Daytime Running Lights Standardization Needed?

They can still be seen - which is why it is mandated almost everywhere
in North America that MCs run with DayLites. The fact that cars are
also lit now does not detract from the visibility od MCs - just makes
them blend in to the other traffic - which, in my opinion as an ex MC
rider, is good. I don't care if they think I'm driving a Mack truck -
as long as I'm seen.
Too many MC drivers take too many chances. If they (we) follow the
rules of the road, MS drivers are as safe as they would be if they
were the only ones with DayLites.

Too many young kids on "Crotch Rockets" that can't even handle a BMX
bike. The point is that

Not what's important for you - you are free to commit suicide. It's
what's good for the other guy.
Rightly or wrongly, it's the law. In Canada we elected the clowns that
wrote it - and most of us agree with it.
In the USA it is not the law (yet) - so you are free to modify the
vehicle in any way you wish if you dislike the DRLs that much.
Definitely not hard to defeat if you want to badly enough. Just throw
a relay in the HL power circuit and install a switch - no rocket
science.

 

| On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:52:19 -0500, "James C. Reeves"
|
| They can still be seen - which is why it is mandated almost everywhere
| in North America that MCs run with DayLites. The fact that cars are
| also lit now does not detract from the visibility od MCs - just makes
| them blend in to the other traffic - which, in my opinion as an ex MC
| rider, is good. I don't care if they think I'm driving a Mack truck -
| as long as I'm seen.
| Too many MC drivers take too many chances. If they (we) follow the
| rules of the road, MS drivers are as safe as they would be if they
| were the only ones with DayLites.
|

The Perot & Prowler study is specific to motorcyclists. You may want to read
it.

 

| Not what's important for you - you are free to commit suicide.

My family has booked many millions of miles over the years during the non-DRL
era. We're all still here. The "risk" (assuming one really exists) is
incredibly small even using the most agressively positive statistics. One
driving without DRLs hardly equates to one purposefully stepping in front of a
speeding bus. One example is law of averages and probabilities, the other is
law of certainty of outcome. Big difference.

| It's what's good for the other guy.

The motorcyclists? The rate is accident per miles...it has nothing to do with
the numbers of motorcyclists out there. You don't know the data, do you?

Curious, you rightfully keep making claims over data that does support your
claims (decrease in certain types of accidents), and I accept that as good
reasons. But, then try and "explain away" the other data (increase in other
types of accidents), which tells me you're not using all the relivant
information you should use for your decision . Why only accept the data you
like and not the data you don't like? Most of the data are from the same
studies and all of the data is relivant! Decisions should be made on the
complete picture. Arbitrarily throwing out (or poo-pooing) certain data we
don't like makes for making a decision without all the facts (making a
incorrect decision more likely). After considering all of the data, you may
still opt for DRLs...that's okay, I will defend to the death for your right to
that decision.

| Rightly or wrongly, it's the law. In Canada we elected the clowns that
| wrote it - and most of us agree with it.

I don't doubt that. Whole populations are capeable of being deceived...given
half of a picture for the purpose of making a case (I call it purposful
deception). It's human nature we're all suceptable to. I'm just one that like
to dig deeper into things. At one time I was one that thought DRLs were likely
a good idea and made sense. Now, I'm not so sure the benefit is conclusive
(either way). Benefits overall seem mixed at best.

| In the USA it is not the law (yet) - so you are free to modify the
| vehicle in any way you wish if you dislike the DRLs that much.
| Definitely not hard to defeat if you want to badly enough. Just throw
| a relay in the HL power circuit and install a switch - no rocket
| science.

You're right. Choice isn't a problem in the "states". But why go through the
trouble as you suggest of modifying a vehicles lighting circuits (and void
it's warranty according to GM)? You can buy any manufacturer (except GM) that
either doesn't offer DRL's at all, OR it is a option the buyer/owner can
choose. Only GM (and I think Subaru) makes them compulsory for their customers
here.

