha and I had a headlight modulator on it, what happened????
MDT Tech
>
> AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --cut--
>
> >>'The glare'
> >>Why should the low beams or the high beams at much reduced power
> >>'glare' in daylight?.
> >
> >Forget "why" they "glare". The fact is, the DO glare. Lots of people
> >have complained about it. It's an issue that needs to be addressed
> >before we have glaring DRLs on everything. Especially when, as I
> >said, there is no demonstrated NET safety benefit to even having the
> >stupid things.
>
> Don't be such a silly weiner guy...if car headlights don't
> 'glare' and blind all and sundry AT NIGHT then how can they cause
> you so much misery in THE DAYTIME?...good golly miss molly, you
> sound like a little girl for chrissakes. ooh!...those LIGHTS are
> so BRIGHT!!...in the bright sunshine no less!...if you want to
> complain then let's at least find something worthy of the effort.
>
Gord DRL's wont do shit in AZ compared to your neck of the woods with
the constant overcast, drizzle, gray skies etc. Just because it's law up
there, doesnt make it law everywhere else. Its not law in America so
stop telling us what to do.
Michael Groszek
the constant overcast, drizzle, gray skies etc. Just because it's law up
there, doesnt make it law everywhere else. Its not law in America so
stop telling us what to do."
I think you need your vision checked if you can't see DRL's in Arizona. The
brightest and hottest places (I live and have traveled in Australia so don't
BS that I have no clue what I'm talking about) have a lot of heat haze and
partially dazzle you sometimes. This is when DRLs help you see other cars the
most because most people put their lights on in drizzle anyway.
On another note - you Americans have got serious issues with your personal
rights. All I ever hear about your screwed up country is "sue, sue, sue,
freedom, personal rights, constitution, my right, individual, I'm sueing you
because I'm a stupid f*** and you didn't warn me, imperial measurement is the
way to go and we will not be bullied" and so on. What is your issue with law
and having to do things? You have THE MOST F*****D UP TORTS LAWS IN THE WORLD
so don't go BSing about something not being law and therefore you don't have
to listen. I know this posting is slightly off the topic but it relates to it
because of the general opinion of the rest of the world that America has it's
head stuck up it's arse and wouldn't make DRLs mandatory because other
countries have them and they infringe personal rights. BTW don't bother
trying to sue me for this post - I don't live in the "centre of the Universe
- THE U.S of A"
Michael Groszek
more and more like the US in the bad ways. At least we could get some of the good
aspects, but no it's not like that. Sigh.
AZGuy wrote:
> Sounds like somebody has an inferiority complex....
Michael Groszek
someone
>>Don't be such a silly weiner guy...if car headlights don't
>>'glare' and blind all and sundry AT NIGHT then how can they cause
>>you so much misery in THE DAYTIME?..
>
>
>Get a clue. Many of the DRLs use the HIGH BEAMS. HIGH BEAMS also
>cause glare at night when the people in the car have them on against
>oncoming traffic. It's not the "brightness" that causes the
>problems, it's that they are HIGH BEAMS aimed toward oncoming traffics
>"eyes". Don't be such a silly weiner guy. Think before you post.
How about turning on the low beams. That should deactivate the DRL,
and turn them into low beams, but brighter than DRLs?
someone
>
>Really. How many people have you see driving at night with only their
>DRL's on? Did you know that some DRL's use the high beams which causes
>a lot of glare?
>If you can't see the cars without DRL's, then you really
>need to get your eyes examined.
How about a black car driving through a heavly shadowed area? And
you're wearing sun-glasses? And looking through a tinited window?
Mike Graham
>How about turning on the low beams. That should deactivate the DRL,
>and turn them into low beams, but brighter than DRLs?
Trucking company associations did all kinds of research into this area.
They wanted DRLs long before they were mandatory here in Canada, but they
wanted to minimize the impact on fuel usage. Granted it's not a big impact,
but when you hope to get a million miles out of a rig, a small fuel usage
hit is a big thing. Anyway, they tried all kinds of things - low voltage
high beams, low beams, etc. etc. and found that the low-voltage high beams
were the most visible with the least energy cost.
Mike Graham
>wanted to minimize the impact on fuel usage.
Oh yeah, bulb life was an issue, as well.
MDT Tech
>
> How about a black car driving through a heavly shadowed area? And
> you're wearing sun-glasses? And looking through a tinited window?
--
How about "impaired vision" as you mentioned. Just because a driver is
stupid to "have sunglasses on" in a "heavily shadowed" area, all while
having "tinted windows", which means he probably didnt even need the
sunglasses in the first place doesnt mean you need a law to make the
black car more visable, but a law preventing stupid behavior, but I'd be
willing to bet it already is.
That would be as dumb as saying "suppose a guy was driving all day, sun
shining, night falls, he never removes his dark sunglasses as the sun
falls...
You can make law after law to compensate for the stupidity of drivers,
the end result will be little freedom.
MDT Tech
>
> "Gord DRL's wont do shit in AZ compared to your neck of the woods with
> the constant overcast, drizzle, gray skies etc. Just because it's law up
> there, doesnt make it law everywhere else. Its not law in America so
> stop telling us what to do."
>
> I think you need your vision checked if you can't see DRL's in Arizona. The
> brightest and hottest places (I live and have traveled in Australia so don't
> BS that I have no clue what I'm talking about) have a lot of heat haze and
> partially dazzle you sometimes. This is when DRLs help you see other cars the
> most because most people put their lights on in drizzle anyway.
If you cant see a car, maybe get your eyes check, pay closer attention
or take the bus.
> On another note - you Americans have got serious issues with your personal
> rights. All I ever hear about your screwed up country is "sue, sue, sue,
> freedom, personal rights, constitution, my right, individual, I'm sueing you
> because I'm a stupid f*** and you didn't warn me, imperial measurement is the
> way to go and we will not be bullied" and so on. What is your issue with law
> and having to do things? You have THE MOST F*****D UP TORTS LAWS IN THE WORLD.
I agree! Darn lawyers are running the show and democrats vetoed "tort
reform" because the Klintons were both lawyers.
> so don't go BSing about something not being law and therefore you don't have
> to listen. I know this posting is slightly off the topic but it relates to it
> because of the general opinion of the rest of the world that America has it's
> head stuck up it's arse and wouldn't make DRLs mandatory because other
> countries have them and they infringe personal rights. BTW don't bother
> trying to sue me for this post - I don't live in the "centre of the Universe
> - THE U.S of A"
Then everybody quit asking us for money, help or expect us to bail them
out everytime something goes wrong.
