Dang son, you really have it out for these headlights! The reasoning in your post bothers me on so many levels. ***EDIT: directed at yrwei52
The full-powered LED low-beam headlights as part of DRLs is different from reduced-intensity halogen high-beam DRLs. Low-beam DRLs are unnecessary and affect the longevity of the expensive LED headlights. This also opens up a new can of worms for those anti-DRL advocacy groups. "Thousands of complaints regarding glare from DRLs were lodged with the DOT shortly after DRLs were permitted on cars, and there was also concern that headlamp-based DRLs reduce the conspicuity of motorcycles, and that DRLs based on front turn signals introduce ambiguity into the turn signal system."
FYI - The LED headlamp is NOT at full power in DRL mode. It is at reduced power. Pull up to a wall and play with the lights, you will see the difference in intensity against the wall. And IMO anyone complaining about glare due to a headlight being used as a DRL in the daytime is completely full of rubbish. Then how could they be used at night, when contrast between surrounding areas and the headlights is MUCH higher????
If a headlight can be used at night there is NO reason it can't be used during the day, and that's the bottom line.
Then you argue about longevity of the headlight....
Headlight uses LEDs. Same technology as is in the "signature lighting" strips (in the top model) and individual DRL bulb in the lower model. What's the difference between using an LED in an accent strip vs an LED in a headlight housing with any DRL system needs to be on all the time and neither components are serviceable? None.... If the accent strips are used all the time and one goes out, the housing needs replaced. Same for the headlamp now. It's an unfortunate truth, but it is the price to pay for more advanced lighting.
"Motorcycle's low beam headlamp has been wired to illuminate whenever the engine is running, either as a matter of law or of voluntary industry practice. Some motorcycling advocacy groups are concerned over the potential for reduced motorcycle conspicuity with the introduction of headlamp-based DRLs on cars and other dual-track vehicles, since it means motorcycles are no longer the only vehicles displaying headlamps during the day." School buses with low-beam headlights on all the time have the same argument.
IMO, this is a ridiculous argument. You're saying school buses are complaining about trying to be safer? LMAO! Where is this coming from? You've gone from arguing that a DRL in a headlamp is bad to arguing that DRLs in general are bad. DRLs have been the law here in Canada since 1989, purely for safety reasons. From the exact same 14 year old report that you linked to are the figures the author used to advocate for the use of DRLs:
According to European studies on the effectiveness of DRLs in improving road safety , the
potential savings are:
• 25% of daytime multi-vehicle fatal accidents (11% of all non-pedestrian fatal accidents)
• 28% of daytime fatal pedestrian accidents (12% of all fatal pedestrian accidents)
• 20% of daytime multi-vehicle injury accidents
• 12% of daytime multi-vehicle property accidents
"Because the power to run the DRLs must be produced by the engine, which in turn requires burning additional fuel, high-power DRL systems increase CO2 emissions sufficiently to affect a country's compliance with the Kyoto protocol on green-house gas emissions. For that reason, low-power solutions are being encouraged and headlamp-based systems are not allowed after DRLs became mandatory in Europe at the beginning of 2011. LEDs and low-power, high-efficacy, long-life light bulbs produce appropriate amounts of light for an effective DRL without significantly increasing fuel consumption or emissions."
The headlights in this application
are LED...
My biggest safety concern is some 2017 CX-5 owners would forget to manually turn on the headlights in the dark if they don't have Auto-Headlight function or don't use the function even if their CX-5 has it. This had been happened so many times on DRL-equipped GM vehicles using low-beam headlights in 90's. It's so obvious seeing this scenario that a GM car is driving in the dark with the headlights on but no tail lights as the driver didn't aware he's using DRLs driving in the dark!
If this happens it is the driver's fault,
NOT the car's! There are other ways to know that headlamps are on or not at night time including, but not limited to: changes in dash illumination (either becomes illuminated, or if it is already illuminated it becomes dimmer), headlamp indicator in gauge cluster if gauges are always illuminated, the fact that whatever light projected forward from the car is not typically sufficient for night driving and the driver should recognize something isn't right.
The OP's original concern is visibility of the turn signal. The only relation to the DRL system at all is the fact that the DRL "signature" lighting illuminates the same area of the light housing at the same time of the turn signal, potentially reducing visibility of the turn signal.
If anything will come from the original concern in this thread it will be that Mazda devises a way to turn off the DRL adjacent the turn signal when the turn signal is turned activated which some other manufacturers already do. I'm not sure if that is a mandatory requirement due to a regulation somewhere or if that is voluntary (my assumption) but for whatever reason Mazda didn't have to do it so they didn't. If they had to do it to satisfy some regulations, it would've been done.
Here's a link explaining what I mean. Ironically this link also says why I believe the headlight itself is a part of the DRL system... because the headlight
is the DRL (as it is brighter) and the lighting strips are the "signature lighting" that happen to work along side the DRL.
http://jalopnik.com/heres-why-modern-cars-turn-off-one-of-their-lights-when-1792394567
At least in the US where this article comes from, it appears that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 is what would require the DRL to be deactivated when the turn signal is activated.
Here's a specific requirement from that specification which applies to the CX-5.
Each DRL not optically combined with a turn signal lamp must be located on the vehicle so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the nearest turn signal lamp is not less than 100 mm...
I'm assuming as I don't have the headlight system output numbers, Mazda was allowed to use to keep the signature lighting strip / DRL illuminated next to the turn signal as one of the following exceptions applies to their design (at least in NA). The signature lighting isn't bright enough to be considered an issue, or the turn signal is bright enough compared to the DRL that it isn't considered an issue, as exemption C does not apply to the new CX-5's design:
(a) The luminous intensity of the DRL is not more than 2,600 cd at any location in the beam and the turn signal lamp meets 2.5 times the base front turn signal photometric requirements
(b) The DRL is optically combined with a lower beam headlamp and the turn signal lamp meets 2.5 times the base front turn signal photometric requirements
(c) The DRL is deactivated when the turn signal or hazard warning signal lamp is activated.
I tend to believe that if you are in the US and you have concerns with the signature lighting / DRL / vs turn signal the above regulation is where you have to start arguing your case.
