If you are anti DRL go to this site and express your feelings
05-21-07, 09:59 AM
#1
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Anderson SC
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are anti DRL go to this site and express your feelings
If you are against DRL you may want to let your feelings be known. I went to this site and voiced my opinion.
http://www.lightsout.org/join.html
This is what I wrote
I have owned a few cars with DRL and the first thing I do when I get the car is to go to a car forum to learn how to disable the DRL on that make car. I have disabled the DRL on every car I have ever owned or leased
http://www.lightsout.org/join.html
This is what I wrote
I have owned a few cars with DRL and the first thing I do when I get the car is to go to a car forum to learn how to disable the DRL on that make car. I have disabled the DRL on every car I have ever owned or leased
05-22-07, 06:48 AM
#3
DRL's have shown that they increase the visibility of a motor vehicle in daylight conditions, that is what they were designed for. Add to that, that a hybrid vehicle is much quieter than a conventional Gas/Diesel powered vehicle can only enhance the safety benefit for pedestrians.
Also, Lexus/Toyota warrants the high beam bulbs during the warranty period, there is no real benefit that I can comprehend as to why one would want to de-activate them.
If one were to assume that running a hybrid without DRL's improves fuel economy, then that is completely incorrect. The so called fuel savings would be so minimum that you would not see any benefit in your pocket book.
Taking this to the extreme, then if one were to de-activate the DRL's, then one should also go ahead and bolt off the ac compressor for that matter. After all, if you goal is to improve fuel economy then one would never use the AC compressor, right?
I am not turning this thread into a war of words, but I simply cannot comprehend the need to de-activate DRL's.
Cheers,
MadloR
Also, Lexus/Toyota warrants the high beam bulbs during the warranty period, there is no real benefit that I can comprehend as to why one would want to de-activate them.
If one were to assume that running a hybrid without DRL's improves fuel economy, then that is completely incorrect. The so called fuel savings would be so minimum that you would not see any benefit in your pocket book.
Taking this to the extreme, then if one were to de-activate the DRL's, then one should also go ahead and bolt off the ac compressor for that matter. After all, if you goal is to improve fuel economy then one would never use the AC compressor, right?
I am not turning this thread into a war of words, but I simply cannot comprehend the need to de-activate DRL's.
Cheers,
MadloR
05-22-07, 08:31 AM
#5
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Anderson SC
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am surprised at some of the comments, especially since there appears to be many threads on this forum with instructions on how to turn them off. I personally invested hours of my time taking the car apart to remove the offending wire connection. The site I referred to pretty much deflates the myth that DRL make us safer. It is silly to have lights burning continuously, I don't keep the lights on in my house when I am not in the room so why keep the headlights on, if there is a situation where lights are needed I have the ability to turn on the headlights if I feel they are needed. Before you reject the idea at least go to the site and read the studies and consider the reports from studies that DRL make you less safe because it is a natural tendency to divert your eyes from a bright light. If someone shines a bright flashlight in your eyes you normally turn away, that is what makes them a hazard, read this page it give info about the studies
http://www.lightsout.org/story.html#ourcase
PS The amount of gas saved by turning them off may be small but when you multiply the number of cars on the road it turn out to we would burn an extra 406 million gallons of gas each year.
Here is my reference
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm
http://www.lightsout.org/story.html#ourcase
PS The amount of gas saved by turning them off may be small but when you multiply the number of cars on the road it turn out to we would burn an extra 406 million gallons of gas each year.
Here is my reference
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm
Last edited by silvervett; 05-22-07 at 08:37 AM.
05-22-07, 11:18 AM
#6
People used to complain about: safety glass, 5 mph bumpers, seat belts, third brake lights, airbags, etc.
Eventually DRLs and stability control will be mandatory too -- and more deaths and injuries will be avoided b/c of it.
"Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15 months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A 1994 Transport Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989 vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.4
In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles without DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles.6 Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal researchers, using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a 5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.8
See footnote cites at http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html
Eventually DRLs and stability control will be mandatory too -- and more deaths and injuries will be avoided b/c of it.
"Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15 months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A 1994 Transport Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989 vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.4
In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles without DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles.6 Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal researchers, using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a 5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.8
See footnote cites at http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html
05-22-07, 11:46 AM
#7
DRL's have not INCREASED daytime accidents due to oncoming drivers being blinded by highbeams or driving lights burning at 80% of maximum wattage. That analogy simply doesn't make sense, its daytime and there is enough ambient light to offset the power of the DRL's.