PS, hope an Aborigine didn't get drunk on your property, that would make
is "sacred land" and you know what happens to your home, land etc. then,
don't you??? ;-P
Blazer Computing
For what it's worth, I live in Canada and up here DRLs have been mandatory
since ~1990.
I have yet to see any sign of glare coming from even a single vehicle in the
daytime; I really don't know what the fuss is about. I've had 4 cars with
DRL implemented on them; in the case of my 1989 Chevy Celebrity (yes, GM
jumped the gun and put it in one year early) and 1998 Toyota Avalon XLS, a
daylight sensor would automatically adjust headlight brightness levels; my
1996 Ford Taurus and 1996 Plymouth Voyager require the owner to manually
turn the lights to full power whenever darkness arose. In all these cars,
simply hit the parking brake when you're stopped and the DRLs shut off.
I have travelled plenty in the US and thus far driven through 47 states.
Y'all have brought up one of the key problems DRL was meant to solve, namely
how to pass on a long stretch of two lane highway if you can't tell if a car
in the opposing lane is coming toward you or driving away from you. In the
US, driving on such roads (which comprise the majority of roads) is a major
pain because IMHO most people drive too slow for the conditions and end up
holding up others, and attempting to pass is not always a sure thing if you
don't know the direction of the car far ahead. Also, in mountainous regions,
the average dull painted car blends well into the grey road and rocky
formations, so your advance warning is not as great as it could have been if
you saw a definite "light" coming towards you. If everyone thinks to turn
their lights on in these areas for the benefit of others, then we probably
wouldn't need DRLs; the problem is people often forget and because turning
one's lights on for the benefit of another driver requires effort and yet
doesn't directly benefit this driver, thus it comes down to a "why bother if
there's nothing in it for me" self-centered attitude. It is in these cases
that DRLs are especially effective.
In regards to signalling loss, I agree with Gord when he indicated what is
wrong with flashing the high beams (or putting high-beams if they are used
as DRLs at full-power). This is quite effective and I see it many times up
here. Regarding not seeing turn signals when DRLs are on, that I find
remarkable unless your turn signals are painted white and you happen to
drive in the arctic snow; what I meant to say was I have never had any
problem with detecting a turn signal on any car up here (and I'd guesstimate
90%+ of Canadian cars are running with DRLs at this time).
Moving onto implementation: AZguy had alluded to DRLs at present are wrongly
implemented. What I am asking is if you have any problem with the way
Chrysler has added DRLs to its line of minivans? There are no headlights to
"blind you" in the daytime...only the orange driving lights, and you can
still signal by flashing your high-beams. I'm curious to hear your thoughts
on this.
Regards,
P.
ps. what never ceases to amaze me is whenever I drive in the northern US
states (or places where many Canadians visit), I'll almost always get some
well-meaning person flashing me when they pass to remind me to shut my
lights off...oh, how silly me...thanks for reminding me! lol. We're not
talking about some southern state where they don't even know what a DRL
is...we're talking about states where one can't help but notice a commanding
DRL presence, and these poor "flasher" types must be going nuts flashing
every car that passes by...they must be getting off on it somehow. Are they
totally oblivious to DRLs or do they really think all of us Canadians are
driving around with our lights on on purpose? hehe
AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a7pegtk8ablrl81pf...@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 20 May 2001 04:01:19 GMT, gbe...@islandtelecom.com (Gord
| Beaman) wrote:
|
| >AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
| >--cut--
| >
| >>>'The glare'
| >>>Why should the low beams or the high beams at much reduced power
| >>>'glare' in daylight?.
| >>
| >>Forget "why" they "glare". The fact is, the DO glare. Lots of people
| >>have complained about it. It's an issue that needs to be addressed
| >>before we have glaring DRLs on everything. Especially when, as I
| >>said, there is no demonstrated NET safety benefit to even having the
| >>stupid things.
| >
| >Don't be such a silly weiner guy...if car headlights don't
| >'glare' and blind all and sundry AT NIGHT then how can they cause
Gord Beaman
>someone <som...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>How about turning on the low beams. That should deactivate the DRL,
>>and turn them into low beams, but brighter than DRLs?
>
> Trucking company associations did all kinds of research into this area.
>They wanted DRLs long before they were mandatory here in Canada, but they
>wanted to minimize the impact on fuel usage. Granted it's not a big impact,
>but when you hope to get a million miles out of a rig, a small fuel usage
>hit is a big thing. Anyway, they tried all kinds of things - low voltage
>high beams, low beams, etc. etc. and found that the low-voltage high beams
>were the most visible with the least energy cost.
>
>--
And that makes good sense too because both beams are approx the
same power but aimed differently, therefore if you reduce power
to the high beams then they're about the same effectiveness at
less expense.
someone
<ssau...@switchboard.net> wrote:
>someone wrote:
>
>>
>> How about a black car driving through a heavly shadowed area? And
>> you're wearing sun-glasses? And looking through a tinited window?
>
>
>--
>How about "impaired vision" as you mentioned. Just because a driver is
>stupid to "have sunglasses on" in a "heavily shadowed" area, all while
>having "tinted windows", which means he probably didnt even need the
>sunglasses in the first place doesnt mean you need a law to make the
>black car more visable, but a law preventing stupid behavior, but I'd be
>willing to bet it already is.
>
>
>
>That would be as dumb as saying "suppose a guy was driving all day, sun
>shining, night falls, he never removes his dark sunglasses as the sun
>falls...
>
>You can make law after law to compensate for the stupidity of drivers,
>the end result will be little freedom.
You have a point. But I should clearfy a bit as to what I meant. The
black car is in the shadows, but "you" may not be.
TeGGeR
Many original Canadian DRLs were high-beams at 80% normal output for
exactly this reason, also to preserve the lives of the low-beam bulbs. The
modern idea of using signal-light bulbs for DRLs seems to have come later.
The first Canadian Toyota DRLs were really cheap affairs. Toyota simply
wired things as though the headlight switch was turned to ON all the time,
so EVERYTHING came on, marker lights, taillights, etc.
We spent a lot of time replacing bulbs...
