Ban Daytime Running Lights

BondoBob

Member
Contributor
:
2001 Mazda MP3 - Blue
I found a petition online for one of my pet peeves, The Daytime Running Lights (DRL).

GM started putting them in their American models because they had to build them into the Canadian versions of the same car. DRLs are very useful for Funeral Home operators, but serve no purpose in the real world. GM has tried to tell us (with self-serving ads) that DRLs are "saving lives". :bs:

As if to show how hollow the GM committment is, the DRL placement went from a low wattage headlight bulb in the first models to having the turn signals/parking lights lit in the front in most GM models.

Owners of the cars either don't care how stupid they look driving in broad daylight with lights on or find it comforting that they don't need to anything when it gets dark out.

I have seen a number of GM cars that drive in foggy conditions with only the DRLs lit. This means that their tail lights remain off, even though most accidents in fog or low visibility are rear-enders. Worse, they leave their full lights off at dusk or beyond since they have some glow coming out of the front.

GM lost two truck sales for my computer business because the dealer refused to show me how to disable the DRLs...trying to tell me that NY State would require DRLs next year. That was three years ago. I told him (and everyone in the dealership) that if he would lie about something minor, how could I trust him or the dealership he works at to be honest on the sale of a 20k van.

While I realize that these online petitons mean little, it allowed me to vent. Here is the URL:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/BANDRLs/
 
Gotta disagree with you...I personally think that DRLs are a good thing. When GM is saying they are saving lives...it's because actual studies have been done on the matter....did you do a study to prove that they are not working?

As for people leaving daytime running lights on at night or in the fog...well ya they are idiots...but I've seen the same thing of people driving with no lights on whatsoever at night as well...there are stupid people everywhere. :)
 
Studies can be made to show anything.

Let me state here that I have no problem if someone wants to drive with their lights on. I have been known to drive with full lights in dusk/dawn or bad weather long before other drivers might flip on their lights.

I do have a problem with a car company telling me (and trying to convince the US Government) that I HAVE to. For the same reason, I wear my seat belts - always have since I was 5. I feel odd driving without a selt belt. I don't need to be TOLD that I have to buckle up and believe that a citizen of these United States has the right to NOT buckle up and end up as a DNA sample on the dashboard of his/her car if they wish.
 
i find daytime running lights do make other drivers more aware of the car, esp when the cars blend in with the background. This i beleive is their "safety feature."

however as a flip side, when people fixate on lights they tend to direct their vehicle in that directions... one of the reasons why its dangerous to be on the shoulder on the freeway, many people (drunks in particular) will home in on your lights and smashy smashy.
 
BondoBob said:
Studies can be made to show anything.

Let me state here that I have no problem if someone wants to drive with their lights on. I have been known to drive with full lights in dusk/dawn or bad weather long before other drivers might flip on their lights.

I do have a problem with a car company telling me (and trying to convince the US Government) that I HAVE to. For the same reason, I wear my seat belts - always have since I was 5. I feel odd driving without a selt belt. I don't need to be TOLD that I have to buckle up and believe that a citizen of these United States has the right to NOT buckle up and end up as a DNA sample on the dashboard of his/her car if they wish.

I think I read a study once that said all studies are full of crap...I agree. :D

I do see your point about it being the car company trying to make the rules tho yeah.
 
daytime running lights can definitely be a good thing. you can see oncoming traffic a lot better in the distance (the ones that blend into the road). But there should always be a manual override.
 
I've gotta agree with BondoBod on this one. I hate DRL's on cars to the point I won't even drive or ride in one that is DRL equipped. I find that most owners of these cars, as previously mentioned, fail to actually turn on the regular lights when necessary. Far too many times I come up on cars in the rain, fog or even at night with nothing but the DRL lights on. If the OEM's are going to force us to live with this crap, at least compensate for the stupid people by activating the rest of the lighting also.
 
agreed

I can see Bob's bigger picture here. It extends well past the point of DRL's. The whole "protect the idiots" thing has kinda gone overboard.
There comes a point that intervention by laws is necessary, such as DUI laws. Those help protect innocent people from being injured or killed by a drunk. But the whole idea that a company or the government needs to force people to protect themselves is a bit too much, especially if their "protection" system isn't 100% foolproof.
So put seatbelts in cars, give bikers their helmets, and offer DRL's as an option, but dammit let people choose wether or not they use them.
Would this be considered "Darwinistic"?


