How to disable 2002 Sienna daytime running lights?

[NWW]

Is there a way to disable the lights other than cutting the wire as
indicated in the Toyota forums? Kinda figured there might be a special
/ oddball combo of switches etc that would do it.

TIA - Nate

[Michael]

Is this for installing HID lights? I hear there's a wiring harness
for this, after googling around a bit.

http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/corolla-matrix/52946-disable-drl/

see tundra2501's post

[Sharx3335]

"NWW" <spud...@gmale.not.com> wrote in message
news:spudman27-311F8...@adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.sbcglobal.net...

Just why should any of us tell YOU how to disable a SAFETY FEATURE?
Grow up, you criminal.

[Michael]

On Nov 14, 1:24 am, "Sharx3335" <sharx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "NWW" <spudma...@gmale.not.com> wrote in message

It's illegal to disable daytime running lights in Canada and in
Europe, but not in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

[croy]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:19:01 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:


>Why the fuck do you care? Get in the car and drive. You never see the
>lights, they don't intrude on anything you do in or with the car.


If someone works at a place that has a guard gate staffed by
armed guards, and a large sign at the kiosk states: "Dim
Lights!" (like a defense plant), then you'd damn-sure want
to turn off those headlights when approaching that kiosk!

--
croy

[Sharx3335]

"Gary L. Burnore" <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:ja1i1o$69l$2...@nntpd.databasix.com...

> THey, as well as anyone, know what DRL's are and that they can
> usually
> not be dimmed.
>
> Try another line of bs.

Agreed. People should co-operated and NOT try to defeat anything
that makes THEIR vehicle more visible to OTHER drivers. Just
because a few people have the eyes of eagles and think that THEY
can easily see an asphalt colored vehicle far enough away to pass
safely does NOT justify disabling DRL's. I'd fine them $1000 for
a first offense, then seize the vehicle on repeated offenses.




























> --
> gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> How you look depends on where you go.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gary L. Burnore |
> нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
> Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.|
> нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
> |
> нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
> You KNOW you want one: | нл 0 1 7 2 3 / нГо 3 7 4
> 9 3 0 лГ
> https://signup.databasix.com | Official Proof of
> Purchase
> ===========================================================================

[SMS]

No, you need to cut the wire. The dealer will do it for you if you
explain the reason.

Thankfully, newer Toyotas don't have this problem. It should be illegal
to not have a way to turn off DRLs.

[SMS]

On 11/17/2011 02:37 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> DRLs *are* dim. They're not headlights, and they're not brights.

In many cases DRLs are the high beam headlights connected in series for
lower brightness. Even the NHTSA acknowledged that a) DRLs are
ineffective, and b) the intensity and aiming of DRLs was often too high
(because of the high beams being used).

The problem is with the implementation that many automakers have used.
Very often you will see people driving at night with only their DRLs on.
The DRLs are bright enough that they don't realize that their headlights
are not on. Of course in most cases this means that their tail lights
are not on at all.

If it were possible to disable DRLs, temporarily, when necessary, if
they weren't too bright, if they did not use the high beams, if they
turned off momentarily (and automatically) when you wanted to use your
headlights as a signal, and if they were automatically disabled at night
so drivers did not forget to turn on their actual headlights, then
they'd be fine. This would be trivial to implement, and would not cost much.

In any case, in studies conducted by the NHTSA, showed that they had
little effect in reducing vehicle accidents in the U.S., though they did
have a moderate effect in reducing pedestrian deaths.

[Sharx3335]

"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ec54e67$0$1706$742e...@news.sonic.net...

Okay. Then, if and when some vehicle runs into you, regardless, YOU
should NOT be able to claim any damages as YOU weren't utilizing
all possible safety devices.

[Sharx3335]

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-D6A8B8....@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <oui8c7p9s27i2lnrq...@4ax.com>,

> DRLs *are* dim. They're not headlights, and they're not brights.
>

> What do you think that sign means, anyway?

If you can't dim your lights, you CAN'T dim your lights. What the
FUCK do you think THAT means?

[SMS]

1. DRLs are not a required device.
2. DRLs have not been shown to reduce collisions.

[SMS]

On 11/18/2011 4:31 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<4ec54e67$0$1706$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

> SMS<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> It should be illegal
>> to not have a way to turn off DRLs.
>

> Why?

Because there is often a need to turn them off. They also contribute to
accidents.

[Sharx3335]

"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message

news:4ec6e660$0$1724$742e...@news.sonic.net...

