PDA

View Full Version : Annoying GM DRLs


Valentine One Radar Detector

Eric
06-21-2010, 03:19 PM
I hate DRLs, period - but GM's DRLs are especially annoying.

Yes, you can turn them off (on new/recent GM cars, anyhow). But you have to do it every time you start the car - and when the DRLs are off, the info screen that normally displays, say, the outside temperature or the odometer reading refuses to show anything except "Auto Headlights Off."

To me, this is a super passive-aggressive way of trying to force you into leaving the DRLs on, even when you'd rather have them off. Because if you turn them off, GM helpfully cancels out other info on the display until you give up and turn the DRLs back on.

I'd like to have a big Blow Away DRLs Party - where we could blast away at DRLs with shotguns and such.


I think it'd feel really good...

tcolby
06-22-2010, 05:25 PM
I hate DRLs, period - but GM's DRLs are especially annoying.

Yes, you can turn them off (on new/recent GM cars, anyhow). But you have to do it every time you start the car - and when the DRLs are off, the info screen that normally displays, say, the outside temperature or the odometer reading refuses to show anything except "Auto Headlights Off."

To me, this is a super passive-aggressive way of trying to force you into leaving the DRLs on, even when you'd rather have them off. Because if you turn them off, GM helpfully cancels out other info on the display until you give up and turn the DRLs back on.

I'd like to have a big Blow Away DRLs Party - where we could blast away at DRLs with shotguns and such.


I think it'd feel really good...

I don't have a problem with them.
What are yours?

Eric
06-22-2010, 05:30 PM
I don't have a problem with them.
What are yours?

It's asinine to burn headlights in bright daylight.

DRLs make motorcycles less visible in traffic.

Ken
06-23-2010, 05:12 PM
It's asinine to burn headlights in bright daylight.

DRLs make motorcycles less visible in traffic.

For years in the UK bikers, in an attempt to reduce the number of 'SMIDSY' accidents, used their headlights as an conspicuity aid. It worked well until some lunatic thought up the idea of fitting cars with auto DRLs. In one stroke that removed the greatest safety aid we bikers had. Now when drivers see a bike headlight the reaction, quite often, is 'Oh, there is a car a long way away, I've got loads of room to pull out.' After the crunch, providing the biker is still alive the excuse is 'Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You.' now commonly known as a SMIDSY. Here in Lincolnshire we have a high percentage of car drivers who not only drive, in broad daylight, on full headlights, they also have their fog lights and high intensity rear lights on as well.

Ken.

Eric
06-23-2010, 06:26 PM
For years in the UK bikers, in an attempt to reduce the number of 'SMIDSY' accidents, used their headlights as an conspicuity aid. It worked well until some lunatic thought up the idea of fitting cars with auto DRLs. In one stroke that removed the greatest safety aid we bikers had. Now when drivers see a bike headlight the reaction, quite often, is 'Oh, there is a car a long way away, I've got loads of room to pull out.' After the crunch, providing the biker is still alive the excuse is 'Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You.' now commonly known as a SMIDSY. Here in Lincolnshire we have a high percentage of car drivers who not only drive, in broad daylight, on full headlights, they also have their fog lights and high intensity rear lights on as well.

Ken.

Same here - it's infuriating. Serves no good purpose and creates many problems.

Also: It's now much harder for funeral processions to be seen (where they are, where they begin - and where they end). As well as emergency vehicles, such as ambulances and so on.

chiph
06-23-2010, 10:48 PM
Are the GM DRLs run with separate bulbs?

How hard would it be to pull them, only replacing them in time for the annual inspection?

Chip H.

misterdecibel
06-24-2010, 12:21 AM
For years in the UK bikers, in an attempt to reduce the number of 'SMIDSY' accidents, used their headlights as an conspicuity aid. It worked well until some lunatic thought up the idea of fitting cars with auto DRLs. In one stroke that removed the greatest safety aid we bikers had. Now when drivers see a bike headlight the reaction, quite often, is 'Oh, there is a car a long way away, I've got loads of room to pull out.' After the crunch, providing the biker is still alive the excuse is 'Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You.' now commonly known as a SMIDSY. Here in Lincolnshire we have a high percentage of car drivers who not only drive, in broad daylight, on full headlights, they also have their fog lights and high intensity rear lights on as well.

Ken.

In the USA, it wasn't a choice, motorcycles have been required to run with their headlights on for as long as I can remember. At least in my state...

