disabling the daytime driving lights
badgolferman
Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of course I
want the rest of the headlight system to work.
I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
anymore.
--
No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.
Allen L.
badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> typed:
> Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a
> 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of
> course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
>
> I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
> annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
> anymore.
I *just* asked the same of my Toyota dealer about my new 4 runner as it
states in the manual that it can be done by the dealer. The dealer told me
that it was not as simple as removing a fuse...they needed to rewire some
things, etc. because by removing the fuse you would not have lights. Said it
would cost about $180 or so. That was the end of if for me :-)
...Allen
TeGGer®
news:xn0dzo6yy...@news.individual.net:
> Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a 2000
> Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of course I
> want the rest of the headlight system to work.
>
It's an easy fix.
Do you feel like subscribing to this Yahoo group?
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Toyotas_Only/
In the Files section you will find two methods of disabling the DRLs. One
involves cutting a wire and redirecting another, and the other involves
changes inside the DRL relay itelf. All the DRL relays are the same, but
its location may vary between models.
I've done it to our Tercel, using the relay modification procedure.
Apparently US dealers have a TSB (EL011-00) describing the procedure, so
they know already how to do it. That TSB is also in the Files section of
the Yahoo group.
Good luck.
--
TeGGeR®
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a 2000
>Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of course I
>want the rest of the headlight system to work.
>
>I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
>annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
>anymore.
IMHO:
Disabling/defeating any safety device exposes yourself to servere
litigation issues. Now you might think, wtf I own nothing, but
imagine having any property you come into ownership leans against, and
having your wages/pension/retirement garnished 10% till your
multimillion lawsuit is paid off. I wouldn't do it.
Right now I wouldn't be surprised a few lawyers are drooling now
reading this post. :-P
Some might be telling you how to do it. ;)
later,
tom @ www.MedicalJobList.com
Allen L.
> <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a
>> 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of
>> course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
>>
>> I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
>> annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
>> anymore.
>
>
The Real Tom <Tom @ www.WorkAtHomePlans.com> typed:
> IMHO:
>
> Disabling/defeating any safety device exposes yourself to servere
> litigation issues. Now you might think, wtf I own nothing, but
> imagine having any property you come into ownership leans against, and
> having your wages/pension/retirement garnished 10% till your
> multimillion lawsuit is paid off. I wouldn't do it.
>
> Right now I wouldn't be surprised a few lawyers are drooling now
> reading this post. :-P
>
> Some might be telling you how to do it. ;)
>
> later,
>
> tom @ www.MedicalJobList.com
What about in states that don't require you to have them? But, in agreement
with you, I 'had' a Cadillac and wanted them disabled here in Texas, and the
dealer said they couldn't *because* they were a 'safety' feature. So your
statement could be interpreted either way, I presume...by lawyers!!
...Allen
Gord Beaman
Damned right...in these litigation happy times you're asking for
it when you deliberately defeat a safety device.
Imagine some sharp lawyer explaining to a sympathetic judge that
this bad young pup who hates DRL's and thinks he doesn't need
them because his eyesight is better than superman's (and
everyone's should be too else they shouldn't be driving)
I cannot believe why anyone would deliberately defeat DRL's...how
fricking stupid can you get?..
--
-Gord.
(use gordon in email)
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
wrote:
I know I opening myself for flames, but lawyers aren't the problem,
and don't scare me as much as the 6 average citizens who do the actual
awarding, nuts in most big cases.
One story I heard, a woman as award(here you see from people) by a
jury a large sum of money for an injury she sustained in a furnature
store. She tripped over an out of control child while she was
checking out the furnature. The kicker,,,,, it was her kid.
Juriors should have some common sense test, but common sense isn't
common.
Purely in my humble option,
tom
Leonard
dash to disable the DRLs when needed. It is a part of the police
package. Sometimes we (the police) have a need to drive short
distances with no lights or sit watching locations with engine running
and lights off.
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:14:25 GMT, Gord Beaman <go...@islandtelecom.com>
wrote:
Philip
Tom: Please cite the law you claim "exposes yourself to severe litigation
issues".
Considering fewer and fewer vehicles are DRL equipped, so equipping one
vehicle and not the next is a policy of sorts.
--
- Philip
Philip
How stupid? Got any mirrors in your house?
--
- Philip
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
>In article <CfZYd.3633$bh2....@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
>yea, and what about when my vehicle came without DRL and I found a way
>to enable the feature then decided I did not want it enabled so I
>disabled it, am I putting myself in legal jeopardy?
>
I am not a lawyer.
Just saying to the typical jurior(person), could see disabling a
factory installed safety device as a step that put others in danger.
No in your case, they would have to know that you first made your car
'safer' and then made it more 'unsafe' for it to ever be an issue.
:-P
tom
>"Stupid is as stupid does" Forrest Gump
Tercel Owner
badgolferman wrote:
> Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a 2000
> Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of course I
> want the rest of the headlight system to work.
>
> I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
> annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
> anymore.
???
Isn't it the very old cars that don't have'em?
Just curious, how can DRL annoy the driver? They are visible to drivers
of /other/ vehicles.
Tercel Owner
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
wrote:
>The Real Tom <Tom @ www.WorkAtHomePlans.com> wrote:
Well, no expert, but DRL are so others can see you.
Quick story. A friend of mine was driving down the road, and an old
lady pulled out of a parking lot and hit him. The cops showed up, and
the lady said my friend had no lights on, and it was dusk(it was
already sunset by the time got there), my friend faught that it was
still daylight when the accident happened. The cop wrote down the
statement, and the observation my friends lights were out. (His car
was currently parked, and the time of the report(now after sunset),
and it later bit my friend. He was found at fault by his insurance
carrier. Although no court case, both drivers had the same insurance
carrier, without collision, he would have been totally responsible for
the repair of his car.
IMHO: Don't mess around with factory installed safety devices.
;)
tom
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
<1chip-...@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>The Real Tom wrote:
>> On 12 Mar 2005 23:02:14 GMT, "badgolferman"
>> <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a
>>> 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of
>>> course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
>>>
>>> I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
>>> annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
>>> anymore.
