[jmg]

Originally Posted by learntocode

[x] I have them turned OFF.

Prolong the angel eyes(DRL) to last longer.

Everything lasts longer if you don't use them. But what's the point of having them if you don't use them.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Beek

I will tell you all two thing's, the second thing is Duane Allman never said "I'm no angel. Let me show you my tatoos....", that was Greg

I have never been so embarrassed! Greg it was.
I don't know where in Minn you are, but when I go north to the mountains it is dark, in December by 3p. Brklyn doesn't get dark. Ever. We have so many lights here you can see them for hundreds of miles....

Murf

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by jmg

It's not my job to keep you in check.

Definitely not. Pls remind me not to humor you then.

Murf

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by jmg

Everything lasts longer if you don't use them. But what's the point of having them if you don't use them.

It's sort of like cars with rear fog lights. They can be real annoying if used all the time, especially those Audis with two, which can look like brake lights. But in conditions that warrant, I use mine.
Did you activate this safety feature, which is required in many countries?

Murf

[kern417]

I thought DRLs were a waste until one time I was on a state road, and I realized that a car "popped up" in front of me. It didn't stand out until it was less than 1/4 mile away, my eyes were just adjusting too slowly from going in and out from under trees/shade, and the car was a tan color. DRLs really help on long stretches where it's easy for cars to blend into the horizon, but you're also approaching each other at 50+ mph. On city streets no big deal.

On my X5, i did turn them off when one bulb burnt out. I didn't want to drive around with only angle eyes on one side so i felt better until I got a new one.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by kern417

I thought DRLs were a waste until one time I was on a state road, and I realized that a car "popped up" in front of me. It didn't stand out until it was less than 1/4 mile away, my eyes were just adjusting too slowly from going in and out from under trees/shade, and the car was a tan color. DRLs really help on long stretches where it's easy for cars to blend into the horizon, but you're also approaching each other at 50+ mph. On city streets no big deal.

Tan car, you say? They should be outlawed!!

Murf

[paidnfull]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Tan car, you say? They should be outlawed!!

Murf

100000% Facts all the way!

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

It's sort of like cars with rear fog lights. They can be real annoying if used all the time, especially those Audis with two, which can look like brake lights. But in conditions that warrant, I use mine.
Did you activate this safety feature, which is required in many countries?

Murf

I don't have fogs.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Tan car, you say? They should be outlawed!!

Murf

Good thing the car had DRLs.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by jmg

I don't have fogs.

I think you do (rear fog), if you cared enough!

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...light=rear+fog

Murf

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

I think you do (rear fog), if you cared enough!

https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...light=rear+fog

Murf

If I had them and it was foggy I certainly wouldn't turn them off because I think people are like deer.

[Littlebear]

From Wiki:

"United States

Shortly after Canada mandated DRLs, General Motors, interested in reducing the build variations of cars for the North American market, petitioned the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1990 to permit (but not require) US vehicles to be equipped with DRLs like those in Canada.[22] NHTSA objected on grounds of the potential for high-intensity DRLs to create problems with glare and turn signal masking, and issued a proposed rule in 1991 that specified a maximum intensity of 2,600 cd.[22] Industry and safety watchdogs reacted to the proposed rule,[22] and eventually the glare objections were set aside and most of the same types of DRLs allowed in Canada were permitted but not required effective with the 1995 model year.[22] General Motors immediately equipped most (and, in following years, all) of its vehicles with DRLs beginning with the Chevrolet Corsica. Saab, Volkswagen, Volvo, Suzuki and Subaru gradually introduced DRLs in the U.S. market beginning in 1995. In recent years, Lexus has installed high-beam or turn signal based DRLs on US models. Some Toyota models come with DRLs as standard or optional equipment, and with a driver-controllable on/off switch. Starting in the 2006 model year, Honda began equipping their U.S. models with DRLs, mostly by reduced-intensity operation of the high beam headlamps.