Curious, taking your philophosy to a logical direction...do you feel that ABS
should be made mandatory? Some people claim that tests/studies of them show
they reduce accidents and save lives. Do you support a government mandate that
cars only be painted silver in color? Some claim tests and studies show that
silver painted cars are the least likely to be in a accident compared with any
other color, especially black, dark green or dark blue cars that are 300% to
500% more likely to be in a accident? The color of the car appears to have
several times more of a visibility benefit than even DRLs best numbers
supposedly do! I'm curious as to where you would draw the line to government
imposition in the name of supposed safety and why you would draw it where ever
you would. Just this week New Zealand published yet another study of what car
color is "safest"....and silver was the one. But many car color statistics
have been done over the years and insurance data has been available for decades
that show difference in accidents and fatalities among different color cars.
Why choose DRL as the big thing to make cars safer when the color the car is
painted seems to have significantly more of a positive safety benefit than DRLs
do? If you don't believe those studies, why not? If not, why believe some
studies and not others. If not, why the inconsistency? Thoughts...

 

And I never said driving without DRLs was suicide. I just said you are
free to commit suicide, but not to kill others. It is for the safety
of others, more than for your safety, if your safety isn't a good
enough reason for you.

I have not quoted any data.Either to support my claims, or yours.

The only DATA I have brought forward, is that I have been a "dayliter"
since the early seventies. Long before it was mandated. Long before
studies "proving" either side were conducted or even dreamed up.
I feal a lot safer knowing I can be seen, and even safer yet knowing I
can see the other fools on the road. (note the "inclusive" use of
other)

The only deciept we've been subject to is the same you have been
subject to - electing politicians that say one thing, and do the
opposite. No difference between Americans and Canadians in that
respect.
Big difference is, the deceptions of your government cost millions of
dollars a day, and the lives of your young men and women in the
military.

True - but here it IS the law, and the benefits, if not as compelling
as you would like to see them, are still there. Do you question the
wisdom of the laws requiring Motorcylcles to be lit at all times??

And you CAN order a US GM car with DRL Delete Option.

No, I definitely do NOT.
Making snow tires mandatory in areas where snow on the roads is a
common risk, I would support.

All ABS does is guarantee that whatever you hit, you hit straight on.
It helps maintain control of the vehicle - it does NOT help stop the
vehicle.

And these tests are repeated every couple of years, with different
results. Is the silver colour the determining factor, or is it that
silver is the currently preferred colour for the conservative
drivers???
And were these studies conducted in Canada where the black, dark
green, or dark blue cars are more visible due to DRLs, or in the USA
where they fade into the roadway due to the refusal of American
drivers to drive with lights on in daylite?
There are a lot of things that come into play in these studies.

And to quote an old sage - name forgotten at the moment " Theres,
lies, damned lies, and statistics" Like the politician running a
distant third in an election campaign, I have little respect for
polls.
Now Poles are a different story. Particularly large concrete or steel
ones. I've met a couple pretty decent ones from Warsaw too.

I guess because it would be a boring world if every car in the world
was silver. Can you imagine going into the parking lot, and looking
for YOUR silver car in a sea of 2000????
And then, we'd have to all drive only one brand and model, because it
was the safest one in some faulted government study.

 

I doubt very much that there has been an increase in rear enders
attributable to the intro of DRL's.. and the more motorcyles that exist on
the road, the more likely one is to be involved in a wreck.. I was a victim
of not being seen one time, before the intro of DRL's on motorcycles.. like
the good citizen that I am/was. I exercized my right to not use lights in
daylight.. the result was a trashed motorcycle, a car almost cut clean in
half, two broken arms, two broken ribs, a broken leg.. I wish that somebody
had taken the choice from me and switched my lights on.. I have suffered
with bad arthritis since I was 17 yrs old because of injuries sustained that
day, and all because I exercized my right to choose and thought that I knew
better..

Incidentally, four states repealed helmet laws, and guess what?.. incidence
of death has increased.. .. a quote for you..

"NHTSA also found that motorcycle deaths rose significantly, from 2,483 in
1999 to 2,862 in 2000. It's the third straight year of higher motorcycle
fatalities after 17 years of declines. Motorcycle deaths reached a low point
in 1997. Since then, at least four states -- Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky and
Louisiana -- have repealed their mandatory helmet laws for adult drivers."

The bright side is that they were all martyrs to the cause of free choice..
that must comfort the relatives..

