Daytime Running Lights changed ???

[NEOCON1]

Originally Posted by JWSchmidt3

Amen brother!!! LOL

funny how a c5 manual fills the whole glovebox .

[Hummer Guy]

Originally Posted by Tommy36998

Mine works either way.........yellow corners on or wht dim in front

?

[Michael1]

I can't stand DRLs. To me they are just a glare nuisance, and a waste of fossil fuels. It's just marketing. So far no safety agency has yet to produce a study of *statistical significance* (key words) for any safety benefit. None. Anyone got a nice fix for disabling them permanently?

Michael

[HummerNewbie]

You know it really amazes my how much DRLs bother people. To each their own and I am not knocking anyone for disliking them but I just get why it bothers some sooo much. The fact that I am in the drivers seat makes them basically a none issue since I can't see them. I have no idea if there have been any studies that show any safety benefits or not but I know that the headlights on motorcycles being on is definitely a safety benefit. I also do see where the DRLs are increasing the use of fossil fuels. Maybe I am missing something but how is this, because the alternator might have to work a little harder? Anyway, like I said, to each their own.

[f5fstop]

Originally Posted by Michael1

I can't stand DRLs. To me they are just a glare nuisance, and a waste of fossil fuels. It's just marketing. So far no safety agency has yet to produce a study of *statistical significance* (key words) for any safety benefit. None. Anyone got a nice fix for disabling them permanently?

Michael

To run only the two front signals bulbs, or the two front headlamp bulbs at a lower level, wastes about as much fossil fuel as running the radio and monsoon amp.
So, if you are really concerned about fossil fuel, I have to assume you are running with the A/C disconnected to make sure you don't turn it on when the defrosters are running, and your radio has been removed. Then again, I have to beg the question, why are you driving a Hummer...get a Honda Insight, if you are really that concerned about fossil fuel.


Want to know how much it costs to run your A/C, even with the defrosters on?U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995).
DRL costs are low, so even very modest crash reduction capabilities would be cost effective. For example, according to General Motors, there is a minimal wiring cost in converting to DRLs, and a fraction of a mile fuel penalty (about $ 3 per year for the average driver).



As for studies:
DRLs, at sufficient levels of intensity, increase visual contrast between vehicles and their background. Various studies have shown that DRLs can improve the noticeability and detectability of vehicles in the central and peripheral fields of view. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995); Allen, J. M., Strickland, J., Ward, B., and Siegel, A.: Daytime headlights and position on the highway. Am J Optometry 46: 33--36 (1969); Attwood, D. A.: Daytime running lights project, IV: Two-lane passing performance as a function of headlight intensity and ambient illumination. Technical Report RSU 76/1. Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1976; Attwood, D. A.: Daytime running lights project, II: Vehicle detection as a function of headlight use and ambient illumination. Technical Report RSU 75/2. Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1975; Horberg, U.: Running light--twilight conspicuity and distance judgement. Report 215.

Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1977; Horberg, U., and Rumar, K.: Running lights--conspicuity and glare. Report 178. Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1975; Kirkpatrick, M., Baker, C. C., and Heasly, C. C.: A study of daytime running lights design factors. (DOT HS 807 193). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1987.; Ziedman, K., Burger, W., and Smith R.: Evaluation of the conspicuity of daytime running lights. (DOT HS 807 609). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1990.

Andersson, K., Nilsson, G., and Salusjarvi, M.: The effect of recommended and compulsory use of vehicle lights on road accidents in Finland. Report 102A. National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden, 1976.
A study in Finland conducted between 1968 and 1974 found that DRLs, when required on rural roads in the winter, were associated with a 21-percent reduction in daytime multiparty crash events (involving more than one motor vehicle or motor vehicles colliding with pedestrians or pedalcyclists).

Andersson, K., and Nilsson, G.: The effect on accidents of compulsory use of running lights during daylight hours in Sweden. Report 208A. National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden, 1981.
In Sweden, a study based on 2 years of pre-law and 2 years of post-law data reported and 11-percent reduction in multiparty daytime crashes subsequent to the DRL law.