Public reaction to DRLs, generally neutral to positive in Canada, is decidedly mixed in the U.S. Thousands of complaints regarding glare from DRLs were lodged with the DOT shortly after DRLs were permitted on cars, and there was also concern that headlamp-based DRLs reduce the conspicuity of motorcycles, and that DRLs based on front turn signals introduce ambiguity into the turn signal system.[23] In 1997, in response to these complaints and after measuring actual DRL intensity well above the 7,000 cd limit on vehicles in use, DOT proposed changes to the DRL specification that would have capped axial intensity at 1,500 cd, a level equivalent to the European 1,200 cd and identical to the initially proposed Canadian limit.[22] During the open comment period, a volume of public comments were received by NHTSA in support of lowering the intensity or advocating the complete elimination of DRLs from U.S. roads. Automaker sentiment generally ran along consistent lines, with European automakers experienced at complying with European DRL requirements voicing no objection to the proposal, and North American automakers vociferously repeating the same objections they raised in response to Canada's initial 1,500-cd proposal.[23][24] The NHTSA proposal for DRL intensity reduction was rescinded in 2004,[25] pending agency review and decision on a petition filed in 2001 by General Motors, seeking to have NHTSA mandate DRLs on all U.S. vehicles.[26] The GM petition was denied by NHTSA in 2009, on grounds of severe methodological and analytical flaws in the studies and data provided by GM as evidence for a safety benefit to DRLs.[26] In denying the petition, NHTSA said "

NYS requires low beams on when raining. No DRL laws. Seems not many US states are impressed with DRL benefits.

Murf

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

From Wiki:

"United States

Shortly after Canada mandated DRLs, General Motors, interested in reducing the build variations of cars for the North American market, petitioned the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1990 to permit (but not require) US vehicles to be equipped with DRLs like those in Canada.[22] NHTSA objected on grounds of the potential for high-intensity DRLs to create problems with glare and turn signal masking, and issued a proposed rule in 1991 that specified a maximum intensity of 2,600 cd.[22] Industry and safety watchdogs reacted to the proposed rule,[22] and eventually the glare objections were set aside and most of the same types of DRLs allowed in Canada were permitted but not required effective with the 1995 model year.[22] General Motors immediately equipped most (and, in following years, all) of its vehicles with DRLs beginning with the Chevrolet Corsica. Saab, Volkswagen, Volvo, Suzuki and Subaru gradually introduced DRLs in the U.S. market beginning in 1995. In recent years, Lexus has installed high-beam or turn signal based DRLs on US models. Some Toyota models come with DRLs as standard or optional equipment, and with a driver-controllable on/off switch. Starting in the 2006 model year, Honda began equipping their U.S. models with DRLs, mostly by reduced-intensity operation of the high beam headlamps.

Public reaction to DRLs, generally neutral to positive in Canada, is decidedly mixed in the U.S. Thousands of complaints regarding glare from DRLs were lodged with the DOT shortly after DRLs were permitted on cars, and there was also concern that headlamp-based DRLs reduce the conspicuity of motorcycles, and that DRLs based on front turn signals introduce ambiguity into the turn signal system.[23] In 1997, in response to these complaints and after measuring actual DRL intensity well above the 7,000 cd limit on vehicles in use, DOT proposed changes to the DRL specification that would have capped axial intensity at 1,500 cd, a level equivalent to the European 1,200 cd and identical to the initially proposed Canadian limit.[22] During the open comment period, a volume of public comments were received by NHTSA in support of lowering the intensity or advocating the complete elimination of DRLs from U.S. roads. Automaker sentiment generally ran along consistent lines, with European automakers experienced at complying with European DRL requirements voicing no objection to the proposal, and North American automakers vociferously repeating the same objections they raised in response to Canada's initial 1,500-cd proposal.[23][24] The NHTSA proposal for DRL intensity reduction was rescinded in 2004,[25] pending agency review and decision on a petition filed in 2001 by General Motors, seeking to have NHTSA mandate DRLs on all U.S. vehicles.[26] The GM petition was denied by NHTSA in 2009, on grounds of severe methodological and analytical flaws in the studies and data provided by GM as evidence for a safety benefit to DRLs.[26] In denying the petition, NHTSA said "

NYS requires low beams on when raining. No DRL laws. Seems not many US states are impressed with DRL benefits.