A quote of yours.. " Whole populations are capeable of being
deceived...given half of a picture for the purpose of making a case (I call
it purposful deception). It's human nature we're all suceptable to.".. I
will mention just two things here.. a victory needed for the purpose of
re-election, and WMD (or lack of)..

ABS braking takes some getting used to for sure, but not all ABS systems
perform as they should.. education is a key factor.. GM supplied video with
their abs equipped GMC Jimmy's, and they may still do it.. I saw a GMC Jimmy
on a used car lot recently.. the video had never been opened.. I guess the
previous owner was not about to be told how to do something..

 

Ah, you also (apparently) exercised your right to forgo body armor,
although depending on how old you are, it may not have been available
then.

Ted

 

You got to watch this, it's another example of how a study can be made to
lie.

If the study is saying that silver is more visible than black or other dark
color,
that is certainly true when you factor in night time accidents. However if
the study was adjusted to report if Silver was a better daytime or nighttime
color,
I think you would find no difference in accident rates when you subtract
accidents
that occur at night.

By contrast, DLR are supposed to reduce DAYTIME accidents. Assuming they
do, then considering that far more accidents take place during the day
(since more
cars are on the road) mandating DLR would save more lives in total than
mandating
silver cars.

A study said one time that chances of a car being in an accident when
driving
30Mph down a curvy road in the middle of an ice storm was nearly 100%.
So the logical recommendation made was to eliminate all curvy roads.

Ted

 

Toyota used to too. I don't know if they still do. My '91 tercel was
so equipped. The only things you didn't get without the switch was high
beams and dash illumination.

Dan

 

1970.. body armor?.. compulsory helmets?.. DRL's?..

 

That only works with loose road surfaces, like snow and gravel. Under
other conditions, ABS is better.

Maybe you are getting a bit of brain freeze, but slippery conditions
can occur when it is not snowing.

So basically what you are trying to say is that you are not smart enough
to turn on your lights when it is necessary? Maybe when you buy a car there
should be a simple test to see if you can figure out when it is appropriate
to turn on your lights. If you fail, you are stuck with DRL's. The rest
of us don't want to pay extra for unecessary crap.

 

"dgates-at-keller - no - space - engineering - dot - com" <"dgates-at-keller -
no - space - engineering - dot - com"> wrote in message
| James C. Reeves wrote:
| > | > |
| > | If you need DRL's you should have your low beam headlights
| > | on, so that your side and rear marker lights are illuminated.
| > | Or do you think you only need to be seen from the front?
| > |
| >
| > I agree and since the data statistically shows a increased rate of rear end
| > collision for DRL equipped vehicles suggests that your observation is even
more
| > important for those that want/need to use DRLs. As far as I know, Volvo is
the
| > only manufacturer that understands this fact and design's their DRL setups
to
| > include illumination of the side marker and tail lamps...or at least they
used
| > to.
| >
| >
| Toyota used to too. I don't know if they still do. My '91 tercel was
| so equipped. The only things you didn't get without the switch was high
| beams and dash illumination.
|
| Dan
|

Toyota is a interesting example here in the "States". At around the 2000 model
year they began putting mandatory DRLs on their line of cars/SUVs/trucks.
However, their implementation did not illuminate the tail/marker lamps like a
Volvo. For what ever reason Toyota apparently stopped doing it in 2002. A
couple of friends I know that buy Toyotas tell me that they only activate the
DRLs now when requested by the customer. In fact one friend has a 2000 Camry
that has DRLs and a 2002 Camry that doesn't. Does anyone know why Toyota would
reverse their mandatory DRL policy somewhere between 2000 and 2002? A article
I read a year or two ago may shed some light on it. In a interview with
Daimler execs, they basically said in the article that surveys of their
customer base was (overwhelmingly??) opposed to mandatory DRLs (at that time,
anyway). Maybe Toyota is/was listening to their customers? Hmmmm.....what a
radical idea! ;-) Hey GM! Are YOU listening?!

 

On the Toyota newsgroup they say that some of the new ones have
DRL/Off/Parking/Headlight on the switch. To me, that defeats the
purpose. The whole idea is not to see, but to be seen. I can't reach
over and switch on YOUR lights if I can't see YOU.