--TeGGeR
Barrie Templeton
1) In urban areas, i.e. where street lighting is present, a significant
number of people drive at night with only their DRLs. Seems they don't
look at their speedos (on the dash, weirdo) or they would realize they
can't be seen from behind;
2) Remember the Ford pickups from, I think, the late '80s or ealy '90s?
They had HUGE rectangular headlights, mounted well up on the face of the
truck, and even if the lights were properly aligned, they still caused a
lot of glare to traffic (i.e. passenger cars) ahead of them. I cursed
my cars that didn't have remote mirror adjustments to minimize the
blinding light reflecting into my field of vision!
3) I have experienced the "glare" factor from some DRLs, but figure it's
better to be annoyed by the glare than to pull into the guy's path
because you didn't see him, or misjudged his proximity or rate of
travel.
Blazer Computing
TeGGeR <teg...@dont.like.spam> wrote in message
news:ly_N6.5899$eF6.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Many original Canadian DRLs were high-beams at 80% normal output for
| exactly this reason, also to preserve the lives of the low-beam bulbs. The
| modern idea of using signal-light bulbs for DRLs seems to have come later.
| The first Canadian Toyota DRLs were really cheap affairs. Toyota simply
| wired things as though the headlight switch was turned to ON all the time,
| so EVERYTHING came on, marker lights, taillights, etc.
| We spent a lot of time replacing bulbs...
|
| --TeGGeR
Hi, you mention using signal lights for DRLs...I mentioned in a previous
post the work that Chrysler has been doing in this regard. I include full
text from that post here because it seems to have gotten lost in the
shuffle.
----------posted
earlier---------------------------------------------------------------------
----
non...@nomailforspamers.com
observed any glare since the days that daylight running lights became
mandatory.
In my opinion, those 'glare' arguments are only coming from a number
of *American* freedom fighter blow-hards who simply don't know what
they are talking about. Gawd, these are probably the same morons
that argued against seatbelts in the 70's.
The facts are that DRLs increase road safety and I'm speaking from
many years of driving in North America and Europe.
meme
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>Gord DRL's wont do shit in AZ compared to your neck of the woods with
>the constant overcast, drizzle, gray skies etc. Just because it's law up
>there, doesnt make it law everywhere else. Its not law in America so
>stop telling us what to do.
>
>
My lord Rick,........<snip>
I had a long post made up trying to educate you to the facts re
the weather here but I guess I'll just snip it...and
say...whaaaaaatever........try a visit sometime guy, the weather
is clear, sunny, temp is 21C (bit cool today)...cheers...(hasn't
been overcast, drizzle, grey skies for awhile...).
How's all those tornados and floods and drive-by shootings and
muggings and house invasions down there?...and BTW, I wasn't
'telling you what to do' anyway, I was just pointing out the
sensible way to operate.
Just remember, if you do ever visit us here and you should be so
unlucky as to kill a relative of mine with your car, then it damn
better not have any evidence of DRL tampering on it.
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>
>Get a clue. Many of the DRLs use the HIGH BEAMS. HIGH BEAMS also
>cause glare at night when the people in the car have them on against
>oncoming traffic.
Man, you could use some research here guy. Do you really think
that you cannot 'dim' your lights at night if your car is
equipped with DRL's?. Get some info before you make a fool of
yourself here kid.
>It's not the "brightness" that causes the
>problems, it's that they are HIGH BEAMS aimed toward oncoming traffics
>"eyes". Don't be such a silly weiner guy. Think before you post.
>
>
That's pretty hilarious you know!!...just reread what you typed
then think a little. If your vehicle has it's DRL's on the
headlights with NO reduced power then you CANNOT dim your lights
when meeting cars at night.
robx...@nowhere.com
>I agree. Why all the arguing about glare? I've *never* once
>observed any glare since the days that daylight running lights became
>mandatory.
>
>In my opinion, those 'glare' arguments are only coming from a number
>of *American* freedom fighter blow-hards who simply don't know what
>they are talking about. Gawd, these are probably the same morons
>that argued against seatbelts in the 70's.
>
>The facts are that DRLs increase road safety and I'm speaking from
>many years of driving in North America and Europe.
Please look directly into your high beams and tell me they do not
disturb you. Most DRL's in America use the high beam. It is at
reduced intensity, but that does not not change the effect. The DRL's
used in other countries are likely done correctly with either low
beams or a dedicated DRL.
robx...@nowhere.com
Beaman) wrote:
>AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>--cut--
>>
>>Get a clue. Many of the DRLs use the HIGH BEAMS. HIGH BEAMS also
>>cause glare at night when the people in the car have them on against
>>oncoming traffic.
>
>Man, you could use some research here guy. Do you really think
>that you cannot 'dim' your lights at night if your car is
>equipped with DRL's?. Get some info before you make a fool of
>yourself here kid.
Please reread the above. The poster was referring to the fact that
DRLs in the US use the high beam lamp. If a high beam causes glare at
night, it also causes glare in the day.
>
>>It's not the "brightness" that causes the
>>problems, it's that they are HIGH BEAMS aimed toward oncoming traffics
>>"eyes". Don't be such a silly weiner guy. Think before you post.
>>
>>
>That's pretty hilarious you know!!...just reread what you typed
>then think a little. If your vehicle has it's DRL's on the
>headlights with NO reduced power then you CANNOT dim your lights
>when meeting cars at night.
I'd suggest you think more as you misinterpreted what the poster
wrote.
Rick
>On Mon, 21 May 2001 18:46:56 GMT, gbe...@islandtelecom.com (Gord
>Beaman) wrote:
>
>>AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Please reread the above. The poster was referring to the fact that
>DRLs in the US use the high beam lamp. If a high beam causes glare at
>night, it also causes glare in the day.
>
Can't argue with logic like that can you. If the moon lights up the
forests at night then it lights up the forests during the day.
Lights cause glare at night because a drivers eyes have become
accustomed to the the darkness, and hopefully if his eyes are normal,
his pupils have dilated to allow better visibility in the darkness.
His eyes become more sensitive to oncoming lights.
During the DAYTIME the opposite happens. Because of the sunlight, his
pupils have contracted making his eyes less sensitive to light.
Therefore a vehicle needs much brighter lights that stand out amongst
the surroundings.
That is what DRL's are designed to do. They are only effective in the
daytime. If we assume that drivers turn on their headlights for normal
night time driving, then DRL's perform the job they were intended for
and cause no additional side effects.
As a Canadian I have seen the benifits of DRL's since their inception.
