| From | Message |
xplikt
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/26/2002
17:26:26
|
 Subject: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
I remember seein' quite a few people freak out at these on this forum, so here ya go!
http://www.lightsout.org/
|
macman37
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/26/2002
17:47:06
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
YES! Seriously, those bug the crap out of me!!!
You don't know who you've cut off anymore! They ALL look like you just cut them off!
; )
jim
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/27/2002
00:03:49
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Whats stupid about this game is that GM puts them on all their cars in the US and then lobbies congress to make the other automakers do it as well just to drive up competitors prices as well. One thing I noticed about 40% of the newer Chevy pickups have one of their driving (or DRL's) burnt out. Maybe Chevy should get their own crap working instead of trying to force stupid laws down our throats. Plus solar yellow Dakotas don't need no stinking lights to be seen!
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/27/2002
00:09:36
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
xplikt- hey you're missing a pretty event packed weekend here in Missoula. Weezer, and Harry Conick Jr (not together) are in town, along with the forester's ball at the UofM, and a lumberjack regional competition, the "leather Forever" review, and a marathon. All separate events. Why does nothing happen week after week and then they schedual 10 things at once?
|
R Middleton
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/27/2002
00:18:23
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
DTR are a lot less annoying than the guy driving behind you with the poorly aimed HID driving lights,foglights, highbeams, "Washer squirter lights" and the undercar neon(seriously they just aren't trying anymore remember when this first came out and it actually looked like the car was floating? nowadays they don't even manage to hide the bulbs!).
sigh.
Middy.
|
Crusty
GenIII
4/27/2002
19:13:03
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
DRL's in my opinion are the safest thing a car/truck can have. The increased visibility is invaluable. I always drive with my lights on, but poorly aimed lights are another topic...
2002 4x4
Modification Donations Accepted at Paypal.com
|
Bill
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/27/2002
19:22:56
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
As I have said in other posts on this topic, I agree with what Crusty said. I ususally have my fogs on all the time whether I need them or not. But hey, that's my opinion and I respect everybody's else's.
Bill
Bill's Truck Page
|
DAK2
*GenIII*
4/27/2002
23:06:18
|  RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Not that I'm old (ha) but does anyone remember back
in the late 50's the governments safety push to have
everyone put a running light in the middle of the grill?
Y2K DAK 3.9L 5 Spd OS/2 Keeps going&going&going
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/28/2002
00:07:37
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Really, DRL's are the safest thing a car can have? So like they are better then seat belts, airbags, emergency brakes, padded dashboards, saftey glass, crumple zones, side impact protection, abs brakes, ainti-skid controll, etc, etc... I guess they are a bargin then. Of you could just reach down and turn the switch.
|
xplikt
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/28/2002
19:17:55
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
I prefer my loghts to be on when on the highway, but not on the city streets in the day. If you can't see people without lights, you got problems.
Damn, that sucks Hersbird, I would have loved to have been down there! Oh yeah, who's going to Ozzfest??
|
92dakotahd
GenII
4/29/2002
00:29:37
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
I think they're pointless. I like the point on the website about how they can't see motorcycles due to all of the vehicles having DRLs. If people want to be safer let them turn they're lights on themselves. But I know that it's probably some deal GM made with the Bulb producers. I like the DRLs however that they put on the Firebirds, just two small parking bulbs in the corners. To all the safety people however. I know that at least half a dozen times I have been stuck in thick fog or snow and been glad I could run just fog lights because the headlights just made things worse.
|
eallen
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/29/2002
12:38:23
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
I drive with my lights on most of the time becuase the weather here in the Chicago area is usaually grey and cloudy. I DO believe that it helps your vehicle to be seen. There have been several instances where if cars had their lights on they could have been seen a lot better. I believe that lights do help reduce the risk of an accident because you can't miss a car or turck coming at you with thier lights on.
At the same time I DO believe that lights or no lights should be the choice of the driver NOT the car company.
DRL's are stupid because they don't give the consumer a choice and Hersbird is right, a lot of the Chevy's DRL's are burnt out. I think DRL is a big money-making scheme. If you want your lights on, that's what the switch is for.
Also, DRL vs. driving with lights on are two different things. From what I have heard DRL are high beams on at 40% strength. Where as just having your lights on are your low beams which do not cause glare.
This is just my opinion and I do respect everyone elses.
|
Crusty
GenIII
4/29/2002
12:43:12
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Are the DRL's on Chevys and other makes a cost option? If they are don't buy em. Yes anyone can turn their lights on, and no they aren't as valuable as airbags etc, smartass.
I am willing to bet 90% of the people who have DRL's dont even know they do.
