Daytime Running Lights - How to disable???
Robert Spelman
I just got a '96 Sunfire, and of course it is equipped with those
standard Daytime Running Lights (DTR).. I've seen a couple of other Sunfires on
the road which have the lights disabled.. What would it take to disable the
lights, short of removing my bright lights?
Dave G Nelson
Ma...@IQuest.Net (Robert Spelman) wrote:
95 Sunfires do not have DRL's, so the ones you are seeing are 95
models. As for disabling them on 96 models, more power to you.
dave
Todd M. Reasland
In article <DsEnw...@iquest.net>, Ma...@IQuest.Net (Robert Spelman) wrote:
>
> I just got a '96 Sunfire, and of course it is equipped with those
> standard Daytime Running Lights (DTR).. I've seen a couple of other
Sunfires on
> the road which have the lights disabled.. What would it take to disable the
> lights, short of removing my bright lights?
This may sound silly, but I read somewhere (honestly, I don't remember
where) that pulling the parking brake up just one click shut off those
DRLs. (Let us know if this works, if you try it!)
John C Reid
I can't undersatnd WHY people have to do STUPID things like
disabling a safety feature. You may as well disable your
airbag and not wear seat belts as well.
Have a great life!
Kyler Laird
aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John C Reid) writes:
>You may as well disable your
>airbag
This is highly recommended for some situations. Do any
production cars have manual overrides?
--kyler
Rob Wunsche
In article <4p2r1d$i...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, la...@puritan.ecn.purdue.edu
(Kyler Laird) wrote:
The new full-size Ford trucks have a keyhole switch on the dash to
override the passenger airbag to prevent detonation when you have a child
in a car seat.
-Rob
Joseph M. Koral
> > > You may as well disable your airbag
> > This is highly recommended for some situations. Do any
> > production cars have manual overrides?
> The new full-size Ford trucks have a keyhole switch on the dash to
> override the passenger airbag to prevent detonation when you have a child
> in a car seat.
FYI, not a manual override, but most BMWs disable the airbag in the passenger seat when
the seat belt is not fastened.
- Joseph
Andrew Wetmore
Ma...@IQuest.Net (Robert Spelman) wrote:
>
>
> I just got a '96 Sunfire, and of course it is equipped with those
> standard Daytime Running Lights (DTR).. I've seen a couple of other Sunfires on
> the road which have the lights disabled.. What would it take to disable the
> lights, short of removing my bright lights?
>
>
First of all, I would never disable this safety feature that I feel is
very help full, but that's another argument, If you notice when your
parking brake is on the lights usually are off, there is a switch
on your parking brake, if you could find it and modify it to be off
all the time your DRL's would be disabled, and you wouldn't be nearly
as safe.
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu
Most people forget that the whole point of DRL's is so that other drivers can
see you better. It is PROVEN that DRL's do improve visibility of a car,
especially in shady conditions. I would never disable this feature because I
want other drivers to see my car coming so they don't stay in "dreamland" while
they are driving their 79 GM Boat over the speed limit headed right for my car.
And the lamest excuse I've heard for disabling this feature is that the person
wanted better gas mileage. The DRL's are you high beams operating at 40% power.
This means they are using about 40w combined. This is about no drag on the
alternator. That is about 5% of the power the alternator has to put out when
you are driving.
Robert Spelman
In article <4p25al$4...@news.iag.net>, fir...@iag.net says...
>
>In article <DsEnw...@iquest.net>, Robert Spelman <Ma...@IQuest.Net> wrote:
>> I just got a '96 Sunfire, and of course it is equipped with those
>>standard Daytime Running Lights (DTR).. I've seen a couple of other Sunfires
on
>>the road which have the lights disabled.. What would it take to disable the
>>lights, short of removing my bright lights?
>
Unfortunately, there isn't a separate fuse for DRL, at least not in the
fuse guide in the owner's manual. Someone suggested I raise the parking brake
a notch, but I get the feeling that could damage the vehicle :-)
Robert
James Shum
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
>
>Most people forget that the whole point of DRL's is so that other drivers can
>see you better. It is PROVEN that DRL's do improve visibility of a car,
>especially in shady conditions. I would never disable this feature because I
>want other drivers to see my car coming so they don't stay in "dreamland" while
>they are driving their 79 GM Boat over the speed limit headed right for my car.
The only problem I see with DRL is some idiots think they can drive at
night with them on, not realizing that their rear lights are not on (except
for most European cars), or they only turn on their parking lights at
night, not realizing that the full headlights are not on.
_____________________________
" ... i threw bitter tears at the ocean ...
... but all that came back was the tide ... " SMcL
js...@io.org ** The X-Files & NewOrder
@ http://www.io.org/~jshum/
mirror @ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6050/
SBA
In <4p25gg$4...@news.iag.net> fir...@iag.net (firebug) writes:
>
>In article <4p16sc$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>John C Reid <aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>I can't undersatnd WHY people have to do STUPID things like
>>disabling a safety feature. You may as well disable your
>>airbag and not wear seat belts as well.
>
things
>like DRLs are a useful safety feature. (or airbags, for that matter).
>Seatbelts have obvious value, they are not comparable to DRLs or to
>airbags.
John C Reid reminds me of my 86 year old mother. She believes anything
anyone in business or government tells her. I guess John believes that
if GM says it, it must be so. Like my mother, he probably doesn't let
reason get in the way of his thinking.
Steve
The Great Granny!
Robert Spelman wrote:
:
: I just got a '96 Sunfire, and of course it is equipped with those
: standard Daytime Running Lights (DTR).. I've seen a couple of other Sunfires on
: the road which have the lights disabled.. What would it take to disable the
: lights, short of removing my bright lights?
For a quick easy answer without any moral or ethical B.S.
My roomate has a 96 S-10 that came with the DRL. All we did to disable
them was remove the little fuse on the panel properly marked "Daytime
Running Lights" (go figure). Have at it. If that doesn't do the trick,
try to find the relay switch that is connected to the ignition switch.
--Andy
If Big Bother is gonna regulate anything, it should be the driver who CAN
NOT see a car without it's headlights on.
Yea Democracy!
Jan Ilavsky
James Shum wrote:
>
> gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
> >
> >Most people forget that the whole point of DRL's is so that other drivers can
> >see you better. It is PROVEN that DRL's do improve visibility of a car,
> >especially in shady conditions. I would never disable this feature because I
> >want other drivers to see my car coming so they don't stay in "dreamland" while
> >they are driving their 79 GM Boat over the speed limit headed right for my car.
>
> The only problem I see with DRL is some idiots think they can drive at
> night with them on, not realizing that their rear lights are not on (except
> for most European cars), or they only turn on their parking lights at
> night, not realizing that the full headlights are not on.
>
There is quite enough idiots, who do exactly the same and DO NOT HAVE
DRLs.... Time to mandate cars with computer control of the lights - or
may be start ticketing them????
Jan
Jiann-Ming Su
In article <4p6rje$b...@netra.oscs.montana.edu>,
<gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu> wrote:
>
>Most people forget that the whole point of DRL's is so that other drivers can
>see you better. It is PROVEN that DRL's do improve visibility of a car,
>especially in shady conditions. I would never disable this feature because I
>want other drivers to see my car coming so they don't stay in "dreamland" while
>they are driving their 79 GM Boat over the speed limit headed right for my car.
>
Personally, those daytime running lights annoy me. They bother my
eyes -- I always end up squinting when I come across one of these.
That also goes for people who just turn on the lights in the
broad daylight. I must say, though, if you can't see a car in
broad daylight without that car having its headlights on, you
probably shouldn't be driving. Get your eyes checked and then
get back on the road.
--
Jiann-Ming Su <j...@Zmall.Com> Staff, Mall of Cyberspace
Your Storefront on the Information Superhighway <URL:http://WWW.Zmall.Com/>
Jay Kolin
In article <DsK6v...@iquest.net>, Ma...@IQuest.Net (Robert Spelman) says:
>
>In article <4p25al$4...@news.iag.net>, fir...@iag.net says...
>>
>>> I just got a '96 Sunfire, and of course it is equipped with those
>>>standard Daytime Running Lights (DTR).. I've seen a couple of other Sunfires
>on
>>>the road which have the lights disabled.. What would it take to disable the
>>>lights, short of removing my bright lights?
>>
>
>
> Unfortunately, there isn't a separate fuse for DRL, at least not in the
>fuse guide in the owner's manual. Someone suggested I raise the parking brake
>a notch, but I get the feeling that could damage the vehicle :-)
>
>Robert
>
>
eleses? Sweden has all vehicles with DRL for years.
They saw a large decrease in accidents when they first initiated DRL
Jay K. NE2Q
Dave G Nelson
j...@Dragon.Zmall.Com (Jiann-Ming Su) wrote:
>Personally, those daytime running lights annoy me. They bother my
>eyes -- I always end up squinting when I come across one of these.
I agree, especially on new Saturns. Their DRL's are too damn bright.
You can't even tell what color the car is until it passes by.
Annoyances and distractions like DRL's detract from driving pleasure.
dave
Jan Ilavsky
The Great Granny! wrote:
> If Big Bother is gonna regulate anything, it should be the driver who CAN
> NOT see a car without it's headlights on.
> Yea Democracy!
OK, but try to tell it to THEM (i.e., those drivers). Some time ago
there was a HUGE AND STUPID discussion (here I believe) where some
argued that driving is their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Here goes your
regulation...
Go figure,
so we will have to have DRL's as a little help... Or you want to
start shooting bad drivers as someone does on Nothern Virginia roads????
Because they will not go without fight... And a big one (everyone
believes that he (she) is a great & safe driver). DRLs are much simpler.
Jan
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu
bother me though.
/\ /\/\
/ ^\/^\ /\ //\ \ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY "Mountains and Minds!"
/ \___/^\// \ ^\______________________________________________________
Paul O'Gorman | 93 Explorer 4x4 Sport-R (daily driver)|
Department Of Electrical Engineering | |
Gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu | 79 Monza Spyder 327 (weekend screamer)|
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
VRfu...@aol.com |It is too late for the pebbles to vote |
|As the avelanche has already started. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Jim Hoare
>> Unfortunately, there isn't a separate fuse for DRL, at least not in
the fuse guide in the owner's manual. Someone suggested I raise the
parking brake a notch, but I get the feeling that could damage the
vehicle :-) <<
This old argument still makes me smile. Up here, DRL's are very old
news as they've been law on all new cars since 1990. We had all the
same bitching and "sky is falling" fear of them as well. It's going to
be law in the U.S. soon anyway, so there's no point to fighting it.
