Daytime Running Lights changed ???

[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...

[HumbleAg]

[quote=f5fstop]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.
quote]


Thanks for the info. Was wondering why this thread went so wrong and if I'd ever get an answer to the original question. I personally like the dim headlights better than corner lights, but only because I grew to despise people driving with parking lights and fog lights on. Seems like that was an early 80's Trans Am thing. Was totally ignorant as far as I can tell, why would you need fog lights and not regular headlights? Just having the corner lights on seems similar to me (although I know DRLs make the truck easier to see).

Maybe mullet-head is still trolling around and can answer why they thought that was cool.

[Michael1]

I think I just heard the bell ring. Isn't time for you children to get back to class?

[dеiтайожни]

Originally Posted by Michael1

I think I just heard the bell ring. Isn't time for you children to get back to class?

You think you just heard a school bell? It's 2:30am est, maybe you should go see if you have a tumor tomorrow...

[evldave]

I think the marker (aka stud) lights are best. I don't like (aka hate) the dimmed headlights. Way back in da winna of '45 I'd drive my Nova w/stud lights on, no DRLs, just studs. Why? It looked good and was more visible. My H3 is the first vehicle I got w/DRLs and I actually checked what the lights would look like before I bought the rig. I'm happy w/the marker lights as DRLs, and know they also help (but not as much as DRL headlights) reduce accidents. Maybe someday they will make warning sirens when you are stupid enough to pass the center lane, then there's no need for DRLs...

[dеiтайожни]

x2, the corner drl are the best. They look especially great on a black truck with black grille. I like looking at them in the reflection of other cars.

[Michael1]

College Station, TX - General Motors has recently announced the results of a study claiming that 17,000 vehicle crashes have been avoided due to the use of daytime running lights (DRLs). The GM press release is based on a presentation given to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on November 9, 1999. Before we all jump for joy and sing the praises of DRLs, let's take a closer look at GM's news.

First, GM's press release claims that the results were from an "independent study." Well, "independent" is a relative term. The study was independent in that it was not conducted in-house by GM. Rather, GM commissioned Exponent Failure Analysis Associates of San Francisco to conduct the study for them. Immediately, we see that GM has an economic interest in the success of DRLs, and is willing to finance an "independent" study to support their crash avoidance claims. Because of the relationship between the external analysis firm and GM, one must already question the validity of the results.

Next, GM gives a little history of DRLs. In 1990, GM petitioned NHTSA to allow DRLs based on data from Scandanavian countries. The studies from several countries where DRLs are required have been called into question by a report entitled, "Thirty years on: Do motorcar daytime lights reduce accidents?" from Stephen Prower, Research Officer for the British Motorcyclists Federation. Mr. Prower's report questions the methods used by researchers to support the mandated DRLs in the Scandanavian countries and Canada, casting doubt on the DRL proponents' claims of collision avoidance.

The data used in the GM sponsored study compares collision rates of GM, Volvo, Saab, and Volkswagen vehicles before and immediately after the introduction of DRLs on particular models. Immediately, the analysis becomes artificially biased due to the lack of data from non-DRL vehicles. Such data could have been used as a control to filter out other contributing factors to crash avoidance. Such factors might include a change in driving habits, year-to-year weather changes, and other crash avoidances devices, such as anti-lock brakes, becoming more prominent.

A closer look at GM's presentation in DOT's docket reveals that GM claims that DRLs reduce multivehicle collisions --- at night. GM didn't bother to mention this silly statistic in their press release. While there are some drivers who fail to turn on their headlights at night, their numbers are probably very small and quantifying them in a statistical study is nearly impossible. Some DRL equipped vehicles do not have an automatic headlight option. Intuitively, one would assume that such vehicles may be involved in more nighttime collisions since the taillights are not illuminated with the DRLs. GM's claim of a reduction nighttime collisions casts a serious shadow of doubt on the entire study.

