+- FocusCanada Forums (//www.focuscanada.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Technobabble (//www.focuscanada.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Focus on Appearance (//www.focuscanada.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+--- Thread: Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? (/showthread.php?tid=16765)
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - Kalos - 10-05-2004
I understand dealers can't sell new cars without DRL, but apparently owners can legally remove DRL.
But what about insurance implications ? Are auto insurance policies in Canada written so that if DRL is removed, the coverage is in jeopardy ? Makes sense that if DRL really reduces collisions, insurance companies would be reluctant to have their customers remove DRL. They might prohibit removal in cars covered by the policy - and might reduce the payout if a car in a crash has been discovered to have had its DRL removed.
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - BerinG - 10-05-2004
whats DRL
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - ZX3 in progress - 10-05-2004
Daytime Running Lights if I'm not mistaken
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - Marction - 10-05-2004
Kalos,Oct 4 2004, 11:39 AM Wrote:I understand dealers can't sell new cars without DRL, but apparently owners can legally remove DRL.source? (just curious...I find it hard to believe that if, by law, cars manufactured and sold here after a particular date are required to have DRLs, that it's then legal for owners to turn around and disable them).
If people with mods are getting hassled by insurers, you can bet that disabling what is clearly considered a safety feature on the car could have similar consequences...would you win if you fought the insurer in court if they deny/reduce a claim? maybe. I'd hate to be in your shoes in front of a judge explaining why you disabled the DRLs though ;)
I'm beating a dead horse, but I still fail to see the point of disabling DRLs..."because it looks better" is a *really* lame reason if there's any research that backs up the safety benefits of having them enabled.
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - guilty - 10-05-2004
This is one of those things that's kind of a gray area. It's illegal to disable safety features on a car, but I dont think disabling the DRLs would be taken as seriously as removing your airbags. If they really want to screw you over, they could try using that fact as a basis of denying your insurance claim.
I dont really get why you'd want to disable the DRLs, unless of course you're running HID headlights. I've got the HIDs on my car so I pulled my DRL relay, but I do like the idea of having DRLs so I did the mod to get my fog lights to operate as DRLs (as paolo made the how-to).
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - Kalos - 10-05-2004
Marction,Oct 4 2004, 06:25 PM Wrote:I haven't removed my DRLs (Daylight Running Lights). My "source" for this statement is several threads discussing removal of DRLs . Apparently, dealers can't do it but legally but owners can. The insurance issue is separate.Kalos,Oct 4 2004, 11:39 AM Wrote:I understand dealers can't sell new cars without DRL, but apparently owners can legally remove DRL.source? (just curious...I find it hard to believe that if, by law, cars manufactured and sold here after a particular date are required to have DRLs, that it's then legal for owners to turn around and disable them).
If people with mods are getting hassled by insurers, you can bet that disabling what is clearly considered a safety feature on the car could have similar consequences...would you win if you fought the insurer in court if they deny/reduce a claim? maybe. I'd hate to be in your shoes in front of a judge explaining why you disabled the DRLs though ;)
...I still fail to see the point of disabling DRLs..."because it looks better" is a *really* lame reason if there's any research that backs up the safety benefits of having them enabled.
I think the science over DRL has pretty much established that when a few cars have DRL - but most don't - then the cars with DRL have a survival advantage because they are seen more easily and noticed than cars without DRL. The debate is whether this advantage is real when ALL cars have DRL. Then it could be there's no significant advantage to DRL and it's just a waste of gasoline (~$10/year) and bulb life.
If the $10/yr is true, then switching the DRL to fogs from low beams may save about $3.30/yr.
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - paolo - 10-05-2004
I highly doubt insurance claim would differ. Basically, if your insurance company wanted to put a clause in your policy about this, then they have to contact everyone on their list who bought a US spec car after 1991 that did not have DRL's from the factory and notify them to spend money on upgrading their vehicle so they are DRL compliant.
I dont really see this happening. Also wanted to say that If your dumb enough to forget to turn on your low beam headlights at night time, then you probaly deserve a ticket.
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - Evil Homer P5 - 10-05-2004
paolo,Oct 4 2004, 03:58 PM Wrote:I highly doubt insurance claim would differ. Basically, if your insurance company wanted to put a clause in your policy about this, then they have to contact everyone on their list who bought a US spec car after 1991 that did not have DRL's from the factory and notify them to spend money on upgrading their vehicle so they are DRL compliant.i would also like to add, if your too dumb to turn on your lights at night, YOU SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING AT NIGHT!!!! :P
I dont really see this happening. Also wanted to say that If your dumb enough to forget to turn on your low beam headlights at night time, then you probaly deserve a ticket.
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - BerinG - 10-06-2004
why not do the fog light mod instead and so that all 4s light up.. would look as "ugly"
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - boost til'bust - 10-07-2004
yea, I am sure an insurance company is going to come and check your car for drl's if your car is in an accident. I highly doubt it.