Dan

 

"dgates-at-keller - no - space - engineering - dot - com" <"dgates-at-keller -
no - space - engineering - dot - com"> wrote in message
|
| On the Toyota newsgroup they say that some of the new ones have
| DRL/Off/Parking/Headlight on the switch. To me, that defeats the
| purpose. The whole idea is not to see, but to be seen. I can't reach
| over and switch on YOUR lights if I can't see YOU.
|
| Dan
|

In the states, jurisdictional lighting laws charge the operator of said vehicle
as the one that is responsible for the proper operation of the vehicles lights
AND they typically clearly define the specific criteria for which they are
required to be on. To fail to comply invites a citation and fine. Nowhere in
any code that I have read has either the manufacturer OR "another driver" been
identified as being responsible for the operation of someone else's car lights.
Are we going the commie route here. The "state" knows best? This is crazy?

Now, if you can't see a car in broad daylight, there are some other significant
issues at play here. Thirty plus years of driving and I've never ever had that
problem. Why has seeing become such a big problem all of a sudden?

 

|
| As for the right of Government telling people what they
| can and can't do, some people need to be told,

Told, yes! Absolutely! Done for them, no!

| and by a body that can enforce action if
| necessary..

Yes, enforce, I agree.

|
|anarchy is the other option..
|

Anarchy is effectively controlled with proper law _enforcement_ (e.g. fines,
citations, penalties, jail, etc.) A state taking control away from it's
citizenry is NOT enforcement, it's the state taking control over your actions.
Sounds commie to me!

Tyranny is the where the road you're selecting ultimately leads to over time.
Beware of it or you will one day find yourself living under it.

 

| I doubt very much that there has been an increase in rear enders
| attributable to the intro of DRL's..

Denial of the data doesn't make the reality go away. You've yet to explain why
that statistic exists (just deny that it does)

| and the more motorcyles that exist on
| the road, the more likely one is to be involved in a wreck.. I was a victim
| of not being seen one time, before the intro of DRL's on motorcycles.. like
| the good citizen that I am/was. I exercized my right to not use lights in
| daylight.. the result was a trashed motorcycle, a car almost cut clean in
| half, two broken arms, two broken ribs, a broken leg.. I wish that somebody
| had taken the choice from me and switched my lights on.. I have suffered
| with bad arthritis since I was 17 yrs old because of injuries sustained that
| day, and all because I exercized my right to choose and thought that I knew
| better..

Then live in China. They will tell you what to do all you want, I'm sure.

|
| Incidentally, four states repealed helmet laws, and guess what?.. incidence
| of death has increased.

So what? People made a decision knowing the risk. Some paid a consequence.
That is how life is. One takes a risk crossing a street. Shall we outlaw
crossing a street? Of course not.

|
| "NHTSA also found that motorcycle deaths rose significantly, from 2,483 in
| 1999 to 2,862 in 2000. It's the third straight year of higher motorcycle
| fatalities after 17 years of declines. Motorcycle deaths reached a low point
| in 1997. Since then, at least four states -- Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky and
| Louisiana -- have repealed their mandatory helmet laws for adult drivers."

So...

Read the Perot & Prowler white paper for some real reasons.

|
| The bright side is that they were all martyrs to the cause of free choice..
| that must comfort the relatives..

A history lesson. Fill in the blank. The opposite of free choice is........
Does free choice come with a price, of course it can. The alternative is much
worse, history proves it.

|
| A quote of yours.. " Whole populations are capeable of being
| deceived...given half of a picture for the purpose of making a case (I call
| it purposful deception). It's human nature we're all suceptable to.".. I
| will mention just two things here.. a victory needed for the purpose of
| re-election, and WMD (or lack of)..

Perfect example.

|
| ABS braking takes some getting used to for sure, but not all ABS systems
| perform as they should.. education is a key factor.. GM supplied video with
| their abs equipped GMC Jimmy's, and they may still do it.. I saw a GMC Jimmy
| on a used car lot recently.. the video had never been opened.. I guess the
| previous owner was not about to be told how to do something..

It doesn't matter what you think of ABS IF some do-gooder legislator introduces
and gets a bill passed that makes them _mandatory_ ....you then no longer have
choice in the matter at that point.