GM's press release claims that their DRLs do not cause "disabling glare." This statement is very questionable. Many of GM's vehicles have a DRL intensity at or near the limit of 7000 candela specified by the NHTSA 1993 rule change. However, NHTSA has acknowledged that "discomfort glare" sets in at 2600 candela. Discomfort glare causes drivers to avoid looking into oncoming traffic as well as switching their rearview mirrors to the Night position to avoid the glare from DRLs. Unfortunately, both of these practices run counter to safe driving. Further, in an already bright environment the DRLs add to the visual clutter that drivers must endure and can increase driver anxiety and even provoke road rage.

GM's summary in their presentatation even acknowledges, "the crash reduction benefit of DRLs is difficult to determine with precision." Let's take GM at their word and disregard this inaccurate study. Researchers have spent years trying to massage crash data to support DRL effectiveness, and this appears to be yet another failed attempt.

The GM presentation to NHTSA has been filed at the Department of Transportation's docket management system as NHTSA-98-4124-350.

[HummBebe]

Originally Posted by dеiтайожни

x2, the corner drl are the best. They look especially great on a black truck with black grille. I like looking at them in the reflection of other cars.

Heh, X2

[Michael1]

Originally Posted by HumbleAg Was totally ignorant as far as I can tell, why would you need fog lights and not regular headlights?[/COLOR

Maybe mullet-head is still trolling around and can answer why they thought that was cool.

Uh, maybe for use in fog?

[HummerNewbie]

What was the point of posting this "report"? GM paid for a study so that means that it automatically has to be biased? The whole thing came across to me as a biased report. Was there one fact in there that proved the study was biased or that it was incorrect? I might have missed something but don't think I will waste my time rereading it

As I have said before, I could care less what the studies say. Based on my personal experience I believe they do have a safety benefit. You don't feel that way and that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion. What I do have to ask though, is why to do DRLs enrage you so much? Did a DRL attack you or something? I for one just don't get why anyone would spend some much time arguing against something so insignificant

[f5fstop]

Michael, that is a GM study, what would you think a manufacturer would release?
Where are those independent studies you are talking about, and what would they prove anyway. I posted only independent studies, except for the cost figures that yes, were run by GM.
Your contention that running DRLs uses too much fuel, is ludicrous, when you also make the assumption you are driving a H3.
Therefore, I have to assume you are a troll, since it makes absolutely no sense to anyone so far, that your worries about the $3.00 in extra costs for DRL usage when driving a vehicle that maxes out about 20 mpg highway, are warranted.
So, if you don't like DRLs fine, not everyone will, so sell the H3. If you are really worried about fossil fuels, then sell the Hummer and get a Honda Insight or some other vehicle that will save fossil fuels. But to link the fact that DRLs uses a small minute amount of fossil fuels while driving around in a H3, is laughable.
Pesonally, I'm done. I have better things to do than discuss this issue with someone who makes no sense about an issue.

[Michael1]

Originally Posted by f5fstop

Michael, that is a GM study, what would you think a manufacturer would release?
Where are those independent studies you are talking about, and what would they prove anyway. I posted only independent studies, except for the cost figures that yes, were run by GM.

Does anyone read anything here? GM's study showed DRLs improving the accident rate at NIGHT! How does a DAYTIME Running Lamp improve your accident rate at night? What more proof do you need to know the study is flawed?

Your contention that running DRLs uses too much fuel, is ludicrous, when you also make the assumption you are driving a H3.

First off, not everyone is driving an H3. Second, the H3 uses fuel because it has an off-road purpose. Turning on lights for no reason only has the purpose of making GM happy.

30 million vehicles on road during day x 2 DRL lamps x 20 watts each (half power headlamps) = 1200 megawatts.

That's as much as good sized nuclear plant. That doesn't sound insignificant to me. In fact, one year of DRLs in the US is enough to provide all the residential electricity for the state of Vermont for almost three months.

1,200,000,000 watts x 10 hours of daylight / 0.6 alternator efficiency / 0.2 engine efficiency / 1000 watts/kW/ 32.6 kW-hr per gallon of gasoline w/10% ethanol = 3,072,000 gallons of gasoline burned PER DAY for DRLs.