Eric
06-24-2010, 06:16 AM
Are the GM DRLs run with separate bulbs?

How hard would it be to pull them, only replacing them in time for the annual inspection?

Chip H.

They're integrated with the car's headlights; can't physically remove them.

misterdecibel
06-24-2010, 12:33 PM
They're integrated with the car's headlights; can't physically remove them.

I think you can program the car's computer to turn off the DRLs, but it involves having a laptop with GM's software connected to a port on the car.

swamprat
06-27-2010, 09:36 PM
The problem I have with DRL's is that they are another annoying device being placed on vehicles without the consent of the vehicle owner. They should be optional for idiots who want to buy them, but not forced down people's throat.

DRL's are only slightly less annoying than the idea of being forced carry around a radio transceiver designed to track vehicles such as OnStar.

GM gives buyer no option of removing either from their vehicles, unless you figure it out for yourself.

I will not buy a new GM car because of it and will dissuade as many people as possible from doing the same.

Eric
06-28-2010, 06:11 AM
The problem I have with DRL's is that they are another annoying device being placed on vehicles without the consent of the vehicle owner. They should be optional for idiots who want to buy them, but not forced down people's throat.

DRL's are only slightly less annoying than the idea of being forced carry around a radio transceiver designed to track vehicles such as OnStar.

GM gives buyer no option of removing either from their vehicles, unless you figure it out for yourself.

I will not buy a new GM car because of it and will dissuade as many people as possible from doing the same.

It's a huge turnoff for me, also.

You're 100 percent right about being forced to buy this stuff (if you want the car).

Bad enough that the government is constantly cramming such crap down our throats - even worse when it's a private business.

GM pushes both DRLs and OnStar very aggressively - for our safety, of course.

Mase
06-28-2010, 12:56 PM
The DRL's on my Saturn and Caddy don't really bother me.

If I really had a problem with them, I would wire up a separate switch and relay to be able to turn them off. Doesn't seem like a hard project.

grouch
06-28-2010, 11:10 PM
It's a huge turnoff for me, also.

You're 100 percent right about being forced to buy this stuff (if you want the car).

Bad enough that the government is constantly cramming such crap down our throats - even worse when it's a private business.

GM pushes both DRLs and OnStar very aggressively - for our safety, of course.



Actually, it's about money. It's for the same reason you can't option out a car like you want. The factories want you to order option "packages". This makes it easier to move slow options, and cuts down the inventory and planning work. The dealers love it, and have for years, because they make a higher percentage of profit on the options than they do on the car.

Canada requires DRL's so by offering it across the board in both the U.S. and Canada, it's cheaper. Not by much but when you add it up over thousands of units, it adds up. The infamous Pinto "chariots of fire" were because of a $1 rubber part. I've got a '98 Ford Taurus with DRL's and it's easy to forget to turn your lights on at night. I prefer to keep the electrical consumption at a minimum on my vehicles as it's saves gas. The alternator has to replenish the chemical charge in your battery. Police cars have a larger alternator because they use a lot of current. The alternator makes a drag the engine has to overcome and this will reduce fuel economy. I've seen kids add a huge radio system and lose 2 mpg. It was done properly so there were no mechanical issues, just the engine losing power to the alternator

Eric
06-29-2010, 06:04 AM
Actually, it's about money. It's for the same reason you can't option out a car like you want. The factories want you to order option "packages". This makes it easier to move slow options, and cuts down the inventory and planning work. The dealers love it, and have for years, because they make a higher percentage of profit on the options than they do on the car.

Canada requires DRL's so by offering it across the board in both the U.S. and Canada, it's cheaper. Not by much but when you add it up over thousands of units, it adds up. The infamous Pinto "chariots of fire" were because of a $1 rubber part. I've got a '98 Ford Taurus with DRL's and it's easy to forget to turn your lights on at night. I prefer to keep the electrical consumption at a minimum on my vehicles as it's saves gas. The alternator has to replenish the chemical charge in your battery. Police cars have a larger alternator because they use a lot of current. The alternator makes a drag the engine has to overcome and this will reduce fuel economy. I've seen kids add a huge radio system and lose 2 mpg. It was done properly so there were no mechanical issues, just the engine losing power to the alternator

Yup.

And when you add up the fuel economy losses that can be attributed to DRLs, it's no small thing, either. Millions of DRL-equipped vehicles = the equivalent of a lot of "gas guzzling" V-8 SUVs...

Yet no one seems to care about that!