Bull fucking shit. There is seldom a VALID need to turn them off.
When you exit the vehicle, engine turned off, is a valid time,
though.

[Michael]

On Nov 18, 4:23 pm, "Sharx3335" <sharx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:4ec6e660$0$1724$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > On 11/18/2011 4:31 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> >> In article<4ec54e67$0$1706$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> >>   SMS<scharf.ste...@geemail.com>  wrote:

>
> >>> It should be illegal
> >>> to not have a way to turn off DRLs.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > Because there is often a need to turn them off. They also
> > contribute to accidents.
>
> Bull fucking shit. There is seldom a VALID need to turn them off.
> When you exit the vehicle, engine turned off, is a valid time,
> though.

Increased fuel usage, contributing to carbon dioxide emissions, and
CLIMATE CHANGE?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/drl-gas-consumption1.htm

Just trying to help. :)

[NotMe]

"Sharx3335" <shar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ja6su4$kup$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

My vehicle, my call, end of (valid) story.

[NWW]

In article <elmop-D6A8B8....@news.eternal-september.org>,

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <oui8c7p9s27i2lnrq...@4ax.com>,
> croy <ha...@spam.invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:19:01 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> > <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Why the fuck do you care? Get in the car and drive. You never see the
> > >lights, they don't intrude on anything you do in or with the car.
> >
> >
> > If someone works at a place that has a guard gate staffed by
> > armed guards, and a large sign at the kiosk states: "Dim
> > Lights!" (like a defense plant), then you'd damn-sure want
> > to turn off those headlights when approaching that kiosk!
>
> DRLs *are* dim. They're not headlights, and they're not brights.
>
> What do you think that sign means, anyway?

I can see this is hopeless to expect much from the discussion.

In fact the military installation I drive on to has a sign that says
'PARKING LIGHTS' only when approaching the gate. If one has trouble
understanding why there is a distinction then you likely should be doing
something other than hanging out in Usenet groups riding around on your
high horses condemning others.

As for the naysayers on the 2008 NHTSA study. It is available at:
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811029.pdf (3MB - a great read)
Read the entire document if you care, or simply check the Executive
Summary paying particular attention to the phrase in Summary of Results
stating, "A negative effectiveness suggests that DRLs might have
unintended adverse effects." There are more negatives in the results
than positives, particularly when you read deeper into the body of data.

[NotMe]

"Gary L. Burnore" <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:ja74ru$s3u$4...@nntpd.databasix.com...

> Wrong. Dead wrong.
>
> You think you can take your seat belts out, maybe?
> How about over-tinting your windows, or having to high of a bumper
> height.
>
> There are laws, dipshit. There to protect others from fucking morons
> like you.

Lets see I have a 29 Ford, a 54 Chevy, a 63 VW not one has DLRL. I have an
04 Van (no DLRL OEM) and not one daytime accident in the lot. Night time
(when the lights ARE on) is another matter.

[Sharx3335]

"NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ja6uk2$jkc$1...@dont-email.me...

Spoken like a fucking, greasy little punk. No, it would only be
YOUR call if you and your vehicle were the ONLY person and vehicle
on the face of the earth. As long as there is even a remote
possibility of ANY other person or ANY other vehicle around, it is
YOUR responsibility to make your vehicle as visible as it is
capable of being. Assholes with YOUR pathetic attitudes are
responsible for a LOT of accidents.

[Sharx3335]

"Michael" <mrda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bf86579-a79b-46d4...@v38g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 18, 4:23 pm, "Sharx3335" <sharx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4ec6e660$0$1724$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>
>> > On 11/18/2011 4:31 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> >> In article<4ec54e67$0$1706$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
>> >> SMS<scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> It should be illegal
>> >>> to not have a way to turn off DRLs.
>>
>> >> Why?
>>
>> > Because there is often a need to turn them off. They also
>> > contribute to accidents.
>>
>> Bull fucking shit. There is seldom a VALID need to turn them
>> off.
>> When you exit the vehicle, engine turned off, is a valid time,
>> though.
>
>
> Increased fuel usage, contributing to carbon dioxide emissions,
> and
> CLIMATE CHANGE?

Fucking bullshit. Having lights on costs but a few pennies a year.
GET A FUCKING LIFE.

[Sharx3335]

"NWW" <1...@456.com> wrote in message
news:123-AA8BA5.1...@pppoe-94.136.209.74.ttel.ru...

