DRL on Fusion Hybrid?

[fun4u]

Add to the list of missing important safety features on the FFH: Daylight Running Lights (DRL).

 

The owner's manual describes how they work (if installed), but there is no such feature on my 2010 FFH.

 

I have searched ford.com, talked with the salesman, and had the service advisor check with Ford tec department to find out how to activate them, but the best that Ford techs can do is to suggest that I gring the card to the dealer and have the dealer technician call Ford tech to walk them through some experimentation with the "junction box". No promise that they can figure it out, but they'll be glad to chew up service hours trying.

 

I have masked off the dashboard sensor to fool the automatic lights into thinking it's nighttime, and that gets the headlights to light, but it also gets the dash lights to dim so that I can't see the speedometer in the daylight, and the nav system goes black thinking that it's nighttime.

 

I've written to Ford Management asking for a fix, but I don't expect much except a "Sorry, Charlie" letter.

 

Seems strange that this 502A-equiped high-end Fusion does not have this important safety feature, especially since they are required to put it on all Fusions sold into Canada, and I understand that all "fleet" Fusions come equiped with DRL.

 

For years, I have driven with headlights on during the daytime to assist other drivers in seeing my car. All of the GM cars that I have owned for the past ten years have included this important safety feature.

 

My Fusion alerts me whenever a car is beside me, behind me, coming from the side, or overhead. Why can't it help to make my car visible to other drivers by providing DRL?

[rfruth]

Thank goodness no DRLs yet here in the states but there is a headlight switch you can use ...

[DaveM]

Thank goodness no DRLs yet here in the states but there is a headlight switch you can use ...

GM has had them here for years and I for one believe in them and will have my dealer turn them on before I even sign the papers. :happy feet:

[rfruth]

I don't know where here is but wouldn't driving around with your high beams on be even safer (how about with the horn blaring) ?

[akirby]

Add to the list of missing important safety features on the FFH: Daylight Running Lights (DRL).

 

The owner's manual describes how they work (if installed), but there is no such feature on my 2010 FFH.

 

I have searched ford.com, talked with the salesman, and had the service advisor check with Ford tec department to find out how to activate them, but the best that Ford techs can do is to suggest that I gring the card to the dealer and have the dealer technician call Ford tech to walk them through some experimentation with the "junction box". No promise that they can figure it out, but they'll be glad to chew up service hours trying.

 

I have masked off the dashboard sensor to fool the automatic lights into thinking it's nighttime, and that gets the headlights to light, but it also gets the dash lights to dim so that I can't see the speedometer in the daylight, and the nav system goes black thinking that it's nighttime.

 

I've written to Ford Management asking for a fix, but I don't expect much except a "Sorry, Charlie" letter.

 

Seems strange that this 502A-equiped high-end Fusion does not have this important safety feature, especially since they are required to put it on all Fusions sold into Canada, and I understand that all "fleet" Fusions come equiped with DRL.

 

For years, I have driven with headlights on during the daytime to assist other drivers in seeing my car. All of the GM cars that I have owned for the past ten years have included this important safety feature.

 

My Fusion alerts me whenever a car is beside me, behind me, coming from the side, or overhead. Why can't it help to make my car visible to other drivers by providing DRL?

 

Because they're annoying, most people don't want them and they don't help others see your car.

[ctpb]

Because they're annoying, most people don't want them and they don't help others see your car.

 

I am more annoyed at ugly people...

 

Just more ignorance.

 

Seems most first world nations other than the US see the benefits of them.

 

http://members.optusnet.com.au/carsafety/p...l_nrma_racv.pdf

[Zacher]

Wow is all I can say to the people in this thread. Some interesting information:

 

I'm from Canada, and all new vehicles no matter what brand or make must have DRL enabled. This has been in effect since 1990.

