DRLs Turn Off When Turn Signals Used?

[fangle]

Twice in the last week or so I've seen new vehicles with what appear to be OEM front lighting that used white LEDs or the white LED illuminated "halo" rings around the headlamps as DRLs. In both cases the DRLs turned off when the turn signals were used - only the DRL on the turn signal side was disabled. So, coming toward me, the vehicle went from two white lights to one white light and one flashing amber. I had not seen this before - is this an unusual manufacturer choice or will we be seeing more of these?

Thanks. . .

 

[franzdom]

The latter, it's so that the turn signals are easier to distinguish when being used.

 

[sadtimes]

The latter, it's so that the turn signals are easier to distinguish when being used.

Agreed.

I assume its based on the fact that one light disappears, and another lights up and flashes. So you ultimaltey get two attention getters... This is only my opinion. But it does seem very effective. Another way to look at it is that the DRL's light would drown out the turn signal light making it ineffective. Again, only a thought.

I see more and more cars like this everyday. It makes me think, how much are the banks making in interest?

 

[Alaric Darconville]

I can picture some douche using them to try to impersonate a police vehicle, as the effect of the DRLs and turn signals kind of a "wig-wagging" if they move the turn signal stalk from left-turn to right-turn over and over has the effect I imagine. Maybe they've got something in the BCM that prevents that.

 

[charlie_r]

I can picture some douche using them to try to impersonate a police vehicle, as the effect of the DRLs and turn signals kind of a "wig-wagging" if they move the turn signal stalk from left-turn to right-turn over and over has the effect I imagine. Maybe they've got something in the BCM that prevents that.

Here in Missouri, USA, most law enforcement/emergency vehicles have a much different flash rate than turn signals, frequently using a triple flash on each side before alternating sides. Not possible for a person as you describe to fake. I suspect that when these vehicles are converted to LE/E use, that the BCM is traded out for one with these features, along with controlling of the light bars etc. My city's Public Safety department recently purchased LED upgrades for the cruisers, and this involved replacement of major portions of the vehicle wiring harnesses along with the addition of the new light bars.

Believe me, the LED bars are MUCH more effective at getting your attention than the older halogen/xenon bulb units they were equipped with.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Possibly, but we must apply the "reasonable person" standard. A reasonable person may well see such lights in their rear-view mirror, and think it, at least temporarily, to be a police vehicle or some other kind of emergency vehicle. Volunteer firefighter? EMT? Veterinary Psychological Trauma Responder?

Let's also apply the "reasonable cop" standard. I don't think it'd be reasonable for a cop to ignore someone flipping their turn signals this way and that such that their DRLs and turn signals resemble some sort of bizzare emergency vehicle, stop them, and cite them for impersonating an emergency vehicle. It's not about the quality of the disguise, it's the disguise itself. Sure, a ticket could be written for "improper use of turn signals", but it seems to me that the act of using them that way demonstrates possible intent of the driver to deceive the public.

If I had my 'druthers, I'druther turn signals and DRLs were mounted sufficiently far apart such that the signals were unambiguous without shutting off the DRL on that side.

 

[SemiMan]

If I had my 'druthers, I'druther turn signals and DRLs were mounted sufficiently far apart such that the signals were unambiguous without shutting off the DRL on that side.

This is a way of getting around that legal requirement unfortunately. To me it seems an unnecessary allowance in the vehicle code, but style must triumph (he says sarcastically). During the day though, it probably provides better contrast and at night it is not an issue so perhaps we are just being old fashioned by only allowing distance as a differentiating factor?

Semiman

 

[MichaelW]

If I had my druthers. DRLs would be illegal in the ConUS from Spring equinox to Fall equinox.

 

[-Virgil-]

If I had my druthers. DRLs would be illegal in the ConUS from Spring equinox to Fall equinox.

On what grounds?

 

[-Virgil-]

Possibly, but we must apply the "reasonable person" standard.

No, I would argue that what we need to do is not make-up problems and threats and dangers where none really exist. Such as in this case.

 

[SemiMan]

If I had my druthers. DRLs would be illegal in the ConUS from Spring equinox to Fall equinox.