>>
>>
>> IMHO:
>>
>> Disabling/defeating any safety device exposes yourself to servere
>> litigation issues. Now you might think, wtf I own nothing, but
>> imagine having any property you come into ownership leans against, and
>> having your wages/pension/retirement garnished 10% till your
>> multimillion lawsuit is paid off. I wouldn't do it.
>>
>> Right now I wouldn't be surprised a few lawyers are drooling now
>> reading this post. :-P
>>
>> Some might be telling you how to do it. ;)
>>
>> later,
>>
>> tom @ www.MedicalJobList.com
>
>
>Tom: Please cite the law you claim "exposes yourself to severe litigation
>issues".
I'm sure you're old enough to know the law has almost nothing to do
with civil cases. Breaking of laws just speed up the settling period.
:-P
tom, not a lawyer!
Philip
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:13:14 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-...@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>> Tom: Please cite the law you claim "exposes yourself to severe
>> Considering fewer and fewer vehicles are DRL equipped, so equipping
>> one vehicle and not the next is a policy of sorts.
>
> I'm sure you're old enough to know the law has almost nothing to do
> with civil cases. Breaking of laws just speed up the settling period.
> :-P
>
> tom, not a lawyer!
CITE THE LAW you say exists.
--
- Philip
Philip
Tom. One minute you say a law exists, the next minute you say you are "not
a laywer", and the next minute you're interpreting law that whose existance
has yet to be revealed. And now you're a self proclaimed safety expert too?
Just keeping track, Tom.
--
- Philip
Philip
There is NO uniform law requiring DRLs on any catagory of passenger car or
truck. All you have to do is look around.
--
- Philip
ma_twain
Interesting story, what state was this? I was involved in a similar
accident -with two changes. I was pulling out of a side street and it
was late in the night, well past dusk. All the other cars had
headlights on. I look left/right and then left again - no headlights
coming. I pull out and a car running at night without any lights hits
me. This went to court and the judge said I took the right away from
the the other car on the road. The fact that he did not have any lights
on at night did not matter. This is Virginia. The same set of traffic
laws states that you can lose your license if you turn off your lights
to avoid being detected or caught by the police. Who says logic applies,
it is your right to drive down a main road at night without lights and
anyone you hit, its their fault - unless you happen to be trying to
avoid detection by the police, in which case you lose your license.
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
Sorry I don't recall saying there was a law.
>a laywer", and the next minute you're interpreting law that whose existance
>has yet to be revealed. And now you're a self proclaimed safety expert too?
Still didn't say there was a law, saying that disabling a car's safety
features could result in some littigation issues. IMHO.
>Just keeping track, Tom.
If you say so...
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
wrote:
The accident was in NJ.
If it wasn't how weird it was I wouldn't have remembered being told
it.
>accident -with two changes. I was pulling out of a side street and it
>was late in the night, well past dusk. All the other cars had
>headlights on. I look left/right and then left again - no headlights
>coming. I pull out and a car running at night without any lights hits
>me. This went to court and the judge said I took the right away from
>the the other car on the road. The fact that he did not have any lights
>on at night did not matter. This is Virginia. The same set of traffic
>laws states that you can lose your license if you turn off your lights
>to avoid being detected or caught by the police. Who says logic applies,
>it is your right to drive down a main road at night without lights and
>anyone you hit, its their fault - unless you happen to be trying to
>avoid detection by the police, in which case you lose your license.
tom
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
I never said there was a specific law about DRL.
As far as my commment about laws in general, you can formulate from
news reports that even when you haven't broken specific laws, you can
find jury's awarding judgements against you.
tom
Garys2
> There is NO uniform law requiring DRLs on any catagory of passenger car or
> truck. All you have to do is look around.
Nor is there any science to suggest that they make anything safer. I
think Canada requires them, but the US doesn't. Chevy started to offer
them, and they are an option on some Toyotas, but that's about it. I
don't think any of the other manufacturers offer them, but I'm not sure.
They were optional on the 2001 Tundra, but not required. My daughter's
99 Camry has them, my 2001 Tundra, my son's 2000 Tacoma, and my wife's
2002 Rav 4 don't.
Someone would have to prove that they are effective safety devices AND
that their removal was the cause of injury or damage to prevail in a law
suit.
Not legal advice, just my opinion.
Gary
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
wrote:
>The Real Tom wrote:
Well there is a difference in your stories, my friend's only involved
the police taking an accident report. I don't recall if he was cited,
just that he recieved a letter stating he was found to be at fault(if
that means he's responsible totally or 51% no clue) by his insurance
carrier. He never said there was a judge involved like your story.
tom
Richard
"Garys2" <Gar...@ILUVSPAM.COM> wrote in message
news:7IydneW3l_w...@comcast.com...
In Northern Europe studies showed a 15% reduction in accidents. But
remember, Northern Europe has long winters and very short days in the
winter, and the DLR's mandated there did not allow the use of amber turn
lights or high beams with reduced output; only a dedicated white front DLR.
What the US and Canada allow is not the same and I have seen no safety study
to support what was visited upon us; mostly glare and confussion.
Richard.
Charles Pisano
Mike...@mailcity.com
DRLs can KILL you, particularly at dusk and dawn or if you drive
a motorcycle. The conclusions of the US Senate, based on reports
from the Engineering departments of several universities on their
rejection of making DRLs required standard equipment in the US,
was that the dangers created by DRLs outweigh any advantage the
may produce. If one needs his vehicle to more visible during
daylight hours they can simply turn on their headlamps to safely
and properly illuminate their vehicle to others.
Personally I believe the dangerous disadvantages of DRLs could be
overcome if they simply went with full headlamps but others say
that dilutes the effectiveness of motorcycle headlamps. Perhaps
if they used a distinct color, something like green, in the front
that would distinguish DRLs from headlamps
mike hunt
Mike...@mailcity.com
has a GM policy for dealers not to negate them for owners. I have
driven many GM rental car on which the rental car company had
disabled the DRLs. I just had a LeSabre for three weeks in Key
West like that, I guess they don't want their cars out of service
from a DRL related collision at sunset.
