DRL's
Question:
> : >invention too???? BTW the latest NY cabbie trick is to place (blue/green) > : >lights on the front of the car facing forward to indicate if the driver has > : >his foot on the brake or not. These adaptations are not installed to upset > : >you but rather to add to your safety. > So if I’m in New York, I can look in my rear-view and see if a cab is > about to slam into me? Given that the traffic in NYC often makes it > impossible to perform an evasive move, what’s the point? To let me brace > myself for the impact?
The point is, if you are in an intersection or entering an intersection and an oncoming vehicle is waiting to turn across in front of you, you will know if he is stopped or preparing to pull out into your path. It also works quite well in four way stop intersections where it would indicate to you what other drivers waiting to enter the intersection are doing. It just gives you a little more info to make a wise defensive driving decision. al — Alan Grossmeier /`-_ If it isn’t broken, Cray Research, Inc. { . }/ what an opportune time Chippewa Falls, WI / to improve it!
Response:
: You, as most people, seem to be missing the obvious here Bob. The : reason the DRLs *work* right now is because only a few people have : them. When EVERYONE has them, god forbid, they will be totally : worthless if not actively hazard causing. Can I summarize your argument then, as claiming that a population composed of traffic yellow colored cars is no easier to see than a population of steel grey colored cars? I know you are referring to the concept of visual fatigue - that people tend to edit out common themes in the environment. However, drivers should be actively *looking* for other traffic. In this case the unusual, like DRLs, will *really* stand out. However, this does not falsify the concept that when DRLs are on every car, they will still be easier to see than cars were without DRL. More photons is just more photons… If anything, DRLs becoming common will reduce the number of second order accidents that you claim are happening since people will no longer have something "unusual" to distract them. Cheers, Rick —
Response:
[stuff deleted...] >trains with flashing lights and loud horns. just last Thursday I watched >a surprised commuter jump back from the tracks less that 20 ft. away >from our 60mph CalTrain because he wasn’t aware that it was there!
He must have been mesmerized by the DRL’s of a car on the other side of the tracks. 
— Don Kozlowski Phone: (403) 220-5156 University Computing Services Fax: (403) 282-9199 The University of Calgary WWW: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~kozlowsk/
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Why in the world would you want to ADD daytime lights? So far every >inquiry I’ve seen on these stupid things is people wanting to know how to >disable them. Maybe you live in Canada? >"Don’t buy a 96 GM product – protest until they eliminate DRLs!" > Interesting, why would anyone be anti-DRL? I installed them in my > ‘95 Explorer based on the research that has proven that DRL’s prevent > accidents. Admittedly they are not as important as seatbelts and > airbags, but for the added protection at a cost of less than $100, > why in the world wouldn’t you want them? Not to mention that many > insurance companies, including mine, give small discounts to cars > that have them, partially offsetting the cost of installing them. > Please explain why DRL’s are "stupid" and why you would boycott > a company that installs them.
I agree with you! I have been driving since 1968. Way back then I noticed that all Greyhound busses drove in the daytime with their headlights on. I asked the company why, and they wrote back that their studies showed that people on the road see, recognize and react to something as huge as a bus much more quickly, thereby avoiding a potential accident, if its headlights are on than if not! Thus, I’ve installed my own DRLs in every car I’ve owned since 1968, and have never had an accident. There are two cases where I had a close call, and I KNOW the DRLs helped the other driver see me and swerve. Seems to mee if DRLs are good for busses and good for motorcycles, I drive a car which is in-between, so it should be good for me too. Anybody ever seen an airplane near an airport? Notice even they turn on their landing lights while circling? It’s not to see the runway better- its to be seen! Bob Parsons
Response:
: >invention too???? BTW the latest NY cabbie trick is to place (blue/green) : >lights on the front of the car facing forward to indicate if the driver has : >his foot on the brake or not. These adaptations are not installed to upset : >you but rather to add to your safety. So if I’m in New York, I can look in my rear-view and see if a cab is about to slam into me? Given that the traffic in NYC often makes it impossible to perform an evasive move, what’s the point? To let me brace myself for the impact? dean
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Why in the world would you want to ADD daytime lights? So far every > >inquiry I’ve seen on these stupid things is people wanting to know how to > >disable them. Maybe you live in Canada? > >"Don’t buy a 96 GM product – protest until they eliminate DRLs!" > Interesting, why would anyone be anti-DRL? I installed them in my > ‘95 Explorer based on the research that has proven that DRL’s prevent > accidents. Admittedly they are not as important as seatbelts and > airbags, but for the added protection at a cost of less than $100, > why in the world wouldn’t you want them? Not to mention that many > insurance companies, including mine, give small discounts to cars > that have them, partially offsetting the cost of installing them. > Please explain why DRL’s are "stupid" and why you would boycott > a company that installs them. >I agree with you! I have been driving since 1968. Way back then I noticed >that all Greyhound busses drove in the daytime with their headlights on. >I asked the company why, and they wrote back that their studies showed >that people on the road see, recognize and react to something as huge as >a bus much more quickly, thereby avoiding a potential accident, if its >headlights are on than if not! >Thus, I’ve installed my own DRLs in every car I’ve owned since 1968, and >have never had an accident. There are two cases where I had a close call, >and I KNOW the DRLs helped the other driver see me and swerve. >Seems to mee if DRLs are good for busses and good for motorcycles, I >drive a car which is in-between, so it should be good for me too. >Anybody ever seen an airplane near an airport? Notice even they turn on >their landing lights while circling? It’s not to see the runway better- >its to be seen! >Bob Parsons
You, as most people, seem to be missing the obvious here Bob. The reason the DRLs *work* right now is because only a few people have them. When EVERYONE has them, god forbid, they will be totally worthless if not actively hazard causing. Do you REALLY have trouble seeing a greyhound bus 500 feet from you?? Do you think that if the bus had 50 flashing blue and red lights on it you would *notice* it even more then you do now? You probably would if ONLY that THAT bus had the 50 lights…but if ALL buses and ALL cars and ALL trucks had the 50 lights just now much attention would you be able to pay to any particular one any different then when none of them had them?? That apparent value of DRLs in daytime is due, IMHO, to nothing more then the novelty of them right now. Research studies seem to confirm this as countries with long term and widespread use of DRLs don’t seem to have any net safety benefit.