Prior to DRL's being mandatory by law, companies with large fleets
such as the bus lines, phone companies, and provincial police
departments, made it mandatory for their employees to drive with their
headlights turned on during daylight hours.
I am sure that some of you who are against DRL's will insist that
these large companies only made this rule because of misinformation
and their desire to piss off oncoming motorist. And then the
conspiracy spread, government lawmakers were also fooled into
believing that DRL's helped reduce collisions and they made a law to
ensure that all vehicles would be equipped with devices to annoy other
drivers.
I welcome the comments of any Canadian drivers who have complaints
about DRL's. It would be interesting if we discovered that the whole
country has been taken in by this conspiracy. Perhaps the light bulb
manufacturers are behind it all and they are keeping the myth alive.
Although I honestly don't recall replacing a headlight bulb in the
last 10 years on either of my 2 vehicles.
I guess the real reason we Canadians are willing to accept this law is
that we are all wimps and don't have the backbone to stick up for our
civil rights to turn off our lights. I have heard rumors that an
underground alliance of DRL haters is forming. Perhaps we will have a
civil war to defend our right to turn off the lights.
Honestly people, with the statistics that Canada has gathered, and the
lack of protest from the people who see them on every car on the road,
how can people who have never lived with DRL's keep producing
arguments about GLARE, CIVIL RIGHTS,DRIVERS FORGETTING TO TURN ON
THEIR HEADLIGHTS and LIGHT BULB COSTS. None of these things are valid
arguments.
But please keep posting your arguments, it's fun to see how far an
uniformed person can stretch his imagination to come up with new
reasons to argue with something that has been proven without any doubt
to be successfull.
Rick
Gord Beaman
Exactly...that's what happens if your DRL's are on the high beams
(at reduced power)...when you switch on your headlights then the
DRL's are deactivated. If it wasn't arranged like that then you
couldn't 'dip your lights' when meeting cars at night...
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>Honestly people, with the statistics that Canada has gathered, and the
>lack of protest from the people who see them on every car on the road,
>how can people who have never lived with DRL's keep producing
>arguments about GLARE, CIVIL RIGHTS,DRIVERS FORGETTING TO TURN ON
>THEIR HEADLIGHTS and LIGHT BULB COSTS. None of these things are valid
>arguments.
>
>But please keep posting your arguments, it's fun to see how far an
>uniformed person can stretch his imagination to come up with new
>reasons to argue with something that has been proven without any doubt
>to be successfull.
>
>Rick
Of course...the voice of reason (at last)... <sigh>
Mike Graham
>Exactly...that's what happens if your DRL's are on the high beams
>(at reduced power)...when you switch on your headlights then the
>DRL's are deactivated. If it wasn't arranged like that then you
>couldn't 'dip your lights' when meeting cars at night...
Just as a data point, I just went outside (in the rain.. dedicated soul
that I am.. 8-) and checked the Chev pickup truck and the Buick LeSabre, and
both of them (Canadian) use the low beams for DRLs. The pickup truck's low
beams get noticeably brighter when you turn them on (i.e. the regular low
beams are brighter than the DRL low beams) so it must run them at a reduced
voltage for DRLs. I couldn't check this on the LeSabre because it has a
light sensor that renders the headlight switch useless.
Gord Beaman
>Gord Beaman <gbe...@islandtelecom.com> wrote:
>
>>Exactly...that's what happens if your DRL's are on the high beams
>>(at reduced power)...when you switch on your headlights then the
>>DRL's are deactivated. If it wasn't arranged like that then you
>>couldn't 'dip your lights' when meeting cars at night...
>
> Just as a data point, I just went outside (in the rain.. dedicated soul
>that I am.. 8-) and checked the Chev pickup truck and the Buick LeSabre, and
>both of them (Canadian) use the low beams for DRLs. The pickup truck's low
>beams get noticeably brighter when you turn them on (i.e. the regular low
>beams are brighter than the DRL low beams) so it must run them at a reduced
>voltage for DRLs. I couldn't check this on the LeSabre because it has a
>light sensor that renders the headlight switch useless.
>
Yes Mike, I have an old 92 Dakota 4X4 (I'm in Canada too) and the
DRL's are on the high beams but at very reduced voltage (I put a
VOM on it last summer and they have only 3.9 volts!...you'd think
that it would be barely on but they can be seen, however they do
look a bit sick. My wife's 2001 Corolla uses the low beams too at
somewhat reduced voltage (like yours I guess). I haven't checked
my sis-in-law's new Corolla yet, but I suspect it'll be the same.
Most of the US posters seem to think their DRL's use the high
beams...odd that Toyota would use high beams in US and low in
Canada, right?.
Mike Graham
>Most of the US posters seem to think their DRL's use the high
>beams...odd that Toyota would use high beams in US and low in
>Canada, right?.
Very odd. Must be part of the 'let's implement everything wrong for the
U.S. market' movement. This started, of course, with the school books full
of faulty information, the result of which can be seen on Rick Mercer's
"Talking to Americans".
Gord Beaman
>Gord Beaman <gbe...@islandtelecom.com> wrote:
>
>>Most of the US posters seem to think their DRL's use the high
>>beams...odd that Toyota would use high beams in US and low in
>>Canada, right?.
>
> Very odd. Must be part of the 'let's implement everything wrong for the
>U.S. market' movement. This started, of course, with the school books full
>of faulty information, the result of which can be seen on Rick Mercer's
>"Talking to Americans".
>
Yep...although I suppose even no information is better than
faulty information. I'm fairly sure a high percentage of our good
neighbours to the south think the Canadian border is defined by a
ten foot tall wall of snow and ice with nothing north of that but
husky dogs and igloos. The evidence of that impression has been
gleaned by travelling pretty well all over the US mostly by air
in the Canadian Armed Forces.
I guess Jean Poutine has his work cut out to educate them it
seems.
MDT Tech
>
> How's all those tornados and floods and drive-by shootings and
> muggings and house invasions down there?...and BTW, I wasn't
> 'telling you what to do' anyway, I was just pointing out the
> sensible way to operate.
I know, in the US, we call it "telling us what to do"
>
> Just remember, if you do ever visit us here and you should be so
> unlucky as to kill a relative of mine with your car, then it damn
> better not have any evidence of DRL tampering on it.