Therefore, I have to assume you are a troll, since it makes absolutely no sense to anyone so far, that your worries about the $3.00 in extra costs for DRL usage when driving a vehicle that maxes out about 20 mpg highway, are warranted.

You're smarter than this. Stop hiding behind this "troll" nonsense. Give it a break.

This GM $3 figure per year sounds bogus.

15,000 miles per year / 35 avg. miles per hour x 0.8 daytime = 343 hours/year

Let's say gas is $3/gallon (even though it is far more in my area). That gets you 32.55 kW-hr of energy.

32.55 kw-hr of energy bought for $3 / 343 hours/year x 0.6 alternator efficiency x 0.2 engine efficiency = 11.4 watts. If GM is now running half power headlamps, that's on the order of 40 to 55 watts. Interesting disparity.

So, if you don't like DRLs fine, not everyone will, so sell the H3.

No need to sell. I just disable them, although if they end up making too hard, I'll give my $$$ to another manufacturer.

The point here is GM is trying to ram DRLs down everyone's throat. Now that their marketing experiment has failed, they have been lobbying NHTSA to mandate DRLs just so they don't end up with egg on their face. That's the part I find reprehensible.

Michael

[dеiтайожни]

Michael, you're an idiot.

[evldave]

Originally Posted by Michael1

No need to sell. I just disable them, although if they end up making too hard, I'll give my $$$ to another manufacturer.

I hope someday I know what your H3 is. Then, I'll drive down the road, see you coming the other way (without your DRLs), I'll hit you head on, then have H3.007 sue your sorry a$$ for not being responsible because you have a chip on your shoulder about GM.

Question, were you canned by them at some time in the past? You seem to know a fair amount of valuable info, but you seem to be a bitter person, lashing out a GM or hummer's at every opportunity.

Yet, you still chose to own one. Is this because you secretly love The General, but deny your own desires for acceptance and inclusion because you were once rejected? I can see how this could be a hard time for you. Therapy works well - everyone on this forum loves you - we may not all show it in the same way - for example, I think you are a complete dick - but everyone is here if you want to talk about your latent tendency to blame The General for something from your past.

[HummerNewbie]

Originally Posted by Michael1

Does anyone read anything here? GM's study showed DRLs improving the accident rate at NIGHT! How does a DAYTIME Running Lamp improve your accident rate at night? What more proof do you need to know the study is flawed?

Ok, I have to comment on this statement. I did see that in your original post and it is a ludicrous finding but how is that proof that the study is flawed? Sure, it is an idiotic thing to put in the report but how does that effect the rest of the study?

As for the rest of your post, didn't really bother reading all of it, just bits and pieces. I do have to ask though, who wronged you so bad that you feel the need to put so much time and energy into convincing people that DRLs are bad. Was the individual that came up with DRLs your father and he left you and your mother when your were little or maybe he did something worse to you? It is also about time you give up on the whole fuel consumption argument. You can through all the math out there that you want (which I saw a flaw or two in the little bit I looked at) and it doesn't make any difference, you sound like a troll or even an AE just trying to stir the pot. Just so you can prove you are neither, post some pics of you wheeling your H3. Since you used the argument that the H3 gets lower MPG because of its off road capability and you are so concerned about fuel consumption you must have bought it to wheel. So lets see the pics.

Well, that helped pass a little bit of time

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by Michael1

Does anyone read anything here? GM's study showed DRLs improving the accident rate at NIGHT! How does a DAYTIME Running Lamp improve your accident rate at night? What more proof do you need to know the study is flawed?