Common misconceptions:
- "Gas mileage drops". The difference is negligible and no, you won't
know the difference.
- "Bulbs blow out sooner". Nonsense. They commonly use 40-50% intensity
of your HIGH beams. There's no evidence I've seen (including my own)
that suggests bulbs are replaced any sooner than they used to be. I
bought my car new in '94 and I'm still on the same set of bulbs it
came with.
- "If all cars have them they all blend together and there's no
benefit". More nonsense. All cars have their lights on at night. Do
you not notice them because of this? It's the same thing during the
day. A car with it's DRL's on is still a car you'll see faster, more
so if it's rainy/foggy or overcast. A bunch of cars with 40%
intensity does not diminish their visibility simply because they all
have lights.
- "People will forget to turn on their lights at night because of the
DRL's being on". Nope. DRL's do not illuminate the dash, nor do they
light up the road above a dull level. You'd know your lights were
off.
I think I've covered the main concerns I read. We don't discuss it
anymore because it's a non-issue and part of day to day driving. So it
will be for you too, so don't waste your energy (pun intended) worrying
about how to defeat something you don't have any logical reason to
defeat.
--
Jim Hoare
10344...@compuserve.com
Using: OUI 1.5 Beta 3 & Win95
Kenth Göransson
10344...@compuserve.com (Jim Hoare) wrote:
>- "Bulbs blow out sooner". Nonsense. They commonly use 40-50% intensity
> of your HIGH beams. There's no evidence I've seen (including my own)
> that suggests bulbs are replaced any sooner than they used to be. I
> bought my car new in '94 and I'm still on the same set of bulbs it
>came with.
Well, but they do anyway. A modern bulb (ie Halogen etc) will run too
cold (!) and will turn dark sooner if it's runned at a lower voltage
than intended. Anyone from the bulb industry around to enlighthen us
(joke intended)?
But otherwise you're probably right. Visibility improves vastly in any
other weather than sunshine. But in this instance it feels like a
waste having to be lit. In Sweden daytime light has been mandatory for
+10 yrs now, I know the feeling :-)
/ Kenth
Karl Fengler
I just got back from a two week trip to Canada, and
once in a while I thought of all the discussion
regarding DRL's, and how stupid some of the reasoning
is to why they they may or may not be a good idea.
One thing I found after driving there was that the
lights themselves didn't really make that much of
a difference for me. I noticed the cars without too.
Maybe because I ride a motorcycle, I look out for
anything larger than me!!!
I did notice a few things different from previous
years:
* Chrysler mini vans using the parking lights.
(they looked a bit brighter than normal ???)
* Saturns do seem to be the brightest, not to
the point of irritating me.
* More cars with DRL's...
While driving to Niagara Falls, watching ALL the
traffic, then realizing the lights were on, then
thinking of this disscussion. On a two lane with
little traffic I can see an advantage in having DRL's.
When there is all the traffic there is on the,
401, QEW, 410, 403 etc. and it take DRL's for
you to notice a car, you better stay off the roads.
To me it looked like almost 50% of the cars had
the DRL's...
--
/ - BRONCO*351 - FXDWG -
/ / _ _ /) PH(208)396-3146 FX(208)396-4139
/ \ _(_|_/(_//_ ka...@hpb18162.boi.hp.com
Karl Fengler Hewlett-Packard Co. Boise,ID.USA
-!! You Have Strayed Upon The Motorway To HELL !!-
rolland whittle
jko...@cloud9.net (Jay Kolin) wrote:
>>
>Why would you want to disable them? They may save your life or someone
>eleses? Sweden has all vehicles with DRL for years.
>They saw a large decrease in accidents when they first initiated DRL
>
>Jay K. NE2Q
Down here in the South they attract a huge amount of insects during the daytime
hours. The windshield is hard to see through and the front of the car covered
with insect body parts that waste a lot of time and water getting them back off.
You do know that the car headlights work during the daytime by turning the knob,
don't you?
In addition to making a car more expensive, DRLs add to air pollution and waste
water.
Nothing in life is free. The Law of Conservation of Energy applies in this
situation, also.
rollland whittle
John C Reid
Yes Jay
Likewise in Canada!
It amazes me that people want to disable a safety device.
These people are liely the ones jack rabbit sarting from
stop light to stop light burning a ton of gas and than
saying they want to disable the daylight running lights
to save gas.
just one mans opinion; mine.
rolland whittle
aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John C Reid) wrote:
>
>Yes Jay
>Likewise in Canada!
>It amazes me that people want to disable a safety device.
>These people are liely the ones jack rabbit sarting from
>stop light to stop light burning a ton of gas and than
>saying they want to disable the daylight running lights
>to save gas.
You know very well that opposition to DRL's has nothing to do with how fast or
slow one pulls away from a light. However, thank you for pointing out that DRL's
do use extra gas.
All ANYONE has to do to turn on the lights is turn the knob/pull the switch.
The don't need to come on automatically. Why are people so gungho about adding
needless expense to car ownership?
rolland whittle
John Weir
This is a very interesting issue. I must say, I believe that DRL's are a
good thing.
I don't hear any complaints from people that I know that are bikers. I
don't think one of them would consider disconnecting these lights. And if
someone I know owns a bike, and it is older than when they started
removing the on - off switches so the lights can be turned off, (I don't
know when that was.) they still turn the lights on.
SBA
>>
>Why would you want to disable them? They may save your life or someone
>eleses? Sweden has all vehicles with DRL for years.
>They saw a large decrease in accidents when they first initiated DRL
>
>Jay K. NE2Q
But Jay, once everyone has them they will cease to have value as an
"attention grabber".
Steve
Dave G Nelson
sbal...@ix.netcom.com(SBA ) wrote:
>But Jay, once everyone has them they will cease to have value as an
>"attention grabber".
I prefer to have my attention grabbed by scantily-clan babes driving
red-hot Ferraris, not obnoxious DRL's.
kpa...@atl.mindspring.com
jc...@earth.execpc.com (John Weir) wrote:
Okay, now you have one. I've got over 120,000 miles on motorcycles
and I thinks DRLs suck shit. I also think this is the most pointless
thread in this group. If people don't want them then why in the
hell did they buy GM? Because they are *stupid*!
My opinion is mine. Flame me if you want, I really don't give a
damn.
rolland whittle
jc...@earth.execpc.com (John Weir) wrote:
>This is a very interesting issue. I must say, I believe that DRL's are a
>good thing.
>
>I don't hear any complaints from people that I know that are bikers. I
>don't think one of them would consider disconnecting these lights. And if
>someone I know owns a bike, and it is older than when they started
>removing the on - off switches so the lights can be turned off, (I don't
>know when that was.) they still turn the lights on.
>
>
I've been riding motorcycles for over 25 years, and can't stand the hard wired
headlights. They eat up batteries, bulbs, and attract every insect within five
miles. Whenever I ride BMW's, I buy (at a big expense) European headlight
switches and have the bike converted. Also, some Japanese bikes still have the
switch under a plastic cover, and all you have do is remove the cover and buy a
knob.
DRL's and hard wired motorcycle headlights SUCK! Is that plain enough to
understand?
rolland whittle
Jan Ilavsky
rolland whittle wrote:
>
> All ANYONE has to do to turn on the lights is turn the knob/pull the switch.
> The don't need to come on automatically. Why are people so gungho about adding
> needless expense to car ownership?
>
> rolland whittle
True, but I see number of idiots, who probably have no idea where that
switch is and are drivnig even at night (rain, snow, etc) without their
lights on. Those are the ones DRLs are being made for...
And do not even mention increase in fuel consumption due to DRLs. That
is none. None at all... This argument is hopefully past us (was in this
thread about 4 weeks ago...).
Jan
David Kaiser
So how do you really feel? (Just kidding). I have DRLs on a VW Passat
and love them. I get tired to driving in rain, dusk, etc and other cars
not having their lights on. GM appears to have done this difference than
VW though (I think GM is using the brights for DRLs).
> rol...@inetnow.net (rolland whittle) wrote in article
<31c61b6...@news.inetnow.net>...
Garner Miller
In article <01bb616f.97d05e60$434545c7@davidk-home>, "David Kaiser"
<d.ka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> So how do you really feel? (Just kidding). I have DRLs on a VW Passat
> and love them. I get tired to driving in rain, dusk, etc and other cars
> not having their lights on. GM appears to have done this difference than
> VW though (I think GM is using the brights for DRLs).
That's normal. The DRLs are supposed to be the high-beam headlights, but
at a reduced power. I think some of the GMs just don't have it reduced
enough; Saturns are particularly bright. I do think they're a good idea,
and a necessary "evil" because of all the idiots out there who don't pay
attention. Anything to get more attention is, IMHO, a good idea.
--
Garner R. Miller
Sarasota, Florida =USA=
http://www.net21.com/garner/
Sure Windows is stable...nothing falls off the floor.
Karl Fengler
Garner Miller wrote:
> That's normal. The DRLs are supposed to be the high-beam headlights, but
> at a reduced power. I think some of the GMs just don't have it reduced
> enough; Saturns are particularly bright. I do think they're a good idea,
> and a necessary "evil" because of all the idiots out there who don't pay
> attention. Anything to get more attention is, IMHO, a good idea.
They're SUPOSSED to be high-beam???
Better talk to Chrysler about thier mini vans. The one I saw in
Toronto had the parking lights used as DRL's, the new ones...that
is.
--
- BRONCO*351 - FXDWG -
- ka...@hpb18162.boi.hp.com
- Hewlett-Packard Co. Boise,ID.USA
Wes Fujii
: "Supposed to" by whom? DRLs using low-beams have existed for years
: in countries like Canada. Why do you imply that the monstrous GM
: practice of using high-beam DRLs is somehow the correct way?