THe NEXT time you read that study, put on your fucking glasses and
read for fucking comprehension...for a change.

[Clive]

In message <elmop-15680E....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Elmo P. Shagnasty <el...@nastydesigns.com> writes
>So it's a decision by the manufacturer whether or not to include DRLs,
>just like any other feature.
In the EU. All cars type tested after Feb 2011 must have DRLs.
--
Clive

[micky]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 17:26:56 +0000, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Yeah, but the EU prohibits ugly carrots and bananas with too much
curve. And they just declaredthe water was not a remedy for
dehydration.

[Michael]

On Nov 19, 6:22 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
wrote:
> In article <ja77ic$uf...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>

> wrote:
>
> > Lets see I have a 29 Ford, a 54 Chevy, a 63 VW not one has DLRL.
>

> And none has seat belts, either.  Your point?
>
> Oh--if your point is that "I've never had an accident and therefore I
> don't need that particular feature," you sound like the idiot you are.
>
> In high school I dated a girl whose family never used seat belts--and in
> fact swore AGAINST them.  Why?  Because one time in an old 60-something
> Chevy mom and dad were in an accident where the steering wheel got
> forced backwards and impaled the front seatback.  And boy, if dad had
> been wearing a seat belt, he wouldn't have been able to scoot over on
> that bench seat and get out of the way, and he woulda been KILT.


But... was she cute? =)

[Michael]

On Nov 19, 2:31 am, dbu'' <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <9bf86579-a79b-46d4-aa64-9e1ab610f...@v38g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

> >http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/drl-gas-co...

> > 1.htm
>
> > Just trying to help.  :)
>

> They could eliminate ethanol, that will save 10 percent in gas milage.
> --


(grin)

Would probably make weed whackers last longer too =)

[SMS]

On 11/19/2011 6:17 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> So the original claim of "dim lights when approaching" is NOW being
> changed to "parking lights only".

No, it never changed. There are several places where you can only use
parking lights.

> Now let me ask you this: if the car is equipped with DRLs, does that
> mean the gate MPs will haul you off to federal prison for not complying
> with this particular sign?

No. They will simply not let you enter the base, or make you leave if
you do not comply.

> But the claim on the table is "causes accidents".

That's true. It does cause some accidents, prevents other accidents. Not
hard to understand why.

It's hard to understand why anyone would be against DRLs that can be
turned off when necessary. Thankfully, Toyota realized the error of
their ways, and new Toyotas are designed lake that. On our 2007 Camry,
DRLs are selectable. On my 2001 4Runner they are not, and I had to
disable them by cutting a wire. I could have put a switch in instead,
allowing the DRLs to be turned on or off. But there's an amazing concept
called "turning on your lights when lights are needed."

It would be quite simple to design a DRL system that turned DRLs on by
default, but had the option of letting the driver temporarily turn them
off when necessary.

What's needed is for a standard to be established that specifies how
DRLs and headlights are to be implemented.

1. Headlights and tail lights, not DRLs, are automatically turned on at
times of low visibility (rain, fog, darkness), once the vehicle is first
started and begins moving.

2. DRLs are automatically turned on at times of normal visibility
(daylight hours with no impaired visibility)

3. DRLs can be manually switched off, but will turn back on when the
vehicle is re-started. Even making it so they can only be turned off at
low speeds might be okay.

[NM5K]

On 11/20/2011 12:02 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<4ec93c6e$0$1692$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

> SMS<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Now let me ask you this: if the car is equipped with DRLs, does that
>>> mean the gate MPs will haul you off to federal prison for not complying
>>> with this particular sign?
>>
>> No. They will simply not let you enter the base, or make you leave if
>> you do not comply.
>

> Bullshit.

I don't know why you would say that. I've heard of this rule
many times, from many different sources.
Myself, I think the reason is so the guards are not blinded
by the head lights, and can more easily see who is in the car.
I also don't see what the big deal is about having a switch
to turn them off. I wish I had one, even though I do use the
lights in the daytime as normal.
Why? Because quite often when I'm up in the country, I wish
to run the car, and not have the lights come on. The only
way I can do that if the engine is already running, is to turn the
ignition off, pull the emergency brake, and restart the car.
It would be much easier not to have to kill the engine in
order to turn off a set of lights. They did the right thing
on the newer models by providing a switch as far as I'm concerned.
Not everyone needs a light nanny at all times. :/

[SMS]

On 11/20/2011 11:25 AM, NM5K wrote:

> I don't know why you would say that. I've heard of this rule
> many times, from many different sources.