The type of DRL can range from your Dims in a lowbeam fashion, to GM's Signal lights being on steady to Dodge/Chrysler funky blinking DRL:

 

Now when the Dodge company decided to turn off your DRL while signalling (I believe in 2007 this started) people thought their vehicles where malfunctioning. I must admit watching a Dodge Chrysler or Jeep coming towards you then, when they start signalling that one headlight turns off so you can "see" the turn signal better. Of course this doesn't happen w/ your normal Headlights are on.

 

Originally it was your Brights actually that where on but in a dimmed fashion. Then depending on some makes and models, a special bulb or headlight (like on siverado) is used. On my FFH it's the Dims that come on only for DRL.

 

As for being able to see the oncoming vehicle well it makes a big difference. Especially on a lot of the two lane highways we have in Canada. I remember when I stayed in the States for work, I thought it was strange to see vehicles without DRL's.

 

anyhoo, my two cents.

[cuehara]

They had an editorial over at TTAC about DRLs recently.

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/the-truth...running-lights/

 

The short of it: DRLs are an easy-to-implement safety measure that goes awry due to inconsistent implementation amongst brands and models tacked onto the tradeoffs made between effective bulb output and bulb lifetime.

 

Don't know why the FFH options list blows off DRLs or HIDs. Combined they'd make for a nice revenue stream through lamp replacement. Maybe the +100W burned by DRLs, if installed, would affect mpg, or maybe the shorter bulb lifetimes would run counter to owner expectations. I'd rather it be an available option though (along with cooled seats and key-less ignition if I could add to the wishlist).

 

Ah well.

[flyboy767]

Fun4U

Got my FFH 2 days ago. Your dealer can hook up their computer to the SJB (smart junction box). Need to go to programable parameters, then to lighting where there is an option to turn on the DRL's.

Section 418-01 tells how to do this.

It is easy procedure, takes very little time. My dealer did not charge for this.

I agree with you, DRL's are a great safety feature.

Hope this helps!

[Rodeo]

DRL's should be mandatory here in the States I feel. They do help tremendously but they also need to tie in tail light too. Here in NJ it's a law that if your wipers are on (raining) then you must put your headlights on too. I cant tell you how many people drive around at highway speeds in downpours with no light on at all. Certainly, you don't want to be behind one of them because you just can't see them. Too many people riding around with zero common sense. But then too there's a fair amount of vehicles that do have DRL's and while that's great from the front of their car, you still cannot see the rear of it. Following one yields the same results and you have to either pass, change lanes or fall back. I really think that DRL's add greatly to Safety and by adding tail lights to that, would be even better. I do feel there should be an option to shut off the DRLs though, just as there is often an option to deactivate the auto headlights too. I myself like to make my own judgements and choices when it comes to lighting and I like to run my parking lights in combo with driving or fog lights (before headlights are really needed to see the road.) However there are just too many drivers who are seemingly brain-dead behind the wheel and do not care about being visible to others. This is also evident as evening approaches too and some people don't activate any lights until its almost completely dark. I say make the DRL's standard but do add some tail light to it as well.

[DaveM]

Because they're annoying, most people don't want them and they don't help others see your car.

With many millions of GM cars running around I just don't see how they are annoying. The headlights are on at about 1/2 power and you can spot them a long ways away. You see a bunch of cars coming at you and you see one with the DRL's and you spot him out of the whole bunch. Me, I want to be spotted so if anything I'm avoided and he hits someone else.

[rfruth]

They could (still could) have done a DRL implementation that was good, but that would have cost more money. The important thing is that they can now advertise that their vehicles include this vital new safety feature. There are enough people in the world ready to jump on the bandwagon of anything that appears to make driving safer but they (DLRs) create as many problems as they solve (i.e. people drive around with burned out bulbs, forget to turn on their low beam headlights in rain or fog and at dusk or dawn, lots of drivers believe that in rain or fog the DRLs are sufficient and fail to turn on their low beams to activate their tail lights etc.)

