How to turn off driving lights?

[David Buchner]

I still see many cars on two lane highways which came factory equipped with DRLs where they have been disabled. If they are involved in a collision, there should be an automatic 100% fault assessment and a fine.

Huh? What if they're rear-ended?

Of course then there are all the others with their fog lights running night and day, foggy or not.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Ken Gilbert]

Not even! NO dessert for you; he was correct. It DOES save lives.
Serious business.

how about people learn to PAY ATTENTION WHILE DRIVING??

if the presence or non-presence of DRLs was the deciding factor in an accident then SOMEBODY FUCKED UP.

stop passing around accountability.

ken

 

[brlarue]

This topic has generated quite a bit of chatter. I didn't realize that running lights were such a hot topic. Basically your headlights are on. So your headlights burn out earlier which increases the odds that you will be driving at night with one headlight. If the headlights last 5 years or so I wouldn't be alarmed, but I don't think that's the case.

What is lifespan of the headlight in terms of Hours ???

In my 2001 manual it says that the running lights will come on during conditions of reduced light or something like that. So all I want to do is tweak it's sensitivity. They are not on all the time as I noticed on a very sunny day they do turn off.

 

[GTT]

"GTT" wrote:

how about people learn to PAY ATTENTION WHILE DRIVING??

if the presence or non-presence of DRLs was the deciding factor in an accident then SOMEBODY FUCKED UP.

stop passing around accountability.

ken

This poster insists that ALL people pay attention while driving. Noted. Your advice is greatly appreciated. I suppose that will end automobile accidents! That was very helpful, thanks!

Next problem: let's help folks expand their vocabularies! Does the phrase "defensive driving" ring any bells with you? Auto insurance companies will be glad to explain it to you, if you but ask.

In the meantime, DRL's do not ask who was right or wrong or accountable. They are, however, effective. They simply allow others to see me. They force people to "pay attention."

You know, I'll bet DRL's are just another way to DRIVE IN ALL CAPS!
(get the idea, now?)

 

[Dan Duncan]

how about people learn to PAY ATTENTION WHILE DRIVING??

That would be lovely.

I'm not holding my breath.

if the presence or non-presence of DRLs was the deciding factor in an accident then SOMEBODY FUCKED UP.

And by having DRLs, perhaps I can keep them from fucking up into me.

-DanD

 

[D H]

I don't care for your vocabulary, ken, but you are right on target.

This poster insists that ALL people pay attention while driving. Noted. Your advice is greatly appreciated. I suppose that will end automobile accidents! That was very helpful, thanks!

Actually, his advice is MUCH more effective at ending accidents than DRLs have ever or will ever be. Inattention is the largest cause of accidents, I believe.

Next problem: let's help folks expand their vocabularies! Does the phrase "defensive driving" ring any bells with you? Auto insurance companies will be glad to explain it to you, if you but ask.

In the meantime, DRL's do not ask who was right or wrong or accountable. They are, however, effective. They simply allow others to see me. They force people to "pay attention."

You are mistaken here. "Forced attention" is not possible with many of those who cause accidents.

You know, I'll bet DRL's are just another way to DRIVE IN ALL CAPS!
(get the idea, now?)

EXACTLY.
THAT SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT IS w-r-o-n-g WITH YOUR THEORY. YOU SEE, ALL CAPS HAS NO EFFECT ONCE IT BECOMES COMMONPLACE. IT ONLY BECOMES ONE MORE THING YOU MUST IGNORE. THE VERY FOLKS YOU MUST WORRY ABOUT ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE ALREADY PROVEN THEIR ABILITY TO IGNORE YOUR ATTEMPTS TO FORCE THEM TO NOTICE YOU. CAN YOU NOTICE IN THIS PARAGRAPH EXACTLY WHERE I WANT MY EMPHASIS? OR WHAT I WANT TO STAND OUT TO YOU. OF COURSE YOU CAN'T. I'M JUST YELLING AT YOU SO MUCH THAT YOU EVENTUALLY MUST JUST IGNORE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF MY YELLING AT YOU. IN FACT, I SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE A GREATER TENDENCY TO IGNORE ME n-o-w BECAUSE YOU ARE SICK OF ALL THE YELLING. thanks for the perfect lead-in to show what is w-r-o-n-g with DRLs.
(get the idea, now?)