In the US, NO state can require DRLs, and since DRLs are not
required by the NHTSA YOU can disable them as you wish, without
legal or civil penalty. Anybody who tries to tell tell you
differently is BS you or stating an opinion not fact.
mike hunt
"Allen L." wrote:
>
> > On 12 Mar 2005 23:02:14 GMT, "badgolferman"
> > <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a
> >> 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of
> >> course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
> >>
> >> I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
> >> annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
> >> anymore.
> >
> >
>
Mike...@mailcity.com
backing off the adjustment and covering the indicator light? ;)
mike hunt
"Allen L." wrote:
>
The dealer told me
> that it was not as simple as removing a fuse...they needed to rewire some
> things, etc. because by removing the fuse you would not have lights. Said it
> would cost about $180 or so. That was the end of if for me :-)
>
> ...Allen
Gord Beaman
snip
>
>No in your case, they would have to know that you first made your car
>'safer' and then made it more 'unsafe' for it to ever be an issue.
>:-P
>
>tom
>
wouldn't...
Gord Beaman
>The Chevrolet Impala I am assigned has a surveillance button on the
>dash to disable the DRLs when needed. It is a part of the police
>package. Sometimes we (the police) have a need to drive short
>distances with no lights or sit watching locations with engine running
>and lights off.
>
Of course Leonard...but that's hardly a typical install now is
it?
Gord Beaman
snip
>> I cannot believe why anyone would deliberately defeat DRL's...how
>> fricking stupid can you get?..
>
>How stupid? Got any mirrors in your house?
For a smart guy you can certainly say stupid things Philip...
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
wrote:
>The Real Tom <Tom @ www.WorkAtHomePlans.com> wrote:
> snip
>>
>>No in your case, they would have to know that you first made your car
>>'safer' and then made it more 'unsafe' for it to ever be an issue.
>>:-P
>>
>>tom
>>
>
>You wanna bet your lifetime financial health on that?...I sure
>wouldn't...
Oh that's why I was joking, I have a sting of luck where "when it's
raining, it's pouring" so if I was caught in the cross hairs of some
fancy lawyer, I'm guessing I would be doomed.
So no bet from me, just as you said no bet from you too. :)
tom
Garys2
> Perhaps you should research the US Congressional Record about how
> DRLs can KILL you, particularly at dusk and dawn or if you drive
> a motorcycle.
Interesting enough, the US military did somd experiments using lights as
a form of camoflage during the day. I forget the details, but bright
lights, even during the day can hide the objects that are behind them.
That's why some police officers turn on their headlights and take down
lights when they do traffic stops during the day. Something about the
way the brain processes bright lights.
Gary
Gord Beaman
ANSWER the GODDAMNED QUESTION Philip...(to quote yourself).
And I'll dispute your statement...there -is- indeed a law stating
that cars made after 1980(?) must be equipped with DRL's
(and I'll have the decency to add...in Canada)
Gord Beaman
Well Gary it's not difficult to prove that they're an effective
safety device at all...each one of the URL's below state that
it's so...anywhere from 7% to much higher. (I saw some 40%
mentioned)
Studies have been done all over, and they're mandatory in many
countries including Canada since 1989. It just boggles my mind
that people, supposedly smart people too (like Philip) would
speak against them. Mind you, he NEVER will justify his remarks
though.
http://www.yins.ns.ca/tips/tip11.htm
http://www.hamsar.com/drl.htm
http://www.pacificinsight.com/aftermarket/after.htm
http://autonet.ca/Parts/Systems/story.cfm?story=/Parts/Systems/2005/02/15/931908.html
http://alavigne.homeip.net/newHomePage/Motorsports/FeatureReports/S2000/DRL/index.jsp
http://www.innovation.gc.ca/gol/innovation/stories.nsf/veng/ss01085e.htm
Mike...@mailcity.com
and even ships and mountains disappear? What is always one of
the props? ;)
mike hunt
Garys2 wrote:
>
> Mike...@mailcity.com wrote:
> > Perhaps you should research the US Congressional Record about how
> > DRLs can KILL you, particularly at dusk and dawn or if you drive
> > a motorcycle.
>
> Interesting enough, the US military did some experiments using lights as
Garys2
>
> Well Gary it's not difficult to prove that they're an effective
> safety device at all...each one of the URL's below state that
> it's so...anywhere from 7% to much higher. (I saw some 40%
> mentioned)
Those aren't studies, at least how I understand them. They're at best
guesstimates. A "study" presents not only it's conclusions, but shows
the methodology, the raw data, the confidence interval, and so on. A
study has a theory or hypothesis and uses both a control group and study
group. Studies are also peer reviewed before they are published. It's
called the scientific menthod. Finally studies publish a hard number and
percentages, not a range of from 10-30%.
Three of the sites that you reference sell the product that they are
promoting the virtues of. That's generally referred to as a conflict of
interest.
>
> Studies have been done all over, and they're mandatory in many
> countries including Canada since 1989.
Just because they are mandatory in Canada, or any other country doesn't
make it science. Laws are generally passed because of politics, or
*gasp* in some rare cases because a politician is lobbied or needs the
publicity. One of the oldest tricks in the political book is create a
crisis which only a new law can solve.
Over the past 30 or so years, each of the following have been cited as a
"major" cause of vehicular accidents.
Speeding on interstates, even though most serious and fatal accidents
occur on secondary roads where the posted speed limit is 45 MPH or less.
Cellular phones. The only available science on this doesn't support that.
Drowsiness. No studies, just "common sense" becaus there's an epidemic
of drowsiness.
Eating while driving. More "common sense".
"Road Rage". This term is so loosely defined that anything from changing
lanes without signalling to giving someone finger to actually shooting
at someone can be called road rage.
"Aggressive Driving". As above.
I can tell you that the only consistent causitive factor that I've seen
in over 25 years in EMS is drunk driving. In about half of the fatal
accidents I've seen, one of the drivers, often both, are drunk.
The other cause for fatalities, although not the cause of the accidents
is not wearing seat belts. I'm not debating the merits of seat belt
laws, I'm talking about the real effects of not wearing them. Being
"thrown clear" is a rarity, almost verging on a myth. I've never seen
anyone thrown clear who wouldn't have been better off belted in. That
includes several people who were trapped in burning vehicles. The impact
was enough to kill them or knock them unconscious. Being thrown clear
would have just killed them a different way.
But I digress.
