06 accord DRL's

is it possible to get the factory or dealer to deactivate the DRL's? I HATE
daytime running lights (had them in my lumina) they are "supposed" to be a
safety feature but I really see it as a ploy between car makers and light
bulb makers in order to sell more lights. I don't believe insurance
companies give a discount for having this "safety feature" on your car, do
they?

 

GEICO does--check with your insurance company. The cost of the bulbs is
negligible, and one's car is infinitely more visible to other drivers
with them on--particularly the cars of those idiots that don't turn on
their lights when it's very gray out or near dusk. Now, I'm ticked off
when they're too bright, but that's another matter.

 

--------------------------------

Guessing you're in America? Ask them to kill the seatbelt buzzer and
remove the airbag warning stickers too. See what response you get. It
doesn't matter what country you're in, safety features aren't going to
get 'undone' by a dealer. I hear the lawyers circling the wagons
already.

'Curly'

 

haha yes I am a "dumb" american I guess, lol I guess the way I look at it,
if this "Safety" feature was so important, why wouldn't it be mandated by
the government? (i.e. like the airbags you want me to remove).

 

--------------------------------

They ARE mandated by the government (My Government) and have been since
1991. I expect they save more lives in Canada since it's dark a lot
earlier during the cold seasons. Sad part: The farmers who really need
DRLs are the ones who don't replace them when the bulbs burn out.

This might start a BIG flame war (again).
Another reason they aren't mandated by your Government . . Your
government knows that FORD still hasn't figured out how to build DRLs
that actually work. :-(

'Curly'

 

rant on

I'm sorry, but I have to ...

So many conspiracy theorists. Yeah, it is always the big bad auto
companies ... NOT. Do you think they really wanted to re-engineer a
system for a potential to make a few $ on a light 5 years down the
road. And piss off customers in the process? The only car I've had
lights go out on was my old Prelude which consumed about a dozen!
(non-DRL). No, it was a gov't reg. Plain and simple.

DRL's do help. So many people leave their lights off. Some
accidently. Some because they are idiots who think that saving 100W
is worth risking their, and everyone elses, life. People still
haven't figured out that during rain, fog, or dawn/dusk that the
reason for turning on lights is not to help you see, but so that the
other guy can see YOU.

Why do you think motorcycles have lights on all the time? How many
motorcyclists do you see complain about this?

I turn my lights on my Miata all the time (non-DRL). I know plenty
of Miata drivers do the same. Why? Because we know that many
drivers are half-asleep and don't see small vehicles. Being more
visible by turning lights on makes sense. They should probably make
the brake lights come on at a reduced level too.

/rant off.

 

ROFL!!

 

I agree with the use of DRLs, just not how many companies implement them.
High beams at lower wattage still equals a beam aimed too high.

I avoid the issue by running with my headlights on at all times. While my
Honda doesn't have DRLs, my wife's minivan does and my last pickup did. By
running with the lights on, I have running lights in my non-DRL equipped
vehicle ('01 Accord) and defeat the high beam DRLs in my other vehicles by
turning on the low beams.

 

DRL's do help. So many people leave their lights off. Some

well ym 2001 maxima the lights come on automatically, does the accord do
this? I always turn my lights on in the rain or snow, but not during the day
time

 

So they'll look like tail lights?

 

DRL's are not a safety feature.

 

No they don't.

DRL's are not a substitute for your regular headlights, which are what
should be used in the conditions you describe.

Motorcyclists complain about DRL's all the time.

You just proved why DRL's are not necessary. You can reach down and turn
on your lights when you think they are necessary.

 

IOW, your government thinks you are not smart enough to turn on your lights
when they are needed.

The is one of those rare times when they are doing the right thing. The
only folks who want DRL's are GM. They have foisted them on many unsuspecting
car buyers. That is another reason why I did not buy a GM vehicle.

 

For many people, they are correct.

 

No argument re: the above, but I believe the DRLs are to increase the
vehicle's visibility (so other drivers see it), not to imptove the
driver's vision.

 

----------------------------------------

Yeah, the 'D' stands for DAYTIME, and they work fantastic, especially on
overcast days, or when somebody is coming at you with the sun behind
them.

DRL's are a perfect substitute for your regular headlights, during the
conditions described, because they save on fuel by drawing WAY LESS
power, and they're on, whether the driver is thinking / informed /
smart, or not. One rare example where our government actually made a
good decision on our behalf. (mandatory in Canada)

'Curly'

 

According to a 2004 U.S. DOT study, "An Assessment of Crash-Reducing
Effectiveness of Passenger Vehicle Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs)":

Results based on simple odds indicate that from 1995 to 2001:
• DRLs reduced opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by 5 percent.
• DRLs reduced opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal crashes by 5
percent.
• DRLs reduced non-motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, daytime
fatalities in single-vehicle crashes by 12 percent.
• DRLs reduced daytime opposite direction fatal crashes of a passenger
vehicle with a motorcycle by 23 percent.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-
760/images/AssessmentofDRLs.pdf

--Gene