 

[D H]

as

Well, your opinion is noted.

Even though your comments, above, contain all the data I need to disagree with you. You mention "catch the drivers' attention" and talk of "light-sensitive folks".... Guess what that means? Yep, it means the DRLs are working.

Yes, but you missed the point. We become INsensitive to what is commonplace, so the advantage will disappear as more cars have DRLs.

(and I suspect that anyone light-sensitive to DRLs in daytime should not be permitted to operate a motor vehicle, day or night.)

Okay, so now your opinion is noted also.

If you'd ever piloted an aircraft, you'd know the meaning of "see and be seen," but the meaning is probably obvious, even if you have not. "Being seen" is safer than not!

How do you know I have not piloted an aircraft? Besides, this analogy is not much help, since aircraft are not limited to roads and lanes, filled with multiple vehicles (true to a point, at least.) In the air, you must be alert to others' presence in all directions, thus the light of another aircraft may appear anywhere, relative to you, and you need to pick up its presence immediately in order to avoid it if necessary. On the highways, we get accustomed to passing other vehicles at (potentially fatal) close range all day long. We expect that others will stay in their lanes on the highway, just where they belong, and we tend to take for granted that we ourselves are seen by others and that we have seen whatever other vehicles there are. In this scenario, lights may tend to blend into the fabric of this close-range danger situation. In the air, we have less traffic to contend with, but we have all that sky to take into account all the time. There is also the potential of missing another plane against the bright background. Lights on planes stand out quite nicely, especially since there is little else in the background that lights will be mistaken for. On automobiles, the more lights that are shining, the less any one particular lighted vehicle will be noticed. I could also use your rationale and say that anyone who cannot see another vehicle operating where it should be, on the roadway, "should not be permitted to operate a motor vehicle, day or night."

Statistics be damned, I don't believe them all, either. I realize that "figures don't lie, but liars figure", so I am not always convinced by what seems convincing numbers. I try to use a little common sense and take advantage of reasonable safety devices.

I try to use a LOT of common sense myself, or at least as much as is available to me.

But even tho there are many who posted in agreement with the "baloney" stand, the two posts which cite studies are more than enough to make me agree that DRLs save lives.

Did you note what I said about the earliest studies: They concluded at the front end that the unique or novel aspect of the DRLs may be their main advantage. You thus would be better served by having all DRLs eliminated, and then you can run your own lights in the daytime anyway, giving you the greatest possible advantage.

 

[D H]

For those of us who travel on two lane highways, DRLs are extremely useful for knowing the car in the left lane is coming toward us rather than passing someone. At a great distance on straight and flat roads, it can be difficult to determine this.

Like many, for decades I had been using low-beams during the day to accomplish the same thing until I had a car with DRLs.

I still see many cars on two lane highways which came factory equipped with DRLs where they have been disabled. If they are involved in a collision, there should be an automatic 100% fault assessment and a fine.

What a crock of crap. And I suppose from your suggestion that we should also charge a motorcyclist who is involved in a collision, while not wearing a helmet, since after all, we know that must have caused the crash. In fact the motorcyclist may hear better and see better without a helmet, thus it actually is a liability. I'm a cyclist, and always wear a helmet, but doing so makes noone else safer but me, and it carries potential liability even to me. I admit this is a poor analogy, but my point is you don't charge someone for something unless it is a contributing factor. Your suggestion might result in the TRULY guilty party getting off free simply because YOU want to punish someone for not adhering to your stupid prejudices. Get real.

Of course then there are all the others with their fog lights running night and day, foggy or not.

Oh, so you support DRLs but you don't like someone using their fog lights as DRLs instead? HUH?????

 

[Ken Gilbert]

That would be lovely.

I'm not holding my breath.