You'll need to extradite me. If I go through Canada, it'll be on my way
to Alaska only. ;-)
--
MDT Tech
> Just as a data point, I just went outside (in the rain.. dedicated soul
> that I am.. 8-) and checked the Chev pickup truck and the Buick LeSabre, and
> both of them (Canadian) use the low beams for DRLs. The pickup truck's low
> beams get noticeably brighter when you turn them on (i.e. the regular low
> beams are brighter than the DRL low beams) so it must run them at a reduced
> voltage for DRLs. I couldn't check this on the LeSabre because it has a
> light sensor that renders the headlight switch useless.
>
Mike, they either use a resistor on run both high beams in series, using
one another as the resistor, less waste this way.
MDT Tech
>
> Most of the US posters seem to think their DRL's use the high
> beams...odd that Toyota would use high beams in US and low in
> Canada, right?.
Gord, I've noticed from about 2001 that the new DRL's are now seperate
lights all together vs using the existing ones for DRL's, ie the Camry
for example.
--
shiden
"Rick" wrote
> I welcome the comments of any Canadian drivers who have complaints
> about DRL's. It would be interesting if we discovered that the whole
> country has been taken in by this conspiracy. Perhaps the light bulb
> manufacturers are behind it all and they are keeping the myth alive.
> Although I honestly don't recall replacing a headlight bulb in the
> last 10 years on either of my 2 vehicles.
I'm Canadian.....no complaints about DRL glare....I've never encountered
any such complaints from anyone I know. A lot of Americans just
need something to bitch about......DRL, ABS, SIR and the list can
go on......
You know what's really funny, when we do out-of-province inspections
on an American car and the owner is forced to install DRL's. The
sparks do fly!!!!
Ian
Gideon
their lights - any lights - before it is pitch black dark. Or not to drive
with the fog lights on in town. One day . . . sigh . . .
Gideon
robx...@nowhere.com wrote in message
<3b097e9d...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>...
Rick
>On Mon, 21 May 2001 18:46:56 GMT, gbe...@islandtelecom.com (Gord
>Beaman) wrote:
>
>>AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Please reread the above. The poster was referring to the fact that
>DRLs in the US use the high beam lamp. If a high beam causes glare at
>night, it also causes glare in the day.
>
Can't argue with logic like that can you. If the moon lights up the
forests at night then it lights up the forests during the day.
Lights cause glare at night because a drivers eyes have become
accustomed to the darkness, and hopefully if his eyes are normal,
his pupils have dilated to allow better visibility in the darkness.
His eyes become more sensitive to oncoming lights.
During the DAYTIME the opposite happens. Because of the sunlight, his
pupils have contracted making his eyes less sensitive to light.
Therefore a vehicle needs much brighter lights that stand out amongst
the surroundings.
That is what DRL's are designed to do. They are only effective in the
daytime. If we assume that drivers turn on their headlights for normal
night time driving, then DRL's perform the job they were intended for
and cause no additional side effects.
As a Canadian I have seen the benefits of DRL's since their inception.
Prior to DRL's being mandatory by law, companies with large fleets
such as the bus lines, phone companies, and provincial police
departments, made it mandatory for their employees to drive with their
headlights turned on during daylight hours.
I am sure that some of you who are against DRL's will insist that
these large companies only made this rule because of misinformation
and their desire to piss off oncoming motorists. And then the
conspiracy spread, government lawmakers were also fooled into
believing that DRL's helped reduce collisions and they made a law to
ensure that all vehicles would be equipped with devices to annoy other
drivers.
I welcome the comments of any Canadian drivers who have complaints
about DRL's. It would be interesting if we discovered that the whole
country has been taken in by this conspiracy. Perhaps the light bulb
manufacturers are behind it all and they are keeping the myth alive.
Although I honestly don't recall replacing a headlight bulb in the
last 10 years on either of my 2 vehicles.
I guess the real reason we Canadians are willing to accept this law is
that we are all wimps and don't have the backbone to stick up for our
civil rights to turn off our lights. I have heard rumors that an
underground alliance of DRL haters is forming. Perhaps we will have a
civil war to defend our right to turn off the lights.
Honestly people, with the statistics that Canada has gathered, and the
lack of protest from Canadians who see them on every car on the road,
how can people who have never lived with DRL's keep producing
arguments about GLARE, CIVIL RIGHTS,DRIVERS FORGETTING TO TURN ON
THEIR HEADLIGHTS and LIGHT BULB COSTS. None of these things are valid
arguments.
But please keep posting your arguments, it's fun to see how far an
uniformed person can stretch his imagination to come up with new
reasons to argue with something that has been proven without any doubt
to be successfully.
Rick
Michael Groszek
probably get sued for what you said :-)
sch...@hotmail.com
>Forget "why" they "glare". The fact is, the DO glare. Lots of people
>have complained about it. It's an issue that needs to be addressed
>before we have glaring DRLs on everything. Especially when, as I
>said, there is no demonstrated NET safety benefit to even having the
>stupid things.
One thing that Gordon doesn't realize is that in the U.S., unlike in Europe,
there are no standards for DRLs. All the NHTSA findings on the glare problem
with DRLs are of course based on the situation in the U.S. I don't know
what the situation is in Canada where he lives. It well may be that Canada
has implemented standards for DRLs that are similar to those in Europe,
and hence the disconnect between our Canadian friends that are posting
in this thread and the facts in the U.S..
When the U.S. government passed the law permitting DRLs (which takes
precedence over the state laws prohibiting them) they should have also
adopted the European standards for DRLs. Instead, they let manufacturers
do whatever the hell they wanted. Naturally the manufacturers did whatever
was the cheapest. Now DRLs are tainted in the eyes of the public, even if
standards are adopted it will be tough to undo the damage that has already
been caused by all the poor implementations of DRLs.
The problem is compounded when you have so many uninformed people running
around quoting DRL studies that were poorly done (whether intentionally or
unintentionally) and other people who don't need to look at any studies
and simply make stupid proclamations like: "The facts are that DRLs
increase road safety and I'm speaking from many years of driving in North
America and Europe," without any references or proof.
What led me to disconnect my DRLs was mainly the loss of signaling
methods and the need to turn them off on certain occasions. The
way Toyota did DRLs was 80% brightness, and once they come on
(shift out of park and release the parking brake) they don't go
off until you shut off the car. One thing I often do is to flash
my low beams on and off to alert someone that they have not turned
on their headlights. At 80% brightness the difference between DRLs
and low beams was barely discernable, and certainly not a signal of
anything.