It just boggles my mind
> that people, supposedly smart people too (like Philip) would
> speak against them. Mind you, he NEVER will justify his remarks
> though.
I don't have to speak for Philip, he does quite well on his own.
Gary
Garys2
> Ever see one of those guys on TV that can make elephants, lions
> and even ships and mountains disappear? What is always one of
> the props? ;)
>
A cute young women with big boobs? <G>
Gary
Gord Beaman
>Ever see one of those guys on TV that can make elephants, lions
>and even ships and mountains disappear? What is always one of
>the props? ;)
>
>
>mike hunt
>
A very large tent?...
badgolferman
> Have you tried applying the parking brake to the first notch,
> backing off the adjustment and covering the indicator light? ;)
>
>
> mike hunt
>
What?
--
No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.
Philip
Northern Europe ... where the sun hangs low in the sky for more hours and
months of the year than it does across the southern half of the US. I have
mentioned LONG ago that low sun shining thru a row of trees (a strobe
effect) is probably the one driving condition where the drivers with the sun
at their backs could make themselves more visible to oncoming traffic. But
that is it.
--
- Philip
Philip
> them.
snip
First off, this is an ancient topic on this forum. The northern most
lattitudes can make the case of DRLs thanks to prolonged twilight hours and
high lattitude. But for the US, particularly for the southernmost states
DRLs are more of a nusance.
--
- Philip
Philip
Geordie ... you did not quote me accurately I have not used "goddamned" in
any correspondence.
There is no law in the US requiring DRLs. But at least NOW you limit your
claim to Canada. Frankly, we Americans care little for goose stepping
allegiance to monkey see - monkey do regulations.
--
- Philip
Philip
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:14:18 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-...@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> The Real Tom wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:13:14 GMT, "Philip"
>>> <1chip-...@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tom: Please cite the law you claim "exposes yourself to severe
>>>> litigation issues". (for disabling an alleged safety device)
>>>> Considering fewer and fewer vehicles are DRL equipped, so equipping
>>>> one vehicle and not the next is a policy of sorts.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you're old enough to know the law has almost nothing to do
>>> with civil cases. Breaking of laws just speed up the settling
>>> period. :-P
>>>
>>> tom, not a lawyer!
>>
>> CITE THE LAW you say exists.
>
>
> I never said there was a specific law about DRL.
>
> As far as my commment about laws in general, you can formulate from
> news reports that even when you haven't broken specific laws, you can
> find jury's awarding judgements against you.
>
> tom
Juries are not judges. Only judges can rule.
--
- Philip
Liberal|sarl|airs|
|| In news:xn0dzo6yy...@news.individual.net,
|| badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> typed:
||| Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a
||| 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of
||| course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
|||
||| I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
||| annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
||| anymore.
||
|| it states in the manual that it can be done by the dealer. The
|| dealer told me that it was not as simple as removing a fuse...they
|| needed to rewire some things, etc. because by removing the fuse you
|| would not have lights. Said it would cost about $180 or so. That was
|| the end of if for me :-)
||
|| ...Allen
And it SHOULD be the end of the subject for anyone who isn't a juvenile,
antiauthority asshole.
Liberal|sarl|airs|
|| Have you tried applying the parking brake to the first notch,
|| backing off the adjustment and covering the indicator light? ;)
||
||
|| mike hunt
That's exactly how I handle the problem, too.
Liberal|sarl|airs|
|| "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote in
|| news:xn0dzo6yy...@news.individual.net:
||
||| Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a
||| 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of
||| course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
|||
||
||
||
||
|| Do you feel like subscribing to this Yahoo group?
|| http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Toyotas_Only/
||
|| In the Files section you will find two methods of disabling the
|| DRLs. One involves cutting a wire and redirecting another, and the
|| other involves changes inside the DRL relay itelf. All the DRL
|| relays are the same, but its location may vary between models.
||
|| I've done it to our Tercel, using the relay modification procedure.
||
|| Apparently US dealers have a TSB (EL011-00) describing the
|| procedure, so they know already how to do it. That TSB is also in
|| the Files section of the Yahoo group.
||
|| Good luck.
Why do you encourage fuckheads to drive around without any lights on?
||
||
|| --
|| TeGGeRŽ
Liberal|sarl|airs|
|| On 12 Mar 2005 23:02:14 GMT, "badgolferman"
|| <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
||
||| 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of
||| course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
|||
||| annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
||| anymore.
||
||
||
|| Disabling/defeating any safety device exposes yourself to servere
|| litigation issues. Now you might think, wtf I own nothing, but
|| imagine having any property you come into ownership leans against,
|| and having your wages/pension/retirement garnished 10% till your
|| multimillion lawsuit is paid off. I wouldn't do it.
||
|| Right now I wouldn't be surprised a few lawyers are drooling now
|| reading this post. :-P
||
|| Some might be telling you how to do it. ;)
||
|| later,
||
|| tom @ www.MedicalJobList.com
Guaranteed, IF I was in an accident, I'd hire private investigators to find
out if those DRL's were deactivated, then I'd sure THE LIVING ASS off both
the driver AND the owner of the vehicle.
Liberal|sarl|airs|
|| On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:46:42 GMT, "Allen L." <inv...@invalid.com>
|| wrote:
||
|||| On 12 Mar 2005 23:02:14 GMT, "badgolferman"
|||| <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
||||
||||| Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a
||||| 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of
||||| course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
|||||
||||| I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
||||| annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
||||| anymore.
||||
||||
||| The Real Tom <Tom @ www.WorkAtHomePlans.com> typed:
|||
|||| IMHO:
||||
|||| Disabling/defeating any safety device exposes yourself to servere
|||| litigation issues. Now you might think, wtf I own nothing, but
|||| imagine having any property you come into ownership leans against,
|||| and having your wages/pension/retirement garnished 10% till your
|||| multimillion lawsuit is paid off. I wouldn't do it.
||||
|||| Right now I wouldn't be surprised a few lawyers are drooling now
|||| reading this post. :-P
||||
|||| Some might be telling you how to do it. ;)
||||
|||| later,
||||
|||| tom @ www.MedicalJobList.com
|||
||| agreement with you, I 'had' a Cadillac and wanted them disabled
||| here in Texas, and the dealer said they couldn't *because* they
||| were a 'safety' feature. So your statement could be interpreted
||| either way, I presume...by lawyers!!
|||
||| ...Allen
|||
|||
||
||
|| I know I opening myself for flames, but lawyers aren't the problem,
|| and don't scare me as much as the 6 average citizens who do the
|| actual awarding, nuts in most big cases.
||
|| One story I heard, a woman as award(here you see from people) by a
|| jury a large sum of money for an injury she sustained in a furnature
|| store. She tripped over an out of control child while she was
|| checking out the furnature. The kicker,,,,, it was her kid.
||
|| Juriors should have some common sense test, but common sense isn't
|| common.
||
||
|| Purely in my humble option,
||
|| tom
If I was a juror is a DRL removal case, I'd award damages equal to TRIPLE
your assets and what you could earn in a lifetime.