It's not even a debate. If you've ever driven onto a military base at
night you are at least required to turn off your lights as you approach
the entry station, for obvious reasons.

It's really no big deal. DRLs are not required in the U.S.. A dealer
will disable them, usually for free, sometimes for a small charge. On
newer vehicles they've fixed the problem with a thing called a switch.

[Michael]

On Nov 20, 3:19 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <089eb082-acdb-4ab8-a8f4-e09507e0a...@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  Michael <mrdarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In high school I dated a girl whose family never used seat belts--and in
> > > fact swore AGAINST them.  Why?  Because one time in an old 60-something
> > > Chevy mom and dad were in an accident where the steering wheel got
> > > forced backwards and impaled the front seatback.  And boy, if dad had
> > > been wearing a seat belt, he wouldn't have been able to scoot over on
> > > that bench seat and get out of the way, and he woulda been KILT.
>
> > But... was she cute?  =)
>

> damn skippy she was.


There does seem to be an inverse correlation between good looks and
brainpower in general, eh!

[NM5K]

On 11/20/2011 1:53 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 11:25 AM, NM5K wrote:
>
>> I don't know why you would say that. I've heard of this rule
>> many times, from many different sources.
>
> It's not even a debate. If you've ever driven onto a military base at
> night you are at least required to turn off your lights as you approach
> the entry station, for obvious reasons.

I know that for a fact from hearing many different people who have
to follow this rule when entering bases. It's probably the #1
reason many want a switch to be able to turn them off.
I don't see why some have a problem comprehending this issue,
but instead try to blame it on Bigfoot, UFO's, or the availability
of an anal probe. :|

>
> It's really no big deal. DRLs are not required in the U.S.. A dealer
> will disable them, usually for free, sometimes for a small charge. On
> newer vehicles they've fixed the problem with a thing called a switch.
>

I could easily do it myself if I felt so compelled.. :/

[Michael]

A thing called a switch... no way!

XD

[SMS]

On 11/20/2011 12:12 PM, NM5K wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 1:53 PM, SMS wrote:
>> On 11/20/2011 11:25 AM, NM5K wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know why you would say that. I've heard of this rule
>>> many times, from many different sources.
>>
>> It's not even a debate. If you've ever driven onto a military base at
>> night you are at least required to turn off your lights as you approach
>> the entry station, for obvious reasons.
>
> I know that for a fact from hearing many different people who have
> to follow this rule when entering bases. It's probably the #1
> reason many want a switch to be able to turn them off.
> I don't see why some have a problem comprehending this issue,
> but instead try to blame it on Bigfoot, UFO's, or the availability
> of an anal probe. :|

It's amazing to watch the DRL debates, but it's not difficult to see
where some people are coming from.

Until I purchased a vehicle with DRLs, in January 2001, I thought that
DRLs were the greatest thing since sliced bread. I would shake my head
in knowing bewilderment whenever I read a Usenet post from some idiot
who wanted to disconnect their DRLs. I tried to find a way to add DRLs
to my older 1997 Honda CR-V by trying to find out how Canadian CR-Vs
were wired. After all, what could possible be bad about such a wonderful
safety feature that prevents millions (or is it billions) of accidents
each year? How could the Volvo-driving yuppie scum be wrong?

It's sad that the people who are so pro-DRL feel the necessity to lie,
are unable to engage in critical thinking, and are unable to look at the
big picture. They are simply so convinced that they are right, and
everyone else is wrong, that they have closed their eyes to the facts.

[SMS]

On 11/21/2011 7:33 AM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:

> Facts are they save lives. It's why there's a law in most states that
> motorcycles must have their headlights on at all times. Just an extra
> second can save a life.

That's the problem, there is no evidence that they save lives. While
they may reduce certain types of crashes, the side effects of poorly
designed DRLs cause other crashes. After thousands of complaints about
glare, the NHTSA has proposed that the European standard for DRL
brightness be adopted.

The worst thing about the implementation of DRLs is something I witness
on a frequent basis. Driving down the freeway, not only at night, but
often in fog or rain I'll make out the silhouette of a vehicle with no
tail lights on. Almost 100% of the time the vehicle will have their DRLs
on and the driver is blissfully unaware that they have only their
headlights on. The DRLs are bright enough that they mistakenly believe
that their lights are on. At least at night they used to have a clue
because their dash lights would not be on, yet that isn't even the case
any more with many of the LCD instrumentation systems.