Here's the list of DRL problems from my web site. Note that many of these
are not problems in Europe because of the way European DRLs are implemented.
Not a single point has been refuted in this thread. It's sad to see so many
uninformed people spouting nonsense about DRLs. I'm beginning to suspect that
one of the posters in this thread is the anonymous person behind
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/7840/drlsgoodnotbad.html as
it has the same sort of misinformation that is being promulgated by some
people in this thread.
Problems with DRLs (these problems vary based on how the vehicle manufacturer
has implemented the DRLs)
-------------------------
1. You lose critical traffic signaling methods. Flashing your headlights is:
a) the accepted signal to a trucker that it is safe to change lanes
b) a signal to alert drivers that have forgotten to turn on their headlights
c) a signal at a 4-way stop or in a parking lot to let the other driver go
first
d) a signal to other vehicles that you are traveling with that you need to
stop.
2.You can't turn off your lights when:
a) they are glaring into another vehicle
b) they are shining into a house at the end of a cul-de-sac or tee
intersection
c) they are shining at a pedestrian.
d) You are sitting with the engine running on the side of the road, in
someone's driveway, etc.
e) you want to be able to see outside your side windows.
3. There are places where you need to drive with only your parking lights, i.e.
drive-in movie parking lots, astronomical gatherings, military bases, etc.
4. Drivers with DRLs often forget to turn on their low beam headlights in rain
or fog and at dusk or dawn. This is especially dangerous because the
taillights do not come on until the low beams are turned on. Many drivers
believe that in rain or fog the DRLs are sufficient and fail to turn on
their low beams to activate their tail lights. When it is dark, the lack of
dashboard lights is an indicator that the low beams are not on, but in
daytime conditions where the low beams should be used there is no
indication that the DRLs, not the low beams, are on.
5. They make your bulbs wear out faster.
6. They decrease your gas mileage slightly.
See: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/cd9402.pdf. The decrease in
mileage due to the increased load on the alternator is very small, but it
is still measurable. In fact one one of the biggest proponents of DRLs, GM,
asked for and received permission to disconnect DRLs when doing tests for
their fuel economy ratings.
7. They annoy other drivers. "In 1998, after receiving hundreds of complaints,
NHTSA acknowledged that the intensity limits were too high and proposed
reductions in DRL intensity. NHTSA cited a study by Kirkpatrick, et. al.
(1989), that said that at 2000cd, the glare from DRLs was rated at no worse
than "just unacceptable" in 80% of the responses. At 4000cd, the glare was
rated no worse than "disturbing" in 80% of the responses. These subjective
ratings are based on the DeBoer scale. Corresponding to these ratings, they
found that at 4000cd the probability that the rearview mirror would be
dimmed was about 70%. At 2000cd the dimming probability was 40%. At 1000cd,
the dimming probability dropped to 10%." The NHTSA has now proposed that
the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted, see
http://auto.com/autowire/qlights6.htm . Expect the automakers to oppose
this since it would add cost to do DRLs properly.
8. The people in favor of DRLs are so dimwitted and have such weak positions
that DRLs must really be bad. Yeah, no one should be against something just
because some really stupid people are in favor of it, but doesn't it make
you uneasy to support something when someone else is supporting the same
thing based on inaccurate and misleading "data." Woman Motorist magazine
succumbed to the faulty logic and misleading statements of the DRL
proponents, but at least they state their misinformed position politely.
For a not so polite, but amusing and very poorly done website on DRLs,
click over to:
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/7840/drlsgoodnotbad.html . It’s
difficult to read because of the poor background, but the individual that
did that site clearly lacks the logic that he claims to be promoting. He
(or she) has many outright errors on his site, including his statement that
DRLs usually use high beams and usually operate at 50% intensity, but the
convoluted logic in some of his statements and examples left me rolling on
the floor laughing. Don't they teach logic and the language of argument in
Canada? At one point he blames the lack of DRLs for the death of someone
who was hit by a stolen car that had no lights on. What really is amusing
is that his site claims to be "the home of logical driving," but the guy is
a prime example of the idiots you see on the road that lack any common
sense.
I guess I'm in the minority here though, since I do believe that there still
may be some benefits to DRLs, but with the caveat that the DRLs have to be
implemented in such a way that the current problems are eliminated. It
wouldn't take much to do so. Fixing the problems with signaling methods is
trivial--you simply disable the DRLs for a few seconds whenever you activate
one of the signaling methods. The glare problem can be eliminated by adopting
the NHTSA proposal on brightness, and would likely lead to seperate lamps for
DRLs. It would be simple to add a button to disable the DRLs when necessary.
Of course it would still be possible for drivers to disconnect the DRLs
completely, but they'd be less inclined to do so. Of course all of these
fixes add cost, and in an era of decontenting, the auto manufacturers will
fiercly oppose these changes.
Of course it would also be good if there were some well-designed studies
of the net benefit of DRLs, as you suggested. So far the only benefit,
(and it isn't inconsequential) that has been somewhat proven is that they
reduce pedestrian fatalities. If this is the case then maybe DRLs should
only turn on when the car is going less than 55MPH since there shouldn't
be any pedestrians on freeways or expressways. As it stands now, DRLs in
the U.S. are a poor solution to a problem that hasn't even been shown to
exist.
Nathan Nagel
I'm never going to argue with you about the benefits of DRL's - I'm not
convinced that they're all that, but then again, I have no evidence to
the contrary. What I do have experience with is *poorly implemented*
DRL's like the Saturn vehicles and some GM trucks, which are very
glaring - if it is overcast or evening, they can be very uncomfortable
if you happen to give them a direct look. this is due solely to crappy
design - GM chose to use the high beam lights for the Saturn rather than
the more logical low beams. Sure, they're running at reduced
brightenss, but they're throwing light right up into the faces of
oncoming drivers. It's been discussed here many times, and also how GM
managed to ignore a NHTSA study that basically predicted that these
lights would cause exactly the type of glare problems that people are
experiencing (actually, it predicted that glare would be a problem at
less than half the intensity of the Saturn lights) and legally go into
production with the design anyway.
I'm sure GM is not alone, it's just the Saturns that I find most
noticeable and painful - also they're easy to spot because the
headlights are mounted extremely inboard, so a Saturn is easy to spot
with a distinctive "light signature." I do have rather light sensitive
eyes, but I know I'm not the only one that deliberately looks away when
a Saturn is coming right at me - tell me how that has a safety positive
result?
