i took my drl out, havnt had a problem.. yet..

i took out my fuse for my headlight in my integra but my signal ones and rears still go on for drl is this illigal??

I'd say DISABLING YOUR HEADLIGHTS is illegal, yeah... what do you do at night??

i still have headlights just not the ones for daytime

If you have a switch that enables you to run city lights you have to pay?

In my car I have a European headlight switch.

In the default position, DRLs turn on. In the first position, city lights turn on and headlights go off. Is that a ticket-able offence?

Not if it's the vehicle's OEM equipment and setting.

Also that the vehicle's legally registered to be able to be operated in Canada.

I never understood the animosity some people have towards daytime running lights...

I think it's more an animosity to rules in general... DRLs just provide an easy target for it because they can come up with what they think are clever, valid complaints about them. It's hard to rail against, say, seatbelts... but DRLs aren't perceived as being much of a safety feature, so they can easily invent "negatives" for them without being laughed off the face of the planet.

First of all, what do you mean by "city lights"?

If your vehicle was imported and made 1990 or later (I believe its that year, I'd have to look it up again), it should have had daytime running lights installed prior to being able to pass the inspection pre-registration/insurance.

I once looked at importing a vehicle I was interested in purchasing (from the states - 1990 year model) and some of the retro-fit requirements needed prior to having legally registered and insured included daytime running lights.

I think if you're one of those drivers where you can see the benefit of DRLs, you don't need them explained to you, but if you can't see the benefit, no amount of explaining will work to convince you that they are a good idea.

...or at least that they're a better idea than your own imagined need to get rid of them.

But then the same goes for new penalties that seem to have been needed to get self-important asses off the road.

City lights are the "constantly on" bulbs in the turn signals, front and rear.

The problem with DRLs is they don't turn on your tail lights, just headlights. Then you "barely" see tons of retards driving at night, or in pissing rain with no lights in the back.

Our '96 Grand Caravan used the front signal lights for DRLs... in fact, I think most Chryslers of that era did as well.

Corner markers. Never heard the term city lights.

My DRLs are the low-beam headlights at reduced power. I either leave the low-beams on at regular power (also illuminates corner markers and tails) or I leave the switch at corner markers.

Yup I usually roll with corner markers and fog lights ( HID ) in my 98 GTI. Disabled DRLs because I will be installing angel eye headlights, and will be hooking up the eyes to the "city lights".

some cars its high beams on low power...

atleast on my IS and theres a resistor one plug to unplug and no DRL's

but same style cars like an 1989 Mustang and a 1991 Mustang.

both driving down the street, both do not have DRL's on. One was disabled, one was not offered OEM. and yes, 1 would get a ticket and the other wouldnt.

Very stupid.


Then even worse, the car's who have DRL's and the Speedo cluster illuminates without turning the headlamp switch on at all.

Prius is a good example... Some taxi's in richmond and surrey do this all the time... Driving at night with DRL's and no taillights cause Older "Idiot proof" cars didnt illuminate the speedocluster/tach until you turned on the lights, but now this feature lets you jump in and drive, check the road, see some sort of illumination coming from the headlights and they think everything is alright...

If older "not as safe cars" do not require them, then newer "safer" cars should have the option to disable like USA cars come stock disabled.

Not stupid. This isn't to do with lights per se; it's the simple fact that the driver has disabled safety equipment that's required by law (FEDERAL law, mind you). From the law's perspective, it's no different than removing airbags or seatbelts, or disabling your horn, or any other safety feature.


Oh, I love when this argument comes up.

The last time I saw a weak-ass whinge like this, I took special note the next evening I was out driving, of cars who didn't have their headlights on. Driving from the tri-cities into downtown Vancouver, I saw four cars who didn't have their full lights turned on: two were running DRLs only... two were older cars that had NO lights on at all.

Oblivious idiots will always be oblivious idiots regardless of whether their headlights come on automatically.

Instead of harping on the law, since all the harping in the world you do isn't going to change it, why don't you try convincing the car manufacturers to make their cars so ALL the lights come on as long as the car is running? My Dad's Silverado has a neat feature that runs DRLs during the day, and automatically turns the full lighting on when it gets dark out.

I'd rather have control over my lighting. I don't like automatic anything. I do however like the idea of DRLs but think they should be extended to include the tail lamps.

All cars with automatic lights have a means to manually override them on or off as well.

My MS3 has automatic lights, they work beautifully.

Man, I frickin' hate grand caravans, I've had so many close calls with them, they just don't use their headlights!