Tell the thousands of petite women and children that were killed in small
fender benders by state mandated air bags (early implementations) that the
government knew best what they forced on them. Loss of life by ones own
actions is one thing...THEY decided, But when it occurs by the actions of some
regulator (albeit well meaning), it's quite another thing.

I was heart broken a few years ago over a news article. A 14 year old girl was
leaning over in order to tune in a baseball game on the radio for her dad who
was driving when the dad had a minor collision with a car in front of him.
Little damage occurred to either vehicle (the dad was driving a Caravan, I
think), but the deployment of the airbag broke the 14-year-old girl's neck and
killed her instantly. The article had about a dozen of these situations where
the airbag was clearly the cause of death or serious injury. Even with the new
generation airbags, these situations still occur, but with less frequency,
thankfully.

 

Bullshit.

Nobody pays for the ability of a person to get off his ass and walk around.
If that
person chooses to walk across a street thereby getting himself pasted across
a
bus, then it is his problem.

By contrast, we ALL pay a pretty significant amount of tax money in fuel and
general fund taxes to maintain the roads. Thus we ALL have the right to
have a
say in what goes on, on the roads.

If we ALL hold an election and the majority of people decide that you aren't
going to be allowed to ride your motorcycle around on the roads without a
helmet, then you have no right to do so. So you can stuff your helmet
rights
up your asshole, asshole. This is called a democracy.

Additionally, if we ALL hold an election and the majority of people elect a
representative who then goes and appoints a regulator who institutes airbags
on cars, why then guess what, this is what is called a "representative
democracy",
ie: a Republic, you know like the word Republican (your favorite word,
remember) and this just happens to be how the USA is governed, asshole, and
if you don't like it, move to China. I'm sure they probably hold as
divergent
views of republics and democracies as you do, you will get along fine.

If you happen to think the regulator is doing the wrong thing, then tell
your
representative to replace him. And if your representative doesen't do as
you
say, then don't vote for him.

And the fruit of ignorance - which you seem to have about governments in
abundance - is subjugation by tyrants. THAT is the lesson of history.

You can argue all you want about why we should ban helmet laws or DLR's or
whatever. Good. Opposing points of view are critical to fighting
ignorance.

But don't ever question the right of the government - meaning you, me, and
all
of us - to dictate what the rules of use of the public roads are. You seem
to
have a real problem with understanding that there is no right to drive in
this
country.

No, frankly it isn't. People rarely have much choice in the options of
making
fatal mistakes these days - there's so much out there beyond our control. A
moments
inattention and a person can step off the curb and be killed by a bus. I
know
it's probably important to your self image to believe that you have some
control
over your life, but you really don't. You could eat a hamburger tomorrow
and
contract Mad Cow Disease and be dead in a year. Life is dangerous.

Might be that the dad was so interested in the ballgame that he wasn't
paying attention
and thus caused the collision. Of course, if that was the truth your never
going to see
it in the newspaper - even the most cynical reporter or editor isn't going
to speak ill
of a father who loses his 14 year old daughter in an accident that could
happen to anyone,
where no obvious signs of reckless driving were present.

From another (possibly more or less cynical) viewpoint, I feel compelled to
point out
that the potential always exists that any new auto safety improvement will
cause harm to
some class of people. Certainly there were some infants killed because
their car seats
were in the front passenger seats and the airbag deployed. And when seat
belts were
introduced plenty of stories circulated about how someone was killed because
their
car drove over a cliff into a river and they couldn't get unbuckled in time
to swim
to safety.

The question though is not whether some 14 year old girl gets killed by an
air bag.
After all, check your owners manual and check any child safety expert, they
will
tell you that children belong in the back seat. The 14 year old girl wasn't
supposed
to be in the front passenger seat to begin with. The question is, did the
introduction
of air bags save more lives IN TOTAL than by not introducing them? And I
think
you will find that they have. Unfortunately, this is probably because too
many people
still do not use their seat belts, thus the airbags save their lives when
otherwise they
would die - so you probably could make an argument that airbags interfere
with
the laws of Natural Selection and it's better for the rest of us if we
continue to let
the idiots get killed off in car wrecks - but thankfully safety mandates
aren't made
on this basis.