Response:
>: If I had 120 watt off-road driving lights running at night you’d see >: me(!) but does that mean it is safer. >: I too find DRLs very annoying, but I don’t plan on avoiding them 
>Well, I’m not sure argumentum ad absurdum(sp?) really applies here. >Annoyance does not equal dangerous.
Neither does noticing them make it safer. For example if they tend to draw ones attention from other road hazards they -might- actually incease danger. I am not saying that they do (I don’t know any of the data) but careful in your assumptions. >Just out of curiosity, what do you find annoying about DRLs? When I >installed mine in the Explorer, I checked out how they would appear >to someone driving a low car like my wife’s Stanza. They just look >like lights. You don’t have to squint when looking at them, you >don’t have to turn your head aside when passing. I’m hard pressed >to find anything objectionable about them.
I compare them to the "hawaii shirts" of the safety field – might get you noticed, but annoying to others with more fashion sense 
It’s not a big deal and I’m not rabid about it, I just find them distracting and annoying. >I can’t speak for other manufacturers DRLs, but I believe the "DRLs" >I, personally, find objectionable are really people running with >full headlights on.
Why not sirens or strobe lights or painting all cars bright yellow like fire trucks? That would save a few lives I’m sure…. PGY-II Ob/Gyn ok for pizzas TRHMC-Reading, PA not for babies
Response:
: >So you are admitting the demonstrated GROSS benefit. You then want to : >complain that no study has been done to show that DRLs somehow cause : >more accidents than they prevent and that they do so in a way that did : >not show up in the studies. Cool. : >– : Perhaps you didn’t understand the use of the term NET benefit. It means that : when all is said and done and ALL effects are taken into account the NET : result is a benefit. DRLs show no such NET benefit. The "NET" for DRLs seems : to be MORE accidents when ALL types of accidents are accounted for. No, I thought it was pretty clear that I understood the difference between net and gross. In this case, you tacitly admitted to the gross benefit of DRL. <let me paste in something from further down in your post – I’ll try not to distort anthing…> : studies of DRLs indicate is happening. Certain types of accidents have gone : down BUT other types have gone up by an even greater percentage. It is : extremely difficult to pin down the exact cause and effect so one can’t say : conclusively DRLs are the definitive cause. But there is certainly no reason : to think there is any OVERALL BENEFIT to the DRLs. …but here you indicate that it is conjecture that DRLs are responsible for a NET increase in accidents and that, while you suspect it is so, it will be very difficult to prove. I’ll take first order results over unspecified second order results anyday. While neither I, nor you, as single examples, provide any sort of stastical insight into the question. I would like to offer that I never feel distracted by other peoples DRLs – They are just another item in the traffic scan – and one I can immediately identify as a car when against a confusing background. : Never said it did. The Annoyance is just one more NEGATIVE effect (in : addition to the increase in accidents they cause). Try not to be annoyed. :-) I still don’t see why you find DRLs so compelling that you have to do more than just note them in your scan. : WHat’s objectionable is that they DO get your attention even if they are not : blinding you and you wind up looking toward them for some amount of time even : though when this happens you are almost always way too far away from the car : that has them for it to be a hazard to you. Unfortunately, while your : attention has been drawn to the oncoming DRL car you DON’T see the nearby car, : truck or whatever that is approaching from the left or right (regardless of : it’s DRL status). : It’s THAT car that you wind up having an accident with. Nonsense. Are you claiming this about yourself, or some hypothetical driver who doesn’t know how to drive as well as you? If attention were that easily mis-drawn(??) humans would never have gotten as far as being able to build cars. Just look at the environment, look at all the claims on your attention. Look at how easily you ignore those things that do not require immediate attention. If anything, people have much LESS attention than they should – just look at the folks who ignore freight trains with flashing lights and loud horns. just last Thursday I watched a surprised commuter jump back from the tracks less that 20 ft. away from our 60mph CalTrain because he wasn’t aware that it was there! : It’s no different then what the situation would be if we all had sirens on our : cars and used them anytime we got within 3000 feet of an intersection. We’d : be so busy looking for the source of the siren that we would not be paying : attention to the guy in front of us that just turned in front of us. No, no… I would have thought that as an MD you would be aware that the problem is exactly the OPPOSITE. In any major metropolitan area, sirens and flashing lights have become LESS useful as people become sensitized to their constant presence. Remember when you were younger? Drivers would all pull over to the right and stop when