Liberal|sarl|airs|
|| In article <CfZYd.3633$bh2....@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
|| way to enable the feature then decided I did not want it enabled so I
|| disabled it, am I putting myself in legal jeopardy?
Have you ALWAYS been an asshole?
||
|| "Stupid is as stupid does" Forrest Gump
|| --
C. E. White
Gord Beaman wrote:
>
> The Real Tom <Tom @ www.WorkAtHomePlans.com> wrote:
>
> >On 12 Mar 2005 23:02:14 GMT, "badgolferman"
> ><REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a 2000
> >>Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of course I
> >>want the rest of the headlight system to work.
> >>
> >>I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
> >>annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
> >>anymore.
> >
> >
> >IMHO:
> >
> >Disabling/defeating any safety device exposes yourself to servere
> >litigation issues. Now you might think, wtf I own nothing, but
> >imagine having any property you come into ownership leans against, and
> >having your wages/pension/retirement garnished 10% till your
> >multimillion lawsuit is paid off. I wouldn't do it.
> >
> >Right now I wouldn't be surprised a few lawyers are drooling now
> >reading this post. :-P
> >
> >Some might be telling you how to do it. ;)
> >
> >later,
> >
> >tom @ www.MedicalJobList.com
> >
> >
> Damned right...in these litigation happy times you're asking for
> it when you deliberately defeat a safety device.
>
> Imagine some sharp lawyer explaining to a sympathetic judge that
> this bad young pup who hates DRL's and thinks he doesn't need
> them because his eyesight is better than superman's (and
> everyone's should be too else they shouldn't be driving)
>
> I cannot believe why anyone would deliberately defeat DRL's...how
> fricking stupid can you get?..
I don't see any piont in disabling MY DRLs. They aren't
bothering me, although I suspect they are annoying thousands
of other people. I do wish I could disable all the other
crappy DRLs out there that bother the crap out of me. I am
waiting for the lawsuit where DRLs can be blamed for causing
an accident. They are distracting as heck, particulalrly
since they come in so many flavors and loctions (dimmed
headlights, parking lights, etc., etc) and many cars don't
have them at all. Maybe in the great white north they are
useful. Here in North Carolina, they are a major annoyance.
I encorage everyone to disable them for my safety!
Ed
C. E. White
Gord Beaman wrote:
> Studies have been done all over, and they're mandatory in many
> countries including Canada since 1989. It just boggles my mind
> that people, supposedly smart people too (like Philip) would
> speak against them. Mind you, he NEVER will justify his remarks
> though.
Did you read these "studies?"
> http://www.yins.ns.ca/tips/tip11.htm
This wasn't a study. It just talked about a study that
claimed a reduction in certain kind of "DRILL related
accidents." In other words, if they thought an accident
might not have occurred if the car had Drills, then they
included it in the statistics. I'd love to see the actual
study. Sounds completely bogus.
> http://www.hamsar.com/drl.htm
This is not a study. It is an ad for a company that sells
DRILL equipment. They reference the existence of studies,
but do not actually provide any real data. In other words,
this is just an ad.
> http://www.pacificinsight.com/aftermarket/after.htm
Another ad for DRILL equipment.
> http://autonet.ca/Parts/Systems/story.cfm?story=/Parts/Systems/2005/02/15/931908.html
This is some sort of "infomercial" for DRLs, but it does not
include any statistics at all. Just a vague claim that "The
cost <of add on DRLs> is well worth the increased driving
safety."
> http://alavigne.homeip.net/newHomePage/Motorsports/FeatureReports/S2000/DRL/index.jsp
This was just an article on how to equip a Honda S2000 with
DRLs. The article even says "Daytime running lights are a
feature that some claim helps to increase the visibility of
a car to other motorists. Whether or not this is true is a
matter of some heated debate. This web presentation does not
attempt to resolve this debate. "
> http://www.innovation.gc.ca/gol/innovation/stories.nsf/veng/ss01085e.htm
I have no idea why you included this one. It is a Canadian
government web site that praises a company that sells DRILL
equipment. There are no statistics on the effectiveness of
Drills on this page at all.
Not one of these pages presents any "studies of DRLs." A
couple allude to the existence of studies, without providing
any real information. The rest are outright ads, or in the
case of the last one, totally unrelated to the question of
DRILL effectiveness.
Try these references instead:
http://www.hwysafety.org/safety%5Ffacts/qanda/drl.htm#1
http://www.lightsout.org/docs/30yrs.pdf
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl/links.html
http://www.lightsout.org/
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809760.pdf
If you read them all, you should at least question the idea
that Drills are effective. And for sure they are wasting
fuel. You can't measure it yourself, the amounts are too
small for an individual to detect, but the cumulative effect
is large.
Regards,
Ed White
C. E. White
about spell checkers gone mad).
Ed
Melvin...@mailcity.com
mike hunt
Gord Beaman
Of course...
Gord Beaman
>
>Why do you encourage fuckheads to drive around without any lights on?
>
>
'driver DNA pool' will slowly be purified till a high percentage
of us will be reasonable people who appreciate safety. :)
Hell, if you wanna risk your life then do it alone, not on our
highways where you endanger other lives as well.
Philip
The job of disabling the DRL relay module took about an hour total when I
did so on my 2003 Corolla.
--
- Philip
Philip
>
> TRIPLE your assets and what you could earn in a lifetime.
You would not make it past jury selection. Take that to the bank.
