A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

'02 Impala... how do I...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 22nd 05, 03:48 PM
ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
> "N8N" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
>>They're brighter than they need to be for their intended purpose, for
>>one thing... if nothing else it's wasteful.
>>
>>nate

>
>
> Brighter than they have to be, possibly.
> Wasteful...mathematically it is a very small number, insignificant to many
> of us.
>
> One wreck will cost you a ton more than these lights will.
>
>


It's still his car and still his choice if he wants DRLs or not.

FWIW, I have discussed this with Manitoba Public Insurance... (in Canada
DRLs became mandatory in 1990)... and they charge the same rates for
1989-90-91 Berettas and the same rates for 1989-90-91 Camaros, so it's
showing me that they don't see a decrease in collision rates for those
cars. They've referred me to the Insurance Bureau of Canada... I feel
I'm either entitled to a discount for my "safer" Beretta (1990) with
DRL's or that DRL's are going to be proven to be a non-issue for saving
lives.

And FWIW, I think DRL's on two lane highways are good. But they are
pointless in rush hour, which is where I spend 90% of my driving, so
that's why I've disabled them. I know where the headlight switch is and
I know when it needs to be used.

Ray
Ads
  #24  
Old July 22nd 05, 04:53 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"N8N" > wrote in message
oups.com...
Very few DRL
> implementations light up the sides or rear of the car, and the ones
> using high beams are painfully glaring under any conditions that would
> warrant regular headlight use. The world would be a better place if
> auto mfgrs. just built cars, and stopped trying to save us from
> ourselves.


Agree on the DRLs that leave the sides and rear unlighted. Headlight DRLs
are okay if they default to low beam. My wife's car does that and lights up
the rear, etc.

My poor old Dodge Van is totally manual mht lighting. And as much as I
bitch about people driving in the rain with no lights, I have occasionally
caught myself without my lights on. Seldom, but it has happened. Doesn't
make
it any less dangerous.

I would convert my to full time automatic lighting if I could find a kit to
do it
in such a way as to avoid the problems you mention. I suppose I could rig
a simple relay to bypass the headlight switch to low beams every time the
key is in Run position.


  #25  
Old July 22nd 05, 04:54 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ray" > wrote in message
...
I know where the headlight switch is and
> I know when it needs to be used.


You are perhaps an exception. Most of us make the occasional mistake. Some
of us just
dont seem to know the law in this state and to attempt to comply with it.


  #26  
Old July 22nd 05, 06:19 PM
Timothy J. Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . com>,
Comboverfish > wrote:
>I hear that complaint very infrequently, and I don't really get it.
>High beams in series (DRLs) are a much lower intensity of focused light
>than when run normally at full B+. The biggest reason HB DRLs are not
>a problem is the fact that they are used in DAYLIGHT; there is
>significant sunlight outside as to keep onlookers' eyes adjusted for
>bright light conditions.


Low light conditions (dusk, overcast, rain) cause the onlookers' eyes
to be adjusted for a lesser light level, so high beam DRLs can be more
annoying in that case.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
  #27  
Old July 22nd 05, 08:41 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I had the opportunity to get a little data on the situation just after lunch
today.
I drove to our farm which is about 7 miles out of town on a (major) two lane
state highway.
A cloudburst cut my work short, so driving back into town in this heavy rain
and heated
mist, I took a count of cars approaching me with lights on. (I was only
driving about 55-60 mph
so definitely did not catch up with any cars).

Of about 21 cars, only a third had any sort of lights on at all...and
conditions certainly demanded
illumination.

We have an all too high traffic accident rate (with high mortality) here
anyway, when it really
shouldnt be so. The roads are not particularly busy. The usual factors are
bad weather, aggressive
driving habits, speeding and running through signal lights, women trying to
diaper the baby and
drive at the same time.

I suppose the solution would be for our Texas drivers to wisen up and 'drive
friendly', and for
our police to get out of the donut palaces and enforce traffic laws.


  #28  
Old July 23rd 05, 12:59 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ray" > wrote in message
...
>
> FWIW, I have discussed this with Manitoba Public Insurance... (in Canada
> DRLs became mandatory in 1990)... and they charge the same rates for
> 1989-90-91 Berettas and the same rates for 1989-90-91 Camaros, so it's
> showing me that they don't see a decrease in collision rates for those
> cars. They've referred me to the Insurance Bureau of Canada... I feel I'm
> either entitled to a discount for my "safer" Beretta (1990) with DRL's or
> that DRL's are going to be proven to be a non-issue for saving lives.