As for the analogy of X million number of cars with DRL's off, times the miniscule amount per year of additional fuel burned due to the additional load saved by the number of vehicles WITHOUT DRL's simply makes no sense either.
DRL's are mandatory (at least where I live) and defeating them would be illegal.
Estethically, well that's another story. Yes, some vehicles do look silly with DRL's on. Now THAT would be a more believeable requirement if one desired to defeat the feature and performed this mod.
As for every other analogy or thought on the contrary, is not logical.
Cheers,
MadloR
As for the analogy of X million number of cars with DRL's off, times the miniscule amount per year of additional fuel burned due to the additional load saved by the number of vehicles WITHOUT DRL's simply makes no sense either.
DRL's are mandatory (at least where I live) and defeating them would be illegal.
Estethically, well that's another story. Yes, some vehicles do look silly with DRL's on. Now THAT would be a more believeable requirement if one desired to defeat the feature and performed this mod.
As for every other analogy or thought on the contrary, is not logical.
Cheers,
MadloR
Trending Topics
05-22-07, 12:42 PM
#8
DRL's are MANDATORY in NY? News to me. The only place in North America where they are mandatory is Canada as far as I know.
I've written numerous positive posts on DRL's and support them, but SilverVett has a valid point considering he has dropped a considerable amount of $ on hybrid vehicle technology. They whole point is to squeeze every available amount of "non-carbon based energy" out of the Toyota Synergy Drive and that's what he's trying to achieve.
If I ever get one of these 400h's, it will be something to consider...unless I get the "Invisible Silver" color. In that case, I will keep those DRL's burning to increase my visibility to others on the road.
I've written numerous positive posts on DRL's and support them, but SilverVett has a valid point considering he has dropped a considerable amount of $ on hybrid vehicle technology. They whole point is to squeeze every available amount of "non-carbon based energy" out of the Toyota Synergy Drive and that's what he's trying to achieve.
If I ever get one of these 400h's, it will be something to consider...unless I get the "Invisible Silver" color. In that case, I will keep those DRL's burning to increase my visibility to others on the road.
05-22-07, 01:21 PM
#9
I am surprised at some of the comments, especially since there appears to be many threads on this forum with instructions on how to turn them off. I personally invested hours of my time taking the car apart to remove the offending wire connection. The site I referred to pretty much deflates the myth that DRL make us safer. It is silly to have lights burning continuously, I don't keep the lights on in my house when I am not in the room so why keep the headlights on, if there is a situation where lights are needed I have the ability to turn on the headlights if I feel they are needed. Before you reject the idea at least go to the site and read the studies and consider the reports from studies that DRL make you less safe because it is a natural tendency to divert your eyes from a bright light. If someone shines a bright flashlight in your eyes you normally turn away, that is what makes them a hazard, read this page it give info about the studies
http://www.lightsout.org/story.html#ourcase
PS The amount of gas saved by turning them off may be small but when you multiply the number of cars on the road it turn out to we would burn an extra 406 million gallons of gas each year.
Here is my reference
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm
http://www.lightsout.org/story.html#ourcase
PS The amount of gas saved by turning them off may be small but when you multiply the number of cars on the road it turn out to we would burn an extra 406 million gallons of gas each year.
Here is my reference
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm
In that case, you shouldn't be against DRLs, just against those who use FULL high beam DRLs like the new Grand Cherokee. Stupid Chrysler used them as DRLs and they're NOT dimmed. Cars like the Camry and TSX and so forth that use high beam DRLs are actually dimmed down and they're very manageable. My favourite DRLs is actually the amber side markers or turn signals. Those to me are the most effective since they can be bright without blinding and be very visible.
So yeah, I'm for DRLs but I hate those that use FULL high beams rather than dimmed (which is technically the law.. no idea how Chrysler got away with it)
05-22-07, 05:15 PM
#10
Lead Lap
I've driven with headlights on during daylight or with DRLs for the past 40+ years after having a near death experience driving a little silver Mercedes SL on a two lane highway in the 1960s.
I have for many years required that all family members drive a car with DRLs or with their headlights on during the day. Of course I also require that the cars of family members have side air bags, stability control and ABS.
And I am in the insurance industry where I have access to supporting statistics.
I have for many years required that all family members drive a car with DRLs or with their headlights on during the day. Of course I also require that the cars of family members have side air bags, stability control and ABS.
And I am in the insurance industry where I have access to supporting statistics.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