they heard a siren and saw flashing lights. Today, some folks will not even move over, much less slow down and stop. Tell me it’s not true where you live and I’ll move there! :-) : There is also the potential for people who have them to engage in risk : compensation much as they do with anti-lock brakes and airbags. Studies have : indicated that people who believe they are driving a "safer" car will engage : in more hazardous driving behavior then they otherwise would have. DRLs may : well have that failing too. This sounds like an urban legend to me. Please cite the studies. You will have a hard time convincing me that people will engage in riskier behavior because they have an airbag. Anyone who has had to use anti-lock brakes in an emergency will NOT want to drive in such a way that they will have to use them again. Besides, when all is said and done, what we find REALLY annoying is the tailgaters, the left lane hogs, the folks who don’t signal, the folks who drive 30mpf faster than the traffic flow, the folks who drive 20 mph slower than the traffic flow… DRL pro/con is really down there in the noise. :-) Regards, Rick —
Response:
: There is no valid evidence showing a NET safety benefit from DRLs. Personally : I find them distracting and irritating and worse then useless. Ah!, so you DID see me! So you are admitting the demonstrated GROSS benefit. You then want to complain that no study has been done to show that DRLs somehow cause more accidents than they prevent and that they do so in a way that did not show up in the studies. Cool. —
Response:
>: There is no valid evidence showing a NET safety benefit from DRLs. Personally >: I find them distracting and irritating and worse then useless. >Ah!, so you DID see me!
If I had 120 watt off-road driving lights running at night you’d see me(!) but does that mean it is safer. I too find DRLs very annoying, but I don’t plan on avoiding them PGY-II Ob/Gyn ok for pizzas TRHMC-Reading, PA not for babies
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >: Why in the world would you want to disable this option? DRL’s have proven >: to reduce acidents! >Most anti-DRL arguments stem from a deep disgust at either: >1) The government mandating them. >2) Auto manufacturers not giving you an option not to buy them. >Both of these are considered a strike against personal freedom. Any >technical anti-DRL issues raised are a screen for the personal >freedom argument. >I, personally, believe that the government IS too deeply involved in >the details of our lives. I also believe that DRLs are a good idea and >added them to my Explorer.
This is almost paranoid. I dont see this as violating my civil rights. If you dont like them go out and read up on electronics, and then disable them. And not to my knowledge has the government mandated them yet (GM is the only one doing this to all of their models in the US) The reason that GM is putting them on all cars wheter you want them or not is cost. It is cheaper to put them on EVERY car rather than ask the consumer if they want them. And if the government is infringing on your personal rights by mandating a safety feature, then I suppose side impact requirements, bumper strength requirements, third brakelight (remember 1985), windshield wipers (required by law), seatbelts…etc are all infringements on our rights also. I agree that the goverment is a bit too deeply involved in our lives, but when it comes to a feature that may save lives (even as few as 10) I can look past the fact that they make me have them. Unfortunatly when it comes to a lot of things like safety, nothing gets done until it is required of the manufacturer. Paul O’Gorman | 93 Explorer 4×4 Sport-R (daily driver) Montana State University | 81 Bonneville (the BONNABOAT) Department Of Electrical Engineering | 79 Monza Spyder 327 (weekend screamer)
Response:
>: There is no valid evidence showing a NET safety benefit from DRLs. Personally >: I find them distracting and irritating and worse then useless. >Ah!, so you DID see me! >So you are admitting the demonstrated GROSS benefit. You then want to >complain that no study has been done to show that DRLs somehow cause >more accidents than they prevent and that they do so in a way that did >not show up in the studies. Cool. >–
Perhaps you didn’t understand the use of the term NET benefit. It means that when all is said and done and ALL effects are taken into account the NET result is a benefit. DRLs show no such NET benefit. The "NET" for DRLs seems to be MORE accidents when ALL types of accidents are accounted for. >: If I had 120 watt off-road driving lights running at night you’d see >: me(!) but does that mean it is safer. >: I too find DRLs very annoying, but I don’t plan on avoiding them >Well, I’m not sure argumentum ad absurdum(sp?) really applies here. >Annoyance does not equal dangerous.
Never said it did. The Annoyance is just one more NEGATIVE effect (in addition to the increase in accidents they cause). >Just out of curiosity, what do you find annoying about DRLs? When I >installed mine in the Explorer, I checked out how they would appear >to someone driving a low car like my wife’s Stanza. They just look >like lights. You don’t have to squint when looking at them, you >don’t have to turn your head aside when passing. I’m hard pressed >to find anything objectionable about them.
