It's simple remove fuse #25 under your steering wheel. I had this DRL disabled since I'm running LED headlights now. Good luck!

 

What is wrong with you?

Insurance companies give use a break when we have the daylight lights on our vehicles. Don't be foolish and try to disable them. Cannot believe you didn't know about these. You see them every day on the road. Good grief OP. Leave them alone. They don't hurt anything.

 

Well, considering NASA and the USAF has been using aluminum alloy for 50 years on space and aircraft. I doubt anyone would be saying that.

I don't understand why someone would have "philosophical" objections to DRL however. I had DRL on my '04 trailblazer and had to change 1 head light in 8 years, and DRL has supposedly reduced Canadian traffic accidents by 10%.

The total extra fuel usage for DRLs would be in the range of $10/year for stock, and $1/year for LED. Based entirely on your driving habits of course.

 

I live in Massachusetts, and these are not used. They are just not. I just drove 30 minutes this morning through 3 towns and saw hundreds of vehicles. Not a single one had these lights...except mine.

Yes, I was unaware that cars built dummy switches into brand new cars. Generally, when I purchase a product that has an "OFF" switch, I expect that I am able to switch the thing off.

 

hundreds with no DRLs? unbelievable.

 

This whole thread makes me laugh. Though seeing that they are a MA driver does explain things.

 

I'm glad I could help brighten your day.

By the way, I just took a drive during lunch and saw 3 vehicles with DRL. So, apparently they do exist. But they appear to be a huge minority of vehicles here.

 

Oh you're right, if insurance companies push something it surely must be good.



Baaaah!

 

Toyota, GM, Chrysler, and Honda - off the top of my head - all have DRLs for over a decade. Surely that has to be most of the cars on the road, and I'm sure other companies have them too.

 

DRLs are a Canadian requirement- I guess when the Arctic Circle goes through your country you just assume that everyone needs lights on all the time. Just about anything built for the North American market is likely to have them. Chrysler does things piecemeal- some have them, some don't and there's very little you can do about it. My minivan doesn't have them.

Me, I wouldn't have a car turning lights on for me any more than I'd have one that shifted for me. I had that fuse out before I'd even aired up my tires.

 

Statistically, you're safer with them. That should be enough to make you keep them on all the time (my Benz has a user-controlled option to leave them on or turn them off - mine are on, of course, but I guess it's a bit nicer than having to remove a fuse). If you still choose to turn them off, you're just proving Darwinism.

It's as intelligent a decision as leaving your tires underinflated.

 

I'm open to statistics regarding the safety of driving with them on or off. And I will gladly reconsider my driving habits (26.5 years, not a single accident or speeding ticket). But this is all completely unrelated to my question - and the motivation behind my question.

As a software developer, if I build an interface that has a button that states "off", then I clicking "off" will result in off. In other words, off != !off. off == off. Allow me to turn them on, allow me to turn them off.

 

Ford has them too. As of 2010 you had to go to the dealer to turn them on.

I'm not joking unfortunately.

 

You should see someone about your control issues.

On the whole, why should they allow you to disable a passive safety feature? It's the same logic as why they took away the switch to disable the passenger seat airbag, and now have a sensor instead - allowing people to choose generally means that a lot of bad choices are made.

 

Here it is in PERL terms:

my $DRL = "";
my $fuse = 1;

if $fuse = 1 {
$DRL = "ON";
print "Default Fuse position";
} else {
$DRL = "OFF";
print "Fuse Removed";
}

 

We probably agree here. If the statistics are solid, then there should be laws legislating DRL use. And those that decide to not use them should be subject to penalty.

We are driving machines that allow all kinds of bad choices to be made. The cars are fully-capable of going significantly-faster than the speed limit, yet we depend on people to make the correct decision to drive the speed limit. We are able to start our car by button or key, and are not required to blow into a breathalyzer to start the car. We allow general turns without activating the directional turn signals. We do not have pupil monitoring devices that require full attention on the road while driving.

If DRLs are a technology that can really save lives, and the technology is here today, then it should be law. Period. For now, however, I would like the ability to control them - control freak that I may be .

 

I am curious.. what is your philosophical objection to DRLs?

Also, I can think of many lightly snowy/sleety/overcast days here in Denver where it's bright enough to not need headlights but DRLs will provide me some added safety and make me more visible. Does Massachusetts not have days like this?

Especially if you have a white/silver/gray colored Fit I would think added visibility could only be a good thing. And assuming you're using standard bulbs, how often will have to replace them, really?

 

Good thing you dont own a AUDI or else... you be missing these bad boys

 

Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Toyota, Honda, Lexus, Range Rover, Porsche just some off the top of my head that have DRL.

I think if you separate DRL functionality from headlight functionality you'll be at peace.

The OFF position DOES turn your headlights off. There is a separate computer controlled system controlling the status of your DRL.

 

But will OP accept this? Oh hell let him turn them off and maybe a rather large truck will meet him. Oops I didn't see him.