2002 CC 4x4 4.7L 5spd 3.55 LSD
Anyone have a white or chrome grille for sale?
|
TommyBoy
Gen III
4/29/2002
12:55:29
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
DRL's are pointless. If you cant see another car coming at you in the middle of the day, then you should not be driving. Having small lights that are not even half as bright as your headlights on will do nothing. And if it is stormy or foggy enough where you need to see a little better, then reach down and turn on your headlights. Its not that hard to do. I really cant stand all those people who drive around my town with all there lights on at once, blinding everyone. D#mn thats something that irks me.
|
92dakotahd
GenII
4/29/2002
15:26:21
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
My dad's Geo has DRLs and the only difference between the headlights being on and the DRL is the dash lights turn on and the radio face dims when you hit the switch.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/29/2002
20:53:05
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
There was another problem with DRL's, people with them on figure their headlights are on and don't turn on the actuall haedlights at night. They DRL's may only be 50% as bright so they are actually a problem to saftey, and the worst thing is that the taillights won't be on! We had a Chevy Corsica as our government car that did this, you'd think the lights were on as dusk turned to dark, but never were the taillights on, and they wern't as bright as the real headlights, just enought to give you some light back off the road and signs so you brain didn't think the lights were off. Not any added safety there at all. Maybe they should just make them come on when you turn on your windshield wipers, then you would get in the rain on the freeway which is they only time I could "see" a use for DRLs.
|
Will
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/30/2002
08:49:45
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
The newer GM's have a light sensor to turn the DRL's to full lights when it gets dark. My dad just leased a 02 Tracker for our company and it has them. It's good for people who don't think they need their lights on when it rains or snows too, that's one of my pet peeves.
|
JimB
GenIII
4/30/2002
08:59:44
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
What safety benefit is there driving at 70 MPH on the interstate with your headlights on -- all traveling in the same direction?
99 SY 3.9 Dakota Sport
99 PB 5.9 Durango SLT
|
Bill
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/30/2002
09:57:39
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Most driving isn't on highways Jim. Also, I agree with what Will said. My mom has a Chevy Impala and my dad has a Chevy Avalanche and both have the DRL's but also have a sensor that automatically turns the full headlights and taillights on when needed at night or in the rain.
Just my two cents.
Bill
Bill's Truck Page
|
xplikt
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/30/2002
10:26:59
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
JimB, for me, and probably most other people too, it's considerably easier to guage an oncomming vehicle's distance when their lights are on. All the same direction for you maybe, but not for everyone. For me it's single lane most of the way with some hard core passing.
|
92dakotahd
GenII
4/30/2002
10:47:02
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Jeep Grands have sensors on the dash too. No DRL though.
|
JimB
GenIII
4/30/2002
13:22:38
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Highway vs. Rural Road fatalities run close, numbers wise, but I don’t think the number of victims will decline if we all drive with our lights on 24/7. If a similar “group” who advocates a particular belief such as “drive 24/7 with our wipers on in anticipation of rain or snow,” would we? Accidents occur for a variety of reasons – and running into other vehicles – lights on or off – although quite common, shouldn’t be the only consideration. Run-off-the-road, single vehicle accidents are quite common. Also, a large number of accidents statistically occur at night – when everyone’s lights are on! Reasons for accidents vary from driver fatigue, impairment, lack of rumble strips, poor roads, weather conditions, vehicle condition, AGE (both extremes – the young driver and the elderly), lack of seatbelts and a lack of roadway safety devices such as bright reflective signs, stripes and guardrails. -- Jim
99 SY 3.9 Dakota Sport
99 PB 5.9 Durango SLT
|
PRYMORDIAL
Gen III
4/30/2002
17:37:42
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Well I'll put my two cents in.
It is a economic question for GM and its subsidiaries. Most GM products are made outside the US ( Yes the vehichles are assembled here ), and it saves them dollars to only produce one lighting system for their world market and the foriegn market requires the DMLs for what ever reason they have. But if you think corprate GM wants us to be all snuggly safe in their little road boxes, remember their really bad brakes over the past two decades, and exploding gas tanks on their pickups. No it is just to save a buck.
Barry A Lawton
|
JimB
GenIII
4/30/2002
19:48:55
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Ford (pardon the pun) "saw the light." Remember the one year (96?) all the Taurus' lights were "on" 24/7. Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but that lasted one model year, as loyal Taurus owners were outraged they couldn't turn their lights off. I don't know about the rest of you folks but damn it -- if I want to drive with my wipers OFF -- there better be a switch to enable me to do so! Same thing goes for the lights, the radio, yada yada yada. I don't need an advocacy group telling me what I "have" to do -- look at the poor bastard in California. They can't smoke in most public places. Again don't get me wrong -- I am not promoting smoking -- all I am saying is what harm does puffing a Marlboro on a beach in La Jolla do at 11:40 p.m. when no one is around except you and the jelly fish? Agree with Barry above --- cheaper to build millions of identical copies, then half with lights on, half with lights off. Another obvious PR "scam" by a corporate giant. Next thing GM will tell us is their windows won't go down in future car models because human body emissions or music from the car radio are harmful to the environment. Without the AC option, gonna be satisfied with the windows up 24/7? I guess I am just an old fart -- don't like people telling me what's good for me. That's why I am glad Clinton is out (woops -- maybe just opened a political bag of worms here!!!!) Standing by for flames... -- Jim
99 SY 3.9 Dakota Sport
99 PB 5.9 Durango SLT
|
Bill
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/30/2002
19:51:48
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Jim, at least we agree on being glad about Clinton being gone!!!! Also, I can tell you that the 1996 Ford Taurus' didn't have DRL. I traded one in for my Dakota and I know for a fact it didn't have lights on all the time.