Murf

DOT regulations have already addressed the turn signal and headlamp issue. Most imported European cars, including BMWs, adhere to the European spec output of DRLs, which is why some owners code them to be brighter. Additionally, the link I posted earlier already shows the benefits of DRLs regardless of the legislature red tape described in your wiki link.

Finally, I see no reference to "angel eyes" being precious/pretentious in this text. Have you measured the output of your DRLs?

[Beek]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

I have never been so embarrassed! Greg it was.
I don't know where in Minn you are, but when I go north to the mountains it is dark, in December by 3p. Brklyn doesn't get dark. Ever. We have so many lights here you can see them for hundreds of miles....

Murf

"There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."

[deviantspeed]

Originally Posted by Beek

"There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."

It's also lighted.

Second thought, MN is a sanctuary state, so they may not enforce federal law. Probably why it's not on the State books.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by jmg

DOT regulations have already addressed the turn signal and headlamp issue. Most imported European cars, including BMWs, adhere to the European spec output of DRLs, which is why some owners code them to be brighter. Additionally, the link I posted earlier already shows the benefits of DRLs regardless of the legislature red tape described in your wiki link....

Calm down cowboy. I see no change in DOT regs since DRL inception. Any improvements were made without Gov action.
Even I said that DRLs were fine in the right conditions. But I don't need a thousand lights shining at me in July at 12 noon when cruising down the FDR Drive. As my last post showed, glare & energy usage have always been negatives for DRLs.
Check out these three entries:

"Safety performance

A 2008 study by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration analysed the effect of DRLs on frontal and side-on crashes between two vehicles and on vehicle collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. The analysis determined that DRLs offer no statistically significant reduction in the frequency or severity of the collisions studied, except for a reduction in light trucks' and vans' involvement in two-vehicle crashes by a statistically significant 5.7%.[4]

Effect of ambient light

The daytime running light was first mandated, and safety benefits first perceived, in Scandinavian countries where it is persistently dark during the winter season. As ambient light levels increase, the potential safety benefit decreases while the DRL intensity required for a safety improvement increases. The safety benefit produced by DRLs in relatively dark Nordic countries is roughly triple the benefit observed in relatively bright America.[3]"

"But in 2008, another federal study concluded that DRLs reduced crashes between pickups, SUVs and vans, but not between passenger cars. As a result, it denied yet another GM petition to make them mandatory, saying:

“ ... the agency remains neutral with respect to a policy regarding the inclusion of DRLs in vehicles ... we do not find data that provides a definitive safety benefit that justifies Federal regulation ... manufacturers should continue to make individual decisions regarding DRLs in their vehicles.”"


Anyway, I was way ahead of yous guys. Check out the two extra little lights on this E30 grill. I also had them on my best 2002tii, and the 2002 before that (pictured). They are from a '67 Saab 96 (Saab 96 bumper on the maroon 2002), and have white running lights and yellow blinkers, wired in with the regular lights. Worked great!

Murf

[Littlebear]

My Henna Red Euro 635csi didn't need any DRLs!
So you pick your poison. Er, rather, sometimes you can pick your poison. Sometimes the Gov caters to the "people (cars) in gray".

"Here come the people in grey, to take me away". Kinks

Murf

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Calm down cowboy. I see no change in DOT regs since DRL inception. Any improvements were made without Gov action.
Even I said that DRLs were fine in the right conditions. But I don't need a thousand lights shining at me in July at 12 noon when cruising down the FDR Drive. As my last post showed, glare & energy usage have always been negatives for DRLs.
Check out these three entries:

"Safety performance

A 2008 study by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration analysed the effect of DRLs on frontal and side-on crashes between two vehicles and on vehicle collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. The analysis determined that DRLs offer no statistically significant reduction in the frequency or severity of the collisions studied, except for a reduction in light trucks' and vans' involvement in two-vehicle crashes by a statistically significant 5.7%.[4]