BTW, I do use belts and helmets, no squashed mellon here!
 
rodslinger said:
I've gotta agree with BondoBod on this one. I hate DRL's on cars to the point I won't even drive or ride in one that is DRL equipped. I find that most owners of these cars, as previously mentioned, fail to actually turn on the regular lights when necessary. Far too many times I come up on cars in the rain, fog or even at night with nothing but the DRL lights on. If the OEM's are going to force us to live with this crap, at least compensate for the stupid people by activating the rest of the lighting also.
I'm "thirding" Bondo and Rod here. The prob w/ daytimes is that there are no taillights. Include the tail lights in the DRL package (which foreign countries have done) and we're good. I cant even count on my hands the number of folks I see driving w/ just headlights at night every week. The real problem is the cars w/ DRL's AND digital/always lit dashes. They never need to turn the HL's on to see the dash at night (Think Buick, Olds, Lincoln, some Chrysler).
The other option, the best way to do DRL's is how my 95 saab had them. Whenever you turned the car on, all lights turned on, heads and tails. when you turned the car off, the lights turned off with them. Plus, at the push of a button, you could turn the lights off manually if you wish. The saab also had a light meter (like streetlights) on the dash that I could program to turn on at a certain darkness. It was a no brainer, and my lights would just turn on automatically around dusk (what I set it to).
Ah, the 'Mericans.
 
The only fix for DRL's I know of is, to take the e-brake to the first click and leave it. That should turn off your DRL's.
 
I was thinking on this issue this morning...not really sure why it's different in the states, but I left while it was still a little dark out...I put on my normal headlights...and also noticed that without exception every single person I saw also had their normal nighttime headlights on. The same goes for at nighttime...I almost never see someone just using their drls at night.
 
I dunno, but I think that pointing out an impromper implementation of a security measure--as a justification for entirely removing that measure!!--is not constructive reasoning...

Should we get rid of all preventive safety measures?
- crumple zones: I don't want my car to get damaged when I smash into something at 10mph... vs: the car aborbed the shock saving the driver's neck from cracking
- ABS: if I didn't have ABS I wouldn't have had this fender bender.. vs I would have spun out braking on this patch of ice/snow and gone down this hill
- seatbelts: I have my hands on the steering wheel... I don't need anyone to protect me.. vs. I would have flown out my winshield without this

It's easy to claim you don't need safety measures.. but if the day comes that one of those safety measures saves your skin, you will want to drive to the nearest car factory and hug the designers.

So please, let's not ban safety measures because you don't "like" the way they look. Instead, let's see if we can improve them.
 
i think banning DRL 's is like banning passenger side airbags. Both can be used improperly, but when properly used they can help prevent accidents or deaths.

DRL's can help you avoid accidents IN THE DAY, but its no excuse for nightime driving with using nothing but them, frankly they should be pulled over like the rest of the people without lights on at night.
 
So OK, I guess "banning" DRL's is a little harsh, agreed. But why not offer it as an option? Uclap5 used side airbags as an example. They're offered on the P5 as an option, I wasn't forced into having them. If I was, however, I don't think It would sway my decision to buy the car, because they don't really alter the car's appearance. At least I can't tell the difference between P5's that have them or don't have 'em.
As far as DRL's go, I don't like them. Yes, I understand the whole point behind them. However, I think that there are many better ways to draw attention to your car other than a dim set of headlights with nothing else. How about those orange bicycle flags? They could pass a law making all cars have to put orange triangle flags on the antenna!! It looks dumb, but it sure would get people to notice your car! I mean after all, that Vivid Yellow/Spicy Orange/Electric Blue or whatever limited edition model sure blends in and camoflouges itself to the background!

Allright, so I'm ranting. :'( But I've still never heard anyone say "Man that was a close call! I almost died there! If it wasn't for those dim bulbs I'd be roadkill!"

Just give us the option.
 
Back