Okay MichaelW, that is fine as long as you make it your personal responsibility to go to the homes of all the added people who die and or are seriously injured due to not having daytime running lights. Prepare to be very busy as there will be a lot of them.

This is not one of those government granny programs. It has been proven that daytime running lights make a significant impact on accident statistics ... during the middle of the day.

Perhaps some research before posting is in order?


Semiman

 

[MichaelW]

Give it a rest. There is no net safety benefit from the general use of DRLs.
I think it is you that needs to research.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

I'm not a fan of DRLs, but so long as the ones that do exist are properly implemented, and do not cause excessive glare or just annoy me (I'm looking at YOU, Saturns-with-high-beam-DRLs) and do not interfere with other signaling, as well as have safeguards to ensure that the driver doesn't forget to switch to real headlamps when required, I don't have a real problem with them (although I did disable the Twilight Sentinel and lowbeam-at-reduced-power DRLs on my Corolla).

Do I think we should require them US states south of the Canada/US border? No.
Would I complain if Alaska mandated them? Probably not, at their latitude (besides, I don't live there).
Do I think that they really improve broad daylight safety? No.

I accept that somewhere a real safety benefit was found, and certainly no safety *detriment* was found. (I don't like that they consume that little bit of extra fuel, but that fuel consumption gets lost in the noise of varying driving patterns, weather, and the drive-thru lane that took too long.)

The thread started as an inquiry into the interaction of turn signals with DRLs, which seems to have been satisfactorily addressed. My own biggest qualm about this interaction is that it seems like form is so important to the designers that the function had to be modified this greatly. (At least it's not flashing CHMSLs.)

 

[-Virgil-]

There is no net safety benefit from the general use of DRLs.

Actually, yeah, there is. There's one study done by NHTSA some years back that didn't find a safety benefit significant enough to pursue cost/benefit calculation, but that study is an outlier in a large sea of data from all over the world, including North America, showing a significant crash-reduction effect of DRLs. There is also a small but shrill, generally uninformed gaggle of people vehemently opposed to DRLs for various putative reasons that can't be supported by reality or (genuine) science, or for philosophical/political/ideological reasons that have no legitimate place in the calculation.

Most of the drawbacks that can be found in DRLs are implementation issues -- there is a wide range of DRL types and intensities permitted in US/Canadian regs, and some of the most popular ones have some fairly large drawbacks. Though even these are not large enough to reverse the safety benefit in most cases.

The DRL requirement in UN Regulation 48, which became effective in early 2011, calls for DRLs without drawbacks. Even though the US does not acknowledge the UN Regulations, we're seeing more UN-style DRLs on US roads. Most of the European makes now have them, and a growing number of Japanese makes, and some US makes, too. This is a trend likely to continue, and that's a fine thing. Another trend that's going to continue is that there will be more and more DRL-equipped cars on US roads. That's a fine, thing too.

One trend that will not continue is belligerence and bickering in this thread. Please cool it.

 

[CanadianGuy]

There are some newer dodge cars and I think small jeeps, where I think dodge miscalculated the brightness of the DRLs (in this case, appear to be high beams at reduced brightness)

I find they are way too bright. I wonder if there are enough complaints that dodge would issue a recall to reprogram/fix what i feel is a design flaw.

(I think this fits into this thread, as I believe they shut off the DRL during signaling)

Anyone else notice this?

 

[hokiefyd]

Yes, I do think the high beam-based DRLs on many new Chryslers are too bright. In fact, they're so bright on many recent models that inattentive drivers believe that their headlamps are on after dark. And their gauge cluster lighting is always on, so there's little visual prompt for them to turn on their lights. Their DRLs are on, but their tail lamps are not; people like this can be a real danger. This is, to me, the biggest drawback of DRLs as implemented in the United States.

Scheinwerfermann, what are the physical differences between the UN Reg 48 allowed DRLs and those historically seen in the United States?

Our CR-V with HB2s had low beam-based DRLs, but I disabled them. I disabled them not because I'm against their use, but because Honda doesn't allow them to be turned off as long as the car is in drive. I work in a secure facility that requires me to drive through a checkpoint in the morning, usually before daylight. It is general convention/courtesy to turn off all forward lighting (except for marker lights) when approaching the gate, so the guard can see you as you approach.

