jcg878

I disagree. I'll use my sun-at-the-back example above - a sea of cars with DRLs on would be visible; without DRLs, invisible.

sauceman

bigwilliestyle

Hmmm... though I know the safety issues, I personally don't like them on my car. My wife's Jetta has them.

Just think, people in the U.S. want to mod their cars with DRLs. Soon we'll be modding them to disable the DRLs.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

No, that's not the case. Even though you may not be able to recognize the make and model of the specific car, you can still see that there is a car back there, which is the real reason for the DRLs.

biker

jcg878

What sauce does and doesn't do with his back seat doesn't affect me. Whether or not I can see him barrelling down the road does.

ClutchPerformer

Anything that causes people NOT to turn their lights on 1) at night, or 2) in the rain is NOT a great safety enhancement.

sauceman

I but these people don't turn them on anyways even if they don't have DRLs, they are just too unconsciencious. But I trust that you are a passionnate enough driver you'd do just like me and ALWAYS drive with your headlights on.

slo007

They helped a lot back when I had a Jetta. I almost never got cut off. In my tSX, I'm cut off all the time. Plus, it doesn't help that my car is the same color as the road.

SacQuacker

Interesting observation. So it's your conclusion that the people cutting you off are generally doing it by accident?

ClutchPerformer

NO! They don't turn them on because they think the DRLs are "lights"! People don't understand what DRLs are, that's the problem. They look in front of the car and see something (DRLs), they don't do a damned thing. If they looked in front and saw nothing (no DRLs), they'd get the picture after a while and turn the lights on. I've had people follow me for MILES in the dead of night w/ nothing but DRLs on. Drives me nuts.

dom

Don't forget that your interior lights won't come on with DRL's. So I'm not sure how these people drove around at night with no interior lights?

slo007

Are you implying they are doing so on purpose? That's kind of dumb considering I'm usually driving faster than most people (70-90mph).

On the other hand, there are more SUVS on the road today than 1-2 years ago. And SUV drivers think they rule the road, often merging without looking.

lokman

This sounds like an education issue then. Here in Canada that was the case for a little while, but everybody got it pretty quick. It's very rare now that I see a car at night running only DRLs (and when I do, it's usually someone that drive 20km under the speed limit and who shouldn't be on the road to begin with).

ClutchPerformer

They're.....


































STOOPID!!

That's the point I'm trying to make. People can't handle this technology yet.

ClutchPerformer

Again, you overestimate our intelligence.

dom

We seem to handle it just fine in Canada and we're no smarter than you yanks so your point isn't a good one.

ClutchPerformer

I see it all the time. Mostly old people, but some young'uns are technology n00bs, too. And NOBODY with DRLs turns their lights on in the rain.

dom

But isn't an entire country proof that it works?

I was in Montana in October and nobody period turned their lights on in the rain, with or without DRL's. So DRL's are better than nothing at all.

sauceman

Stupidity isn't a reason not to equip cars with DRLs.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Just because some people are stupid doesn't mean that those of us who aren't don't deserve to be safer.

moda_way

DRLs don't solve the stupidity of drivers. I've personally never been hit by or hit a car that I mistakenly didn't see. In every accident I've been in (2 in 13 years of driving), each time it was another person's fault (woman turning in front of me because she decided not to stop and look and someone slammed their brakes on in front of me and I was hit from behind b/c the idiot behind me didn't give enough room).

As for people being able to handle the technology.... Lexus employs a simple method to handle idiots who drive with DRLs on at night. They have a light switch with an auto setting and a sensor turns the main lights on during the night and the DRLs the rest of the time.

sauceman

The Lexus solution would be the ideal.

But remember, it's not because it didn't happen to you that it doesn't happen.