WHat’s objectionable is that they DO get your attention even if they are not blinding you and you wind up looking toward them for some amount of time even though when this happens you are almost always way too far away from the car that has them for it to be a hazard to you. Unfortunately, while your attention has been drawn to the oncoming DRL car you DON’T see the nearby car, truck or whatever that is approaching from the left or right (regardless of it’s DRL status). It’s THAT car that you wind up having an accident with. It’s no different then what the situation would be if we all had sirens on our cars and used them anytime we got within 3000 feet of an intersection. We’d be so busy looking for the source of the siren that we would not be paying attention to the guy in front of us that just turned in front of us. There is simply no reason why you need to be MORE aware of a car 3000 feet away rather then a car 300 feet away. Yet that is what the more recent studies of DRLs indicate is happening. Certain types of accidents have gone down BUT other types have gone up by an even greater percentage. It is extremely difficult to pin down the exact cause and effect so one can’t say conclusively DRLs are the definitive cause. But there is certainly no reason to think there is any OVERALL BENEFIT to the DRLs. There is also the potential for people who have them to engage in risk compensation much as they do with anti-lock brakes and airbags. Studies have indicated that people who believe they are driving a "safer" car will engage in more hazardous driving behavior then they otherwise would have. DRLs may well have that failing too. >I can’t speak for other manufacturers DRLs, but I believe the "DRLs" >I, personally, find objectionable are really people running with >full headlights on.
That is even worse, no doubt about it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Cheers, >Rick >–
Response:
>>> I"d like to add daytime running lights to my ‘92 Explorer. Anybody know >> if the wiring is already in place, as they are required on units sold in >> Canada. If so, where is it located? Ditto for my ‘93 Aerostar. >Why in the world would you want to ADD daytime lights? So far every >inquiry I’ve seen on these stupid things is people wanting to know how to >disable them. Maybe you live in Canada? >"Don’t buy a 96 GM product – protest until they eliminate DRLs!" >-Bob Longo
WHY would you want to disable the DRL’s??? What harm do they do to you?? I think that it is a great idea. If you live in a plavce like Montana where you have mountain passes that are in shadow most of the day, DRL’s REALLY help to spot oncoming cars during the day! I drive with my lights on all of the time so that others can spot me better. There is a reason that some countries require all cars to have DRL’s….SAFETY. Im definitly a FORD guy, but I have to give GM credit for producing so many cars with DRL’s. >Why in the world would you want to disable this option? DRL’s have proven >to reduce acidents! You surely can’t tell me that the truck does not stand >out from the other vehicles on the road with this option. DRL’s have been >adopted from others who did not want to reduce their life of their lights >by operating them full power all the time and also the possibility of leaving >them on in error. New York cabbied came up with the idea of a third brake >light and now they are standard. Do you think that this is a stupid >invention too???? BTW the latest NY cabbie trick is to place (blue/green) >lights on the front of the car facing forward to indicate if the driver has >his foot on the brake or not. These adaptations are not installed to upset >you but rather to add to your safety. >I am amazed that you would pose such a lame comment.
Paul O’Gorman | 93 Explorer 4×4 Sport-R (daily driver) Montana State University | 81 Bonneville (the BONNABOAT) Department Of Electrical Engineering | 79 Monza Spyder 327 (weekend screamer) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> |> I"d like to add daytime running lights to my ‘92 Explorer. Anybody know > |> if the wiring is already in place, as they are required on units sold in > |> Canada. If so, where is it located? Ditto for my ‘93 Aerostar. > Isn’t it easier to just turn the lights on (manually) when you start it up? > I’ve been doing this for years in my Mustang and Bronco II on cloudy/gray/ > rainy days. > Rob H. >I suppose you could do that, but: >1) You’d probably want your headlights to go on/off with the ignition >so that you don’t risk leaving them on and run down the battery. DRL’s >come on/off with the ignition. Do Explorer lites do this? >2) DRL’s are run thru a ballast resistor that limits the current going >through the bulbs, thus they only run at partial brightness. This saves >bulb life as well as not being full-bright lights (I understand some DRL’s >use the high-beam lamps).
Actually running the lamps through a ballast resistor reduces bult life. When the bulb is not operating at the proper voltage, it does not operate at peak efficiency. It operates at almots the same temperature as when at full temp, and thus has the same, or slightly less life. Secondly the use of a resistor creates a huge power loss when connected in series with the bulb (a high beam is around 55-60w) this sort of dissipation requires a large resistor, and has inherent power losses (Ploss = I^2 * R). Most DRL’s use a power circuit that has a MOSFET being driven by a pulse width modulated controller (at high freq). This ineffect limits the current to the lights, while minimizing losses. This switching circuit could easily be the size of one of those small boxes of cereal, and cost about $5.0 to make. Paul O’Gorman | 93 Explorer 4×4 Sport-R (daily driver) Montana State University | 81 Bonneville (the BONNABOAT) Department Of Electrical Engineering | 79 Monza Spyder 327 (weekend screamer)
Response:
>Why in the world would you want to ADD daytime lights? So far every >inquiry I’ve seen on these stupid things is people wanting to know how to >disable them. Maybe you live in Canada? >"Don’t buy a 96 GM product – protest until they eliminate DRLs!"
Interesting, why would anyone be anti-DRL? I installed them in my ‘95 Explorer based on the research that has proven that DRL’s prevent accidents. Admittedly they are not as important as seatbelts and airbags, but for the added protection at a cost of less than $100, why in the world wouldn’t you want them? Not to mention that many insurance companies, including mine, give small discounts to cars that have them, partially offsetting the cost of installing them. Please explain why DRL’s are "stupid" and why you would boycott a company that installs them.
