Re: How to disable DRLs and auto-headlights on 2001 Camry?

Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:[color=blue]
> The subject says it all:
>
> What is the procedure for disabling the Daytime Running Lights and the
> Auto-Headlights on a 2001 (aka "Generation 4.5") Camry, other than paying
> a dealer to do so?
>
> I do NOT want to start a debate about whether these characteristics of this
> particular vehicle are "safety features" or "nuisances" and posts arguing
> one side or another will be 100% ignored by me (and I urge others to do the
> same so that the NG can remain ON-TOPIC).
>
> Thanks.[/color]

See
"http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/generalinfo/recalls/tsbs/el01100.htm"

It's for the 1999/2000, as it was published in 2000, but it shouldn't
have changed, as 2001 is the same generation of Camry (Camry changes
every model year ending in 7 and 2) I don't think that the first two
years of this generation (1997-98), which is why they are not included
in that TSB, though I could be wrong about this. I know that the
procedure for my 2001 4 Runner is the same as that page lists for the
the 2000 4 Runner.

No debate, but it's worthwhile to point out there are significant
negatives of DRLs, and I don't blame you for wanting to disable them.

IMVAIO, debates of DRLs are ON-TOPIC, since Toyota has seen fit to
include them on their vehicles. I would not have purchased my 4 Runner
had I not been sure that there was a way to disable the DRLs.

I think that the better way to disable them, rather than removing the
pin from the connector is to cut the wire and solder/crimp on some
bullet connectors or a switch, i.e.
"http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bin/item/PB-21/700325/SPST_PUSHBUTTON,_PUSH_ON_PUSH_OFF_.html"

This way you can easily restore the DRLs if you ever sell it to someone
that wants them back.

[color=blue]
> It's for the 1999/2000, as it was published in 2000, but it shouldn't
> have changed, as 2001 is the same generation of Camry (Camry changes
> every model year ending in 7 and 2) I don't think that the first two
> years of this generation (1997-98) __had DRLs__, which is why they are not included
> in that TSB, though I could be wrong about this. I know that the
> procedure for my 2001 4 Runner is the same as that page lists for the
> the 2000 4 Runner.[/color]

i'd like to do the same on my 2006 corolla xrs.
it's a bunch of damn foolishness.
sammmm

--

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:459eddb0$0$68965$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> It's for the 1999/2000, as it was published in 2000, but it shouldn't
>> have changed, as 2001 is the same generation of Camry (Camry changes
>> every model year ending in 7 and 2) I don't think that the first two
>> years of this generation (1997-98) __had DRLs__, which is why they are
>> not included in that TSB, though I could be wrong about this. I know that
>> the procedure for my 2001 4 Runner is the same as that page lists for the
>> the 2000 4 Runner.[/color][/color]

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:459ed15e$0$68967$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...[color=blue]
> Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:[color=green]
>> The subject says it all:
>>
>> What is the procedure for disabling the Daytime Running Lights and the
>> Auto-Headlights on a 2001 (aka "Generation 4.5") Camry, other than paying
>> a dealer to do so?
>>
>> I do NOT want to start a debate about whether these characteristics of
>> this particular vehicle are "safety features" or "nuisances" and posts
>> arguing one side or another will be 100% ignored by me (and I urge others
>> to do the same so that the NG can remain ON-TOPIC).
>>
>> Thanks.[/color]
>
> See
> "http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/generalinfo/recalls/tsbs/el01100.htm"
>
> It's for the 1999/2000, as it was published in 2000, but it shouldn't have
> changed, as 2001 is the same generation of Camry (Camry changes every
> model year ending in 7 and 2) I don't think that the first two years of
> this generation (1997-98), which is why they are not included in that TSB,
> though I could be wrong about this. I know that the procedure for my 2001
> 4 Runner is the same as that page lists for the the 2000 4 Runner.
>
> No debate, but it's worthwhile to point out there are significant
> negatives of DRLs, and I don't blame you for wanting to disable them.
>
> IMVAIO, debates of DRLs are ON-TOPIC, since Toyota has seen fit to include
> them on their vehicles. I would not have purchased my 4 Runner had I not
> been sure that there was a way to disable the DRLs.
>
> I think that the better way to disable them, rather than removing the pin
> from the connector is to cut the wire and solder/crimp on some bullet
> connectors or a switch, i.e.
> "http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bin/item/PB-21/700325/SPST_PUSHBUTTON,_PUSH_ON_PUSH_OFF_.html"
>
> This way you can easily restore the DRLs if you ever sell it to someone
> that wants them back.[/color]

You are a fucking asshole. There are NOT valid reasons for disabling DRL's
aside from a temporary device allowing disabling for short period of time,
e.g. when entering a military base or a ferry or going through customs.

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:29:50 -0800, SMS wrote:
[color=blue]
> No debate, but it's worthwhile to point out there are significant
> negatives of DRLs, and I don't blame you for wanting to disable them.[/color]

Buy a Scion. No DRLs.