I could go on and on telling you about my own experiences and how I feel very lucky to be here today to tell it to you.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Nothing will fix stupid drivers except stricter licensing standards and regular recertification with a behind-the-wheel test. However, it'll be decades before we can get something like that through. In the meantime, why not require the addition of a piece of equipment that has the potential to make things a little safer?

majormojo

I see that a lot too and it's not just people whose cars have DRLs, although they are probably the majority. I can only conclude that a lot of people just never look at their dashboard. Someone who can't be bothered to view their own dash guages certainly can't be trusted to drive safely, so for them, DRLs are a good thing. Or rather, it's a good thing for the rest of us. Think of the DRL-only car at night as kind of an early warning that vehicle is piloted by a half-wit. This same driver in a non-DRL car would probably be sailing along in utter darkness, much more dangerous.

Similar to how the "Baby on Board" signs are useful to warn of severely distracted drivers.

biker

My only gripe with any of this stuff is that once mandated I no longer have a choice. Originally it was brought on because people are too stupid to realize reasons behind some of this stuff. Why do we have to put on the brake when shifting an AT out of D, because some stupid people in the 80 couldn't drive their Audis correctly.


No, I want choice - I want to decide when to do something. I don't want AT, rain sensing wipers, DRLs, automatic headlights, adaptive steering, automatic climate system, etc.

bigwilliestyle

That's an interesting one... haven't driven an auto in a while.

I thought I could move it into neutral and other gears while still driving. To move into park, yeah, you gotta step on the brake. I think that's a good thing. I've had a passenger bump it before and shift it into neutral. Wouldn't want to accidentally shift it into reverse or park. Yikes!

jcg878

I don't care. I just want to be able to see your car during my commute

SacQuacker

[QUOTE=biker
No, I want choice - I want to decide when to do something. I don't want AT, rain sensing wipers, DRLs, automatic headlights, adaptive steering, automatic climate system, etc.[/QUOTE]

.....and those damn automatic seatbelts from the 80's......What's neat about the TSX is the VSA and A/C systems can be shut off or manually controlled by the driver. I'm not sure if the passenger side front airbag can be disabled though.

majormojo

Are you sure you don't mean shifting out of Park? I've never seen an AT that couldn't be shifted from D to N with just a nudge, no brake necessary. I think the "brake on to shift from Park" feature was in response to some lawsuits against Ford because of some cars (Aerostar vans?) that supposedly popped out of Park to R all by themselves. Defective cars or not, it's probably not a bad idea, even if it's only to prevent an accidental bump of the lever out of P.

SacQuacker

Wouldn't investing in some window tint and/or sunglasses help with that glare problem? If so, why wish for a mandate that everyone else has to have or do something when you can solve the problem for yourself?

slo007

Get a $5,000 car then. I want all those features standard!

jcg878

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am usually wearing sunglasses - the cars are all backlit and the glare masks them. Though now that you mention it, I wonder if polarized lenses would help.

Excellent - an excuse to buy something nice

biker

Oops, you're right, I meant out of P.
I'm pretty sure this feature was directly linked to the 80s Audi unintended accelaration cases.

biker

I wouldn't necessarily mind if they are standard (except the AT) - but at least let me turn them off. On BMWs for example, you can program off the DRLs.

sauceman

You don't need to turn them off if you put your low beams on, they turn off automatically. If you want absolutely no lights on, then that's a case example of why they should be mandatory.

SacQuacker

No real American will EVER agree to having DRL's.

We are against anything on our vehicles that makes them go slower or look stupid.


We don't like trigger locks on our guns , warning labels on our beer

and the V-chip.

God Bless the USA! Live free or DIE!

dzuy

and i'm proud to be an american, where at least i know i'm free.

yea i think drl look kinda dumb, and i never really thought they save lives, but i'm always open to mandating things to ensure safety.

they should implement LED DRL. that would be sweet!

jcg878

"109th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 3546
Title 2, Section 4. Daytime Running Lights ("DRLs")
Subtitle B - They must look cool
Sec 101 - The requirement of DRLs is to no way render the vehicles "uncool".
Sec 102 - LEDs are ill, and are required."



Write your Congressman now!

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Exactly the reason why America is on a downward spiral. We're so dumb that we're against things that make us safer. Hooray for Americans!!