Elvik, R.: The effects on accidents of compulsory use of daytime running lights for cars in Norway. Accid Anal Prev 25: 383-398 (1993).
A study in Norway, covering the period 1980 to 1990, examined the effect of the country's DRL law, which applied to new cars in 1985 and to all cars beginning in 1988. DRL use was estimated to be about 30-35 percent in 1980-81, 60-65 percent in 1984-85, and 90-95 percent in 1989-90, so, as in the earlier Scandinavian studies, only partial implementation of DRLs was assessed. There was a statistically significant 10-percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes associated with DRLs in this study, excluding rear-end collisions, which increased by 20 percent. For all daytime crashes involving multiple parties, there was a statistically significant 15-percent reduction associated with DRLs in the summer but not in the winter. No significant effects of DRLs were found for collisions involving pedestrians or motorcyclists.

Cantilli, E. J.: Accident experience with parking lights as running lights. Highway Research Record Report No. 32. National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1970.
In the United States, a small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18-percent lower daytime, multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles.

Stein, H. S.: Fleet experience with daytime running lights in the United States. Technical Paper 851239. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 1985.
In a much larger fleet study conducted in the 1980s, more than 2,000 passenger vehicles in three fleets were equipped with DRLs.
One fleet operated in Connecticut, another in several States in the Southwest, and the third operated throughout the United States. A 7-percent reduction was found in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes in the DRL-equipped vehicles compared with control vehicles.

Aurora, H., et al.: Effectiveness of daytime running lights in Canada. TP 12298 (E). Transport Canada, Ottawa, 1994.
In a study in Canada comparing 1990 model year vehicles (required to have DRLs) with 1989 vehicles, a statistically significant 11-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes other than rear-end impacts was estimated. This estimate was adjusted to take into account the fact that about 29 percent of 1989 vehicles were fitted with DRLs. Collisions involving pedestrians, pedalcyclists, motorcyclists, and heavy trucks and buses were not included in this study.

Sparks, G. A., et al.: The effects of daytime running lights on crashes between two vehicles in Saskatchewan: a study of a government fleet. Accid Anal. Prev 25: 619-625 (1991).
In another Canadian study, crashes of vehicles with and without DRLs in a government fleet in Saskatchewan were compared with a random sample of crashes involving vehciles without DRLs. The estimated reduction in daytime two-vehicle crashes was 15 percent. When the analysis was limited to two-vehicle collisions most likely to be affected by DRLs--involving vehicles approaching from the front or side--the estimated reduction was 28 percent.

Society of Automotive Engineers Inc., Automotive Engineering Vol. 102 ; No. 8 ; Pg. 35; ISSN: 0098-2571 (August, 1994).
In 1994 Avis, Inc. announced the results of a traveler-safety study analyzing the incidence and degree of damage to cars equipped with daytime running lights; the study showed a significantly greater degree of damage to those without daytime running lights (DRLs). Those equipped with DRLs have their headlights on at all times and are more visible to other drivers. During the day, they are on at an 80% power level; in the dark they operate at 100%.

Damage severity in the non-DRL group (measured in terms of cost) was 69% greater than that of the DRL-equipped fleet. Only the non-DRL vehicles experienced damage in excess of $15,000. The Avis study involved 1500 cars with DRLs, and 1500 without, representing approximately 29,000 rentals in eight cities in Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Washington.

Honestly, don't have time to show all the studies that have been done on DRL usage in all countries where they are required by law, or are used on vehicles at manufacturers discretion.

Or, just think about the cars you see coming down the road with DRLs, you see 'em don't you, so they must attract your attention. There have been studies that certain colors of vehicles are hard to see in daylight, and DRLs will definitely help see these vehicles.

To disable, just go cut the wires, you don't need to use your signals or your LO beams (depending on DRL system); why waste the fossil fuel.

[f5fstop]

Originally Posted by NEOCON1

funny how a c5 manual fills the whole glovebox .

I put mine in one of the little compartments in the rear of the vehicle. That was after I read it in the John.

I'm not totally sold on the DRL studies, but I can see where they add visibility and safety on 2 lane roads (not limited access freeways). I'm glad the H3 DRLs can be turned off via the override switch, but I would prefer the ability to leave them off. Mercedes has a nice solution that allows the dealer to program them on/off and I did have a Toyota Camry rental that had a separate switch position for the DRLs.