Anyway, *that* is why I have a problem with DRL's. If you're a Saturn
owner, do us all a favor and just turn your headlights on, all the
time. I'll kick in for a headlight bulb fund to replace all those poor
overworked low beams.
nate
John Ings
<bugs...@home.com> wrote:
>A few observations from another Canadian:
>1) In urban areas, i.e. where street lighting is present, a significant
>number of people drive at night with only their DRLs. Seems they don't
>look at their speedos (on the dash, weirdo) or they would realize they
>can't be seen from behind;
Unfortunately some DRL setups DO light the dash lights but not the
tailights.
BLKRX7
vision is fine, driving down a street (or in a parking lot) with many
different cars moving, parked, or otherwise at a very brief glance your able
to determine what vehicles are running, or have the possibility of pulling
out vs. ones that are parked.
I know we seem to have superhero's here on this list exclaiming that in
1/100th of a second that you have to make a decision they're able to look at
25 cars, and determine which are moving, and which are stationary, and that
everyone else should have their eyesight checked. Although in that 100th of
a second you have to decide right, left or stop those cars which are moving,
have only moved a 50th of an inch. But of course I'm no super hero, and that
seems like a tall order to me.
So if there are 12 parked cars, all in a position to pull out, and only
one has it's lights on, you'll know that only one of those cars are actually
running, and in a position to enter traffic. But then again, with the x-ray
vision option that I seem to have missed, others have the ability to scan
through a parking lot and pick out running cars at the speed of light (ha
ha..)
I don't participate in these arguments any longer because they've been
going on for years, and probably will for years yet. Nothing ever gets
changed, and people just get pissed off ;)
FWIW, I fully support DRL's, and hope to see them adopted as a world
standard. Keep up the good fight.
Paul
"Gord Beaman" <gbe...@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
news:3b09aacf...@news1.islandtelecom.com...
BLKRX7
remove your sunglasses at night, you'd look at it as an affront to freedom
to wear sunglasses at night (tm). So you'd far prefer to have hundreds of
people totally unable to see at night, than a law to forbid such a credulous
act. Correct?
Paul
"MDT Tech" <ssau...@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:3B07F936...@switchboard.net...
> That would be as dumb as saying "suppose a guy was driving all day, sun
> shining, night falls, he never removes his dark sunglasses as the sun
> falls...
>
> You can make law after law to compensate for the stupidity of drivers,
> the end result will be little freedom.
Ray J
sorry for the x-post, but as a fellow Canadian, I say "bite me."
Down with DRLs. What a stupid law.
Thanks to all the noodlebrains who can't turn their headlights on
and off at the right times, I'm stuck with them on all the time.
I've only ever owned one car with 'em, and they'll be disabled
shortly.
DRL's are good on the highway etc. I'm not disputing that. I am
also able to operate a headlight switch by myself. I always run
with my lights on on the highway, but they are pretty useless
in rush hour traffic. I loved being blinded by the Ford F350
with DRL's this morning in traffic at 10 k's. Like I didn't
notice him 2 feet off my bumper.
and...quoting you:
> Honestly people, with the statistics that Canada has gathered, and the
> lack of protest from the people who see them on every car on the road,
> how can people who have never lived with DRL's keep producing
> arguments about GLARE, CIVIL RIGHTS,DRIVERS FORGETTING TO TURN ON
> THEIR HEADLIGHTS and LIGHT BULB COSTS. None of these things are valid
> arguments.
>
show me those Stats.
Not turning on your headlights is an even bigger issue with DRL's, as
no one turns them on... the DRL's do it for them. Except for the
taillights which don't come on...My main beef is inablility to
override them when I want them off.
Ray
70 Buick LeSabre
80 Trans Am
86 GMC S15 Jimmy 4x4
90 Beretta GT
01 Trans Am WS6
Rick wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 20:53:16 GMT, robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 21 May 2001 18:46:56 GMT, gbe...@islandtelecom.com (Gord
> >Beaman) wrote:
> >
> >>AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Please reread the above. The poster was referring to the fact that
> >DRLs in the US use the high beam lamp. If a high beam causes glare at
> >night, it also causes glare in the day.
> >
>
> Can't argue with logic like that can you. If the moon lights up the
> forests at night then it lights up the forests during the day.
>
>
> As a Canadian I have seen the benifits of DRL's since their inception.
> Prior to DRL's being mandatory by law, companies with large fleets
> such as the bus lines, phone companies, and provincial police
> departments, made it mandatory for their employees to drive with their
> headlights turned on during daylight hours.
>
> I welcome the comments of any Canadian drivers who have complaints
> about DRL's. It would be interesting if we discovered that the whole
> country has been taken in by this conspiracy. Perhaps the light bulb
> manufacturers are behind it all and they are keeping the myth alive.
> Although I honestly don't recall replacing a headlight bulb in the
> last 10 years on either of my 2 vehicles.
>
> I guess the real reason we Canadians are willing to accept this law is
> that we are all wimps and don't have the backbone to stick up for our
> civil rights to turn off our lights. I have heard rumors that an
> underground alliance of DRL haters is forming. Perhaps we will have a
> civil war to defend our right to turn off the lights.
>
> Honestly people, with the statistics that Canada has gathered, and the
> lack of protest from the people who see them on every car on the road,
> how can people who have never lived with DRL's keep producing
> arguments about GLARE, CIVIL RIGHTS,DRIVERS FORGETTING TO TURN ON
> THEIR HEADLIGHTS and LIGHT BULB COSTS. None of these things are valid
> arguments.
>
> But please keep posting your arguments, it's fun to see how far an
> uniformed person can stretch his imagination to come up with new
> reasons to argue with something that has been proven without any doubt
> to be successfull.
>
> Rick
--
Irreverent hardware reviews and other fun stuff -> http://www.yaktam.com
Gord Beaman
>Gord Beaman wrote:
>
>>
>> Most of the US posters seem to think their DRL's use the high
>> beams...odd that Toyota would use high beams in US and low in
>> Canada, right?.
>
>Gord, I've noticed from about 2001 that the new DRL's are now seperate
>lights all together vs using the existing ones for DRL's, ie the Camry
>for example.
>--
>
Ok Rick, so the 01 Camry has separates right?...and can you
confirm that all Toyotas in US do use high beams for DRL's?. I
know for sure that the two Toyotas in my household here do indeed
use the low beams (at reduced power) for drl.