Well, it's probably like most things. GM sell so many vehicles, that
they guide the main "trends" and people have to be on the same
bandwagon to compete. GM also "ruins" good ideas, too, like using
diesel engines in cars. It was the GM 350-diesel that soured most
US drivers on diesel powered cars, and it's not because diesel engines
are bad, it was just GM's poor execution of the technology.
Wes Fujii KC7MFT | Car computers aren't so smart- Mine
we...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | keeps telling me that my door is a
Boise, Idaho | jar, but I know it's really a door...
This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is
not an official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the
Hewlett-Packard Company. The text is provided for informational
purposes only. It is supplied without warranty of any kind.
Jung Ho Han
: In article <01bb616f.97d05e60$434545c7@davidk-home>, "David Kaiser"
: <d.ka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: > So how do you really feel? (Just kidding). I have DRLs on a VW Passat
: > and love them. I get tired to driving in rain, dusk, etc and other cars
: > not having their lights on. GM appears to have done this difference than
: > VW though (I think GM is using the brights for DRLs).
: That's normal. The DRLs are supposed to be the high-beam headlights, but
: at a reduced power. I think some of the GMs just don't have it reduced
: enough; Saturns are particularly bright. I do think they're a good idea,
: and a necessary "evil" because of all the idiots out there who don't pay
: attention. Anything to get more attention is, IMHO, a good idea.
: --
: Garner R. Miller
: Sarasota, Florida =USA=
: http://www.net21.com/garner/
------------------------------------------------
Hmm? There is a difference in gettting more attention and being
a hazard for other drivers. I don't quite see how a DRL makes
driving any safer for other people especially at dawn or dusk.
Picture this, if you will: It's getting dark, and you haven't yet
switched on your lights(fortunately you bought a car without
sonn-to-be-mandated DRLs). Most other cars on the road haven't
turned on their lights either. Suddenly, right in front of you
a brightly lit Cavalier barreling down. And, you are blinded
momentarily.
My point is, even if all the cars on the road had DRLs, at dusk
and dawn, it is still dangerous to have light shone at you
as aforementioned. I just find them annoying and useless.
If highway fatality is going down each year, what need is there
for DRLs? I think we should spend more legislative money
on things like roads that are better and safer.
And, to disable your idiotic DRLs, just pull up on your
parking brake one notch(click*)... But DON'T do this on a
Saturn!
comments welcome.
Craig
>
> Hmm? There is a difference in gettting more attention and being
> a hazard for other drivers. I don't quite see how a DRL makes
> driving any safer for other people especially at dawn or dusk.
> Picture this, if you will: It's getting dark, and you haven't yet
> switched on your lights(fortunately you bought a car without
> sonn-to-be-mandated DRLs). Most other cars on the road haven't
> turned on their lights either. Suddenly, right in front of you
> a brightly lit Cavalier barreling down. And, you are blinded
> momentarily.
>
> My point is, even if all the cars on the road had DRLs, at dusk
> and dawn, it is still dangerous to have light shone at you
> as aforementioned. I just find them annoying and useless.
> If highway fatality is going down each year, what need is there
> for DRLs? I think we should spend more legislative money
> on things like roads that are better and safer.
Opinions and speculation aside, the only case study of the
effectiveness of DRLs that I am aware of is when Sweden mandated
that (low beam) lights be kept on during the day. This was quite
a few years back, but the results before/after the new law were
fairly dramatic (I've heard 40% fewer accidents, but that seems
high to me). The effectiveness was greatest during periods of
low light, such as at dawn & dusk or on dark, cloudy days (which
Sweden has a lot of during the winter). Having driven there, I
can testify that the presense of the lights did seem to improve
my ability to see other cars on the road.
Of course, in the U.S. the national gov't can't pass a law mandating
that lights be kept on while driving (this is a state issue), so
instead they force automakers to "solve" this with technology, i.e.
DRLs.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
There's a variation on this in New Jersey: you have to run the headlights
whenever you run your windshield wipers.
Last week I was driving down the road with my wipers going, my headlights
on, and my sunglasses on -- because it was too bright out to drive without
them.
I came up with a radical new idea: we should pass a law requiring people to
turn on their lights when it's dark out. But that would never get past a
legislature...
Darren F Provine / kil...@copland.rowan.edu
Vitalstatistix
In article <4r1p4j$4...@agate.berkeley.edu> jh...@chabot.ced.berkeley.edu (Jung Ho Han) writes:
<snip>
>And, to disable your idiotic DRLs, just pull up on your
>parking brake one notch(click*)... But DON'T do this on a
>Saturn!
>comments welcome.
Yeah. Just pull on your parking brake and you will disable not only your DRL,
but also your brake pads, shoes, etc. etc. etc. "Don't do this on a Saturn"?
Don't do this on any car!
Krish
Aardwolf
The Correct Treatise on Daytime Running Lights:
DRL's
-should NEVER come on unless the engine is actually running (othewise
they will sap power and drain the battery)
-should NEVER operate at more than 1/2 low beam intensity
-should NEVER use the high beams, should ALWAYS use the low beams,
their purpose is to make the vehicle more visible by "broadcasting"
light, certainly not to illuminate anything, and above all NOT to
interfere with the vision of drivers by shining in their eyes (very
dangerous and something inevitable if high beams are used)
-should NEVER be unable to be turned off, a switch should be provided
for individual driver preference and choice as to when (if ever ) to
use them.
In addition the use of DRL's by cars will:
-render motorcycles much less visible putting them at a disadvantage
-may quite possibly cause some of todays underqualified drivers to
look for lights instead of actual cars, a very unsafe situation should
it occur
-make it annoying, seeing cars in the daytime with their lights on, as
if anyone really needs them to see where they're going (this last is
subjective)
Aardwolf.
Dave G Nelson
Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> wrote:
>DRL's
>Aardwolf.
Plus, if daytime lights come on automatically, you may forget to use
your normal headlights at night. This means you'll also need your
headlights, taillights, and instrument panel lights to come on
automatically at dusk and when you turn on your windshield wipers, and
turn off automatically at dawn.
Or they could put a two little lights in the dashboard that shine in
your eyes to remind you that your DRL's are operating.
Maybe they could also invent high beams that switch to low
automatically in the presence of traffic.
dave
Charles Prichard
You forgot that their PRIMARY function seems to be to irritate the hell out
of security guards at military bases or other locations who have to verify
the ID decal on the front of your car prior to allowing entry to the base!
When you turn your normal headlights off as approaching the guard shack IAW
regulations, guess what? One unhappy guard! (I REALLY don't like folks with
guns unhappy on MY account!)
--
Charles Prichard, Maitland FL
pric...@worldnet.att.net
Leroy Curtis
In article <4rohre$i...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, Dave G Nelson
<nyt...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>Maybe they could also invent high beams that switch to low
>automatically in the presence of traffic.
>
exactly that. I had a 77 Seville Fitted with it, but it always seemed to
switch to high beam when I didn't want it to.
Is this feature no longer available?
Regards
--
Leroy Curtis
Aardwolf
Good additional points, everyone. I had forgotten about "Autronic
Eye". I think Cadillac still may have something like that, not sure.
AH, the 'seventies! You could get cars with so many of today's
features... My '74 Toronado has antilocking brakes, dual airbags, a
huge high-power V8, front drive (if you like that sort of thing, I do
in the winter or bad weather), and auxiliary high-mount rear
brake/signal lights. And it wouldn't crush on impact like today's
cars---unless it _really_ had to. Combination of 5000lb. curb weight,
"crash" bumpers (further reinforced with FOUR overriders apiece) and
heavy duty frame makes it one rugged vehicle indeed.
Aardwolf.
Timothy J. Buck
IDH.667....@servms.fiu.edu> <31DF5E...@itis.com>:
Organization: Prairienet
Distribution:
Aardwolf (se1...@itis.com) wrote:
: The Correct Treatise on Daytime Running Lights:
:
: DRL's
:
: -should NEVER come on unless the engine is actually running (othewise
: they will sap power and drain the battery)
(etc)
(snip)
(etc)
:
: -make it annoying, seeing cars in the daytime with their lights on, as
: if anyone really needs them to see where they're going (this last is
: subjective)
:
: Aardwolf.
Aardman:
I'm sure glad you included the note to indicate which was the
subjective part. I was pretty confused there for a while...
Tim ("Ben Trench") Buck
Jack Rich
Dave G Nelson wrote:
>
> Maybe they could also invent high beams that switch to low
> automatically in the presence of traffic.
>
My father had a Cadillac that did this. Unfortunately, taking responsibility from the
driver and putting it on the car causes the driver to stop taking action. If it failed to
work, he would continue high-beaming the oncoming driver, all the while wondering why it
wasn't working, rather than actually doing something about it. (I think this is why
drivers of automatics don't think to take their car out of gear when things go wrong, such
as the old unintended acceleration flap.)
Jack
Elko Tchernev
In article <4rohre$i...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, nyt...@ix.netcom.com says...
>Plus, if daytime lights come on automatically, you may forget to use
>your normal headlights at night. This means you'll also need your
>headlights, taillights, and instrument panel lights to come on
>automatically at dusk and when you turn on your windshield wipers, and
>turn off automatically at dawn.
>
>Or they could put a two little lights in the dashboard that shine in
>your eyes to remind you that your DRL's are operating.
>
>Maybe they could also invent high beams that switch to low
>automatically in the presence of traffic.
>
>dave
I didn't see this thread and here's what I posted on another:
: Even better would be to have DRLs switch on when it gets
: relatively dark outside - one or two photoreceptors in the cabin could do
: the job. ( Here by DRL I mean all the stuff - headlights on LOW beam and
: taillights ). I even wonder why nobody did it (or perhaps somebody
: did and I don't know). This solves all problems:
: 1. no more annoying lights in the bright sunshine
: 2. no way to forget them off or on when driving thru stormy areas
: 3. no way to forget to turn them on at dusk
Obviously those ideas float arond and get implemented from time to time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elko Tchernev I want to be a nothing-knower,
tche...@hermes.msci.memphis.edu a little ant on any hill;
etch...@cc.memphis.edu for time is dead, the sun is over
tel/fax (901) 678 7304 and there is nothing left to kill.
Aardwolf
> rticle <4rohre$i...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, nyt...@ix.netcom.com says...