So the new H3's will have improved headlight DRLs instead of the orange signal light DRLs. The "parking light" DRLs are borderline illegal in California and other jurisdictions, but hardware laws are rarely enforced here. And mixing the DRLs with turn signal lights is a bad practice and potential safety issue. I hope GM (and Lexus) change all their DRLs to headlights and make them driver selectable.

As far as turning off lights and AC to save gas....Yea and running premium gas for the hope of better mileage on an H3....Good luck.

S.

[Michael1]

Originally Posted by f5fstop

To run only the two front signals bulbs, or the two front headlamp bulbs at a lower level, wastes about as much fossil fuel as running the radio and monsoon amp.
So, if you are really concerned about fossil fuel, I have to assume you are running with the A/C disconnected to make sure you don't turn it on when the defrosters are running, and your radio has been removed. Then again, I have to beg the question, why are you driving a Hummer...get a Honda Insight, if you are really that concerned about fossil fuel.

Now multiply those two bulbs by the millions of vehicles on the roads daily and see how much fossil fuel is involved. Its in the megawatts. It's amazing that so few people can see beyond just their own vehicle. Alternators are notoriously inefficient, too. Combine that with the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine, and you have nothing but waste.

Want to know how much it costs to run your A/C, even with the defrosters on?U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995).
DRL costs are low, so even very modest crash reduction capabilities would be cost effective. For example, according to General Motors, there is a minimal wiring cost in converting to DRLs, and a fraction of a mile fuel penalty (about $ 3 per year for the average driver).

I love this..."according to General Motors". Don't you think GM has a marketing angle on this? GM couldn't care less if they worked or didn't work as long as it sold more cars.

As for studies:

You can quote all these studies, but so far the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found them to be flawed or incomplete. They have found no study of STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, with controls, and of long enough duration which prove DRLs work. People said the same thing about the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp, and after they were made law, guess what? After a period of time, people were crashing into the back of each other just as much as when they didn't exist. What may sound logical doesn't always work, because we are dealing with people, not machines.

By the way, my study shows that DRLs have backfired for GM. Ever since they have been putting DRLs on their cars, their industry market share has just kept dropping and dropping. Reason: People see DRLs as a public nuisance.

Michael

[Bully13]

Originally Posted by Sewie

Which comes on you start the truck?

X3

Is there a switch... have to call onstar... what?

[evldave]

Originally Posted by Michael1

Now multiply those two bulbs by the millions of vehicles on the roads daily and see how much fossil fuel is involved. Its in the megawatts. It's amazing that so few people can see beyond just their own vehicle. Alternators are notoriously inefficient, too. Combine that with the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine, and you have nothing but waste.

Then take a fuking walk. If the everything on an automobile has 0.01% inefficiency, we'd all be fuked, since there are millions of automobiles. YOU ARE A TROLL. Go back to your Honda Insight forum and talk about how righteous your electric (fed by coal power plant) cars are.

Originally Posted by Michael1

I love this..."according to General Motors". Don't you think GM has a marketing angle on this? GM couldn't care less if they worked or didn't work as long as it sold more cars.

Believe it or not, the car manufacturers have just as much as a vested interested in this. Why? Because a$$holes like H3.007 will sue them at the drop of a hat. If they didn't have DRLs someone somewhere would sue them for not having DRLs. If they do have DRLs, someone somewhere (probably has) sued them for being distracted and causing an accident. By the nature of the free market and litigation, companies (all companies) know that not pissing off the masses is the best approach to business.

Originally Posted by Michael1

You can quote all these studies, but so far the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found them to be flawed or incomplete. They have found no study of STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, with controls, and of long enough duration which prove DRLs work. People said the same thing about the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp, and after they were made law, guess what? After a period of time, people were crashing into the back of each other just as much as when they didn't exist. What may sound logical doesn't always work, because we are dealing with people, not machines.