--
- Philip
Philip
>>> TeGGeRŽ
>
>
> Why do you encourage fuckheads to drive around without any lights on?
>
You must be f&*%head too because you just said to MikeHunt that you too just
pull up the Parking Brake a notch to keep the DRLs extinguished.
Funny how many generations of drivers have survived without DRLs. How did
we do it? Why are the numbers of DRL equipped vehicles fading with each
passing year? It was noted by a prominent Canadian member of this forum
that driving Canadian commuter traffic looks like a national funeral
procession for all the DRL cars. LOL
--
- Philip
--
- Philip
Philip
>>> --
>
> Have you ALWAYS been an asshole?
>
When pressed for a cogent response, "Liberal|sarl|airs|" does as Liberals do
... resort to ad hominem attack.
--
- Philip
Philip
>
> I don't see any piont in disabling MY DRLs. They aren't
> of other people. I do wish I could disable all the other
> crappy DRLs out there that bother the crap out of me. I am
> waiting for the lawsuit where DRLs can be blamed for causing
> since they come in so many flavors and loctions (dimmed
> headlights, parking lights, etc., etc) and many cars don't
> useful. Here in North Carolina, they are a major annoyance.
> I encorage everyone to disable them for my safety!
>
> Ed
ED: Well stated!! I'll vote for you!
--
- Philip
Philip
What kinds of risky behavior do you engage in, Gordie? Need some ideas?
--
- Philip
Philip
You would lose on that point. Where DRLs are not uniformly required, as
Judge I would rule that right-of-way violations cannot be different from one
vehicle to the next based on the presence of DRLs.
Your braggadocios feel-good suit would be laughed out of arbitration and
certainly out of court. LIGHTS don't trump physical contact. For instance,
when you rear end the car ahead of you, a citation is issued to you for
"insufficient following distance". That the driver ahead of you had no
functioning brake lights does not become a mitigating factor. Same goes for
making an unsafe lane change. Just because you signaled before maneuvering
does NOT give you the right of way ... legally or physically.
--
- Philip
Jeff Strickland
They are annoying as hell to the rest of us, but how can they be annoying to
you, you can't even see them.
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0dzo6yy...@news.individual.net...
> Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a 2000
> Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of course I
> want the rest of the headlight system to work.
>
> I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
> annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
> anymore.
>
> --
> No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.
Philip
quiet and listen to the radio. Sometimes it's 110 degrees outside while
other times it's 40 degrees outside. Need the engine idling to achieve a
comfortable temperature. I don't care for having the headlights ON at this
time.
Then there's the neighbor whose living room windows catch the full brunt of
my headlights when I turn into or back out of my driveway at night.
Sufficient cause for me to disable the circuit.
--
- Philip
Scott in Florida
You mean you are running around Southern California with your lights
under YOUR control?
Shame on you, Philp! ;-)
--
Scott in Florida
badgolferman
> What could possibly be annoying to you about YOUR daytime running
> lights. They are annoying as hell to the rest of us, but how can
> they be annoying to you, you can't even see them.
>
When I am sitting there as the getaway minivan I don't want to be
noticed by others. If I drive down the dark alley as I'm trying to
elude the cops with the huge stash of money in the minivan I don't want
to be seen by anyone chasing me.
Truth is, when you stop behind someone at a light and your lights
reflect on their SUV back onto you or shine into their rearview mirror,
I think that is annoying. If I'm sitting in the car waiting for
someone with the engine on I don't want my lights on pointing across
the street at the neighbor's house. Besides, won't the filament wear
out after being used constantly; that will cost me money.
The main point has been made by others. They are annoying to me when
others have them on therefore I would like to make it one less person
that is annoying other drivers.
--
No matter what happens, someone will find a way to take it too
seriously.
Jeff Strickland
You look for a way to turn your lights off when you drive, I'm looking for a
way to turn mine on. Lights on while driving has been shown to provide a
level of safety not found when driving with lights off.
I can't imagine why they came up with DTRs, instead of simply turning the
head lights on after the engine starts.
Ray O
news:raSdndndopH...@ez2.net...
DRLs produce less headlights. I believe that they were designed that way to
reduce the glare generated by the lights, as suggested by recalls to fix DRL
systems that put out too much light. So, vehicles equipped with DRLs had
to have another scheme besides turning on headlights.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply
Jeff Strickland
"Ray O" <roki...@tristarassociatesDOT.com> wrote in message
news:be309$4235f074$44a4a10d$20...@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
DRLs turn on the High Beams half way. The recall fixed some that turnd the
high beams on all of the way. My question is, what's wrong with turning the
low beams on?
My daughter's Tacoma, 2002, hasn't got DRLs, but it does turn the headlights
off automatically when the engine is off and the door is opened, so she
turned the headlights on and never turns them off. The low beams are on
every time she drives her truck. This seems to me to be a good feature, and
one that provides the safety that DRLs are meant to provide. And the lights
turn off automatically when she parks, so a dead battery will never happen
because the lights were left on.
Ray O
uses a separate dedicated DRL bulb instead of having the HID's half way.
My question is, what's wrong with turning the
> low beams on?
>
> My daughter's Tacoma, 2002, hasn't got DRLs, but it does turn the
> headlights
> off automatically when the engine is off and the door is opened, so she
> turned the headlights on and never turns them off. The low beams are on
> every time she drives her truck. This seems to me to be a good feature,
> and
> one that provides the safety that DRLs are meant to provide. And the
> lights
> turn off automatically when she parks, so a dead battery will never happen
> because the lights were left on.
>
Good question! One reason is that a high beam headlamp operating at reduced
intensity will last longer than a lower wattage bulb operating at full
intensity. I'd also guess that the permissible light output for DRL's is
lower than low beam headlights, but then, why not dim the low beams?
Garys2
>
> I asked a friend who's a trooper. He said they turn them all on all
> the time because that way they never forget to do it. Nothing more.
You mean all that police survival training I took was wrong?
Gary
Liberal|sarl|airs|
You are fucking nuts. In all my years of driving, I have NEVER had any
annoyance over others' DRL's, just their BURNED out bulbs, HIGH BEAMS in the
face, etc..