It would be trivial for the automakers to include an automated system
that turned DRLs on in clear daylight, and turned on headlights and
taillights in darkness, fog, or rain, and that allowed DRLs to be
temporarily deactivated for the times they are inappropriate.

[Jeff Strickland]

"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4eca7822$0$1717$742e...@news.sonic.net...

In 1980, I owned a brand new Yamaha XS1100. When the engine started, the
headlights came on. Indeed, the ENTIRE lighting system was activated. Cars
should do this.

DRLs are a "false economy" (for lack of a better term at the moment). I
fully support the idea that lights in daytime are good, but DRLs miss the
mark for precisely the reasons SMS is talking about, they don't do enough
and what they do do leads to mistakes by the vehicle operators -- they give
the impression that the headlights are on when they are not, such as in fog
or rain. I once had a rental car in the early days of DRLs, and I drove the
car during "light challenged periods" thinking the headlights were on. I
don't recall the specifics, but the point is that there are in fact drivers
driving around with the DRLs, and nobody can see them except those
immediately in front.

If the nanny state wants to hold hands and save everybody from everybody
else, then turn the f---ing lights on all of the way around the car all of
the time. If the engine is running, the lights should be on.

The operator gets to choose from the following two options, high beam or low
beam. (If there are fog or driving lights,then the operator gets to choose
between off and on for these, but the main lighting should all be on if the
engine is running.) Period.

[Jeff Strickland]

"NWW" <spud...@gmale.not.com> wrote in message
news:spudman27-311F8...@adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.sbcglobal.net...
>
> Is there a way to disable the lights other than cutting the wire as
> indicated in the Toyota forums? Kinda figured there might be a special
> / oddball combo of switches etc that would do it.
>
> TIA - Nate

Late to the party, I know...

Why would anybody want to disable DRLs? There is no upside to disabling
them, and no downside to having them. You don't fix anything by making them
go off, and you don't hurt anything when they come on.

Granted, you don't hurt anything by having them off, nor do you fix anything
when they are on, but why try to reinvent the wheel when it goes round and
round just fine the way it is?

Have you tried removing the DRL Relay? This should do the trick without
upsetting any other function.

[Michael]

You raise some excellent points. I wonder how a fog or rain detector
would work, though? For rain, I guess... IF (windshield_wipers = ON
for > 1 minute) THEN activate_tail_lights() ?

Fog detector... hmm... I'm out of ideas. =)

[Jeff Strickland]

"croy" <ha...@spam.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:oui8c7p9s27i2lnrq...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:19:01 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why the fuck do you care? Get in the car and drive. You never see the
>>lights, they don't intrude on anything you do in or with the car.
>
>
> If someone works at a place that has a guard gate staffed by
> armed guards, and a large sign at the kiosk states: "Dim
> Lights!" (like a defense plant), then you'd damn-sure want
> to turn off those headlights when approaching that kiosk!
>
> --
> croy

So, turn the lights off.

The DRLs operate at low power, which makes them as dim as you get. The gate
guard will get over it, he/she sees hundreds of sets of DRLs everyday. They
are trained to not shoot unless the lights are coming straight at them, stay
on your side of the road and they will be okay with your DRLs.

[Jeff Strickland]

"Michael" <mrda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46351826-623f-4e37...@c16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I want to become a target of Occupy <insert name here> with my invention
that turns the lights on when the wipers are on. In my state, this is
required by law -- a new law that most don't know about and the judge gets
to levy huge fines when he enforces the ticket. If the weather is so crappy
that you need your wipers on, then you also need your lights on. I'm
designing a device that when it sees the wopers running, it makes the lights
come on if they are not on already.

I'll become fabulously wealthy on the backs of the little people, both the
consumer and the poor children in China that work in the plant that makes my
device.

Occupy will see me as the devil incarnate and demand I give my stuff away
for free, but all I'm doing is filling a void in the market that did not
exist until government reared its ugly head.

Sadly, I can not make my stuff here because government regulations make the
venture prohibitively expensive, but China is chomping at the bit to get the
contract to churn my stuff out. I cannot hire Americans to build my stuff
because there are just too many regulations imposed by the government.

Isn't it ironic that Occupy sees government as the cure to all that makes us
ill, and I see government as the cancer that causes me to go to the doctor?