Show me a study on 3rd brake lights, I'll show you one that is the opposite. This is about common sense. I f'in HATE DRLs on vehicles, but I also know, because I'm a normal human being with common sense, that lights are easier to see than cars. Drive west at sunset sometime, idiot, you'll agree (wait, you don't drive because alternators are inefficient).

Originally Posted by Michael1

By the way, my study shows that DRLs have backfired for GM. Ever since they have been putting DRLs on their cars, their industry market share has just kept dropping and dropping. Reason: People see DRLs as a public nuisance.

At the same time, your IQ has decreased (guarateed, studies show IQ decreases with age). Also at the same time, the incidence of breast cancer has decreased, which means Daytime Running Lights have caused the decrease in breast cancer!! I think this is due to the headlight syndrom.

Originally Posted by Michael1

Michael

dumba$$ ****monger environmentalist anti-alternator craplogic troll!

[f5fstop]

Originally Posted by Michael1

Now multiply those two bulbs by the millions of vehicles on the roads daily and see how much fossil fuel is involved. Its in the megawatts. It's amazing that so few people can see beyond just their own vehicle. Alternators are notoriously inefficient, too. Combine that with the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine, and you have nothing but waste.
Ok, tell me you have disconnected your A/C, remember it runs in defrost mode. In addition, all those other vehicles have disconnected their A/C and drive at or below the speed limits.



I love this..."according to General Motors". Don't you think GM has a marketing angle on this? GM couldn't care less if they worked or didn't work as long as it sold more cars.
Actually, this is not a study on if they are effective, it is a statement on the cost per vehicle. Let's forget all the other studies done by non-interested parties.



You can quote all these studies, but so far the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found them to be flawed or incomplete. They have found no study of STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, with controls, and of long enough duration which prove DRLs work. People said the same thing about the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp, and after they were made law, guess what? After a period of time, people were crashing into the back of each other just as much as when they didn't exist. What may sound logical doesn't always work, because we are dealing with people, not machines.

Where are these studies? I know for a fact Canada and Europe has found them to be very effective. More extensive studies on the third brake light, and it has proven it helps reduce rear enders. Now, I supposed you will blame this law on GM. Sorry it was a Federal Law.

By the way, my study shows that DRLs have backfired for GM. Ever since they have been putting DRLs on their cars, their industry market share has just kept dropping and dropping. Reason: People see DRLs as a public nuisance.
Your studies. Do you mean as in YOU, or studies you have read, and if so, where are they? As for your idea that the DRL has dropped their market share...excuse me, you show your complete ignorance.



Michael

I'm beginning to think you are a TROLL. You blast something you don't like...fine, that's not a problem. But to blast make statements that are ludicrous shows your ignorance, and almost proves you are what you are a troll.
Your last statement really shows you have no idea what you are talking about, Ford is also losing market share at the same pace as GM, Nissan is losing at approximately 7 percent per year, and do they use DRLs?

I still say for a person who supposedly owns a Hummer, you sure are worried about that three bucks a year in fuel costs. My advice, get a Honda.
I have said enough, now go back to the Honda forum.

[Michael1]

I'm the troll here? Obviously, when you have HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of light bulbs burning, it is going to use up a lot of energy (that is if you can multiply). In this case, it is for no reason. But even if there was a reason, the fact a couple of people here fail to acknowlege the magnitude of the energy consumption makes THEM the TROLLS.

Of course, you won't get these trolls to make any distinction of the effectiveness of DRLs in different climates. Funny how these studies all seem to take place in the far northern reaches of the globe, where ambient light levels are a lot lower during much of the year compared to the lower 48 of the U.S. You'll never hear any of that perspective from the DRL trolls.

Of course, the DRL trolls won't tell you that most of these studies were performed with a percentage of cars with DRLs, and a percentage without. They leave out the results of what happens with ALL vehicles have DRLs.

The DRL trolls don't tell you when the flawed data shows improved results that have nothing to do with DRLs, such as single vehicle collisions, like someone running off the road.

Even if I went to the trouble to dig up the data from NHTSA (which it is all there), because we have trolls here, it wouldn't do a bit of good. These people are the type who just have nothing better to do than sit on their keyboards and arses all day, and argue based on what happens to pop into their heads at the moment ("Duh, I can see better with the lights" mentality), while ignoring all other data, a bit like conspiracy theorists.