Gord Beaman
--cut--
>
>One thing that Gordon doesn't realize is that in the U.S., unlike in Europe,
>there are no standards for DRLs. All the NHTSA findings on the glare problem
>with DRLs are of course based on the situation in the U.S. I don't know
>what the situation is in Canada where he lives. It well may be that Canada
>has implemented standards for DRLs that are similar to those in Europe,
>and hence the disconnect between our Canadian friends that are posting
>in this thread and the facts in the U.S..
>
Yes that's possible..
<cut>
>
>What led me to disconnect my DRLs was mainly the loss of signaling
>methods and the need to turn them off on certain occasions.
Steve, can we just address this statement for a minute?...I'd
like to see whether there's a difference between the way Canada
and the US does things in this regard.
>The
>way Toyota did DRLs was 80% brightness, and once they come on
>(shift out of park and release the parking brake) they don't go
>off until you shut off the car.
You don't say but I assume you mean that 'your' drl's are on the
high beams?.
>One thing I often do is to flash
>my low beams on and off to alert someone
What I cannot see is why are you 'signalling' with the low
beams?...almost all modern cars have a position on one of the
'stalks' to signal with the high beams, it's a 'momentary on',
spring loaded to off position, and even if the drl's ARE on the
high beam bulbs, they'll be at reduced power and the flash to
high power will be VERY evident. Can you please explain the
apparent discrepancy here?.
Another thing that I'd like to address is...when the drl's are on
the high beam bulbs here in Canada (and some vehicles do this),
then when you select the headlights 'on' the drl's are defeated.
Is the same thing true in the US?.
If you'd answer just these questions then we may get to
understand our apparent different situations.
Thanks.
Gord Beaman
Gord Beaman
>Pheew! Good thing you aren't south of the border otherwise you could
>probably get sued for what you said :-)
>
Probably...christ down there you can get sued for letting a fart
on the street. It's called 'depriving someone of sweet smelling
air' or somesuch...sheese...
robx...@nowhere.com
>On Mon, 21 May 2001 20:53:16 GMT, robx...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2001 18:46:56 GMT, gbe...@islandtelecom.com (Gord
>>Beaman) wrote:
>>
>>>AZGuy <jim...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Please reread the above. The poster was referring to the fact that
>>DRLs in the US use the high beam lamp. If a high beam causes glare at
>>night, it also causes glare in the day.
>>
>
>Can't argue with logic like that can you. If the moon lights up the
>forests at night then it lights up the forests during the day.
Poor comparison.
>
>Lights cause glare at night because a drivers eyes have become
>accustomed to the darkness, and hopefully if his eyes are normal,
>his pupils have dilated to allow better visibility in the darkness.
>His eyes become more sensitive to oncoming lights.
So you are saying that if a driver looks into high beams long enough,
they won't bother him?
>
>During the DAYTIME the opposite happens. Because of the sunlight, his
>pupils have contracted making his eyes less sensitive to light.
>Therefore a vehicle needs much brighter lights that stand out amongst
>the surroundings.
Yup those two big blobs of poorly positioned light do a great job of
allowing me not to see the other driver, something that occasionally
is very necessary.
>
>That is what DRL's are designed to do. They are only effective in the
>daytime. If we assume that drivers turn on their headlights for normal
>night time driving, then DRL's perform the job they were intended for
>and cause no additional side effects.
>
>As a Canadian I have seen the benefits of DRL's since their inception.
>Prior to DRL's being mandatory by law, companies with large fleets
>such as the bus lines, phone companies, and provincial police
>departments, made it mandatory for their employees to drive with their
>headlights turned on during daylight hours.
Again, in the US, high beams are used for DRL's. I do not believe
that this is the case in Canada. I'd much rather folks drove around
with their headlights on at all times. It would be much less
annoying.
>
>I am sure that some of you who are against DRL's will insist that
>these large companies only made this rule because of misinformation
>and their desire to piss off oncoming motorists. And then the
>conspiracy spread, government lawmakers were also fooled into
>believing that DRL's helped reduce collisions and they made a law to
>ensure that all vehicles would be equipped with devices to annoy other
>drivers.
>
>I welcome the comments of any Canadian drivers who have complaints
>about DRL's. It would be interesting if we discovered that the whole
>country has been taken in by this conspiracy. Perhaps the light bulb
>manufacturers are behind it all and they are keeping the myth alive.
>Although I honestly don't recall replacing a headlight bulb in the
>last 10 years on either of my 2 vehicles.
What would a Canadian driver know about US DRLs?
>But please keep posting your arguments, it's fun to see how far an
>uniformed person can stretch his imagination to come up with new
>reasons to argue with something that has been proven without any doubt
>to be successfully.
Have you gone out and looked right at your high beams in the daylight
yet?
robx...@nowhere.com
wrote:
>
>"Rick" wrote=20
>
>> I welcome the comments of any Canadian drivers who have complaints
>> about DRL's. It would be interesting if we discovered that the whole
>> country has been taken in by this conspiracy. Perhaps the light bulb
>> manufacturers are behind it all and they are keeping the myth alive.
>> Although I honestly don't recall replacing a headlight bulb in the
>> last 10 years on either of my 2 vehicles.=20
>
>I'm Canadian.....no complaints about DRL glare....I've never encountered
>any such complaints from anyone I know. A lot of Americans just
>need something to bitch about......DRL, ABS, SIR and the list can
>go on......
Do Canadian DRLs use the high beam?
Mike Graham
>> Just as a data point, I just went outside (in the rain.. dedicated soul
>> that I am.. 8-) and checked the Chev pickup truck and the Buick LeSabre, and
>> both of them (Canadian) use the low beams for DRLs. The pickup truck's low
>> beams get noticeably brighter when you turn them on (i.e. the regular low
>> beams are brighter than the DRL low beams) so it must run them at a reduced
>> voltage for DRLs. I couldn't check this on the LeSabre because it has a
>> light sensor that renders the headlight switch useless.
>>
>
>Mike, they either use a resistor on run both high beams in series, using
>one another as the resistor, less waste this way.
Read it again. Low beams. Both cars use the *low* beams as DRLs. The
pickup truck, for sure, uses a low voltage for DRLs, but I can't be sure of
the LeSabre.
Mike Graham
>I guess Jean Poutine has his work cut out to educate them it
>seems.
Ah yes! Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown! Well, at least he
got written up in "Canada: A Retarded People's History." 8-)