Effect of ambient light

The daytime running light was first mandated, and safety benefits first perceived, in Scandinavian countries where it is persistently dark during the winter season. As ambient light levels increase, the potential safety benefit decreases while the DRL intensity required for a safety improvement increases. The safety benefit produced by DRLs in relatively dark Nordic countries is roughly triple the benefit observed in relatively bright America.[3]"

"But in 2008, another federal study concluded that DRLs reduced crashes between pickups, SUVs and vans, but not between passenger cars. As a result, it denied yet another GM petition to make them mandatory, saying:

" ... the agency remains neutral with respect to a policy regarding the inclusion of DRLs in vehicles ... we do not find data that provides a definitive safety benefit that justifies Federal regulation ... manufacturers should continue to make individual decisions regarding DRLs in their vehicles.""


Anyway, I was way ahead of yous folks. Check out the two extra little lights on this E30 grill. I also had them on my best 2002tii, before this. They are from a '67 Saab 96, and have white running lights and yellow blinkers, wired in with the regular lights. Worked great!

Murf

Sorry you can't deal with too many lights. Maybe you should have yourself checked by a physician or maybe you really are a deer, if that's the case deer shouldn't have drivers license if you freeze when a light is flashed at you.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by jmg

Sorry you can't deal with too many lights. Maybe you should have yourself checked by a physician or maybe you really are a deer, if that's the case deer shouldn't have drivers license if you freeze when a light is flashed at you.

Yes, & you sir, accept it, are a hominid. In many ways not terribly far from a deer, or a crow which is also attracted to shiny objects. Your eyes are more similar than different.
I try to put intellect in the 'drivers seat'. Try it some time (biology is your friend)!
But you don't read well. In the last post I showed I have been using extra lighting for ages. Even before the Gov made me!
So again, why are you arguing with me?

Murf

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Yes, & you sir, accept it, are a hominid. In many ways not terribly far from a deer, or a crow which is also attracted to shiny objects. Your eyes are more similar than different.
I try to put intellect in the 'drivers seat'. Try it some time (biology is your friend)!

Murf

In case you haven't noticed, we have a thing called intelligence which means we know how to not freeze when there is a bright light. Do you think we all just stop on the highway when we see oncoming traffic headlights? Should we turn off our headlights at night because they case glare? Or maybe were intelligent enough to not stare at oncoming headlights... you think?

Are traffic lights too distracting for you too? We should upgrade those to colored signs because of all the glare?

Your reasons are ridiculous, we're not all dumb animals. Yes, some DRLs I have seen are way too bright but I know not to stare at them. It's called adapting. That doesn't mean I'm turning mine off because while YOU are complaining about being distracted by others, turning yours off does not affect you. Unless you like to get out of your own car and stick your head in front of the light? That kind of makes it hard to drive.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by jmg

In case you haven't noticed, we have a thing called intelligence which means we know how to not freeze when there is a bright light. Do you think we all just stop on the highway when we see oncoming traffic headlights? Should we turn off our headlights at night because they case glare? Or maybe were intelligent enough to not stare at oncoming headlights... you think?

Are traffic lights too distracting for you too? We should upgrade those to colored signs because of all the glare?

Your reasons are ridiculous, we're not all dumb animals.... That doesn't mean I'm turning mine off because while YOU are complaining about being distracted by others, turning yours off does not affect you. Unless you like to get out of your own car and stick your head in front of the light? That kind of makes it hard to drive.

Well now.
Sapiens, or humans, are just the the "M" series of the hominid line. We have more 'parts' in common with a chimp than a 340i has with an M3.
No one told you to turn your DLRs off. I do think they are cute, though.

The only 'angel eyes' I like are the orange ones on Dodge Challengers. They look mean, not precious.

Murf

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Well now.
Sapiens, or humans, are just the the "M" series of the hominid line. We have more 'parts' in common with a chimp than a 340i has with an M3.
No one told you to turn your DLRs off. I do think they are cute, though.

The only 'angel eyes' I like are the orange ones on Dodge Challengers. They look mean, not precious.

Murf

I thought we were deer? Gotta keep those tin foil hat ideas more organized!

You turning your DRLs off makes you less visible, it doesn't reduce the glare you are complaining about.