Oh, and guess what else have failed for all you trolls? Antilock brakes. Sorry no reduction in accidents over the long term. Chew on that bone for a while.

So if and when this discussion returns with a shred of intellectual dialog, let me know, and I will present some of the findings to the non-trolls. The trolls can just close their eyes and ears, which shouldn't be too hard, since that's their modus operandi.

Michael

"The world is still flat for some people. They'll point to the horizon as proof."

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Buh-bye ... thanks for coming ... uh-huh ... buh-bye.

This is you ... blah-blah-blah.
This is me ... buh-bye

So ... buh-bye now ... ok then ... buh-bye

[HummerNewbie]

I could really give a rats ass what these studies you keep referencing have to say and until you link to some I am sure nobody else will either. Anyone can find studies that back up their point of view and if they don't link to them, then all they have to do is pretend they saw the report. I could also care less if my H3 has DRLs or not. My opinion of whether they are beneficial or not is based on the fact that I know I can see a vehicle coming better with DRLs than one without and I live in sunny FL (well, not sunny today) so the argument about ambient light levels really doesn't carry any weight with me. Each person is entitled to their own opinion on the matter and that does not make them a troll just because they have one that differs from yours. The reason that comments were made about your being a troll have to do with your fuel usage comments. The additional usage of fuel due to the DRLs is so pathetically minimal compared to everything else in the vehicle that I have a hard time believing that anyone other than a leaf licker would use it. Could be wrong but that sure is how it comes across.

[fourfourto]

Originally Posted by Hummer Guy

?

Back to a real question

Can you change the corner lights to the headlights easy
Why would hummer change it

Im not sure what one looks better, corner or headlights.

I do know you get a insurance discount for the corner lights being on

[dеiтайожни]

I'm with Michael, save the Earth. Now, Michael, join me in unplugging our modems, because those LEDs are fu.cken useless! It's proven. Not to mention the millions of lights used in locations that keep the internet running in places people rarely travel.

[HummerNewbie]

Originally Posted by dеiтайожни

I'm with Michael, save the Earth. Now, Michael, join me in unplugging our modems, because those LEDs are fu.cken useless! It's proven. Not to mention the millions of lights used in locations that keep the internet running in places people rarely travel.

LMAO

[Sewie]

Hey Mikey, GFY!

And would you mind not posting here anymore. Because then I read your posts and my computer may stay on for a couple more seconds (of course, that doesn't even count the time to reply ). I'd hate to think of all the energy your posts may be wasting.

[f5fstop]

Originally Posted by fourfourto

Back to a real question

Can you change the corner lights to the headlights easy
Why would hummer change it

Im not sure what one looks better, corner or headlights.

I do know you get a insurance discount for the corner lights being on

You should get a discount for DRL; whether they be signals or headlamps. My insurance agent noted that when I got the vehicle, also got the discount for the Vette, which uses signals, but not for the Jeep. (Farm Bureau)

As for why did they change, the magic word is GLOBAL. In some countries, the DRLs must be headlamps. So, a wiring change was made to make the DRLs all as common as possible. Don't ask me why the electrical guys didn't think of this in the beginning, since they knew the H3G was in the works.
As for a change, right now I can't say. The BCM controls the DRLs on my vehicle, via the signals bulbs. The turn signal lever and hazard switch signal the BCM that the flashers must be used, and the BCM then flashes the signals as required (flashers override the DRLs).
So far, the wiring has not been updated for the headlamp DRLs, but I have to assume the BCM is controlling these also, with the headlamp switch or light sensor overriding the DRLs. The BCM also controls the headlamps on the older style H3, via relays.

My guess is it can be done, but my guess is it might require a new BCM and/or a new wiring harness, or at the least a new BCM calibration.


I personally, prefer the signal bulbs as DRLs. In my opinion, they are easier to see, but that is probably a process of my old eyeballs, and certainly isn't based on anything else. Especially since I have seen some studies where the headlamps are more noticeable than the signals.

(Did the troll go bye-bye )

Maybe the troll will explain that removing the small GM nameplates will save gas too...