Liberal|sarl|airs|
Good points, Gord. Let Darwin's Law weed out the fools!!!
Liberal|sarl|airs|
|| Liberal|sarl|airs| !|" <l$#. wrote:
||||| "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote in
||||| news:xn0dzo6yy...@news.individual.net:
|||||
|||||| Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of
|||||| a 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed.
|||||| Of course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
||||||
|||||
|||||
|||||
||||| It's an easy fix.
|||||
||||| Do you feel like subscribing to this Yahoo group?
||||| http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Toyotas_Only/
|||||
||||| In the Files section you will find two methods of disabling the
||||| DRLs. One involves cutting a wire and redirecting another, and the
||||| other involves changes inside the DRL relay itelf. All the DRL
||||| relays are the same, but its location may vary between models.
|||||
||||| I've done it to our Tercel, using the relay modification
||||| procedure.
|||||
||||| Apparently US dealers have a TSB (EL011-00) describing the
||||| procedure, so they know already how to do it. That TSB is also in
||||| the Files section of the Yahoo group.
|||||
||||| Good luck.
||||| --
|||
|||
||| Why do you encourage fuckheads to drive around without any lights
||| on?
|||
||
|| You must be f&*%head too because you just said to MikeHunt that you
|| too just pull up the Parking Brake a notch to keep the DRLs
|| extinguished.
||
|| Funny how many generations of drivers have survived without DRLs.
|| How did we do it? Why are the numbers of DRL equipped vehicles
|| fading with each passing year? It was noted by a prominent Canadian
|| member of this forum that driving Canadian commuter traffic looks
|| like a national funeral procession for all the DRL cars. LOL
|| --
Who gives A FLYING FUCK what it looks like? Millions survived without
antibiotics, too. You want to ban antibiotics?
Liberal|sarl|airs|
|| Let's see. Sometimes I prefer to sit in my car so I can eat in
|| peace and quiet and listen to the radio. Sometimes it's 110 degrees
|| outside while other times it's 40 degrees outside. Need the engine
|| idling to achieve a comfortable temperature. I don't care for having
|| the headlights ON at this time.
You just have to put your parking light on a notch, first, then no DRL's.
||
|| Then there's the neighbor whose living room windows catch the full
|| brunt of my headlights when I turn into or back out of my driveway
|| at night.
*I*, for one, CLOSE MY FUCKING drapes/curtains if the lights outside are
bothersome.
Philip
Oh I can't tell you how much I WORRY about that fact. ;-)
--
- Philip
Philip
> "Ray O" <roki...@tristarassociatesDOT.com> wrote in message
> news:be309$4235f074$44a4a10d$20...@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
>>
>> DRLs produce less headlights. I believe that they were designed
>> that way to reduce the glare generated by the lights, as suggested
>> by recalls to fix DRL systems that put out too much light. So,
>> vehicles equipped with DRLs had to have another scheme besides
>> turning on headlights.
>
>
> DRLs turn on the High Beams half way. The recall fixed some that
> turnd the high beams on all of the way. My question is, what's wrong
> with turning the low beams on?
WHICH lights are controlled by DRL circuitry is NOT uniform at all. Some
cars ... the amber parking lights. Some cars the High Beams at 80% voltage.
Some cars the Low Beams at 80% voltage. The good cars do not have DRLs at
all.
--
- Philip
Philip
> Philip wrote:
>>> Liberal|sarl|airs| !|" <l$#. wrote:
>>>>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:xn0dzo6yy...@news.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of
>>>>>>> a 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed.
>>>>>>> Of course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's an easy fix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you feel like subscribing to this Yahoo group?
>>>>>> http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Toyotas_Only/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the Files section you will find two methods of disabling the
>>>>>> DRLs. One involves cutting a wire and redirecting another, and
>>>>>> the other involves changes inside the DRL relay itelf. All the
>>>>>> DRL relays are the same, but its location may vary between
>>>>>> models. I've done it to our Tercel, using the relay modification
>>>>>> procedure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently US dealers have a TSB (EL011-00) describing the
>>>>>> procedure, so they know already how to do it. That TSB is also in
>>>>>> the Files section of the Yahoo group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good luck.
>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you encourage fuckheads to drive around without any lights
>>>> on?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You must be f&*%head too because you just said to MikeHunt that you
>>> too just pull up the Parking Brake a notch to keep the DRLs
>>> extinguished.
>>>
>>> Funny how many generations of drivers have survived without DRLs.
>>> How did we do it? Why are the numbers of DRL equipped vehicles
>>> fading with each passing year? It was noted by a prominent Canadian
>>> member of this forum that driving Canadian commuter traffic looks
>>> like a national funeral procession for all the DRL cars. LOL
>>> --
>
> Who gives A FLYING FUCK what it looks like? Millions survived without
> antibiotics, too. You want to ban antibiotics?
Your language is wholly detracting from anything you MIGHT convey of any
interest. Your analogy is absurd.
--
- Philip
Philip
>>> Let's see. Sometimes I prefer to sit in my car so I can eat in
>>> peace and quiet and listen to the radio. Sometimes it's 110 degrees
>>> outside while other times it's 40 degrees outside. Need the engine
>>> idling to achieve a comfortable temperature. I don't care for having
>>> the headlights ON at this time.
>
> You just have to put your parking light on a notch, first, then no
> DRL's.
You have to stop the engine. Pull up the Parking Brake lever a notch.
Restart the engine. They don't go out simply by pulling the lever up a
notch. Even so, you still have the BRAKE light ON all the time. That light
is ALSO turned on when the brake fluid is low or when there is a pressure
differential between the front and rear brakes for any reason.
--
- Philip
Liberal|sarl|airs|
The whole idea for DRLs developed because of some assholes who adamantly
REFUSE to put on ANY exterior lights unless THEY can't see beyond their hood
ornament.
||
|| --
||
|| - Philip
Liberal|sarl|airs|
<<YAWN>>
||
|| --
||
|| - Philip
Tercel Owner
Philip wrote:
> Gord Beaman wrote:
> > "Philip" <1chip-...@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >
> >> Tercel Owner wrote:
> >>> badgolferman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a
> >>>> 2000 Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of
> >>>> course I want the rest of the headlight system to work.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
> >>>> annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
> >>>> anymore.