> I didn't see this thread and here's what I posted on another:
>
> : Even better would be to have DRLs switch on when it gets
> : relatively dark outside - one or two photoreceptors in the cabin could do
> : the job. ( Here by DRL I mean all the stuff - headlights on LOW beam and
> : taillights ). I even wonder why nobody did it (or perhaps somebody
> : did and I don't know). This solves all problems:
> : 1. no more annoying lights in the bright sunshine
> : 2. no way to forget them off or on when driving thru stormy areas
> : 3. no way to forget to turn them on at dusk
>
> Obviously those ideas float arond and get implemented from time to time.
> Elko Tchernev
Ever see "Twiilight Sentinel" on some of GM's higher-end cars?
Exactly that.
Aardwolf.
Gerald Yen-Wei Chen
: -should NEVER use the high beams, should ALWAYS use the low beams,
: light, certainly not to illuminate anything, and above all NOT to
: interfere with the vision of drivers by shining in their eyes (very
: dangerous and something inevitable if high beams are used)
I think the idea of using high beams in the first place was to make sure
that your low beams would not burn out too quickly. If the DRLs were
to operate on the low beams only, you could count on lots of replacement
bulbs.
Andrew Rogers
>automatically in the presence of traffic.
"They" already did, back in the early 60s.
Andrew
tlam
"lights on for safety" has been in Canada for a number of years now. I
have personally been taught (by the driving school) to turn on my lights
when in a car without DRL.....this was in 88. It has been second nature to
me to turn them on just before I pull out. I find myself even now turning
on the lights in my new sunfire (which has DRLs). Some interesting points:
1) I don't think DRL's use highbeams to save the low lamps. I had a 89
cavalier and when I gave it up in 94, I still did'nt replace a single
headlamp bulb. This is with lights on all the time while driving.
2) There should be a warning light reminding you to turn your lights on
when it is dark. I would imagine this is not hard to do.
3) Maybe there should be legislation (like in some European countries) to
enforce all drivers to have the lights on all the time. This is not likely
going to happen I don't think.
Stewart Chao
Jung Ho Han (jh...@chabot.ced.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: Hmm? There is a difference in gettting more attention and being
: a hazard for other drivers. I don't quite see how a DRL makes
: driving any safer for other people especially at dawn or dusk.
: Picture this, if you will: It's getting dark, and you haven't yet
: switched on your lights(fortunately you bought a car without
: sonn-to-be-mandated DRLs). Most other cars on the road haven't
: turned on their lights either. Suddenly, right in front of you
: a brightly lit Cavalier barreling down. And, you are blinded
: momentarily.
I guess you haven't seen to many cars with DRLs. DRLs are no more
brighter than parking lights. They are usually high beams set at half
power. And they definately help see cars at dusk/dawn and in rain.
Stewart
Shawn Smith
sc...@hoporoo.UWaterloo.CA (Stewart Chao) wrote:
>Jung Ho Han (jh...@chabot.ced.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>
>: Suddenly, right in front of you
>: a brightly lit Cavalier barreling down. And, you are blinded
>: momentarily.
>
>I guess you haven't seen to many cars with DRLs. DRLs are no more
>brighter than parking lights. They are usually high beams set at half
>power. And they definately help see cars at dusk/dawn and in rain.
>
>Stewart
Stewart,
I suggest you try looking directly at the front of a 1996 US spec
Saturn car (such as Mr. Han might encounter in his local area).
These cars are running high beams at 80% capacity, and they're
aimed right in your face. Not only are they brighter than parking
lights, they are also brighter than normal headlights, and can indeed
present a hazard of blinding oncoming drivers. Perhaps in Canada
(where you appear to be posting from) the DRL's are set up better,
but don't go telling folks how wrong they are when you don't really
know the facts. Notice how I've reserved judgement on Canadian DRL's
since I haven't seen them - it may be that DRLs are nicely implemented
in your area, but the reason some of us are pissed off down here in
the States is because we're being blinded by idiot implementations
of DRLs by folks like GM. I would have zero problem with DRL's if
they really were about the level of parking lights - sounds like a
great idea with a small improvement in visibility and no glare
issues. This is NOT the situation we currently have in the US. The
minute that all DRL's in the US match your description, I'll be happy
to quit complaining about them. Unfortunately, your description is
just plain wrong in the US, and I'm tired of hearing folks like you
pretend otherwise. I glad you're happy with the DRLs in your area, but
based on your description, they have zero relevance to the US DRL
problem which was the primary point of discussion here.
--
Shawn Smith Digital Sound Corporation
s...@dsc.com 6307 Carpinteria Ave
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself and sometimes I don't do
that very well
Paul Lu
tlam wrote:
>
> 2) There should be a warning light reminding you to turn your lights on
> when it is dark. I would imagine this is not hard to do.
There should be a warning light remind you to stop driving when you
are under such condition:
1. Speeding
2. Drunk
3. Reckless
4. Stupid
This shouldn't be hard to do.
>
> 3) Maybe there should be legislation (like in some European countries) to
> enforce all drivers to have the lights on all the time. This is not likely
> going to happen I don't think.
Luckily, it's not very likely to happen. The fact is, if this happens,
it is not going to help much!
Ed Dybdal
tlam wrote:>
>
> 2) There should be a warning light reminding you to turn your lights on
> when it is dark. I would imagine this is not hard to do.
I know someone who has a clifford alarm system on their car and their
lights automatically turn on before dusk and turn off after dawn, they
also turn your headlights on in the day if you are using the windshield
wipers which is mandatory in states such as New York and presumably
others.
John P. Curcio
In article <4rtm0n$r...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, tl...@ccs.carleton.ca (tlam) writes:
|> "lights on for safety" has been in Canada for a number of years now. I
|> have personally been taught (by the driving school) to turn on my lights
|> when in a car without DRL.....this was in 88.
This is from the same folks who preach that "speed kills" and other such
nonsense. I would take everything they say with a huge grain of salt.
|> It has been second nature to
|> me to turn them on just before I pull out. I find myself even now turning
|> on the lights in my new sunfire (which has DRLs). Some interesting points:
|> 2) There should be a warning light reminding you to turn your lights on
|> when it is dark. I would imagine this is not hard to do.
There is no need for such a warning light. This is simply common sense; if
you can't see, turn on the damn lights.
|> 3) Maybe there should be legislation (like in some European countries) to
|> enforce all drivers to have the lights on all the time. This is not likely
|> going to happen I don't think.
Let's hope not. All it does is "dummy down" drivers to the worst level.
Then, every idiot will have to come up with a new excuse as to why their
DRL didn't save them from having an accident.
On a related note, I saw a commercial from Saturn last night. It had a bunch
of idiots there waxing on about how they were miraculously saved by the
airbag that Saturn put in the car Just For Them. My only question for these
idiots (and the Bozos at Saturn): Why didn't your DRL save you from having
the accident?!?
-JPC
--
=============================================================================
John P. Curcio j...@philabs.philips.com Philips Labs Briarcliff Manor, NY
"The only thing the Democrats have to offer is fear itself"
"No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'" -BH
Joseph Goodwin
On 9 Jul 1996 21:03:16 GMT, Shawn Smith <s...@dsc.com> wrote:
>>
>I suggest you try looking directly at the front of a 1996 US spec
>Saturn car (such as Mr. Han might encounter in his local area).
>These cars are running high beams at 80% capacity, and they're
>aimed right in your face. Not only are they brighter than parking
>lights, they are also brighter than normal headlights, and can indeed
>present a hazard of blinding oncoming drivers.
Mr. Smith, do you speak from personal experience? I was at a Saturn
new owner workshop last night, and the service manager demonstrated
the operation of the headlight systems. The 96 Saturn in question was
parked about ten feet in front of me. I was seated, so the headlights
were shining directly in my face.
First he turned on the daytime running lights. Bright? Yes.
Blinding? Hardly - the parking lights seemed brighter by comparison..
Then he turned on the regular headlights. At that point, I had to
squint. Based on my personal observations, your assertation that the
daytime running lights are brighter than ordinary headlights is
completely false.
I would be interested in knowing your source for your statement that
the DRLs use 80% of the high-beam power. All the Saturn specs I have
read state that the DRLs use 50% of the high beam power, and this was
confirmed by the service manager. Are you sure you don't mean that
the DRL's shine at 80% of the REGULAR headlight power?
If you feel that DRLs pose a blinding hazard, you must see funeral
processions as downright driver assault.
Robert Spelman
In article <4s0ftu$e...@ionews.ionet.net>, jgoo...@ionet.net says...[SNIP]
>
>Mr. Smith, do you speak from personal experience? I was at a Saturn
>new owner workshop last night, and the service manager demonstrated
>the operation of the headlight systems. The 96 Saturn in question was
>parked about ten feet in front of me. I was seated, so the headlights
>were shining directly in my face.
>
>First he turned on the daytime running lights. Bright? Yes.
>Blinding? Hardly - the parking lights seemed brighter by comparison..
>Then he turned on the regular headlights. At that point, I had to
>squint. Based on my personal observations, your assertation that the
>daytime running lights are brighter than ordinary headlights is
>completely false.
>
>I would be interested in knowing your source for your statement that
>the DRLs use 80% of the high-beam power. All the Saturn specs I have
>read state that the DRLs use 50% of the high beam power, and this was
>confirmed by the service manager. Are you sure you don't mean that
>the DRL's shine at 80% of the REGULAR headlight power?
>
>If you feel that DRLs pose a blinding hazard, you must see funeral
>processions as downright driver assault.
>
>
First, there's a BIG difference between having your regular headlights
on, and having your "brights" on. As anyone who has taken a U.S. driver's
education course knows, standard headlights are directed down and towards the
right, so as not to blind other drivers. "Brights" are directed at least
towards the front if not to the left as well, and are directed ahead of the
vehicle rather than towards the ground. Having your "brights" on at 50% is
going to be much more noticeable (read annoying) to other drivers than havin
your standards on full, because the light output is directed in different ways.
The DRL's of a Saturn are annoying and potentially dangerous because the light
is directed at oncoming drivers. Saturn lights are also closer together, which
seems to intensify the perceived amount of light reaching the poor distracted
driver of any oncoming vehicle. Sunfire DRL's are somewhat less annoying, IMO,
because the lights are farther apart on the vehicle.