[FFHdriver]

They could (still could) have done a DRL implementation that was good, but that would have cost more money. The important thing is that they can now advertise that their vehicles include this vital new safety feature. There are enough people in the world ready to jump on the bandwagon of anything that appears to make driving safer but they (DLRs) create as many problems as they solve (i.e. people drive around with burned out bulbs, forget to turn on their low beam headlights in rain or fog and at dusk or dawn, lots of drivers believe that in rain or fog the DRLs are sufficient and fail to turn on their low beams to activate their tail lights etc.)

You know arguing over DRLs is like arguing over religion or politics, no one ever changes their mind. I like them. They should have made them so you could turn them on or not as Toyota does on their cars.

[Rodeo]

You know arguing over DRLs is like arguing over religion or politics, no one ever changes their mind. I like them. They should have made them so you could turn them on or not as Toyota does on their cars.

 

Just like the auto headlight feature that is user selectable.

That makes much too much sense and would be too easy. NO WAY will that ever happen... :banghead:

[Waldo]

Just like the auto headlight feature that is user selectable.

That makes much too much sense and would be too easy. NO WAY will that ever happen... :banghead:

 

No, the Toyota DRL and auto headlights are very different. DRLs turn on just the headlights, and at low power. Auto headlights turn on all the lights and often dim the interior lights, something that isn't always desireable.

 

As for the Fusion (and just about every other Ford), they all have DRLs, you just have to have the dealer turn them on as noted above. My dealer also didn't charge me for this.

[Waldo]

Because they're annoying, most people don't want them and they don't help others see your car.

 

I nearly pulled out in front of a car the other day because I didn't see him (blended in with the scenery at the exact time I was looking). Fortunately a second glance caught him, but I'm sure DRLs would have allowed me to spot him on the first glance. I find cars moving without lights annoying.

[akirby]

I nearly pulled out in front of a car the other day because I didn't see him (blended in with the scenery at the exact time I was looking).

 

So it was camouflaged? Maybe we should require vehicles to be painted fluorescent orange and green. Better yet - put a flashing light on top. Or both.

 

My point is people pull out in front of other people with or without DRLs, even at night WITH lights on. Could there be a tiny fraction of incidents where having DRLs would prevent an accident? Maybe. They're annoying because people don't turn on their lights when they should.

 

I just don't see how they can be called a "vital" safety feature.

[lrymal]

...

I just don't see how they can be called a "vital" safety feature.

Vital for me.... knocks 3% off my insurance premium as one of the "safety" components that qualify for a discount. :hysterical: I gotta go by my dealer and see if he can enable it.

[mlwaverunr]

From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety....

 

 

Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes. A Danish study reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15 months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn crashes. In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes. A 1994 Transport Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989 vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.

 

In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles without DRLs. A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles. Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs. Federal researchers, using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a 5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.

 

Damned studies and facts---don't ya just hate 'em. (smell the sarcasm?) It's a cheap, easy way to reduce some accidents. It would seem that we could remove the human factor in headlights, tail lights, etc. I see people driving at night without any lights on or just their parking lights.

 

The Fusion already has an auto setting. If I had DRL and always had my lights on auto, that would work, right?? I would be safer and akirby would not be annoyed. Everyone wins!

 

Like I've said before, I already turn my lights on. I know it is a small fraction of the accidents that are reduced, but if I can do something so small as to turn my lights on to avoid my family going through a loss, I'll do it. But that's just me. Some folks still don't believe in seat belts. Unless DRLs are mandated for all vehicles, someone will figure out how to disable them because they can. For now, it's still a choice for everyone.

[akirby]

Studies also showed that traffic accidents were reduced in intersections with camera enforcement because that's the answer they wanted. Turns out overall accidents increased as people slammed on the brakes to avoid a potential ticket, but that wouldn't support adding more cameras to get more revenue.

 

Not saying the DRL studies are rigged, but there is simply no way to determine whether or not DRLs actually contributed to the reduction in accidents.