And by having DRLs, perhaps I can keep them from fucking up into me.

-DanD

if you're that worried, turn on ALL your lights... even the high beams.

there IS a switch for that, you know. the machine doesn't have to make the decision for you.

ken

 

[Ken Gilbert]

This poster insists that ALL people pay attention while driving. Noted.

Your advice is greatly appreciated. I suppose that will end automobile accidents! That was very helpful, thanks!

Next problem: let's help folks expand their vocabularies! Does the phrase "defensive driving" ring any bells with you? Auto insurance companies will be glad to explain it to you, if you but ask.

In the meantime, DRL's do not ask who was right or wrong or accountable. They are, however, effective. They simply allow others to see me. They force people to "pay attention."

You know, I'll bet DRL's are just another way to DRIVE IN ALL CAPS!
(get the idea, now?)

why don't you try explaining to everyone where the ***8 BILLION POUNDS*** of extra co2 are going to go because of your stupid desire to waste energy by making everyone drive around with headlights permanently on, in some lame attempt to cater to the shortcomings of the dumb shit driver who shouldn't have a licence anyway? (source:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm)

let's take out stereos, since they distract drivers, thereby causing accidents.

don't get me started on cell phones.

dvd players w/screens in cars? like THAT'S not an accident waiting to happen?!

every car should be equipped with huge brembo brakes, and the stickiest tires available at any price. after all, this will reduce the occurance of accidents, right? (can you offer any explanation as to how it would NOT?)

let's make it a law that you must drive on winter tires in the winter, and summer tires in the summer. that will prevent accidents.

yes, let's equip all vehicles with those back-up beepers, since that could prevent accidents too. in fact, let's just make the beepers sound off all the time, since that would prevent even more accidents.

let's program the cars to not go faster than say 80mph. that would help prevent accidents, and besides, where is the speed limit faster than that in the first place? montana maybe? well, it doesn't matter.. less accidents happen if everyone is driving at 55, so let's just dial it back to that.

we're all about preventing accidents, right? that's the bottom line here, bar none. let's not be half-assed about it. my dad always says: if you're going to do something, do it right.

you know how i remain noticed? i pull the muffler off my car--no shit. straight pipes save lives, you know... and i got the loudest blow-off valve i could buy. turns heads like a mofo. nobody comes near me and my growling, snorting automobile, even when i (gasp) have my headlights OFF during the day!

people never cease to amaze me with their myopia. if YOU want to drive with your lights on during the day, nobody's stopping you--just turn the little switch in the cabin and they magically come on. drive like that all day, every day, contribute to global warming just so you can "be seen more" for all i care.

for god's sake, just stop trying to make cars so that idiots can drive them, because then only idiots will.

ken

 

[Greg Reed]

Ken Gilbert wrote:

if you're that worried, turn on ALL your lights... even the high beams.

Please don't start doing this. And those of you who do, please stop. High beams during the day are around number 4 or 5 on my list of annoying things that drivers do. They still cut right into the retina, even during the day. They're even more annoying than DRL's. People who do this make me want to keep one of those 3 million candle power spot lights in my car.

- Greg Reed

 

[GTT]

I don't care for your vocabulary, ken, but you are right on target.

Words mean something. At least they are supposed to.

Actually, his advice is MUCH more effective at ending accidents than DRLs have ever or will ever be. Inattention is the largest cause of accidents, I believe.

While your opinion is highly valued, it is incorrect in this case.

The reason is simple: his advice is not likely to be seen or heard on the highway. (Unless how you can explain specifically how a note on the internet can affect anyone's attention on the highway.)

You are mistaken here. "Forced attention" is not possible with many of those who cause accidents.

You may be correct. Apparently, even some folks who post on the internet have a problem with this.

EXACTLY.
THAT SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT IS w-r-o-n-g WITH YOUR THEORY. YOU SEE, ALL

CAPS

No, but your note shows how inattention to what one says can result in misunderstandings. You have completely missed my point.