My insurance company basically told me the same thing 2-3 years back. DRL
equipped vehicled do not have a "reduced loss profile" when compared to
non-DRL equipped venicles". What that means is that insurance rates will
not be reduced since there isn't a safety benefit (obviously). They also
told me that the exception was New York State, where the state legislature
*mandated* some percentage reduction in insurance rates for DRL equipped
vehicles by law, even though insurance loss data doesn't support it.

> And FWIW, I think DRL's on two lane highways are good.


Possible, but I'm not convinced. In 1978 (I believe was the year),
Wisconsin state did a "lights on for safety" study on a particularly
accident prone stretch of highway 12. The result was that the accident rate
was unchanged...no difference. But then there are other studies that seem
to indicate otherwise. One thing for sure, all the "studies" taken together
appear to be largely inconclusive. Given that, the real world statistics is
all we have left..the insurance industry data.

> But they are pointless in rush hour, which is where I spend 90% of my
> driving, so that's why I've disabled them. I know where the headlight
> switch is and I know when it needs to be used.


Most people do. Although, some people out there probably do need the
"crutch". For those people that know they don't, they should be able to
decide for themselves.



  #29  
Old July 23rd 05, 01:07 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote in message
...
>
> "N8N" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> Very few DRL
>> implementations light up the sides or rear of the car, and the ones
>> using high beams are painfully glaring under any conditions that would
>> warrant regular headlight use. The world would be a better place if
>> auto mfgrs. just built cars, and stopped trying to save us from
>> ourselves.

>
> Agree on the DRLs that leave the sides and rear unlighted. Headlight DRLs
> are okay if they default to low beam. My wife's car does that and lights
> up
> the rear, etc.
>
> My poor old Dodge Van is totally manual mht lighting. And as much as I
> bitch about people driving in the rain with no lights, I have occasionally
> caught myself without my lights on. Seldom, but it has happened. Doesn't
> make
> it any less dangerous.
>
> I would convert my to full time automatic lighting if I could find a kit
> to
> do it
> in such a way as to avoid the problems you mention. I suppose I could rig
> a simple relay to bypass the headlight switch to low beams every time the
> key is in Run position.
>


And have you found a automatic system that can tell when atmospheric
conditions have limited sight distance to below 1000 feet (a statute
requiring lights-on in my state)? I doubt it since none exists that can do
that. Manual control is your only reliable option in those situations.



  #30  
Old July 23rd 05, 04:22 AM
StingRay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> wrote in message
...
>
> "N8N" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> Very few DRL
>> implementations light up the sides or rear of the car, and the ones
>> using high beams are painfully glaring under any conditions that would
>> warrant regular headlight use. The world would be a better place if
>> auto mfgrs. just built cars, and stopped trying to save us from
>> ourselves.

>
> Agree on the DRLs that leave the sides and rear unlighted. Headlight DRLs
> are okay if they default to low beam. My wife's car does that and lights
> up
> the rear, etc.
>
> My poor old Dodge Van is totally manual mht lighting. And as much as I
> bitch about people driving in the rain with no lights, I have occasionally
> caught myself without my lights on. Seldom, but it has happened. Doesn't
> make
> it any less dangerous.


I think that has happened to most everyone, although I doubt that many will
admit it.

>
> I would convert my to full time automatic lighting if I could find a kit
> to
> do it
> in such a way as to avoid the problems you mention. I suppose I could rig
> a simple relay to bypass the headlight switch to low beams every time the
> key is in Run position.



Or you could simply get into the habit of turning on your headlights on low
beam every time you drive the car. The headlight switch over-rides the
DRL's. I do it automatically now. And you get a sound alarm if you forget to
shut them off once the engine is shut down.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What to get... 2005 Chev Impala or Pontiac Grand Prix ??? jetsguy Technology 13 March 18th 05 06:23 AM
ALIGNMENT ?? - 2003 Impala 3.4V6 ChrisCoaster Technology 6 March 6th 05 05:16 AM
Dumb Question on 69 Impala Don Antique cars 2 August 25th 04 10:13 AM
1973 Chevy Impala Josh Antique cars 1 April 10th 04 08:48 PM
64 impala pictures Jason Antique cars 0 December 29th 03 04:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.