[Oman]

The traffic light camera studies were so terribly biased, for obvious reasons ($$$$). There is no real money to be made one way or the other with DRLs so I don't see that bias happening with the DRL studies. I happen to like properly implemented dedicated DRLs and think they help improve visibility. The truth is that most are so poorly implemented that they annoy more than they help. I think that is why they have such a bad reputation.

 

As for *this* forum - how are the DRLs implemented on the FFH when enabled in the SJB? Are they lower power high-beams or the low-power filament on the turn/running lamps?

 

 

PS: I just about fell on the floor laughing when I read the post about the taller vehicles on the road and DRLs being a bother to motorcycles. As an avid biker for more than 35 years I have noticed that I used to be able to see over more vehicles than now but to make THAT complaint vs. all the other big car issues is just funny. And so what if it used to be that only motorcycles used to have their headlights on during the day... that pretty much makes the point for DRLs. The reason that motorcycles were mandated to have their lights on during the day was to make them MORE VISIBLE. They aren't less visible because more cars have DRLs, just harder to pick out from other vehicles. Knowing SOMETHING is there is what matters, not that it is a bike.

 

Jon

 

 

Studies also showed that traffic accidents were reduced in intersections with camera enforcement because that's the answer they wanted. Turns out overall accidents increased as people slammed on the brakes to avoid a potential ticket, but that wouldn't support adding more cameras to get more revenue.

 

Not saying the DRL studies are rigged, but there is simply no way to determine whether or not DRLs actually contributed to the reduction in accidents.

[FFHdriver]

The traffic light camera studies were so terribly biased, for obvious reasons ($$$$). There is no real money to be made one way or the other with DRLs so I don't see that bias happening with the DRL studies. I happen to like properly implemented dedicated DRLs and think they help improve visibility. The truth is that most are so poorly implemented that they annoy more than they help. I think that is why they have such a bad reputation.

 

As for *this* forum - how are the DRLs implemented on the FFH when enabled in the SJB? Are they lower power high-beams or the low-power filament on the turn/running lamps?

 

 

PS: I just about fell on the floor laughing when I read the post about the taller vehicles on the road and DRLs being a bother to motorcycles. As an avid biker for more than 35 years I have noticed that I used to be able to see over more vehicles than now but to make THAT complaint vs. all the other big car issues is just funny. And so what if it used to be that only motorcycles used to have their headlights on during the day... that pretty much makes the point for DRLs. The reason that motorcycles were mandated to have their lights on during the day was to make them MORE VISIBLE. They aren't less visible because more cars have DRLs, just harder to pick out from other vehicles. Knowing SOMETHING is there is what matters, not that it is a bike.

 

J Dealer enabled mine at no charge today. They are lower power/brightness low beams.

[Waldo]

So it was camouflaged? Maybe we should require vehicles to be painted fluorescent orange and green. Better yet - put a flashing light on top. Or both.

 

My point is people pull out in front of other people with or without DRLs, even at night WITH lights on. Could there be a tiny fraction of incidents where having DRLs would prevent an accident? Maybe. They're annoying because people don't turn on their lights when they should.

 

I just don't see how they can be called a "vital" safety feature.

 

But they're not unsafe and they're virtually free, so why not? Granted some of them are pooly implemented, like some of the new Chryslers, but if they were mandatory in the US, the OEMs would design them into the vehicles from the start instead of as an afterthought.

 

For example the new Audis use LEDs in a ring around the headlights that is very stylish, can't be considered annoying by anybody and uses very little power.

[BearCat]

I think this is a similiar arguement to those that want to turn off the seat belt warning.

[akirby]

I think this is a similiar arguement to those that want to turn off the seat belt warning.

 

Not wearing seatbelts has very real and verifiable negative consequences. The laws of physics must be obeyed.

 

The benefits of DRLs are not so concrete.