> >>>
> >>> ???
> >>>
> >>> Isn't it the very old cars that don't have'em?
> >>>
> >>> Just curious, how can DRL annoy the driver? They are visible to
> >>> drivers of /other/ vehicles.
> >>>
> >>> Tercel Owner
> >>
> >> There is NO uniform law requiring DRLs on any catagory of passenger
> >> car or truck. All you have to do is look around.
> >
> > ANSWER the GODDAMNED QUESTION Philip...(to quote yourself).
> >
> > And I'll dispute your statement...there -is- indeed a law stating
> > that cars made after 1980(?) must be equipped with DRL's
> >
> > (and I'll have the decency to add...in Canada)
>
> Geordie ... you did not quote me accurately I have not used "goddamned" in
> any correspondence.
>
> There is no law in the US requiring DRLs. But at least NOW you limit your
> claim to Canada. Frankly, we Americans care little for goose stepping
> allegiance to monkey see - monkey do regulations.
Still wondering how the DRLs annoy the driver of the vehicle using them.
I think that's what the OP said.
Tercel Owner
Tercel Owner
> Mike...@mailcity.com wrote:
> > Perhaps you should research the US Congressional Record about how
> > DRLs can KILL you, particularly at dusk and dawn or if you drive
> > a motorcycle.
>
> Interesting enough, the US military did somd experiments using lights as
> a form of camoflage during the day. I forget the details, but bright
> lights, even during the day can hide the objects that are behind them.
> That's why some police officers turn on their headlights and take down
> lights when they do traffic stops during the day. Something about the
> way the brain processes bright lights.
How's this for dumbing down: Street signs placed right above stop
lights at an intersection. Try reading them at night.
Tercel Owner
Tercel Owner
Philip wrote:
> Let's see. Sometimes I prefer to sit in my car so I can eat in peace and
> quiet and listen to the radio. Sometimes it's 110 degrees outside while
> other times it's 40 degrees outside. Need the engine idling to achieve a
> comfortable temperature. I don't care for having the headlights ON at this
> time.
Are your DRLs emitting tunes that compete with the radio?
> Then there's the neighbor whose living room windows catch the full brunt of
> my headlights when I turn into or back out of my driveway at night.
And that annoys you? (What if no one is home?)
Tercel Owner
Tercel Owner
Jeff Strickland wrote:
> What could possibly be annoying to you about YOUR daytime running
> lights. They are annoying as hell to the rest of us, but how can
> they be annoying to you, you can't even see them.
Why would others be annoyed by them? I don't even notice them on
other cars in the day time. They seem dimmer than headlights, so they
are less obnoxious in the night time (in the cases where some driver
forgets to turn on his/her real headlights). I don't personally find
them annoying on other cars, and they sure as heck make cars easier to
see.
Tercel Owner
Sleeker GT Phwoar
$#."''...?|<>!|,,X.XX=@liberalsarllwankers.com> says...
know when it is time to drink, time to drive, and time to chew the
pretzel before swallowing.
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
@www.workathomeplans.com The Real Tom
>Is there a simple way of disabling the daytime driving lights of a 2000
>Sienna? I'm hoping a fuse or relay would be all needed. Of course I
>want the rest of the headlight system to work.
>
>I know these are supposed to contribute to safety, but I find them
>annoying. Besides, it seems many newer cars don't even have them
>anymore.
Wow! This simple question has started one fast growing thread. Name
calling, cat fights, and option bashing. Gotta love this NG. :-P
later,
tom
C. E. White
Liberal|sarl|airs|,
''...?|<>!|,,X.XX=@liberalsarllwankers.com> wrote:
> You are fucking nuts. In all my years of driving, I have NEVER had any
> annoyance over others' DRL's, just their BURNED out bulbs, HIGH BEAMS in the
> face, etc..
Good for you. I am annoyed by all those things and by some
(not all) DRL implementations. I find the bizarre variations
in DRL implementations very distracting. When you sitting at
an intersection waiting to pull out into traffic, what
catches your eye - the reduced powered high beams, low
beams, amber parking lights, nothing? Maybe your eye is
attracted to the reduced powered high beams in the outer
lane and you overlook the car without DRLs in the inner
lane. If everyone ran low beams all the time, all you are
going to see on a busy street is a bunch of lights. I'd love
to see a responsioble study on the effective of DRL's that
is tailored to typical lower 48 US conditions. I doubt there
are any significant safety advantages for most US drivers
and I am certain DRLs are wasting energy.
Ed
C. E. White
The Real Tom wrote:
> Wow! This simple question has started one fast growing thread. Name
> calling, cat fights, and option bashing. Gotta love this NG. :-P
Topics guaranteed to generate lots of posts in any auto
newsgroup:
* Amsoil
* What oil should I use?
* Topics related to synthetic oil (can I switch, when can I
switch, how often should I change it, I got a million mpg
with synthetic oil, my car lasts forever with synthetic oil,
etc.)
* K&N Air Filters
* DRLs
* Sludge
* What is the best oil filter?
* Tire pressures
* Consumer Reports ratings
* JD Powers ratings
* Fords catching on fire (a very popular topic in Toyota
newsgroups for some reason)
Ed
Philip
Speaking as an architect of many of those threads, hahahha! Oh so true!
--
- Philip
Philip
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Let's see. Sometimes I prefer to sit in my car so I can eat in
>> peace and quiet and listen to the radio. Sometimes it's 110 degrees
>> outside while other times it's 40 degrees outside. Need the engine
>> idling to achieve a comfortable temperature. I don't care for having
>> the headlights ON at this time.
>
> Are your DRLs emitting tunes that compete with the radio?
>
T/O The only excuse for your continued obtuseness is to save face. You
have comprehended my reasons and have no compelling rebuttal.
--
- Philip
Philip
> Philip wrote:
>> brunt of my headlights when I turn into or back out of my driveway
>> at night.
>
> And that annoys you? (What if no one is home?)
>
> Tercel Owner
T/O: Are you an apartment dweller? Trailer park maybe? My neighbor's
wife passively mentioned how she was campaigning for new and darker curtains
(which are seldom closed now) for their front windows. When you like your
neighbors, you take such hints and accomodate.
--
- Philip