 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / November 2004Enable DRL on 2005 US Spec CR-V?
Is there an OEM relay, say from a Canadian spec CR-V, that can enable a DRL function on a US spec car? How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage as DRLs? Thx. - RWM >Is there an OEM relay, say from a Canadian spec CR-V, that can enable a >DRL function on a US spec car? >How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage >as DRLs? The obvious question is why bother? When the conditions warrant it, you can reach over and turn on your low beams. High beams are reduced voltage are a very stupid idea. --------------- Alex >>Is there an OEM relay, say from a Canadian spec CR-V, that can enable a >>DRL function on a US spec car? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > --------------- > Alex That's one point of view to consider, but the fact is that you don't get a 10% insurance discount for acting responsibly when conditions warrant (in which case you'd want normal lamps, not DRLs), you get the discount because you have DRLs installed... That's "why bother". And reduced power highs is one way some aftermarket kits do that. I looked into it on my 04 Odyssey and found it took a different wiring harness and a DRL controller. Not worth the effort. >>>Is there an OEM relay, say from a Canadian spec CR-V, that can enable a >>>DRL function on a US spec car? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > because you have DRLs installed... That's "why bother". And reduced > power highs is one way some aftermarket kits do that. >>>Is there an OEM relay, say from a Canadian spec CR-V, that can enable a >>>DRL function on a US spec car? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> reach over and turn on your low beams. High beams are reduced voltage are >> a very stupid idea. >That's one point of view to consider, but the fact is that you don't get >a 10% insurance discount for acting responsibly when conditions warrant >(in which case you'd want normal lamps, not DRLs), you get the discount > because you have DRLs installed... That's "why bother". And reduced >power highs is one way some aftermarket kits do that. It is stupid that an insurance company would give a discount for something that has no proven benefits. Also, high beam DRL's are stupid because the aiming of the light puts it right at eye level of other road users. Even at reduced voltage, it is annoying. ------------------- Alex In rec.autos.makers.honda Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote: > It is stupid that an insurance company would give a discount for something > that has no proven benefits. Also, high beam DRL's are stupid because the > aiming of the light puts it right at eye level of other road users. Even > at reduced voltage, it is annoying. Is that why some Ford SUVs and trucks appear to have their high beams on? Now that I have lowered my eye level by buying a Honda Civic, I notice glaring headlights in my rearview mirror. They are almost always Fords. Studying the annoying light after flipping the mirror to "night", it seems like the lens is fully illuminated, unlike the half-lit appearance of a low beam. It doesn't seem likely that all of these folks are running on high beam, but I might believe that they have their headlights off, enabling DRL. The fact that their headlights is right at my eye level doesn't help, but most other SUVs and trucks don't have that effect.  Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 About usefulness of DRLs. They have been proven to work well here in Canada. And personally, I can judge the speed better, when someones comes towards me than without any DRLs. And mostly, lots of people don't bother putting lights before sunset or sunrise, making them difficult to see and there are some jackasses that don't put lights even in the heaviest rain fall, fog or snow storm. > In rec.autos.makers.honda Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > help, > but most other SUVs and trucks don't have that effect. >About usefulness of DRLs. They have been proven to work well here in Canada. >And personally, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >them difficult to see and there are some jackasses that >don't put lights even in the heaviest rain fall, fog or snow storm. These are the same stupid folks who neglect to turn on their lights because they already have DRL's on. They are too stupid to figure out that DRL's don't light up the rear of their car. So DRL's cause as many problems as they supposedly solve. ------------ Alex > It is stupid that an insurance company would give a discount for something > that has no proven benefits. Also, high beam DRL's are stupid because the > aiming of the light puts it right at eye level of other road users. Even > at reduced voltage, it is annoying. No proven benefits? You haven't read very much (if anything) on the subject. Years of testing were done in may countries, before DRLs were developed. SignatureBrian Ever stop to think... and forget to start again? The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any good. http://www.motorists.com/stealthis/lightsoff.html >> It is stupid that an insurance company would give a discount for >> something [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > subject. > Years of testing were done in may countries, before DRLs were developed. For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs, see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think about it. >The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any >good. > How on earth would DRL's make a bus more obvious to other drivers on the road? Are you telling me that DRL's make it easier to see a huge bus? It was proven that there was no reduction in accidents based on using DRL's. I also find it true that it's harder to see someone's front turn signal flashing when they have DRL's from a distance. The white light is brighter than the small flashing turn signal. Just because insurance companies give you a discount, doesn't mean that they are safer. Do you normally believe everything your insurance company tells you? On a side note, I can understand using them if it will save you money, but I don't want to hear people preach about DRL's making a car safer. > For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs, see: > http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any >>good. > The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any > good. The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true. >> The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any >> good. >The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true. Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's. ------------ Alex > >The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true. > > Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's. In what way? SignatureBrian Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. >> >The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true. >> >> Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's. > >In what way? In many other countries, optional or mandatory DRLs must be white, and have a narrowly defined range of light intensity, in order to be effective as DRLs without creating too much glare in low light conditions. In the US and Canada, high beams which create too much glare in low light conditions (e.g. in the evening if the driver forgets to turn on the regular low beam headlamps) and turn signals which can give false signals if glanced at briefly (e.g. if the glance occurs when the signaling side is in the off phase) are commonly used as DRLs. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. > In many other countries, optional or mandatory DRLs must be white, and > have a narrowly defined range of light intensity, in order to be effective [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if glanced at briefly (e.g. if the glance occurs when the signaling side > is in the off phase) are commonly used as DRLs. I agree with the parking lights being used as DRLs being a bad idea. However, I don't find that the lower wattage output of the high beams, give an extraordinary amount of glare back to the driver in low light or foggy or snowy conditions. SignatureBrian Why don't they make cat flavoured dog food? >I agree with the parking lights being used as DRLs being a bad idea. >However, I don't find that the lower wattage output of the high beams, give >an extraordinary amount of glare back to the driver in low light or foggy or >snowy conditions. Lower wattage high beams do get annoying to _other_ drivers when used in overcast or near dusk conditions. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. > Lower wattage high beams do get annoying to _other_ drivers when used in > overcast or near dusk conditions. To some people I suppose they would, but they don't bother me or anyone that I know. SignatureBrian http://www.accesswave.ca/~orion Practice safe eating - always use condiments. >>I agree with the parking lights being used as DRLs being a bad idea. >>However, I don't find that the lower wattage output of the high beams, give [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Lower wattage high beams do get annoying to _other_ drivers when used in > overcast or near dusk conditions. Then again, some drivers are just plain annoying, with or without DRLs, in overcast, dusk, or not. >> >The opposite has been proven in other countries in the world to be true. >> Other countries have smarter implementations of DRL's. > >In what way? Very sharp cutoff of the beam pattern. High beams are not allowed to be used as DRL's. ---------------- Alex > Very sharp cutoff of the beam pattern. High beams are not allowed to be > used as DRL's. That's interesting. Do you realize that the majority of vehicles in Canada are equipped with high beam (lower wattage output) DRLs? Here's my 2 cents. I haven't really looked at the accident numbers but doesn't it make sense that an increase in daytime lights would detract from the visibility of motorcycles and hence be responsible for more motorcycle accidents? It used to be when you saw lights during the day, it was either a motorcycle (or I guess a drunk driver). Now with all the lights on everyone just blends in with the crowd making motorcycles more hidden. Mike H > The big lie about DRL's being safe. It's proven that they don't do any > good. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > subject. > > Years of testing were done in may countries, before DRLs were developed. Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website. The first, last and only large scale U.S. study that has been completed and published on the effects of DRLs as safety devices, was conducted by the insurance industry supported Highway Loss Data Institute. The results; vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs. The difference was minimal. but the meaning was strait forward, DRLs aggravate other motorists, obscure directional lights, waste fuel, "mask" other road users that don't have headlights on, or don't have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on accident reduction is zero or worse. http://www.motorists.com/stealthis/lightsoff.html >>Is there an OEM relay, say from a Canadian spec CR-V, that can enable a >>DRL function on a US spec car? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > --------------- > Alex For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs, see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think about it. >Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on >accident reduction is zero or worse. >For the Highway Loss Data Institute's ** actual ** position on DRLs, >see: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm >Numerous insurance companies offer discounts for their use... Think >about it. Read the part about reducing light out put to European levels. Also it seems that only GM is stupid enough to use high beams as DRL's. Another really stupid idea that is not addressed. The only folks in the US pushing for DRL's is GM. DRL's also do nothing that a smart driver can't do on their own. DRL's that use high beams do bother other motorists on the road. And as I mentioned before, it will cause a lot of stupid drivers to drive around at night without turning on their lights, which means they are blacked out to the rear, because they thinkg DRL's are ok to drive with at night. The IIHS is biased. They are fully funded by insurance companies, so all their data always supports what is in the insurance companies best interest. ------------- Alex > Read the part about reducing light out put to European levels. Also it > seems that only GM is stupid enough to use high beams as DRL's. Honda uses the high beam lights (at reduced wattage) for their DRLs. >Another > really stupid idea that is not addressed. The only folks in the US pushing > for DRL's is GM. DRL's also do nothing that a smart driver can't do on > their own. DRL's that use high beams do bother other motorists on the road. Not true. > And as I mentioned before, it will cause a lot of stupid drivers to drive > around at night without turning on their lights, which means they are blacked > out to the rear, because they thinkg DRL's are ok to drive with at night. Nothing is going to help stupid drivers {;^) SignatureBrian A balanced diet is a chocolate chip cookie in each hand. >> Read the part about reducing light out put to European levels. Also it >> seems that only GM is stupid enough to use high beams as DRL's. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >road. >Not true. Huh? I know I don't like other cars shining their high beams in face. I'm sure I am not the only person who feels this way. >> And as I mentioned before, it will cause a lot of stupid drivers to drive >> around at night without turning on their lights, which means they are >blacked >> out to the rear, because they thinkg DRL's are ok to drive with at night. > >Nothing is going to help stupid drivers {;^) True, but we should try to not complicate things for them. Without DRL's they will realize they need to turn out their lights when the road in front of them is dark. ----------------- Alex >>>Read the part about reducing light out put to European levels. Also it >>>seems that only GM is stupid enough to use high beams as DRL's. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > they will realize they need to turn out their lights when the road in front > of them is dark. IMHO you're overly optimistic here, A-Rod. >Read the part about reducing light out put to European levels. Also it >seems that only GM is stupid enough to use high beams as DRL's. Toyota and BMW use high beams as DRLs in the US. A number of other companies also use high beams as DRLs in Canada (for cars which are not equipped with DRLs in the US). GM may have been pushing the annoying high beam DRLs, but others are following. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. > Here is a bit of text regarding DRL's from the following website. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have headlights period (pedestrians and bicyclists) and their net effect on > accident reduction is zero or worse. That's a crock! It's a good thing you backed up your statements with facts. Thanks for setting that website straight. You obviously provided some wonderful sources for your insightful input. Keep up the good work. > That's a crock! > It's a good thing you backed up your statements with facts. Thanks for > setting that website straight. You obviously provided some wonderful > sources for your insightful input. > > Keep up the good work. I should have said that you're a crock, I guess {;^) I have read many things over the years about DRLs and none of them were on the Internet. You might try a Library it's the old fashioned (but effective way) of doing research. That and the fact that, I was brought up being told if you want something, do it yourself. SignatureBrian Ever stop to think... and forget to start again? So anyone who states facts and quotes a pretty reliable source is a crock. Are you saying that no facts can be found on the internet and we must go to the library to be as enlightened as you? How long does it take for information to reach the library? It's pretty safe to say that a lot of information and books at public libraries are out of date and in some cases completely false. It's next to impossible to go in and edit a book once it has been printed and placed on a library shelf. Well, maybe you were using special Internet Library Computer that has access to facts that aren't found by us home internet