Response:
: Why in the world would you want to disable this option? DRL’s have proven : to reduce acidents! Most anti-DRL arguments stem from a deep disgust at either: 1) The government mandating them. 2) Auto manufacturers not giving you an option not to buy them. Both of these are considered a strike against personal freedom. Any technical anti-DRL issues raised are a screen for the personal freedom argument. I, personally, believe that the government IS too deeply involved in the details of our lives. I also believe that DRLs are a good idea and added them to my Explorer. Just because there are laws forbidding me to stand in front of a moving train doesn’t mean that I’m going to do so to express my personal freedom :-) : invention too???? BTW the latest NY cabbie trick is to place (blue/green) : lights on the front of the car facing forward to indicate if the driver has : his foot on the brake or not. I thought that blue lights were reserved for law enforcement? Cheers, Rick —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >: Why in the world would you want to disable this option? DRL’s have proven >: to reduce acidents! >Most anti-DRL arguments stem from a deep disgust at either: >1) The government mandating them. >2) Auto manufacturers not giving you an option not to buy them. >Both of these are considered a strike against personal freedom. Any >technical anti-DRL issues raised are a screen for the personal >freedom argument. >I, personally, believe that the government IS too deeply involved in >the details of our lives. I also believe that DRLs are a good idea and >added them to my Explorer.
There is no valid evidence showing a NET safety benefit from DRLs. Personally I find them distracting and irritating and worse then useless.
Response:
: If I had 120 watt off-road driving lights running at night you’d see : me(!) but does that mean it is safer. : I too find DRLs very annoying, but I don’t plan on avoiding them Well, I’m not sure argumentum ad absurdum(sp?) really applies here. Annoyance does not equal dangerous. Just out of curiosity, what do you find annoying about DRLs? When I installed mine in the Explorer, I checked out how they would appear to someone driving a low car like my wife’s Stanza. They just look like lights. You don’t have to squint when looking at them, you don’t have to turn your head aside when passing. I’m hard pressed to find anything objectionable about them. I can’t speak for other manufacturers DRLs, but I believe the "DRLs" I, personally, find objectionable are really people running with full headlights on. Cheers, Rick —
Response:
>> I"d like to add daytime running lights to my ‘92 Explorer. Anybody know > if the wiring is already in place, as they are required on units sold in > Canada. If so, where is it located? Ditto for my ‘93 Aerostar. >Why in the world would you want to ADD daytime lights? So far every >inquiry I’ve seen on these stupid things is people wanting to know how to >disable them. Maybe you live in Canada? >"Don’t buy a 96 GM product – protest until they eliminate DRLs!" >-Bob Longo
Why in the world would you want to disable this option? DRL’s have proven to reduce acidents! You surely can’t tell me that the truck does not stand out from the other vehicles on the road with this option. DRL’s have been adopted from others who did not want to reduce their life of their lights by operating them full power all the time and also the possibility of leaving them on in error. New York cabbied came up with the idea of a third brake light and now they are standard. Do you think that this is a stupid invention too???? BTW the latest NY cabbie trick is to place (blue/green) lights on the front of the car facing forward to indicate if the driver has his foot on the brake or not. These adaptations are not installed to upset you but rather to add to your safety. I am amazed that you would pose such a lame comment. DOM.
Response:
A few months ago I witnessed a tractor-trailer run a pickup truck off the road while changing lanes I presume the t-t fdriver did not see the pickup, which was in the process of passing. The pickup overturned, but the driver was uninjured, thanks to his easeatbelt. Had thte pickup"s lights been on, MAYBBE the t-t would have seen him and the accident would never have occurred n Tue, 19 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I"d like to add daytime running lights to my ‘92 Explorer. Anybody know > if the wiring is already in place, as they are required on units sold in > Canada. If so, where is it located? Ditto for my ‘93 Aerostar. > Why in the world would you want to ADD daytime lights? So far every > inquiry I’ve seen on these stupid things is people wanting to know how to > disable them. Maybe you live in Canada? > "Don’t buy a 96 GM product – protest until they eliminate DRLs!" > -Bob Longo
Response:
> I"d like to add daytime running lights to my ‘92 Explorer. Anybody know > if the wiring is already in place, as they are required on units sold in > Canada. If so, where is it located? Ditto for my ‘93 Aerostar.