This does not discredit the study. There is good reason to include nighttime crash statics in an analysis of DRLs. For example:

1. Many DRLs are controlled by a light sensor, which automatically turns on full wattage and activates marker lights during dusk/dawn/night. With nothing to forget, the driver's risk could decrease.
2. Drivers with DRLs that aren't controlled by a light sensor may forget to turn them on. This leaves their car with headlights at half power and no tail/marker lights during dusk/dawn/night hours. The driver's risk could rise.
3. Headlamps burn out more quickly with DRL than without. If a lamp burns out at dusk/dawn/night, the driver's risk could rise.
4. Including nighttime statistics also eliminates the variables of winter/summer daylight hours and the need to define "dusk" and "dawn".

Most of these variables were called out in the study ... didn't you read it?

[dеiтайожни]

Originally Posted by Michael1

30 million vehicles on road during day x 2 DRL lamps x 20 watts each (half power headlamps) = 1200 megawatts.

1,200,000,000 watts x 10 hours of daylight / 0.6 alternator efficiency / 0.2 engine efficiency / 1000 watts/kW/ 32.6 kW-hr per gallon of gasoline w/10% ethanol = 3,072,000 gallons of gasoline burned PER DAY for DRLs.

You can explain this one further, I must be missing something.

You are saying just the DRLs of 30 million passenger vehicles, around 10% of the nations registered passenger vehicles, account for about 1% of the entire nations gas usage a day? What does the engine of just these 30 million passenger vehicles use? 1,000,000% of the nations daily gas consumption?

[HumbleAg]

Originally Posted by Michael1

Uh, maybe for use in fog?

Hey Mullet Head, is that you? If not, you are a great stand-in.

Fog lights are for use aiding the low beam headlights in fog, not to replace them. Read the owners manual in the Mulletmobile.

I'm somewhat bored with this discussion.

[Michael1]

Originally Posted by HumbleAg

Hey Mullet Head, is that you? If not, you are a great stand-in.

Fog lights are for use aiding the low beam headlights in fog, not to replace them. Read the owners manual in the Mulletmobile.

I'm somewhat bored with this discussion.

This is from Daniel Stern, a lighting consultant:

"To answer the original question of whether fogs are meant to be used with
or without headlamps:

In general, it is not appropriate and not safe (and in many places, not
legal) to drive with only parking and fog lamps at any time. In fact, it's
a poor idea (and in many places, not legal) to drive with fog lamps (even
with headlamps on) unless weather conditions warrant their use. Some
jurisdictions explicitly permit fog lamps to be used "in lieu of" (rather
than "in supplement to") headlamps when weather conditions so warrant.
Current human-factors research (e.g. Sivak and Flannagan, 1997) shows that there are situations (extremely adverse weather conditions) in which running with properly-designed fogs and full position marking lamps (parking lamps, sidemarkers, taillamps) but no headlamps can be of great advantage. However, the local laws that prohibit the use of fogs without headlamps aren't likely to change until Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 (and Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108) are modified to contain a meaningful performance standard for fog lamps.

More detail:

Fog and driving lamp performance is not regulated under FMVSS 108 or any
other Federal standard. The only proviso is that items unregulated by
FMVSS may not be installed in a manner that would interfere with the
function of FMVSS-required equipment. For instance, fog lamps may not
obscure or glare-out the turn signals or cover-up the headlamps. The lack
of a precise performance specification for fog and drive lamps means that
a manufacturer can call just about anything a "fog" lamp (or a "driving")
lamp. Many of the factory fog lamps on US and Canadian roads do little,
if anything, to illuminate the road--though many of them do a fine job of
illuminating other drivers' retinas. In Europe, fog and drive beams are
required to conform to specific beam pattern criteria. The toy plastic
items we get here are not acceptable over there. Because "fog lamp" has a
meaningful definition in Europe and it is possible to count on such a lamp
producing at least a specific performance level, fog lamp usage laws allow
more flexibility to use the lamps in such a manner as to maximize their
benefit.


NHTSA is currently working with ECE (European) regulators to devise a fog
lamp beam standard that is said to be an improvement even on the
already-good European beam. It's a step in the right direction,
certainly, but I remain skeptical until I actually see such a lamp.
We've been stuck with too much really bad lighting from US regulators for
too long for me to trust what they say."

Michael