[Michael]

On Nov 21, 9:29 am, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Michael" <mrdarr...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I think SMS beat you to the patent xD

Just set up shop in a non-Right To Work State and you're good. :)

Oh that reminds me! At the local sporting goods shop, the salesman
said they sold a lot of rifles in October, and he's not sure why.
"For the November elections?" I suggested. We had a good laugh. =)

[Michael]

OOPS, set up shop IN a Right To Work State and you're good.

Monday morning. Sorry about that. =)

[NM5K]

Mine does.. It's totally automatic, and I never actually touch my
light switch.. I think all cars that have DRL's, should also have
automatic lights with sensors.
Mine will switch to full lights in the twilight, well before it
gets dark. Pull into a parking garage, lights come on.. Big bad
storm clouds crop up and it almost gets dark, my lights may well come
on.. Drive under an overpass and wait for a traffic light..
Lights often come on. It's so easy, even liberals who see black
helicopters could use it. :)
And this is a Corolla.. Not exactly the top of the line.. So if they
can put them in Corollas, they should be able to put them in any car.
I want mine on in the daytime, even though they do add extra "hazing"
damage to my clear pseudo glass that covers the bulbs..
I'm in a dinky car that is basically a death trap if hit by many cars.
So I want every bit of notification to other drivers as I can get.
Mainly when coming through intersections, etc.. The more I can stick
out, the better. Have you ever seen what a F-250 does to a Corolla
when it T-bones one at an intersection? It ain't purty, or for the
faint of heart.. :/
So I have no plans to disable them. But being able to turn them off
in special cases would be handy. I'm just glad that at least I can kill
them with the emergency brake.. That way I can run my car at night
to charge batteries, and not have to light up 3 acres of woods in
front of me in the process.
BTW, on mine, the DRL is the low beam bulb at a slightly reduced
output. It doesn't use the high beam side. My inner high beams are like
aircraft landing lights.. Really freakin bright for stock bulbs..
But like I say, being as the low beam side is always on, I do get the
clear cover crazing.. And it gets a bit worse every year. "it's a 2005"
I'm not sure what I can do about that as it seems the bulk of the
damage is on the inside of the clear cover where it's not convenient
to polish out. :(

[NM5K]

On 11/21/2011 11:17 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:

>
> The DRLs operate at low power, which makes them as dim as you get. The
> gate guard will get over it, he/she sees hundreds of sets of DRLs
> everyday. They are trained to not shoot unless the lights are coming
> straight at them, stay on your side of the road and they will be okay
> with your DRLs.
>
>
>
>

Mine are not that dim.. They are just slightly dimmer than the
regular lights.. At night, you would be hard pressed to tell the
difference.

[Michael]

On Nov 21, 9:47 am, Gary L. Burnore <gburn...@databasix.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:42:53 -0800 (PST), Michael

> Yeah, that way you can fire your employees at will just like the other
> big companies do.
>
> Yet rethugs support this.  go figure.
>
> Oh, and neener on Monday Morning.  I'm on vacation ;)


Not just rethugs. I got fired as a busboy when I worked at a Chinese
restaurant when I was younger, because I wanted to wash my hands
before putting out the clean dishes. "No that wastes time. Use a
towel." "No I want to wash my hands." "Ok you're fired."

This was in California.

At-will employment. I never thought to join a union when I was 19,
working as a busboy.

Oh well.

Michael

[SMS]

On 11/21/2011 9:06 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:

> If the nanny state wants to hold hands and save everybody from everybody
> else, then turn the f---ing lights on all of the way around the car all
> of the time. If the engine is running, the lights should be on.

As long as we're going the nanny-state route, just do an automated
system. Sensors are not expensive. Moisture sensors, temperature
sensors, and light sensors could be used to determine appropriate
conditions for each type of lighting, DRLs, headlights, fog lights, etc.
For about the cost on one wheel's TPMS you could do proper lighting
automation.

[SMS]

On 11/21/2011 11:05 AM, NM5K wrote:

> Mine are not that dim.. They are just slightly dimmer than the
> regular lights.. At night, you would be hard pressed to tell the
> difference.

It depends on the automaker and their design. Some use separate lamps.
Some use the high beams at reduced brightness.

On many vehicles, when you turn on your regular lights you notice the
difference between DRLs and low beams, but when just the DRLs are on
apparently a great many people don't realize it. That's why you see so
many people driving at night with only their DRLs on, and with no tail
lights. If they had no DRLs then they would turn on their headlights.