Bill
Bill's Truck Page
|
JimB
GenIII
4/30/2002
21:20:21
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, OK Bill, sorry. I said "correct me if I am wrong." So, I got the wrong model year. Bottom line is, one of the Taurus model years tried the "lights on" deal and it failed miserably. If "lights on" is such a safety "plus," why aren't NASCAR's on all the time -- why is the trucking industry -- the LARGEST number of killers on roadways -- "on" all the time? How about them airplanes? How about pedestrian deaths (check the NHTSA database -- should we equip/require peds to wear hardhats with lights)? Their fatality figures are alarming. Did you know, the biggest "killer" of cops is automobile accidents -- not guns? I don't see all cops riding around with lights on. Nor do I see them wearing reflective vests with their uniforms when they're standing in Lane 1 of Route 17 stroking a ticket at 10 p.m. They're as "visible" as a stump in a cemetery without a flashlight! Hummmm??? Weird, huh? Again -- this "lights on" deal has got to be a PR "product." If you feel "safe" with your lights on while going 70 MPH on I-95 or elsewhere going in the same direction with hundreds of other vehicles, by all means, go for it. Trouble is, if I might be an elderly driver whose nose is 3" from the windshield because my vision is failing, driving a 67 Nova with bad tires that hasn't been serviced since 1978, the roads are wet and freezing, and I am seduced and "weezy" from the blood pressure and cardiac meds (not to mention 3 shots of scotch). You think your "lights on" are really gonna help when I pass out and T-Bone yer ass? - Jim
99 SY 3.9 Dakota Sport
99 PB 5.9 Durango SLT
|
Bill
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/30/2002
21:44:31
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Jim, calm down a little. Nobody is attacking your views, no need to get all out of whack about it. Plus, I hope you were kidding about the NASCAR, the last time I checked they didn't have headlights! LOL. Plus, in my post I wasn't attacking you about the Taurus, I was doing what you asked, correcting you if you were wrong, nothing more.
Bill
Bill's Truck Page
|
JimB
GenIII
4/30/2002
22:02:06
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Bill -- I didn't assume anyone was attacking my views (I don't know why you did), rather, I thought this was a discussion on this topic. "Lights on," in my opinion, is stupid (click the "join here" option next to your moniker for full benefits that allow you to express your opinion.) Also, please scroll back and read all my opinions on the topic, and please feel free to counter with some facts/data. My example regarding NASCAR (I believe) was right on the money -- look at the accident ratio there (what, 26+ cars last weekend in one crash????). No headlights "on" there. Would "lights on" have helped last weekend? Would "lights on" saved Dale, Sr.? As a previous poster said above, "it's considerably easier to guage an oncomming vehicle's distance when their lights are on. All the same direction for you maybe, but not for everyone. For me it's single lane most of the way with some hard core passing." Hummmmm..... sounds like a race track. Lights on everyone?? Bill, I am trying to have some adult discussion/debate on this issue. Please don't resort to the "calm down, I'm sensitive crapola." Please stay with the issue. Lights on sux. Period. - Jim
99 SY 3.9 Dakota Sport
99 PB 5.9 Durango SLT
|
Bill
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/30/2002
22:17:08
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Jim,
Are you saying that by me not being a member (which will has already changed, I paid my dues on Saturday and am just waiting for my user i.d.) that I am not able to express my opinions? It sure sounds like it from your post. Like I said earlier, I respect everybody's opinion but your last line says it best:
"Lights on sux. Period." Sounds like your mind is made up so there is no sense in presenting opposing opinions.
Bill
Bill's Truck Page
|
Bob W
GenI
4/30/2002
22:49:56
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
WHOO go Jim.
|
JimB
GenIII
5/01/2002
07:11:38
| RE: Association of Drivers Against DRLs
IP: Logged
Message:
Bill -- Always on the prowl for new members and great discussions are held often in the Members Only forum -- glad you joined. - Jim
99 SY 3.9 Dakota Sport
99 PB 5.9 Durango SLT
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