users. How on earth does wanting something and doing it yourself apply to a topic regarding DRL's? Based upon that idiotic remark, I conclude that you mean we should all develop our own DRL system because none of the automotive engineers are as capable as you. It's probably because they use computers and don't have access to your magical Library. I just figured it out, you must be a Professor at Hogwarts and have access to all of the books in the Hogwarts Library. >> It's a good thing you backed up your statements with facts. Thanks for >> setting that website straight. You obviously provided some wonderful [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > told > if you want something, do it yourself. You've missed the point completely. What I said was, that I had read a number of articles years ago about the benefits of DRLs. The other part I said was that I do not have the time to do your research. If you want to read about something, look it up yourself. There are inexpensive kits out there to convert your headlights to DRL. Just do some web searching. Its not difficult, as the son of one of my employees who worked at a high end stereo shop added this to a Nissan PU ....seems like the kit ran $30-$40 or so. > Is there an OEM relay, say from a Canadian spec CR-V, that can enable a > DRL function on a US spec car? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - RWM Sure, there are kits to be found by googling. Then there are "best kits", which might be recommended by those who have used them. Hence the request. > There are inexpensive kits out there to convert your headlights to DRL. > Just do some web searching. Its not difficult, as the son of one of my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >>- RWM > Sure, there are kits to be found by googling. Then there are "best > kits", which might be recommended by those who have used them. Hence > the request. ===================== It's a good idea. Search here: http://www.hondasuv.com/stg/index.php 'Curly' > Is there an OEM relay, say from a Canadian spec CR-V, that can enable a > DRL function on a US spec car? > > How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage > as DRLs? Pardon my ignorance, but what is "DRL"? <snip> > Pardon my ignorance, but what is "DRL"? Daytime Running Lights. > <snip> > > >>Pardon my ignorance, but what is "DRL"? > > Daytime Running Lights. Thanks >How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage >as DRLs? Just make it a habit to turn on the low beam headlamps all the time if you want DRLs. Don't use the high beams, because they can annoy other drivers with excessive glare in low light conditions. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. >>How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage >>as DRLs? > > Just make it a habit to turn on the low beam headlamps all the time if > you want DRLs. Don't use the high beams, because they can annoy other > drivers with excessive glare in low light conditions. Sadly, good habits in this area don't yield insurance discounts. >>>How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage >>>as DRLs? >> Just make it a habit to turn on the low beam headlamps all the time if >> you want DRLs. Don't use the high beams, because they can annoy other >> drivers with excessive glare in low light conditions. >Sadly, good habits in this area don't yield insurance discounts. You should worry more about what is safer than what gets you a discount. Blinding other drivers with your high beams can be dangerous. So please don't do it. Try taking a driver safety course. That too can get you a discount on your insurance. You might learn something that could improve your driving. ---------------- Alex >>>>How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage >>>>as DRLs? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Alex > Been there, done that, got the discount. DRLs are the final frontier. >>>How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage >>>as DRLs? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Sadly, good habits in this area don't yield insurance discounts. If you are intent on having DRLs for the insurance discount, use the low beams, not the high beams. You really don't want to have the DRLs on in low light conditions (e.g. overcast) blinding someone with too much glare, causing him/her to crash into you. And don't use the turn signals as DRLs either, unless you want to increase the chance of giving false signals. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >the chance of giving false signals. > While I appreciate your views and concerns, NHTSA and FMVSS 108 allow for numerous DRL configurations, including the use of turn signals (most GM and many Chrysler), high beams at reduced intensity, low beams, and in some cases, auxiliary lights. I wish NHTSA paid as much attention to the blinding glare produced by poorly designed headlight systems, beam cutoffs, aiming and inappropriate use of fog lights and "kewl" overwattage bulbs/inserts/capsules. >>If you are intent on having DRLs for the insurance discount, use the low >>beams, not the high beams. You really don't want to have the DRLs on in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >GM and many Chrysler), high beams at reduced intensity, low beams, and >in some cases, auxiliary lights. Simply because NHTSA / FMVSS 108 allows really bad DRL configurations does not mean that you have to install a really bad DRL configuration in your car. Since it allows better DRL configurations (low beams or white auxiliary lamps), it would make sense to use one of these better configurations if you want to install DRL on your vehicle. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. > I wish NHTSA paid as much attention to the blinding glare produced by > poorly designed headlight systems, beam cutoffs, aiming and > inappropriate use of fog lights and "kewl" overwattage > bulbs/inserts/capsules. Wholly agreed. Particularly in dark country areas, I often have a very difficult time seeing my side of the road when someone with about 10M candle-power shooting off their front bumper comes along in the opposite direction. At least with my power mirrors I can simply aim them down when they run up behind me... To be honest, other than AAA, I no of no other insurance carrier offering a discount for DRL's. I'd assume there may be a couple more out there, but the insurance industry in general does not offer that discount. >>>How about best aftermarket kit to burn the high beams at reduced voltage >>>as DRLs? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sadly, good habits in this area don't yield insurance discounts. Be that generalization as it may, my carrier (not AAA) does, and is now doing so on our other car. >To be honest, other than AAA, I no of no other insurance carrier offering a >discount for DRL's. I'd assume there may be a couple more out there, but [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>Sadly, good habits in this area don't yield insurance discounts. >> And how much is the discount that GEICO offers for DRL in % or $? > Be that generalization as it may, my carrier (not AAA) does, and is now > doing so on our other car. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >>> > >>Sadly, good habits in this area don't yield insurance discounts. > To be honest, other than AAA, I no of no other insurance carrier offering a > discount for DRL's. I'd assume there may be a couple more out there, but > the insurance industry in general does not offer that discount. GEICO does, and they're a pretty big operation here in the US. >> To be honest, other than AAA, I no of no other insurance carrier offering a >> discount for DRL's. I'd assume there may be a couple more out there, but >> the insurance industry in general does not offer that discount. > >GEICO does, and they're a pretty big operation here in the US. I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity is another reason to add to the list. -------------- Alex > I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity > is another reason to add to the list. What is stupid about having a system that increases the visibility of vehicles, and their direction of travel? SignatureBrian Ever stop to think... and forget to start again? >> I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity >> is another reason to add to the list. > >What is stupid about having a system that increases the visibility of >vehicles, and their direction of travel? When poorly executed, as it often is, it blinds other drivers on the road. -------------- Alex >>>I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity >>>is another reason to add to the list. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -------------- > Alex =============== 1/4 of the vehicles on the road seem to have one headlight pointed at JUPITER. That could be part of the problem to begin with. . :-( 'Curly' >>>> I should of guessed. Geico will never get my business. This stupidity >>>> is another reason to add to the list. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 'Curly' Yep, I wish that NHTSA paid as much attention to the blinding glare produced by poorly designed OEM headlight system optics and beam cutoffs, and that local licensing authorities paid even closer attention to poor aiming and inappropriate mounting and use of fog/driving lights, especially those "kewl" overwattage bulbs/inserts/capsules. > Yep, I wish that NHTSA paid as much attention to the blinding glare > produced by poorly designed OEM headlight system optics and beam > cutoffs, and that local licensing authorities paid even closer attention > to poor aiming and inappropriate mounting and use of fog/driving lights, > especially those "kewl" overwattage bulbs/inserts/capsules. ===================== I get a charge out of watching cars go bye on the highway in a snow storm or fog.... They look like they're trying to communicate with the 'mother-ship' by pointing one headlight into the upper reaches of the atmosphere:-) 'Cruly' > 1/4 of the vehicles on the road seem to have one headlight pointed at > JUPITER. That could be part of the problem to begin with. . :-( Isn't that the truth. Makes you wonder what exactly the drivers are looking for when their lights are aimed at the treetops. SignatureBrian 4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions || 1/4 of the vehicles on the road seem to have one headlight pointed || at JUPITER. That could be part of the problem to begin with. . :-( | | Isn't that the truth. Makes you wonder what exactly the drivers are | looking for when their lights are aimed at the treetops. Their ape relatives, perhaps? > When poorly executed, as it often is, it blinds other drivers on the road. Perhaps it is the general lack of concern executed by vehicle drivers, that is the cause of the blinding glare. For example, the improperly loaded trunk or pickup bed, that has the vehicle's lights aimed higher than legally permitted. SignatureBrian Did you ever notice, that; the Roman Numerals for forty (40) are XL? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.