SAMMM wrote:[color=blue]
> i'd like to do the same on my 2006 corolla xrs.
> it's a bunch of damn foolishness.[/color]

Indeed it is. There is no scientific basis for it, at least in the U.S..
Even the NHTSA found no benefit, except to pedestrians. There are enough
dumb people in the world to jump on the bandwagon of anything that, on
the surface, appears to make driving safer.

See "http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/"

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:459fd921$0$69005$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...[color=blue]
> SAMMM wrote:[color=green]
>> i'd like to do the same on my 2006 corolla xrs.
>> it's a bunch of damn foolishness.[/color]
>
> Indeed it is. There is no scientific basis for it, at least in the U.S..
> Even the NHTSA found no benefit, except to pedestrians. There are enough[/color]

Oh, yeah, then FUCK the tens of millions of pedestrians. Who cares about
them. Sarcasm switch now off. Any one with at least a NORMAL IQ realizes
that Lights ON is more safe for EVERYONE than Lights OFF. Get a FUCKING
brain.




[color=blue]
> dumb people in the world to jump on the bandwagon of anything that, on the
> surface, appears to make driving safer.
>
> See "http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/"[/color]

I think it was "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> who stated:

[color=blue]
> Any one with at least a NORMAL IQ realizes
>that Lights ON is more safe for EVERYONE than Lights OFF. Get a FUCKING
>brain.[/color]

Well no, that isn't true. It used to be that lights ON meant a
motorcycle coming, and it got noticed. Now, with all the DRLs,
motorcycles don't stand out anymore. So it's less safe for us who ride
motorcycles, unless we up the ante and modulate our headlights.

So, YOU need a "FUCKING brain" as you put it so succinctly.

--
When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty

"Don Fearn" <pooder@charter.net> wrote in message
news:a3k0q25v6k2goc0i37k7igp5bn1v22b1ki@4ax.com...[color=blue]
>I think it was "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> who stated:
>
>[color=green]
>> Any one with at least a NORMAL IQ realizes
>>that Lights ON is more safe for EVERYONE than Lights OFF. Get a FUCKING
>>brain.[/color]
>
> Well no, that isn't true. It used to be that lights ON meant a
> motorcycle coming, and it got noticed. Now, with all the DRLs,
> motorcycles don't stand out anymore. So it's less safe for us who ride
> motorcycles, unless we up the ante and modulate our headlights.[/color]

There's hundreds of times MORE motorists and MORE pedestrians than there are
motorcyclists, so STFU and FOAD, cocksucker.

[color=blue]
>
> So, YOU need a "FUCKING brain" as you put it so succinctly.
>
> --
> When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty[/color]

I think it was "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> who stated:
[color=blue]
>
>"Don Fearn" <pooder@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:a3k0q25v6k2goc0i37k7igp5bn1v22b1ki@4ax.com...[color=green]
>>I think it was "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> who stated:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Any one with at least a NORMAL IQ realizes
>>>that Lights ON is more safe for EVERYONE than Lights OFF. Get a FUCKING
>>>brain.[/color]
>>
>> Well no, that isn't true. It used to be that lights ON meant a
>> motorcycle coming, and it got noticed. Now, with all the DRLs,
>> motorcycles don't stand out anymore. So it's less safe for us who ride
>> motorcycles, unless we up the ante and modulate our headlights.[/color]
>
>There's hundreds of times MORE motorists and MORE pedestrians than there are
>motorcyclists,[/color]

Yeah, and . . . ?

You did say "Lights ON is more safe for EVERYONE than Lights OFF"
didn't you? I showed you that what you said isn't true. Q.E.D.
[color=blue]
>so STFU and FOAD, cocksucker.[/color]

Heh, heh, heh . . . .

He said "cocksucker"!

Heh, heh, heh . . . .

<<PLONK>>

--
When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty

atta boy, old guy.
don't hold it in, just let it out......
there, don't you feel better? <GGGG>
sammmm

--

"sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oJYnh.117169$YV4.105066@edtnps89...[color=blue]
>
> "Don Fearn" <pooder@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:a3k0q25v6k2goc0i37k7igp5bn1v22b1ki@4ax.com...[color=green]
>>I think it was "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> who stated:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Any one with at least a NORMAL IQ realizes
>>>that Lights ON is more safe for EVERYONE than Lights OFF. Get a FUCKING
>>>brain.[/color]
>>
>> Well no, that isn't true. It used to be that lights ON meant a
>> motorcycle coming, and it got noticed. Now, with all the DRLs,
>> motorcycles don't stand out anymore. So it's less safe for us who ride
>> motorcycles, unless we up the ante and modulate our headlights.[/color]
>
> There's hundreds of times MORE motorists and MORE pedestrians than there
> are motorcyclists, so STFU and FOAD, cocksucker.
>
>[color=green]
>>
>> So, YOU need a "FUCKING brain" as you put it so succinctly.
>>
>> --
>> When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty[/color]
>
>[/color]

"sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PRXnh.117152$YV4.86278@edtnps89...[color=blue]
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:459fd921$0$69005$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...[color=green]
>> SAMMM wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> i'd like to do the same on my 2006 corolla xrs.
>>> it's a bunch of damn foolishness.[/color]
>>
>> Indeed it is. There is no scientific basis for it, at least in the U.S..
>> Even the NHTSA found no benefit, except to pedestrians. There are enough[/color]
>
> Oh, yeah, then FUCK the tens of millions of pedestrians. Who cares about
> them. Sarcasm switch now off. Any one with at least a NORMAL IQ realizes
> that Lights ON is more safe for EVERYONE than Lights OFF. Get a FUCKING
> brain.
>[/color]


That was a tad harsh. I agree completely, but I think you were a bit over
the top. Lights ON is always safer for everyone in every situation at any
time. Period.