If we're going to have a nanny state with DRLs, then we need to take the
next step and implement automatic lighting based on conditions, because
of the problems with current DRL systems:

1. Daylight in clear weather: DRLs (with the option to temporarily turn
them off when necessary)
2. Daylight with precipitation or fog: Low beams
3. Fog (day or night): Low beams plus fog lights
4. Night in clear weather: Low beams

Well one thing this thread shows is that a great many people lack even
the most basic critical thinking skills. Someone tells them that DRLs
save lives, and they just accept it without even the slightest attempt
at learning anything.

[SMS]

Our newer Camry works like that as well. But many vehicles, including
many Toyotas from the 2000-2003 era, came with DRLs as standard
equipment, do not work like that. The 2007 we have also allows you to
turn off the DRLs completely when necessary.

> I want mine on in the daytime, even though they do add extra "hazing"
> damage to my clear pseudo glass that covers the bulbs.

I don't think that that's glass!

> BTW, on mine, the DRL is the low beam bulb at a slightly reduced
> output. It doesn't use the high beam side.

That's better than what many GM cars do!

> My inner high beams are like
> aircraft landing lights.. Really freakin bright for stock bulbs..
> But like I say, being as the low beam side is always on, I do get the
> clear cover crazing.. And it gets a bit worse every year. "it's a 2005"
> I'm not sure what I can do about that as it seems the bulk of the
> damage is on the inside of the clear cover where it's not convenient
> to polish out. :(

You have to buy new covers. Not cheap, but they are available
after-market. I think it's more a function of time than of light.

In any case, to have headlights on in the daytime be considered a safety
feature, they need to be turned on when conditions warrant. Two lane
roads, poor conditions, etc.. Those of us that learned to drive in the
20th century remember when you saw someone coming toward you with their
lights on in the daytime and it actually meant something, such as rain,
an accident, or a dangerous situation.

For those that want to learn more about DRLs, there are some good web sites:

<http://www.headlight-reform.org/>
<nordicgroup.us/drl>
<http://www.lightsout.org/>

[Michael]

Interesting reading.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2008-0153-0004
(Click on View Attachment: PDF to get the meat.)

Thanks for the reminder to do our own research. :)

Michael

[Jeff Strickland]

"NM5K" <no...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:jae7f8$r39$2...@dont-email.me...

If the guards give you crap about it, then take the car to the dealership to
be "re-educated". In the mean time, forget about it. You car has the latest
in safety equipment, it helps you and it helps me.

The idea is that if I see you, I won't pull into your path. If I don't pull
into your path, you benefit. Your DRLs are not as bright as you think they
are, the gate guard is fine. I agree that it would be nice for him or her to
not have to look at them, but all they _really_ want is that you do not pull
up to the guard shack with the high beams blasting.

[Sharx3335]

"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message

news:4eca6949$0$1717$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> On 11/20/2011 12:12 PM, NM5K wrote:
>> On 11/20/2011 1:53 PM, SMS wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2011 11:25 AM, NM5K wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know why you would say that. I've heard of this rule
>>>> many times, from many different sources.
>>>
>>> It's not even a debate. If you've ever driven onto a military
>>> base at
>>> night you are at least required to turn off your lights as you
>>> approach
>>> the entry station, for obvious reasons.
>>
>> I know that for a fact from hearing many different people who
>> have
>> to follow this rule when entering bases. It's probably the #1
>> reason many want a switch to be able to turn them off.
>> I don't see why some have a problem comprehending this issue,
>> but instead try to blame it on Bigfoot, UFO's, or the
>> availability
>> of an anal probe. :|
>
> It's amazing to watch the DRL debates, but it's not difficult to
> see where some people are coming from.
>
> Until I purchased a vehicle with DRLs, in January 2001, I thought
> that DRLs were the greatest thing since sliced bread. I would
> shake my head in knowing bewilderment whenever I read a Usenet
> post from some idiot who wanted to disconnect their DRLs. I tried
> to find a way to add DRLs to my older 1997 Honda CR-V by trying
> to find out how Canadian CR-Vs were wired. After all, what could
> possible be bad about such a wonderful safety feature that
> prevents millions (or is it billions) of accidents each year? How
> could the Volvo-driving yuppie scum be wrong?
>
> It's sad that the people who are so pro-DRL feel the necessity to
> lie, are unable to engage in critical thinking, and are unable to
> look at the big picture. They are simply so convinced that they
> are right, and everyone else is wrong, that they have closed
> their eyes to the facts.