Shawn Smith
Ma...@IQuest.Net (Robert Spelman) wrote:
>In article <4s0ftu$e...@ionews.ionet.net>, jgoo...@ionet.net says...
>>
>>On 9 Jul 1996 21:03:16 GMT, Shawn Smith <s...@dsc.com> wrote:
>[SNIP]
>>
>>Mr. Smith, do you speak from personal experience? I was at a Saturn
>>new owner workshop last night, and the service manager demonstrated
>>the operation of the headlight systems. The 96 Saturn in question was
>>parked about ten feet in front of me. I was seated, so the headlights
>>were shining directly in my face.
Yes I do speak from personal experience. Specifically, I've watched
an oncoming Saturn flip from DRL to normal nite headlamps at dusk
and seen the glare drop dramatically. I would suggest that the seated-
10 feet away in the dealer showroom test must significantly affect
the angles and distances involved. I never drive directly toward
Saturns at a distance of 10 feet if I can avoid it :)
It's also amusing to watch some of the more annoying DRL-equiped cars
try and signal with their high-beams while in DRL mode - it's kind of
a non signal, since the difference is small between DRL and high-beam.
This is once again based on personal-real-world-on-the-actual-highway-
in-real-cars experience.
>>
>>First he turned on the daytime running lights. Bright? Yes.
>>Blinding? Hardly - the parking lights seemed brighter by comparison..
>>Then he turned on the regular headlights. At that point, I had to
>>squint. Based on my personal observations, your assertation that the
>>daytime running lights are brighter than ordinary headlights is
>>completely false.
It's not just how many watts are going to the bulbs, its where the
darn things are aimed. We're judging based on different criteria.
I'm talking about the quantity of light that hits my retinas as Saturns
drive past in the opposite direction. My personal experience shows
that the DRLs put more light in your face than normal headlights.
>>
>>I would be interested in knowing your source for your statement that
>>the DRLs use 80% of the high-beam power. All the Saturn specs I have
>>read state that the DRLs use 50% of the high beam power, and this was
>>confirmed by the service manager. Are you sure you don't mean that
>>the DRL's shine at 80% of the REGULAR headlight power?
>>
The 80% figure was from a GM description of their DRL implementation,
and yes I'm guilty of not having the exact reference at hand.
I may also have been in error in applying the GM spec to Saturn, since
Saturn sometimes goes its own way. I did find the 80% figure believable
based on the modest difference between high beam and DRL on saturns.
Anyhow, 80% isn't really the main issue - I'd be thrilled if it was
100% of _low_beams_, heck I'd even go for 150% low beams as long as
they'll quit aiming the darn things in my face. Deal?
Aardwolf
> Anyhow, 80% isn't really the main issue - I'd be thrilled if it was
> 100% of _low_beams_, heck I'd even go for 150% low beams as long as
> they'll quit aiming the darn things in my face. Deal?
I'm glad you see the true problem with GM's DRL's---hell isn't it
AGAINST THE LAW in many areas to go around driving everywhere with
high beams on? That is basically what these DRL's ammount to.
I've seen these Saturns (and Grand Ams, etc...) and I can assure you
that these DRL's are just as dangerous as shining your brights at
oncoming traffic---because that is really what you are doing.
Sounds like the dealer had positioned the "demonstration" so that
anyone viewing it would be sitting right in the "hot spot" of the LOW
beams, where on the road no one would ever be. Pretty slick.
I dissagree with settling for 150% of low beams just to get them
moved from high beams---first of all that'd burn out your low beams
much faster. Secondly it'd make necessary expensive heavy-duty
electrical relays. And finally it'd be too bright. I think a law
should be passed saying that DRL's can only be low beams at 50%
intensity, or parking lights at up to 200% intensity. And can only be
operating when the engine is actually running. And they should always
be voluntary, able to be switched off. As if anyone actually NEEDS
lights to see where they are going in the daytime!
Aardwolf.
Rizwan Ahmad
5$u...@dg-rtp.dg.com> <4r0t4f$k...@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com>
Distribution:
:
Wes Fujii (we...@boi.hp.com) wrote:
: Bob Goudreau (goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com) wrote:
:
: : "Supposed to" by whom? DRLs using low-beams have existed for years
: : in countries like Canada. Why do you imply that the monstrous GM
: : practice of using high-beam DRLs is somehow the correct way?
:
: Well, it's probably like most things. GM sell so many vehicles, that
: they guide the main "trends" and people have to be on the same
: bandwagon to compete. GM also "ruins" good ideas, too, like using
: diesel engines in cars. It was the GM 350-diesel that soured most
: US drivers on diesel powered cars, and it's not because diesel engines
: are bad, it was just GM's poor execution of the technology.
There is a separate wire for the DRL going to the head light. Cut it problem
fixed. I tried this on a rental car I had, but I fixed it before I returned it.
--
Rizwan Ahmad
riza...@csd.uwm.edu
amc...@execpc.com
414-679-9882 414-520-0114
LiL RiZ's Fresh Lowrider Home Page
http://www.uwm.edu/~rizahmad
Ahmadiyya Muslim Student Association Milwaukee Home Page
http://www.uwm.edu/~rizahmad/ahmadiyya
UWM Library Micro Lab Consultant 229-6418
tlam
John P. Curcio (j...@philabs.research.philips.com) wrote:
> |> have personally been taught (by the driving school) to turn on my lights
> |> when in a car without DRL.....this was in 88.
> This is from the same folks who preach that "speed kills" and other such
> nonsense. I would take everything they say with a huge grain of salt.
Agreed. But taking the course does reduce your insurance rates for the
first few years.
>
> |> when it is dark. I would imagine this is not hard to do.
> There is no need for such a warning light. This is simply common sense; if
> you can't see, turn on the damn lights.
The fact is, when it is dark, the DRLs are intense enough to see by (ask
all the people who complain of glare from DRLs). The problem is that your
tail lights are not with the DRLs.
> |> 3) Maybe there should be legislation (like in some European countries) to
> |> enforce all drivers to have the lights on all the time. This is not likely
> |> going to happen I don't think.
> Let's hope not. All it does is "dummy down" drivers to the worst level.
> Then, every idiot will have to come up with a new excuse as to why their
> DRL didn't save them from having an accident.
IMHO DRLs don't do a damn thing in the city.
On the highway, its a different story. Speed and distance are much easier
to judge on a car with DRLs than one without.
> On a related note, I saw a commercial from Saturn last night. It had a bunch
> of idiots there waxing on about how they were miraculously saved by the
> airbag that Saturn put in the car Just For Them. My only question for these
> idiots (and the Bozos at Saturn): Why didn't your DRL save you from having
> the accident?!?
No matter how many safety features a car company puts on a vehicle, this
is not going to stop idiots from driving on the road. Although I think
DRLs are a good idea (sometimes) they are given way too much praise by the
car makers. DRLs are an advertising gimmick more than anything.
____________________________________________________________________________
Beware the |\__/| .~ ~. Mike Lam
killer squirrels /o=o'`./ .' Carleton University
will get yo {o__, \ { E-mail: tl...@ccs.carleton.ca
o / . . ) \ ttm...@chat.carleton.ca
o `-` '-' \ }
u .( _( )_.'
:. '---.~_ _ _|
:.
____________________________________________________________________________
Elko Tchernev
In article <4rttvt$q...@condor.philabs.research.philips.com>,
j...@philabs.research.philips.com says...
>There is no need for such a warning light. This is simply common sense; if
>you can't see, turn on the damn lights.
Yeah, but sometimes the girl forgets. ;)
Just witnessed at a railway crossing at dusk - while waiting for the train
to pass, some people (me too) switch everything off; when you start after
that it's very easy to forget to turn the headlights back on. In this
particular case one driver ahead of me forgot. He can't easily notice it,
because the street lamps are on, he SEES the road. In such cases something
automatic - light, buzzer, etc. can help.
>
>-JPC
Elko
John P. Curcio
In article <4s34r6$3...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, tl...@ccs.carleton.ca (tlam) writes:
|> John P. Curcio (j...@philabs.research.philips.com) wrote:
|> > |> have personally been taught (by the driving school) to turn on my lights
|> > |> when in a car without DRL.....this was in 88.
|>
|> > This is from the same folks who preach that "speed kills" and other such
|> > nonsense. I would take everything they say with a huge grain of salt.
|>
|> Agreed. But taking the course does reduce your insurance rates for the
|> first few years.
That's the only reason I take them. I once tried to enlighten the stupid
teacher to certain errors she made (such as misstating certain laws in the
NY Vehicle and Traffic Law), but she would have none of it. She Had Been
Trained In The Law. She Knew More Than I Did (even _after_ I showed her
the relevant sections of the V&TL).
|> The fact is, when it is dark, the DRLs are intense enough to see by (ask
|> all the people who complain of glare from DRLs). The problem is that your
|> tail lights are not with the DRLs.
Exactly. This is a major problem. The last time it rained, I noted that
there were a good number of DRL-equipped cars whose drivers didn't feel it
necessary to use their headlights, so they had no taillights.
|> > Let's hope not. All it does is "dummy down" drivers to the worst level.
|> > Then, every idiot will have to come up with a new excuse as to why their
|> > DRL didn't save them from having an accident.
|>
|> IMHO DRLs don't do a damn thing in the city.
|> On the highway, its a different story. Speed and distance are much easier
|> to judge on a car with DRLs than one without.
DRL don't do a damn thing, period. Or let me rephrase that-- they don't do a
damn positive thing, period. Contrary to what you said, it is more difficult
to judge distance and speed of a DRL-equipped car. You can't properly judge
the distance since the apparent image of the lamp filament is much farther
behind the car than the front of the car.
|> No matter how many safety features a car company puts on a vehicle, this
|> is not going to stop idiots from driving on the road. Although I think
|> DRLs are a good idea (sometimes) they are given way too much praise by the
|> car makers. DRLs are an advertising gimmick more than anything.
This begs the question.... if you think they are more gimmick than anything,
why do you think they are a good idea?
jforest@ionet
anybody know where the "hard proof" is that driving with drl of
headlight is safer? no opinons just the facts.
jim
Paul Lu
jforest@ionet wrote:
>
> anybody know where the "hard proof" is that driving with drl of
> headlight is safer? no opinons just the facts.