I was under the impression that DRL's are part of the highway traffic act, which means you could get a ticket for not having them. They have to be installed to pass an import inspection, and as far as I knew, that was part of safety as well.
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - paolo - 10-07-2004
Our Highway Traffic Act (HTA) makes no mention of DRL requirement. Though, it makes mention that you must turn on your headlights at certain time of the day (evening) so older cars sold before 1990 can still comply with the HTA.
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - chinaman - 10-11-2004
a cop can pull you over and not be able to give you a ticket but can order you to the ministry site for inspection and your car will not pass certification. same as the 3rd brake light that became standard in 1986.
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - paolo - 10-12-2004
chinaman,Oct 10 2004, 12:49 PM Wrote:a cop can pull you over and not be able to give you a ticket but can order you to the ministry site for inspection and your car will not pass certification. same as the 3rd brake light that became standard in 1986.Chinaman, do you know how many cars there are out there that have modifications such as aftermarket tail lights with the wrong coloured reflector or lack of DOT REQUIRED reflectors, etc.. That kind of stuff is in the same category that you are refering to. You have to buy a car with orange reflectors, but once its in your possesion, you can put clear corners, etc.. I've NEVER heard of police ever sending someones car to the ministry site for inspection. The most ive seen is police giving out warnings or tickets for these kind of things. My dad got stopped by police driving my car and questioned about the lack of DRLs but the cop never gave him a ticket, because there are certain hours that you should have your headlights on, and when the cop stopped my dad, it was well outside of that time frame, nothing could be done.
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - paolo - 03-03-2005
"In Canada, DRL were implemented by making automatic DRL systems
compulsory on all new four-wheeled vehicles from December 1989 onwards.
Automatic operation of the headlamp and rear position (tail) lamp of new
motorcycles sold in Canada had already been made compulsory in 1975.
Since DRL are switched on automatically, they are used on all roads and
during the entire year.
These DRL measures were introduced by the Canadian federal government
which only regulates vehicle safety through laws applying to vehicle
manufacturers and importers. Except for the Yukon Territory, however,
provincial and territorial governments (which are responsible for regulations
concerning road users and road use) have not yet introduced laws requiring
lights to be switched on in daytime, except during inclement weather.
Therefore, the use of DRL is not compulsory in Canada, except for the
Yukon Territory where road users can be fined about ⬠60 when not using
DRL on rural roads. Outside the Yukon Territory, there are no penalties for
not using DRL, and there are no special police enforcement activities. Even
so, because they are switched on automatically in practice, DRL are used by
all motorized vehicles on all roads during the entire year. DRL must switch
off automatically when headlights are switched on (e.g, at night)."
(Three paragraphs about Canada from this 2004 EU report: http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-2003-28.pdf. It's based on a questionnaire sent to various world governments)
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - Frost__2001 - 03-04-2005
DRL is okay to remove on your car. It's why people driving Windstars don't get tickets for having the roman candle effect. When I was at Concept years (in 2000) ago they were commenting on they can disconnect your day running lights if your planning on heading down to the US, so you don't point out the fact you are Canadian in places like Florida or in the Carolinas.
If any one remembers all the tourist killings that happened down in Florida during the late 90's and so on. It's why Rental car companys stoped putting on their logos in that state on all their cars and stoped using front plates stating things like " Budget, National, Alamo, Enterprise " and so on. No to mention recommending people from out of state to rent a debadged rental car, so they would not be a target.
I know of a few people that have removed their DRL's and they have never received anything for it. The Question is why would you want to remove them though ?
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - guilty - 03-05-2005
Frost__2001,Mar 3 2005, 10:41 PM Wrote:I know of a few people that have removed their DRL's and they have never received anything for it. The Question is why would you want to remove them though ?
[right][snapback]91187[/snapback][/right]
The only reason I can think of for removing the DRLs is to save your HID system from powering up at partial-charge. I think having them is a good thing, one of the reasons why I wired my foglights up to the DRL circuit. Having other drivers be able to see you better and prevent them from hitting you is a good thing ;)
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - AutoExe - 03-05-2005
My car has aftermarket HIDs and I have wired to fog lights to function as manual DRLs - meaning that I have the option of turning them on or off using the stock fog switch (in the stock setup the fogs do not and will not come on during the day, and the low beams function as DRLs). I tend to leave them on most of the time but it's nice to drive without DRLs sometimes.
Drl Removal - Insurance Liability ? - CanadaSVT - 03-05-2005
Kalos,Oct 4 2004, 11:39 AM Wrote:I understand dealers can't sell new cars without DRL, but apparently owners can legally remove DRL.
My 2004 Marauder has no DRL, and I got it brand new from the dealership that way. Saves me having to disconnect it B)