Why in the world would you want to ADD daytime lights? So far every inquiry I’ve seen on these stupid things is people wanting to know how to disable them. Maybe you live in Canada? "Don’t buy a 96 GM product – protest until they eliminate DRLs!" -Bob Longo
Response:
: >I"d like to add daytime running lights to my ‘92 Explorer. Anybody know : >if the wiring is already in place, as they are required on units sold in : >Canada. If so, where is it located? Ditto for my ‘93 Aerostar. : negative on factory wiring for driving lights, unless you live in Canada. : It is however relatively easy to wire them up. There are 2 ways of going about : it. ‘92 USA model Explorers do indeed come factory equipped for DRL. You just buy the module from Ford and plug it in. Takes about 30 seconds. From an earlier post from Dave… In the last chapter of our story, I had ordered a DRL module from my local Ford dealer’s parts department. Part number: F43Z-15A272-A (although the box is labeled slightly differently). The DRL module (again, $53.34 including tax) plugs into a receptacle in the wiring harness behind the left front headlight. The module consists of some circuitry enclosed in a metal box with fins ("heat-sink") to dissipate the small amount (?) of heat generated when the unit is operated. I used a nut and bolt in one of the four holes on the heat-sink to mount the module in a conveniently-located existing hole on a cross-member. Operationally, the DRL is straightforward. With the key "on"/engine running, and the "emergency" brake released, the high-beam portion of the headlights come on with reduced intensity. You can still "flash" the high beams (if needed) by pulling back on the turn-signal lever and they will get brighter. If you pull the headlight switch to the "parking" position, the parking and tail lights come on in addition to the running lights. If you pull the headlight switch all the way "on," the regular headlights (low beams) come "on" and the high beams go "off." Switching to "high beams" works normally, by pushing the turn-signal lever towards the dashboard. Unfortunately, there is no convenient way to "dim" your headlights. My mother lives in a secured complex with a sign posted "parking lights only," so as not to blind the security officers, but I simply cannot have "parking lights only." On the other hand, the "running lights" are not at full brightness so they shouldn’t blind anybody. If this was a serious problem (it isn’t yet), I would have to unplug the module. If I were addressing Ford engineers, I would request one additional switch to "enable" or "disable" daytime running lights. [ I'll add something new... If you depress the parking brake pedal one "notch", the DRLs will go out. This should not be enough pedal movement to actually engauge the PB. ] On the bright side (pun intentional), I have not been involved in a traffic accident since installation of the daytime running light module! I hope I’ve answered any questions that may have come to the minds of casual readers. Sorry if I have given more information than anybody really needs. If anybody has any questions, please send them to one of the e-mail addresses below. Thanks to Richard Hyde, Ed J. and Keith Robinson for their help on this project. Dave in San Jose —
Response:
Yes, it would be easier, but the DRL turns the HIGH beams on at 40 percent power, which supposedly allows for greater visibility while not annoying nearby traffic. And I sometimes foget to turn them on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > |> I"d like to add daytime running lights to my ‘92 Explorer. Anybody know > |> if the wiring is already in place, as they are required on units sold in > |> Canada. If so, where is it located? Ditto for my ‘93 Aerostar. > Isn’t it easier to just turn the lights on (manually) when you start it up? > I’ve been doing this for years in my Mustang and Bronco II on cloudy/gray/ > rainy days. > Rob H.
Response:
>>I"d like to add daytime running lights to my ‘92 Explorer. Anybody know >if the wiring is already in place, as they are required on units sold in >Canada. If so, where is it located? Ditto for my ‘93 Aerostar. >negative on factory wiring for driving lights, unless you live in Canada. > …. >Paul O’Gorman
The Body/Chassis Service Manual for the 1993 Explorer/Aerostar shows (page 17-04-4) the wiring in place on all 1993 Explorer/Aerostars. I looked and verified that my 1993 Explorer has the wiring. There is a connector in the engine compartment on the rear left side of the radiator support (this support holds the jack handle). On my Explorer this unused connector is stubbed-off with a plastic plug. You add the DRL feature by installing Control Module and Bracket Assembly #15A272. The 1993 Aerostar used the same assembly. I called a local Ford Dealer Parts Department and was told the Assembly costs about $70.
Response:
>I"d like to add daytime running lights to my ‘92 Explorer. Anybody know >if the wiring is already in place, as they are required on units sold in >Canada. If so, where is it located? Ditto for my ‘93 Aerostar.
negative on factory wiring for driving lights, unless you live in Canada. It is however relatively easy to wire them up. There are 2 ways of going about it. 1) Most light systems come with a relay (dont buy them if they dont). The relay coil can be simply wired to the front running lights, and then the actual lights wired to the battery (with a fuse of course). When you pull the light switch on the dash to the first click, your driving lamps will come on. 2) You can connect the relay of the driving lights to the accessory "on" part of the ignition. The easiest is to buy what is called a fuse block tap. this is a relatively safe way to put another wire off of a fuse on the block. This tap would be put on the protected side (not the battery side) of the fuse that operates the stereo. This way when the ignition key is set to the "run" position the lights are on. These are a couple of ways to integrate driving lights into your Explorer given that you want to buy extra lights. If you dont, then just pull on the headlights whenever you go driving, just as long as you dont leave them on (as I used to do until i wired my lights up with method 2) Paul O’Gorman | 93 Explorer 4×4 Sport-R (daily driver) Montana State University | 81 Bonniville (the BONNABOAT) Department Of Electrical Engineering | 79 Monza Spyder 327 (weekend screamer)
Response:
I dont care what anyone says about the govenment trying to infringe upon my rights by making me have DRL’s, . If it increases the margin of safety just slightly, then Im for them. There are just too many people out there driving that are not even paying attention. Paul O’Gorman Montana State U. Dept of Electrical Engr.
Response:
>I dont care what anyone says about the govenment trying to infringe upon >my rights by making me have DRL’s, . >If it increases the margin of safety just slightly, then Im for them. >There are just too many people out there driving that are not even paying >attention.