Hum! That is going to be hard. The idea itself sounds more
like opinion to me than fact. Of course, they might have
some statistics which we know can be easily cooked to show
anything at your wish.
jforest@ionet
Paul Lu <lup...@cyberatl.net> wrote:
As I posted once before when this subject came up, I was working at
bitburg air base germany, the wing commander read in some auto
maginize (AAA?) that running with with lights on reduced accidents, so
he mandated that all military vehicle on base run with ligths on.
after 1 year all he had to show for it was a mountain of dead
batteries and accidents were not reduced, FWIW.
jim
Daniel I. Manes
In article <4sdkve$2...@ionews.ionet.net>, jforest@ionet wrote:
> As I posted once before when this subject came up, I was working at
> bitburg air base germany, the wing commander read in some auto
> maginize (AAA?) that running with with lights on reduced accidents, so
> he mandated that all military vehicle on base run with ligths on.
> after 1 year all he had to show for it was a mountain of dead
> batteries and accidents were not reduced, FWIW.
It's worth nothing.
One year is not enough data (it could have been a bad winter, for example)
and the dead batteries are probably a result of people forgetting to turn
their lights off (unlike original-equipment DRL's which turn off
automatically).
-Dan
--
1996 Ford Contour SE 5-speed in black
History...
1991 Nissan Sentra SE-R 5-speed in black
John P. Curcio
In article <danthman-150...@aaron.umtri.umich.edu>, dant...@umich.edu (Daniel I. Manes) writes:
|> One year is not enough data (it could have been a bad winter, for example)
|> and the dead batteries are probably a result of people forgetting to turn
|> their lights off (unlike original-equipment DRL's which turn off
|> automatically).
Yeah, but one "study," pointed to by DRL advocate after DRL advocate, is
enough to warrant DRL? It would be nice if we could somehow see a copy
of this study, but I have yet to have anyone come up with one reference
for it.
Mark R. Juchter
> When I was growing up in Michigan in the 50s and 60s, I recall that Michigan
> law prohibited ordinary vehicles from operating with the headlights on
> during daylight hours, except during periods of inclement weather. Reason:
> to distinguish emergency vehicles from ordinary vehicles.
>
> My uncle, in fact, got a ticket as he crossed the state line into Michigan
> from Indiana. At that time, Indiana was promoting the headlight thing, and
> officers from all the small towns along the Michigan-Indiana state line were
> having a field day, giving tickets.
Just out of curiosity, are more people for or against running with lights
on 25-hours a day. I have been doing it since I started driving 8 years
ago, and none of my vehicles have had DTR lights. I see more and more
people doing it where I live and I don't see it as a problem.
MRJ
Jim Lowman
Aardwolf (se1...@itis.com) wrote:
: I'm glad you see the true problem with GM's DRL's---hell isn't it
: AGAINST THE LAW in many areas to go around driving everywhere with
: high beams on? That is basically what these DRL's ammount to.
: I've seen these Saturns (and Grand Ams, etc...) and I can assure you
: that these DRL's are just as dangerous as shining your brights at
: oncoming traffic---because that is really what you are doing.
When I was growing up in Michigan in the 50s and 60s, I recall that Michigan
law prohibited ordinary vehicles from operating with the headlights on
during daylight hours, except during periods of inclement weather. Reason:
to distinguish emergency vehicles from ordinary vehicles.
My uncle, in fact, got a ticket as he crossed the state line into Michigan
from Indiana. At that time, Indiana was promoting the headlight thing, and
officers from all the small towns along the Michigan-Indiana state line were
having a field day, giving tickets.
Jim
Stephen C. Gallagher
>>anybody know where the "hard proof" is that driving with drl of
>>headlight is safer? no opinons just the facts.
I do remember reading in the Ottawa Citizen that since
DRLs were made mandatory in Canada the rate of head-on
collisions has decreased dramatically. I'll see if I can
find the actual source of the data.
Stephen Gallagher
Randall Kinney
In article <jlowmanD...@netcom.com> jlo...@netcom.com (Jim Lowman) writes:
>From: jlo...@netcom.com (Jim Lowman)
>Subject: Re: Daytime Running Lights - How to disable???
>Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 16:37:02 GMT
>Mark R. Juchter (mjuc...@moose.erie.net) wrote:
>: Just out of curiosity, are more people for or against running with lights
>: on 25-hours a day. I have been doing it since I started driving 8 years
>: ago, and none of my vehicles have had DTR lights. I see more and more
>: people doing it where I live and I don't see it as a problem.
>One vote definitely against, here. I find that oncoming traffic with
>headlights on in the daylight hours, for no good reason, are distractive.
>Plus, I equate this with an emergency vehicle.
>Jim
Well Up here Canada it is the law. I believe DRLs are one of the best safety
features you can have. Canada is mostly two lane roads it is a lot easier to
see on coming traffic. I just wish it was manditory to upgrade all vehicles
with them. I used to ride a bike and I believe they helped I also think they
help with cars. The other thing is the high beams are not on full blast.
They run at a reduced rate. Also DRLs do a shitty job at illuminating the
road at night you must turn on your head lights. DRLs help make the cars we
drive safer. Just like air bags, seat belts and ABS. So what if you have to
replace two $14.00 bulbs every 60,000 miles, thats cheap insurance if it helps
prevent a head on collision down a two lane road at 60 mph.
If people would drive with a little common sense and courtesy we wouldn't need
all these safty features. We also wouldn't we have goverments that try to
restrict the way we drive.
Randall Kinney
1991 Dodge Daytona 3.0 Litre V6
A little bit of maintenance goes
a long way when it comes to keeping
that new car on the road.
Andrew Rogers
Aardwolf (se1...@itis.com) wrote:
> I'm glad you see the true problem with GM's DRL's---hell isn't it
> AGAINST THE LAW in many areas to go around driving everywhere with
> high beams on?
DRLs aren't considered high beams, and in any case all state laws banning
use of headlights during the daytime were superseded years ago by Federal law.
Andrew
Stephen C. Gallagher
>: Just out of curiosity, are more people for or against running with lights
>: on 25-hours a day. I have been doing it since I started driving 8 years
>: ago, and none of my vehicles have had DTR lights. I see more and more
>: people doing it where I live and I don't see it as a problem.
>One vote definitely against, here. I find that oncoming traffic with
>headlights on in the daylight hours, for no good reason, are distractive.
>Plus, I equate this with an emergency vehicle.
>Jim
As an American who moved to Canada this year, I've had to get used
to nearly everybody having DRLs. At first, they were a bit annoying
but after six months, I've gotten used to them and I actually think
they're good because they do attract your attention. I hope that
they become mandatory back in the US.
Stephen Gallagher
James Kaplan
As to the DRL controversy...
As one who travels two lane high speed highways a bit, I have not
the slightest doubt that oncoming vehicles with their headlights
on in the day time are much more visible, whether its sunny or
dark. If that oncoming vehicle is me, perhaps someone won't
make a dangerous pass into my lane he/she might otherwise have & the
same for me. Have driven with headlights on on the open 2 lane
hiway for as long as I can remember. In fact...when I had my 72
Saab (for 19 years) the headlights went off with the ignition if
they were on when you shut the car off. So I drove for 19 years
with my headlights always on. Also only had to replace one of
the 4 bulbs one time in all those years. The car I'm strongly
considering to replace my current 86 Olds, a Subaru Brighton Wagon
apparently has the same set up a Saab, so I'll be happy to drive
with lights on all the time again.
I haven't read the entire thread, but it would be interesting to
hear from some truckers, or others who spend much of their life
on the open road.
Jim Kaplan
tlam
James Kaplan (JAKa...@gnn.com) wrote:
> As one who travels two lane high speed highways a bit, I have not
> the slightest doubt that oncoming vehicles with their headlights
> on in the day time are much more visible, whether its sunny or
I was driving around in the city the other day and this Civic with DRLs in
the oncoming lane went over a bump. This caused the lights to come right
into my eyes (arrrhhhg!). I never had this happen to me before reading
this thread ;)
I guess my point is that while DRLs can make a difference in perventing an
accident (although no one in this thread has been about to pull out the
stats), they can also irritate other drivers. But will it hurt to have
them on? Will the glare from DRLs cause a driver to cause an accident. I
personally don't think so. What do you guys think?
ANyway, on a different note. On a previous post I mentioned that I did not
like DRLs because they may cause someone to forget to turn on the regular
lamps when required because DRLs are bright enough to see by. I posted
this when I was driving a 96 Pontiac Sunfire. Well since then, I traded it
in for a 96 Grand Am and it DOES have a sensor inside the cabin to sense
the amount of light getting into the cabin. If it is dark for a long
enough period of time, the DRLs are turned off and the regular headlamps
with the taillamps and the dash are turned on. It is a good idea but my
question to GM is why not have it in all your 96 vehicles? (ie the Sunfire).
Another funny thing is that when you manually turn on the regular lamps,
the light seems to be a little brighter than when they are turned on
automatically (with the light switch to off) by the sensor. Weird.
Shawn Smith
>the slightest doubt that oncoming vehicles with their headlights
>on in the day time are much more visible, whether its sunny or
[snip]
Despite my opposition to some of the new DRL implementations, I
agree with this generally, and indeed on those very rare occassions
where I wander out into two lane highway land I manually turn on my
_normal_headlamps_ to improve safety.
The problem with DRL's is on other dimensions.
1. Lots of people like me almost never see two lane highway, which is
just about the only place having your headlamps on during clear
weather daytime conditions is likely to make a significant safety
improvement.
2. Idiots like the folks at GM are using reduced-power high-beams in
their DRL implementation, which can cause glare problems under
some conditions (not always, but probably the _average_ driver will
encounter the glare problem and/or the no tailights at nite problem
at least as often as the two lane highway good DRL case.
I'm endlessly amused at the inability some of the most strident DRL
advocates to admitt that there is an obvious trade-off when using
devices to increase the awareness of other drivers to the presence
of your car, going from "I really can't see it" to "I really can't
see the rest of the road because of it".
Based on the reasoning of some DRL folks, one wonders why we shouldn't
mount 10,000 watt searchlights on our cars, just in case of really
really thick fog.