On a two-lane road, oncoming cars can easily notice that your car is going
the same direction as it passes another car, or going in the opposite
direction and heading straight for you. This tidbit of knowledge tells you
that you might have to alter your behavior to accomodate the other driver.

Pedestrians have a visual clue that the approaching cars are there -- but
you seem to accept the notion that DRLs are good for pedestrians so I don't
need to dwell on that subject.

DRLs provide the EXACT same safety feature set to other drivers as the
center-rear-brake-light. They alert other drivers of changing conditions.
Obviously the conditions are not the same, but the idea of alerting others
of conditions is the same.

I'll accept an argument that says DRLs are not very useful in each and every
situation that a driver might encounter, but they are NEVER a problem.
Having lights on for safety has long been a behavior of big rig trucks. One
never knows when a "safety situation" might arise, that is why lights should
be switched on when the vehicle starts.

Thanks for being rude, it gave me a chance to vent ...

We agree completely, except the rude part.

I think it was "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> who stated:
[color=blue]
>That was a tad harsh. I agree completely, but I think you were a bit over
>the top. Lights ON is always safer for everyone in every situation at any
>time. Period.[/color]

Not true. Period.

It used to be that lights ON meant a motorcycle coming, and it got
noticed. Now, with all the DRLs, motorcycles don't stand out anymore.
So it's LESS SAFE for us who ride motorcycles.

--
Light travels faster than sound; this is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:adOdneItsOfj0DzYnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@ez2.net...[color=blue]
>
> "sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:PRXnh.117152$YV4.86278@edtnps89...[color=green]
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:459fd921$0$69005$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...[color=darkred]
>>> SAMMM wrote:
>>>> i'd like to do the same on my 2006 corolla xrs.
>>>> it's a bunch of damn foolishness.
>>>
>>> Indeed it is. There is no scientific basis for it, at least in the U.S..
>>> Even the NHTSA found no benefit, except to pedestrians. There are enough[/color]
>>
>> Oh, yeah, then FUCK the tens of millions of pedestrians. Who cares about
>> them. Sarcasm switch now off. Any one with at least a NORMAL IQ realizes
>> that Lights ON is more safe for EVERYONE than Lights OFF. Get a FUCKING
>> brain.
>>[/color]
>
>
> That was a tad harsh. I agree completely, but I think you were a bit over
> the top. Lights ON is always safer for everyone in every situation at any
> time. Period.
>
> On a two-lane road, oncoming cars can easily notice that your car is going
> the same direction as it passes another car, or going in the opposite
> direction and heading straight for you. This tidbit of knowledge tells you
> that you might have to alter your behavior to accomodate the other driver.
>
> Pedestrians have a visual clue that the approaching cars are there -- but
> you seem to accept the notion that DRLs are good for pedestrians so I
> don't need to dwell on that subject.
>
> DRLs provide the EXACT same safety feature set to other drivers as the
> center-rear-brake-light. They alert other drivers of changing conditions.
> Obviously the conditions are not the same, but the idea of alerting others
> of conditions is the same.
>
> I'll accept an argument that says DRLs are not very useful in each and
> every situation that a driver might encounter, but they are NEVER a
> problem. Having lights on for safety has long been a behavior of big rig
> trucks. One never knows when a "safety situation" might arise, that is why
> lights should be switched on when the vehicle starts.
>
> Thanks for being rude, it gave me a chance to vent ...
>
> We agree completely, except the rude part.[/color]

The imbeciles who dis DRL's have such thick skulls that rudeness IS
necessary to penetrate their stupidity.
[color=blue]
>
>
>[/color]

"Don Fearn" <pooder@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vos2q2147e9gdl4g49t6hbt68osftpk35p@4ax.com...[color=blue]
>I think it was "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> who stated:
>[color=green]
>>That was a tad harsh. I agree completely, but I think you were a bit over
>>the top. Lights ON is always safer for everyone in every situation at any
>>time. Period.[/color]
>
> Not true. Period.
>
> It used to be that lights ON meant a motorcycle coming, and it got
> noticed. Now, with all the DRLs, motorcycles don't stand out anymore.
> So it's LESS SAFE for us who ride motorcycles.[/color]

I don't give a flying fuck what happens to you suicide jockeys unless it
involves my vehicle. Thousands of times MORE people drive cars or walk, as
compared to you freaks.

[color=blue]
>
> --
> Light travels faster than sound; this is why some people appear bright
> until you hear them speak[/color]