ONLY criminals want to make their vehicle LESS visible plus those
who want to set up a bogus accident claim when someone hits their
almost invisible car. E.g. those silver colored vehicles are almost
invisible when oncoming on an asphalt highway, UNLESS they have
DRLs or headlights on.

With MILLIONS of vehicles on the road with automatic DRL's, rest
assured that 99% of military personnel manning the gates REALIZE
full well that these lights can't be turned off unless the vehicle
is also turned off.

Give your head a shake: there is NO defensible reason for not using
DRL's.

[Sharx3335]

"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message

news:4eca7822$0$1717$742e...@news.sonic.net...

Bullshit. In an IDEAL world, everyone would drive with ALL their
lights on, all the time. However, in this less than perfect world,
better they have at least SOME lights on, e.g. front DRL's. Head-on
collisions are far more lethal than rear-enders.

[Sharx3335]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jae0f5$a0k$1...@dont-email.me...

Ideally, yes, ALL lights should be on. However, in this less than
ideal world, front DRL's are better than nothing.




















>
>

[Sharx3335]

"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message

news:4ecab018$0$1695$742e...@news.sonic.net...

Agreed, however IN THE MEANTIME, do NOT fuck around with OEM
DRL's!!! Let them operate according to the factory installed
specs. No doubt one could pick apart various flaws in seat belts
but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't use them.

[NM5K]

On 11/21/2011 5:50 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:

>>
>> Mine are not that dim.. They are just slightly dimmer than the
>> regular lights.. At night, you would be hard pressed to tell the
>> difference.
>
> If the guards give you crap about it, then take the car to the
> dealership to be "re-educated". In the mean time, forget about it. You
> car has the latest in safety equipment, it helps you and it helps me.

I don't go to military bases.

>
> The idea is that if I see you, I won't pull into your path. If I don't
> pull into your path, you benefit. Your DRLs are not as bright as you
> think they are, the gate guard is fine. I agree that it would be nice
> for him or her to not have to look at them, but all they _really_ want
> is that you do not pull up to the guard shack with the high beams blasting.

I know exactly how bright my day lights are. I just checked them again
last night after reading this thread. They dim only slightly in the
daytime. At night, they would pass as regular headlights to most people.
Military guards generally want to see parking/marker lights only.
They don't want to see any sealed beam, or other type headlights
if they have a sign posted requesting you turn them off. They may
cut some people slack about it, if there is little they can do to
turn them off, but I bet they don't like them.
If I had to enter a base with a sign posted, I would stop, pull
the brake, restart, and then let off the brake just enough to
release the brakes enough to drive slowly, but still be up enough to
keep the lights off.

[Jeff Strickland]

"Sharx3335" <shar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jaesmd$ie1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

That's like saying that getting half way across the street is better than
standing on the sidewalk all afternoon because the light cycle doesn't last
long enough to make it. They know how to make a light last long enough to
get all of the way there. They know how to make the lights do the full job.

They created DRL at least 15 years AFTER I had a motorcycle that turned on
all of the lights after the engine started. Why make a lighting system that
does less than half the job when you already know how to make one that does
all of the job?

[Jeff Strickland]

"NM5K" <no...@invalid.net> wrote in message

news:jaevgd$p6p$1...@dont-email.me...

WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT MILITARY GUARDS MIGHT NOT LIKE? YOU DON'T GO TO
MILITARY BASES. SHEESH!

You, sir, are a danger to society if you are gonna stop and kill the engine
just so the lights turn off. If I was a gate guard, I'd open fire with fully
automatic weapons and fill your car full of holes because you look just like
a terrorist attack. Sheesh!

Do you have any idea about the actual design of your headlights? They do not
shine above about 2 feet from the ground. A guard standing his post is gonna
be about 6ft tall, that puts him more than 3ft above the beam.

[Jeff Strickland]

"Gary L. Burnore" <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:jae27d$lhq$5...@nntpd.databasix.com...

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:42:53 -0800 (PST), Michael
> <mrda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 21, 9:37 am, Michael <mrdarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 9:29 am, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "Michael" <mrdarr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >news:46351826-623f-4e37...@c16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>> > On Nov 21, 8:11 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>

If you are the kind of worker that needs to be protected, then you should
not have a job. Period.

I go in, I do my work better than the next guy, I don't need an arbitrator
standing between me and my boss. If you fear the loss of your job, then you
probably need to lose it.