 

[Alaric Darconville]

There are some newer dodge cars and I think small jeeps, where I think dodge miscalculated the brightness of the DRLs (in this case, appear to be high beams at reduced brightness)

I find they are way too bright. I wonder if there are enough complaints that dodge would issue a recall to reprogram/fix what i feel is a design flaw.

Yes, I do think the high beam-based DRLs on many new Chryslers are too bright. In fact, they're so bright on many recent models that inattentive drivers believe that their headlamps are on after dark. And their gauge cluster lighting is always on, so there's little visual prompt for them to turn on their lights. Their DRLs are on, but their tail lamps are not; people like this can be a real danger. This is, to me, the biggest drawback of DRLs as implemented in the United States.

There's that "implementation issue" which hopefully can be resolved soon. I'm glad, however, that fog lamps are not permitted for use as DRLs in the United States. That probably takes care of the few implentation issues right there.

Our CR-V with HB2s had low beam-based DRLs, but I disabled them. I disabled them not because I'm against their use, but because Honda doesn't allow them to be turned off as long as the car is in drive. I work in a secure facility that requires me to drive through a checkpoint in the morning, usually before daylight. It is general convention/courtesy to turn off all forward lighting (except for marker lights) when approaching the gate, so the guard can see you as you approach.

Ft. Ord, CA; Ft. Knox, KY; Ft. Gordon, GA; and NAS Whidbey are three military installations that at the time I had cause to be there required the driver to go to parking lamps when within 25ft of the gate or so. Please to not blind the nice sergeant with the M16A2, kthx. Another place I worked at it wasn't required, but it was just courtesy to do so (it was when I worked there that I found the method to disable mine on a site that is rather full of the small but shrill, generally uninformed gaggle of people described by Scheinwerfermann.

Maybe if DRLs had a "Front Gate" or "Drive-Thru" button that would only work at low speeds (I tend to go down to parking lamps while in a drive-thru, but it's another instance of possibly giving the driver too much choice. It's one thing to disable them entirely (where permitted), but give someone control over them and they may do stupid things.

 

[-Virgil-]

UN R48 calls for DRLs compliant with UN R87 -- headlamps or fog lamps are not permitted for use as DRLs. UN R87 says DRLs have to be white and emit between 400 and 1200 candela on axis at 13.5v. There's room to argue over whether 400cd is bright enough for a good safety effect, but 1200cd is not bright enough to cause glare or mislead drivers to use their daytime lights at night.

US/Canadian DRLs can be separate like the R87 items or they can be done by the low or high beam headlamps or the front turn signals, or in canada the front fog lamps. They can emit white or amber light of between 500 and 3000 candela on axis, except that high beam DRLs can emit up to 7000 candela on axis, all figures at 12.8v which means up to 8400cd at 13.5v. This is well into glare territory and easily bright enough to mislead drivers into failing to turn on their full lights after dark or in bad weather.

There was a proposal a few years ago to include provisions for a temporary shutoff -- I don't recall whether it was at the SAE level or at the Canadian level -- so that the DRLs could be manually switched off by the driver and would remain off until the vehicle travelled 100 meters or exceeded 10 KPH. That would not be a mandatory provision, just an optional one, and I don't recall what became of it.

 

[hokiefyd]

I had a 2011 Toyota Camry that had an OFF position on the headlamp switch. It had AUTO, parking lamps, headlamps, and OFF. OFF would lock out all forward lighting, which was fine for approaching the front gate, but it also turned off rear lighting, which I didn't want. Parking lamps kept the DRLs on, unfortunately.

It sounds like UN Reg 48 DRLs are the best solution. No glare to gate guards (and they won't think that your headlamps are on either), but good safety factor still for most other situations.

 

[hokiefyd]

Ft. Ord, CA; Ft. Knox, KY; Ft. Gordon, GA; and NAS Whidbey are three military installations that at the time I had cause to be there required the driver to go to parking lamps when within 25ft of the gate or so.

Though I'm not as good as math as I once was, I count four installations listed above. I remember Fort Ord. My dad did a tour at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterrey, CA, and I remember too many trips down to Fort Ord with mom to go to the Commissary!

I work at a military installation in North Carolina, and there are signs here to turn on only parking lamps when approaching the gates.