Or better still, I suggest you take the DRL advocates reasoning on
headlights, and apply it to my spoof suggestion of the Daytime Honking
Horn (DHH). See - there are cases when you come around corners where
the DRL's won't work, so why not _mandate_ that all cars have a DHH
device that automatically honks the horn every 5 seconds to alert
other drivers to your presence, just in case you happen upon a case
where DRL's don't work. Sure it would be annoying, and you might
miss other important audio data in all the thousands of honking horns
during rush hour, but we're saving lives here, right?
Go ahead: Tell me why the DHH should not be implemented immediately
and then using the same logic try to defend mandated DRLs.
Hint: "When I go around blind corners I can manually honk my horn"
is an exact match to my turning on my headlights when I drive
on two-lane highways....
Stephen C. Gallagher
>On a previous post I mentioned that I did not like DRLs because
>they may cause someone to forget to turn on the regular lamps
>when required because DRLs are bright enough to see by.
Oh, don't worry about that. Once you get your first ticket for driving
at night with only DRLs running, you always remember to turn your
headlights on at night. ;-)
Andrew Rogers
In article <31ec7a12...@newnews.metronet.com> apo...@metronet.com (Joe Siegler) writes:
>My 96 Chevy Cavalier has these, and when I was on my test drive, I
>asked the salesman why the headlights were on, and he told me that
>come 97 or 98, a Federal law says that all new cars have to have
>Daytime Running Lights, and Chevy just got started early.
Your salesman told you so? Wow - that's a real reliable source of
information. Almost right up there with Rush.
Andrew
Joe Siegler
>Just out of curiosity, are more people for or against running with lights
>on 25-hours a day. I have been doing it since I started driving 8 years
>ago, and none of my vehicles have had DTR lights. I see more and more
>people doing it where I live and I don't see it as a problem.
My 96 Chevy Cavalier has these, and when I was on my test drive, I
asked the salesman why the headlights were on, and he told me that
come 97 or 98, a Federal law says that all new cars have to have
Daytime Running Lights, and Chevy just got started early.
Better get used to it. <sigh>
Joe Siegler
Apogee Software
Richard C. Rauch
Stephen C. Gallagher wrote:
>
> I hope that they become mandatory back in the US.
I'm in favor of mandatory low-beam headlights, at least when the vehicle
is running. It seems like the only answer for the idiots who can't grasp
the dual purpose of headlights (not only to see, but also to be seen).
It never ceases to amaze me how few people use their lights on a dark,
rainy day on a 2-lane country highway. As if, because it's not mandated
(here), it's not necessary!
--
Rich Rauch
http://users.aol.com/richrauch/
outrun
DRL's are silly. Just because some canucks up north do it, we have to
also? I actually DETRACTS your attention from the road in front of you.
If a car is passing you with their high beams on, you're going to notice
it. While this car is passing you, if the car in front of you slams on
his brakes, you're going to hit him. The DRL thus caused an accident.
And exactly WHY do motorcycles drive with their lights on by law? To
stick out among a pack of cars so they can be seens. Now if all the cars
also have their highbeams on, what is going to make the motorcycle stick
out among that pack of cars? Nothing. More accidents, more death.
Now, what if a police car is trying to ge through traffic? You can
easily depict him from behind - the one with his lights on. Now if all
cars had lights on, it's MUCH tougher to spot him, resulting is longer
looks into your rear view mirror, resulting in less time looking where
you're actually going, resulting is possibly more frontal accidents.
DRL's also cause a 3% decrease in power/gasmilage due to more strain on
the alternator to recharge your battery which is constantly running
your headlights. Bad.
Plus headlights burn out faster due to the use of DRLs. Bad.
DRL's are just a bad idea that some bone head in
Canada thought of.
Unfortunately, I'm going to purchase a Volvo 850 Turbo in a few months,
which have DRLs. Of course, I'm going to do everything in my power to
disable them.
Andrew Rogers (rog...@star.Hi.COM) wrote:
Aardwolf
Andrew Rogers wrote:
> DRLs aren't considered high beams, and in any case all state laws banning
> use of headlights during the daytime were superseded years ago by Federal law.
"Aren't considered high beams"?! They ARE high beams---so WHAT if they
run at a reduced rate, the're still too bright to use at all in
traffic, because of their AIM. There's only about a 5-watrt
difference between full-on brights and full-on high beams anyhow. I'd
have no problem with DRL's if they were LOW beams at reduced
intensity. Running high beams at any intensity in traffic is a
dangerous distraction. DRL's aimed with high beams should be outlawed
plain and simple. Their purpose is not to illuminate anything and
CERTAINLY not shine directly into the eyes of oncoming drivers.
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Randall Kinney wrote:
> Well Up here Canada it is the law. I believe DRLs are one of the best safety
> features you can have. Canada is mostly two lane roads it is a lot easier to
> see on coming traffic. I just wish it was manditory to upgrade all vehicles
> with them. I used to ride a bike and I believe they helped I also think they
> help with cars.
No comment here, I ain't Canadian.
> The other thing is the high beams are not on full blast.
> They run at a reduced rate.
Who cares? Its the AIM far more than the brightness that
distinguishes high beams from low beams--they are supposed to be used
only when not in approaching or heavy traffic. I'd have no problem
with reduced-rate low beam DRL's. As long as they only operate when
the engine is actually running.
> If people would drive with a little common sense and courtesy we wouldn't need
> all these safty features. We also wouldn't we have goverments that try to
> restrict the way we drive.
Touché.
Aardwolf.
Mr. Fun
Shawn Smith <s...@dsc.com> wrote:
>JAKa...@gnn.com (James Kaplan) wrote:
>>As to the DRL controversy...
>>
>>As one who travels two lane high speed highways a bit, I have not
>>the slightest doubt that oncoming vehicles with their headlights
>>on in the day time are much more visible, whether its sunny or
>>dark.
>
>[snip]
>
>Despite my opposition to some of the new DRL implementations, I
>agree with this generally, and indeed on those very rare occassions
>where I wander out into two lane highway land I manually turn on my
>_normal_headlamps_ to improve safety.
>
I drive on 2 lane roads all the time and have seen not the slightest benefit
to DRLs. In EVERY instance where there was a DRL car off in the distance I
could easily see NON-DRL cars that were even FARTHER away. And at distances
that are always many multiples of the distance within which any of the cars
would be any conceivable hazard.
If the benefits of DRLs were even one one-hundreth of what the proponents
claim, the highways would have been awash in blood prior to the advent of DRLs
as a very large number of the proponents indicate that DRLs are literally a
lifesaver for them. You have to wonder if they are a lifesaver how they
managed to drive for more then a few days without being killed when there
weren't any DRLs.
Stephen C. Gallagher
>>I drive on 2 lane roads all the time and have seen not
>>the slightest benefit to DRLs. In EVERY instance where
>>there was a DRL car off in the distance I could easily see
>>NON-DRL cars that were even FARTHER away.
Yes, it's true that you usually can see non-DRL cars as easily
as DRL cars, when you're looking for them, or looking directly
at them. But DRL cars tend to attract your attention when
you are not looking for them. They let you know they
are there when you otherwise might not have initially noticed them
until they were they are a lot closer.
Stephen Gallagher
Richard C. Rauch
outrun wrote:
>
> And exactly WHY do motorcycles drive with their lights on by law? To
> stick out among a pack of cars so they can be seens. Now if all the
> cars also have their highbeams on, what is going to make the
> motorcycle stick out among that pack of cars? Nothing. More
> accidents, more death.
I disagree. Motorcycles' lights are on to be seen when there's NOTHING
else around. Think about it--if you're about to turn left, you're going
to check for oncoming traffic. Seeing a "pack of cars," lights on or
not, you wait until it passes, embedded motorcycles and all. Seeing
nothing, you turn, only to find that you didn't notice the vintage
motorcycle without any lights on. If the formerly proud, now dead, rider
had bothered to turn on his headlight, you would have had to notice it.
> Now, what if a police car is trying to ge through traffic? You can
> easily depict him from behind - the one with his lights on. Now if all
> cars had lights on, it's MUCH tougher to spot him, resulting is longer
> looks into your rear view mirror, resulting in less time looking where
> you're actually going, resulting is possibly more frontal accidents.
The police car is the one with the flashing lights (red or blue ones, as
well as headlights).
> DRL's also cause a 3% decrease in power/gasmilage due to more strain on
> the alternator to recharge your battery which is constantly running
> your headlights. Bad.
3% seems awfully high. What's your source? Regardless, this argument is
moot if DRLs prevent accidents. And I maintain they will, just as they
do for motorcycles. They get you NOTICED.
While I think the DRL concept is a darn good idea, the implementation
(partial high-beams) might be the flawed. As a motorcyclist since the
70s, I wouldn't argue against mandatory low-beam headlights on every
moving vehicle to lessen the chance that the half-baked other driver
"didn't see" you. I hate when that happens! :-)
Aardwolf
Shawn Smith wrote:
> Idiots like the folks at GM are using reduced-power high-beams in
> their DRL implementation, which can cause glare problems
You forgot that their DRL's don't just come on only when the engine is
actually running, like they should. For some idiot reason they come
on in the "accessory" position--who is going to be driving without
their engine running? And if you're sitting on the curb listning to
your stereo, it'll be doing a really good job of draining your
battery.
Aardwolf.
mcur...@ix.netcom.com
Randall Kinney wrote:
>
> In article <jlowmanD...@netcom.com> jlo...@netcom.com (Jim Lowman) writes:
> >From: jlo...@netcom.com (Jim Lowman)
> >Subject: Re: Daytime Running Lights - How to disable???
> >Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 16:37:02 GMT
>
>
> >: Just out of curiosity, are more people for or against running with lights
> >: on 25-hours a day. I have been doing it since I started driving 8 years
> >: ago, and none of my vehicles have had DTR lights. I see more and more
> >: people doing it where I live and I don't see it as a problem.
>
> >headlights on in the daylight hours, for no good reason, are distractive.
> >Plus, I equate this with an emergency vehicle.
>
> >Jim
>
> features you can have. Canada is mostly two lane roads it is a lot easier to
> see on coming traffic. I just wish it was manditory to upgrade all vehicles
> with them. I used to ride a bike and I believe they helped I also think they
> They run at a reduced rate. Also DRLs do a shitty job at illuminating the
> road at night you must turn on your head lights. DRLs help make the cars we
> drive safer. Just like air bags, seat belts and ABS. So what if you have to
> replace two $14.00 bulbs every 60,000 miles, thats cheap insurance if it helps
> prevent a head on collision down a two lane road at 60 mph.