I would imagine if the government forced you to drive a bright yellow car with strobe lights on it that might do the same thing. Still willing? PGY-II Ob/Gyn ok for pizzas TRHMC-Reading, PA not for babies
Response:
One of the problems I’m having w/DRL’s is glare from the rear-view mirror. I have an astigmatism and my optometrist informs me that the glare headlights create around the rim of my glasses is caused by the way the glasses are ground. Despite a special coating, I still get a ‘flare’ of light reflection at night. Now, if a GM vehicle is behind me, I get it during the day as well. Admittedly, this is less of a problem in my Explorer than in my Sable (Cavaliers just don’t reach that high, but Suburbans do ), if they have to have these things, couldn’t they focus them downward?
Response:
> One of the problems I’m having w/DRL’s is glare from the rear-view mirror. I > have an astigmatism and my optometrist informs me that the glare headlights > create around the rim of my glasses is caused by the way the glasses are > ground. Despite a special coating, I still get a ‘flare’ of light reflection > at night. Now, if a GM vehicle is behind me, I get it during the day as > well. Admittedly, this is less of a problem in my Explorer than in my Sable > (Cavaliers just don’t reach that high, but Suburbans do ), if they have > to have these things, couldn’t they focus them downward?
Dean brings up a good point about the glare. I believe the GM DRL’s use the high-beams but not at full brightness. I think they can be mechanically pointed downward, however, that moves the entire headlight assembly so it all points down. In any case though, focusing the high-beam DRL’s downward defeats the purpose of having high beams in the first place. Not so useful if they are pointing down, not straight out when you really need them at night. Wondering why GM did not put the DRL’s on the lo-beams instead. Less glare seems to me. Mike — Michael Mayer, Senior Technical Support Engineer Amateur Radio KB8RJO Visual Numerics, Inc. 32915 Aurora Rd. Suite 160, Solon OH 44139 USA v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v Good * Cheap * Quick (pick any two) ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
Response:
Don’t see any sensor. And, as I recall the DRL was an option, not Std Eq.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ll look tonight, I keep that (195,000 mile) truck at home, and use it only > for Pig Hunting. > Oink! Oink! - – – – – BLAM! > my 99 silverado 2 wd. base model had the DRL, and the head lights or > tail didnt come on unless i turned them on, or the sensor on dash called > for them. > do you have anything over the sensor in middle of dash by the defrost > vevt? > and i am in north carolina. > just a thought that maybe the sensor is messed up. > a friend has a 2001 and his head lights always come on his z71 LT. BUT > reason his does is he a dash bracket over his sebsor, he is a vol. > fireman, so he has a dash loght.
Response:
Well then I would say that chassis computer is operating as though it is dark (all lights on, DRL’s off, and the switch does nothing, as designed when its dark). Not sure where the light sensor is, but either it is bad, or the chassis computer itself is bad. BlazerMan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > No, I live in Arizona. Even at noon the head/tail lights are always on. > Never once since I bought the truck have I seen the DRLs on. But even with > the switch set in the "off" position where I should not have tail lights, > they are on. All my lights are on all the time, with the switch "off" no > matter time of day. > — > www.aadtonline.com >Are you in a dark area? On all the new GM cars and trucks (Since you >said silverado, I’m assuming new era), the chassis computer decides when >to turn the lights on. All the lights. The switch is pretty much usless >unless you wish for taillights in broad daylight. When it starts to get >even a little dark, you’ll find that all the lights (tail, dash, >parking, head) come on automatically. GM’s way of telling you who is in >control. >BlazerMan >>On a 99 Silverado, how are the DRL’s suppose to operate? According to >>everything I can find and the dealer, the little light in the turn > signal >>housing is suppose to be on with no tail lamps etc. until I actually > turn >>the head lamp switch on, then all the lights come on. If this correct? >>If that is correct, can anyone explain why my lights, head and tail > lamps >>are always on, even when the switch is off? >>– >>www.aadtonline.com
Response:
No, I live in Arizona. Even at noon the head/tail lights are always on. Never once since I bought the truck have I seen the DRLs on. But even with the switch set in the "off" position where I should not have tail lights, they are on. All my lights are on all the time, with the switch "off" no matter time of day. — www.aadtonline.com
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Are you in a dark area? On all the new GM cars and trucks (Since you > said silverado, I’m assuming new era), the chassis computer decides when > to turn the lights on. All the lights. The switch is pretty much usless > unless you wish for taillights in broad daylight. When it starts to get > even a little dark, you’ll find that all the lights (tail, dash, > parking, head) come on automatically. GM’s way of telling you who is in > control. > BlazerMan > On a 99 Silverado, how are the DRL’s suppose to operate? According to > everything I can find and the dealer, the little light in the turn signal > housing is suppose to be on with no tail lamps etc. until I actually turn > the head lamp switch on, then all the lights come on. If this correct? > If that is correct, can anyone explain why my lights, head and tail lamps > are always on, even when the switch is off? > — > www.aadtonline.com
Response:
the sensor on the 99-uo as i remember are right in center of dask where window meets the dash, on the dash, it looks like a bubble, or a small cap
Response:
Are you in a dark area? On all the new GM cars and trucks (Since you said silverado, I’m assuming new era), the chassis computer decides when to turn the lights on. All the lights. The switch is pretty much usless unless you wish for taillights in broad daylight. When it starts to get even a little dark, you’ll find that all the lights (tail, dash, parking, head) come on automatically. GM’s way of telling you who is in control. BlazerMan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > On a 99 Silverado, how are the DRL’s suppose to operate? According to > everything I can find and the dealer, the little light in the turn signal > housing is suppose to be on with no tail lamps etc. until I actually turn > the head lamp switch on, then all the lights come on. If this correct? > If that is correct, can anyone explain why my lights, head and tail lamps > are always on, even when the switch is off? > — > www.aadtonline.com
Response:
My 97 GMC Z71 has them.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My 96 Tahoe has them. Were the pickups different? > Brandonb > have you had it near a motor pool, larry? > they can f**c up a truck from about 50 yards… *g* > on the 99, were DRL’s on the US trucks? i know they had them for > canada, but didn’t think they were on the 99 z-71? > i’m wondering if the previous owner tried to "install" DRL’s?? > mac > http://www.aadtonline.com/Bios%20Files/mac%20davis.htm
Response:
my 99 silverado 2 wd. base model had the DRL, and the head lights or tail didnt come on unless i turned them on, or the sensor on dash called for them. do you have anything over the sensor in middle of dash by the defrost vevt? and i am in north carolina. just a thought that maybe the sensor is messed up. a friend has a 2001 and his head lights always come on his z71 LT. BUT reason his does is he a dash bracket over his sebsor, he is a vol. fireman, so he has a dash loght.
Response:
Nothing is blocking the sensor. Might be worth replacing though. — www.aadtonline.com
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> my 99 silverado 2 wd. base model had the DRL, and the head lights or > tail didnt come on unless i turned them on, or the sensor on dash called > for them. > do you have anything over the sensor in middle of dash by the defrost > vevt? > and i am in north carolina. > just a thought that maybe the sensor is messed up. > a friend has a 2001 and his head lights always come on his z71 LT. BUT > reason his does is he a dash bracket over his sebsor, he is a vol. > fireman, so he has a dash loght.
Response:
I’ll look tonight, I keep that (195,000 mile) truck at home, and use it only for Pig Hunting. Oink! Oink! - – – – – BLAM!
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> my 99 silverado 2 wd. base model had the DRL, and the head lights or > tail didnt come on unless i turned them on, or the sensor on dash called > for them. > do you have anything over the sensor in middle of dash by the defrost > vevt? > and i am in north carolina. > just a thought that maybe the sensor is messed up. > a friend has a 2001 and his head lights always come on his z71 LT. BUT > reason his does is he a dash bracket over his sebsor, he is a vol. > fireman, so he has a dash loght.
Response:
On a 99 Silverado, how are the DRL’s suppose to operate? According to everything I can find and the dealer, the little light in the turn signal housing is suppose to be on with no tail lamps etc. until I actually turn the head lamp switch on, then all the lights come on. If this correct? If that is correct, can anyone explain why my lights, head and tail lamps are always on, even when the switch is off? — www.aadtonline.com
Response:
>On a 99 Silverado, how are the DRL’s suppose to operate? According to >everything I can find and the dealer, the little light in the turn signal >housing is suppose to be on with no tail lamps etc. until I actually turn >the head lamp switch on, then all the lights come on. If this correct? >If that is correct, can anyone explain why my lights, head and tail lamps >are always on, even when the switch is off?
have you had it near a motor pool, larry? they can f**c up a truck from about 50 yards… *g* on the 99, were DRL’s on the US trucks? i know they had them for canada, but didn’t think they were on the 99 z-71? i’m wondering if the previous owner tried to "install" DRL’s?? mac http://www.aadtonline.com/Bios%20Files/mac%20davis.htm
Response:
My 96 Tahoe has them. Were the pickups different? Brandonb – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > have you had it near a motor pool, larry? > they can f**c up a truck from about 50 yards… *g* > on the 99, were DRL’s on the US trucks? i know they had them for > canada, but didn’t think they were on the 99 z-71? > i’m wondering if the previous owner tried to "install" DRL’s?? > mac > http://www.aadtonline.com/Bios%20Files/mac%20davis.htm
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->On a 99 Silverado, how are the DRL’s suppose to operate? According to >everything I can find and the dealer, the little light in the turn signal >housing is suppose to be on with no tail lamps etc. until I actually turn >the head lamp switch on, then all the lights come on. If this correct? >If that is correct, can anyone explain why my lights, head and tail lamps >are always on, even when the switch is off? >have you had it near a motor pool, larry? >they can f**c up a truck from about 50 yards… *g* >on the 99, were DRL’s on the US trucks? i know they had them for >canada, but didn’t think they were on the 99 z-71? >i’m wondering if the previous owner tried to "install" DRL’s?? >mac >http://www.aadtonline.com/Bios%20Files/mac%20davis.htm
Yes, the US trucks had them as well. I’m thinking the light sensor in the dash is messed up and telling the computer it’s dark out. Is there anything on the dash covering a little bump? The little bump looks like a smoked glass dome, I think it’s in the center of the dash. This bump is a light sensor, for the automatic headlights…