HAS NO EFFECT ONCE IT BECOMES COMMONPLACE. IT ONLY BECOMES ONE MORE THING YOU MUST IGNORE. THE VERY FOLKS YOU MUST WORRY ABOUT ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE ALREADY PROVEN THEIR ABILITY TO IGNORE YOUR ATTEMPTS TO FORCE THEM TO NOTICE YOU. CAN YOU NOTICE IN THIS PARAGRAPH EXACTLY WHERE I WANT MY EMPHASIS? OR WHAT I WANT TO STAND OUT TO YOU. OF COURSE YOU CAN'T. I'M JUST YELLING AT YOU SO MUCH THAT YOU EVENTUALLY MUST JUST IGNORE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF MY YELLING AT YOU. IN FACT, I SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE A GREATER TENDENCY TO IGNORE ME n-o-w BECAUSE YOU ARE SICK OF ALL THE YELLING. thanks for the perfect lead-in to show what is w-r-o-n-g with DRLs.
(get the idea, now?)

The last part of your post was ignored. In that, at least, you were correct.

You did miss my point, however, which was that the original poster tried to make the point that other drivers did not pay attention to DRLs.

He tried to get my attention by his screaming post. At least he had the 'inkling' of an idea that getting the attention of those whom you would like to take notice of you is not a brand new or untried approach. (That was my point.)

I have no idea what your purpose was in all your screaming and broken lines! It was obnoxious and far too much for me to bother with. DRLs are much less obnoxious, at least to the vast majority of drivers.

If they bother you, I regret that. I have no alternative suggestion that could possibly be effective. I surmise from what you've posted that your idea of a meaningful contribution seems to consist of screaming posts on the net.

I am reasonably certain screaming will have little impact on our laws. I am equally certain that DRLs do have an significant effect.

It appears obvious that you do notice them, in spite of statements to the contrary! (do I need to belabor that point? I didn't think so, so I won't.)

I can only conclude that, while you do not like them, you have been able to find no serious objection to their use, and you must make do with claims that they do not work. But they do. Studies show this, results tell the story far better than personal prejudices. If this idea is not a good fit for you, I regret that also.

It appears to be ineffective to continue any dialog with you on this subject, so I won't. Back to meaningful Subaru questions and answers, AFAIC. This has gone far too far off track.

 

[Dan Duncan]

Yes, but you missed the point. We become INsensitive to what is commonplace, so the advantage will disappear as more cars have DRLs.

Since all oncoming cars at night have headlights, we become desensitized because they are common and eventually we'll stop noticing them and drift into oncoming traffic?

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

All cars have reflectors on them nowadays, so it's just a matter of time before we become desensitized to them and can no longer drive down a dark street without ramming a row of parked cars, right?

Did you note what I said about the earliest studies: They concluded at the front end that the unique or novel aspect of the DRLs may be their main advantage. You thus would be better served by having all DRLs eliminated, and then you can run your own lights in the daytime anyway, giving you the greatest possible advantage.

I do think a major failing of DRLs is that there is no rear illumination, and I've always been quicker to turn on my headlights than most when it gets hazy, rainy, snowy, or otherwise visibility impaired in the daytime (including a few smoky runs during forest fire season) at which time I'm glad OTHER drivers who wouldn't otherwise turn on lights have DRLs, but I can't help wondering if we'll produce a generation of drivers who start to rely on DRLs in these situationswithout realizing they have no tail lights.

-DanD

 

[Dan Duncan]

if you're that worried, turn on ALL your lights... even the high beams.

I have my doubts that blinding oncoming drivers enhances my safety... If you have evidence otherwise, I'd be curious to see it.

there IS a switch for that, you know. the machine doesn't have to make the decision for you.

I always turn on my lights when visibility is reduced by daytime weather or other factors because I'd like to improve my visibility from the rear, but since I don't control other drivers (YET!) I like the fact the ones too stupid to turn theirs on get a slight edge by having DRLs which keeps them from getting hit which keeps them from then plowing into me or backing up traffic and making me late for work.

YMMV.

-DanD