>
> all these safty features. We also wouldn't we have goverments that try to
> restrict the way we drive.
>
> 1991 Dodge Daytona 3.0 Litre V6
>
> A little bit of maintenance goes
> a long way when it comes to keeping
> that new car on the road.
I think that DRL's are a good idea, but there should be a switch to
disable them. There are times when i just want to turn my lights off!
Ex. pulling into a drive-in late, driving cross country in the winter
and pulling over at night to catch some zzzz's and leaving the car
running, sitting in a drive through that faces a busy street. I do
think that they are safer, but I still wish they had an off switch.
My 2¢ worth. Mark C.
jforest@ionet
dant...@umich.edu (Daniel I. Manes) wrote:
>It's worth nothing.
>One year is not enough data (it could have been a bad winter, for example)
>and the dead batteries are probably a result of people forgetting to turn
>their lights off (unlike original-equipment DRL's which turn off
>automatically).
>-Dan
ah, my point exactly where's the proof that drl works. (yes ithe dead
batteries were caquse by not turning off the headlights them off)
jim
Mr. Fun
I don't want my attention DISTRACTED from REAL hazards so that I can
gaze upon a far off distant car with it's headlights on. That is
NOT a safety benefit. . The US NHTSA reviewed the available
research and concluded that there was NO demonstrable NET safety
benefits from DRLs and therefore no rational basis for them. They
sound good but in practice are worthless as far as providing a NET
safety improvement. Overall accidents appear to go up as the usage
of DRLs increases.
Mr. Fun
jforest@ionet wrote:
There is no proof that they work. The US gvt concluded that after a
review of the literature. I did my own search of DRL studies and
it's clear that the MOST that can be said about their "benefits" is
that the "benefits" can not be established. The studies also
indicated that the widespread use of DRLs leads to a greater number
of total accidents with slight decreases in some types of accidents
but large increases in other types, such as rear enders.
Mark R. Juchter
Again, not being arumentative, this is just the way I see it...
> DRL's are silly. Just because some canucks up north do it, we have to
> also? I actually DETRACTS your attention from the road in front of you.
> If a car is passing you with their high beams on, you're going to notice
> it. While this car is passing you, if the car in front of you slams on
> his brakes, you're going to hit him. The DRL thus caused an accident.
I drive with my headlights on all the time, and have not yet caused an
accident because someone was looking at me and not the road in front of
them. So do many other people in this town, and I cannot say that I turn
to look at each one as they pass. I do, however, notice them sooner then
I would a car without lights on. I just don't consciously turn my head to
stare.
> And exactly WHY do motorcycles drive with their lights on by law? To
> stick out among a pack of cars so they can be seens. Now if all the cars
> also have their highbeams on, what is going to make the motorcycle stick
> out among that pack of cars? Nothing. More accidents, more death.
The point isn't that we're noticing cars because they are _different_
(although I suppose that helps), but because they have their lights on and
are therefore more visible. I tend to see a bright yellow car before I
see a black one, just because it is more visible. If ALL cars were bright
colors I would see ALL of them better. The effect would not be reduced.
> Now, what if a police car is trying to ge through traffic? You can
> easily depict him from behind - the one with his lights on. Now if all
> cars had lights on, it's MUCH tougher to spot him, resulting is longer
> looks into your rear view mirror, resulting in less time looking where
> you're actually going, resulting is possibly more frontal accidents.
I don't know about your town, but the police here drive with headlights on
under nornal conditions, and headlights flashing when in an emergency. I
personaly only care about the cops in the latter case when they also have
bright red and blue lights flashing on top of the car. In fact, I don't
remember ever looking for police in the rear view mirror by headlights...
Just emergency lights.
> DRL's also cause a 3% decrease in power/gasmilage due to more strain on
> the alternator to recharge your battery which is constantly running
> your headlights. Bad.
Agreed. :) However, there are cars in Europe getting 45-50 MPG. If the
car manufacturers here wanted to, they could help out here.
> Plus headlights burn out faster due to the use of DRLs. Bad.
I have been running with my headlights on full time (not DRLs, I don't
have them), for the last two years (since I bought this car). I haven't
replaced a bulb yet, not even in the taillights which are also lit.
> DRL's are just a bad idea that some bone head in
> Canada thought of.
No comment.
> Unfortunately, I'm going to purchase a Volvo 850 Turbo in a few months,
> which have DRLs. Of course, I'm going to do everything in my power to
> disable them.
I recommend getting the VOLVO technical manuals. They are incredible and
would probably eliminate the chances of making a mistake and disabling
something else, too.
MRJ
BTW, fo r the newsgroup in general: DO we realize that DRL's aren't just
high beams? They are high beams at _reduced power_, usually 45% or less.
Considerably less than blinding, using less power, and burning out less
quickly.
Mark R. Juchter
> You forgot that their DRL's don't just come on only when the engine is
> actually running, like they should. For some idiot reason they come
> on in the "accessory" position--who is going to be driving without
> their engine running? And if you're sitting on the curb listning to
> your stereo, it'll be doing a really good job of draining your
> battery.
I think I'll have to agree with that one. And on a slightly different
note, the folks at Subaru decided it would be nice if your headlights went
off when you turned off your car--avoids battery death and all. Well, it
would be even nicer if they were off in the accessory position, too. :)
Can't win 'em all!
MRJ
Aardwolf
outrun wrote:
> Unfortunately, I'm going to purchase a Volvo 850 Turbo in a few months,
> which have DRLs. Of course, I'm going to do everything in my power to
> disable them.
Volvos are supposed to have a tiny little "manual" DRL switch in the
headlight control, that you can turn to the "on' or "off" position
with a small screwdriver. I bet they also don't stay on when the
engine isn't running and don't use high beams. Overall I think a
better idea would be a reduced intensity low beam "DRL" switch for the
headlights. (Are you listening, GM?)
Steve Ward
In article <4sjj90$k...@news-old.tiac.net>, outrun <out...@tiac.net> wrote:
>Unfortunately, I'm going to purchase a Volvo 850 Turbo in a few months,
>which have DRLs. Of course, I'm going to do everything in my power to
>disable them.
In the US, the Volvo DRL system is disabled with a small screwdriver, the
switch is right next to the regular headlamp switch.
Btw, Volvo's DRL system uses the low-beams, not the high-beams like the
idiotic GM system...
Steve
--
Steve Ward, Jr., Advanced Systems Specialist
School of Engineering, University of Portland
Portland OR
st...@up.edu
Aardwolf
mcur...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> I think that DRL's are a good idea, but there should be a switch to
> disable them. There are times when i just want to turn my lights off!
> Ex. pulling into a drive-in late, driving cross country in the winter
> and pulling over at night to catch some zzzz's and leaving the car
> running, sitting in a drive through that faces a busy street. I do
> think that they are safer, but I still wish they had an off switch.
And how about driving into an astronomy meet? White light of that
magnitude instantly destroys night vision. And what if you want to
follow someone without being seen? ;-)
And how come you can't disable the dome lights in cars anymore? You
used to be able to turn them off in older cars!
Aardwolf.
Aardwolf
Oops---I doubt many people out there actually pull their cars ONTO the
curb! ;-)
Aardwolf.
outrun
On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Nigel Gilbert wrote:
>
> This is my first post ever, but I had to respond to this, uh, logic...
>
> Well, if you are gonna spend all yer time gawking at oncoming traffic, rather
> than spend some time paying attention to what YOU are doing, of course you're
> gonna be hit. However, it will be your fault, not DRL's, for failing to pay
> attention.
What exactly is the REASON for DRLs? To make oncoming traffic more
noticable. Being more noticable, you're attention will be more towards
oncoming traffic than it currently is (that's the whole idea of this
thing). When a Saturn drives by me with it's highbeams on, my attention
(as well as all other drivers attention) "notices" it.
>
> Perhaps with more "attention getting" headlights flooding the road, motorcycles
> may be a little difficult to see. But that's only in oncoming traffic.. What
> the heck are ya doing driving in the other lane?
This has got to be the most idiotic response. The whole idea that
motorcycles HAVE headlights is so when they're driving down the road, no
one pulls out in front of them. I don't really call this driving on the
wrong side of the road. But suppose we do take your example. We
shouldn't be driving on the wrong side of the road. What is the reason
for DRLs then?
>
> Uh, I guess those flashing blue and red lights, not to mention a piercing
> siren doesn't do much to rip your eyeballs that are cemeted to your rear view
> mirror, does it? That is the dumbest excuse I've heard yet. Again, YOU are
> responsible for where you are going, don't go around blaming rear view mirror
> gawking for more frontal accidents.
>
Not all police cars have blue and red lights. Under cover police cars
only have flashing headlights and a siren. Ever have your AC cranked on
high? Its virtually impossible to hear a siren over the fan blowing.
Flashing lights among 100's of other headlights in the rear view is touch
to depict when your eyes should be on the road in front of you.
> >DRL's also cause a 3% decrease in power/gasmilage due to more strain on
> >the alternator to recharge your battery which is constantly running
> >your headlights. Bad.
>
> Oooh, oohh, 35 bucks a year more for view, for the silly reason of being
> easier to see. I'm sure you can take up a collection at you work place
> to cover the extra expenses. :)
Think about the BIG picture. Not just one car has DRL's. Hundreds of
thousands (even milllions) will have them. This 3% decrease will
result in tens of thousands of gallons of gas used each year.
>
> >Plus headlights burn out faster due to the use of DRLs. Bad.
>
> Headlights, $6.99 a piece (_Canadian_) what a steal!! Get em while their hot!
$6.99, times 100's of thousand of cars. The lightbulb companies are
totally for DRL's for a reason..
>
> Well, that particular bone head is helping to save lives. Check out Stats
> Canada for some, well, statistics. Also, correct if I'm wrong, but didn't
> Switzerland also run some studies confirming the same?
Any report or statistic can look good depending on what people are
looking for. If someone was against DRLs in Canada, and did a report,
they'd get a favorible result too.
-Craig