And when it is shown that a new safety improvement harms some group of
people,
why then you modify it to correct the fault and move forward. Yes, perhaps
someone
or some people will die to find out there's a fault. But their deaths will
save the
lives of many more people.

It is very sad, but at one time people were willing to sacrifice themselves
for the
good of humanity. I guess that overpopulation has so cheapened life that
today
people view other people as nothing more than a nuisance, and wouldn't lift
a
finger for them.

Ted

 

Well, MERRY FREAKIN' CHRISTMAS TO YOU, TED!! 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

|
| Bullshit.

Merry Christmas!

|
| Nobody pays for the ability of a person to get off his
| ass and walk around. If that person chooses to walk
| across a street thereby getting himself pasted across
| a bus, then it is his problem.

I agree, it is his problem. You don't pay for public sidewalks and "walk/don't
walk" signals or the road he's crossing where you live? Why the two
standards?

|
| By contrast, we ALL pay a pretty significant amount of
| tax money in fuel and general fund taxes to maintain
| the roads. Thus we ALL have the right to
| have a say in what goes on, on the roads.

I agree...what goes on "on the roads". (a.k.a. "Rules of the Road") No
problem here.

|
| If we ALL hold an election and the majority of people
| decide that you aren't going to be allowed to ride
| your motorcycle around on the roads without a
| helmet, then you have no right to do so. So
| you can stuff your helmet rights up your
| asshole, asshole. This is called a democracy.

I agree that if the law exists, one must comply with it. I disagree that the
law should exist. (I especially disagree with the part about me being a
asshole) <g> BTW: I don't have a helmet to try your suggestion...sorry. You
must have forgotten. ;-) Actually, I don't have a motorcycle. If I did, I'd
personally choose to wear a helmet.

|
| Additionally, if we ALL hold an election and the
| majority of people elect a representative who then
| goes and appoints a regulator who institutes airbags
| on cars, why then guess what, this is what is
| called a "representative democracy",

I agree the law can be passed (obviously). I disagree that it should be
though. Who is liable for the unnecessary deaths caused by such action,
however?

| ie: a Republic, you know like the word Republican (your
| favorite word, remember)

Where did I say that?

| and this just happens to be how the USA is governed,
| asshole,

You like that "asshole" word, don't you. How does it add value to the
discussion other than unnecessarily cheapening your very good discussion
points?

| and if you don't like it, move to China.
| I'm sure they probably hold as divergent
| views of republics and democracies as you do,
| you will get along fine.

We're already moving slowly in the direction of how things are done in China.
Then where do we go?

|
| If you happen to think the regulator is doing the
| wrong thing, then tell your representative to
| replace him. And if your representative doesen't do as
| you say, then don't vote for him.

I agree. I'm fairly active in using opportunities in making public comment and
always vote. So, right there with you. Somebody has to balance out the
Saddam control freaks like you out there!

|
| >
| > A history lesson. Fill in the blank. The opposite of free
| choice is........
| > Does free choice come with a price, of course it can.
| > The alternative is much worse, history proves it.
|
|
| And the fruit of ignorance - which you seem to have about governments in
| abundance - is subjugation by tyrants. THAT is the lesson of history.

I agree. We're in the process of being subjugated, perhaps not yet by
"tyrants", but the groundwork is being put in place should that eventuality
ever occur....the acceptance of subjugation by the citizenry in the name of
"laws for their own good" is a start. (which is the normal 1st step in such a
process...numb the populace in preparation using false pretenses).

|
| You can argue all you want about why we should ban helmet
| laws or DLR's or whatever. Good. Opposing points of
| view are critical to fighting ignorance.

I agree. Good discussion to that end. I'm sure we won't change each others
minds though. I do understand your points however, I just don't agree
with them.

|
| But don't ever question the right of the government - meaning
| you, me, and all of us - to dictate what the rules of use of
| the public roads are. You seem to have a real problem with
| understanding that there is no right to drive in this
| country.

I have no problem with laws dictating "rules of the road". (i.e. traffic
laws...speed, rules of turning, obeying stop signs, when lights are required,
etc.) I've said that repeadedly. I think this discussion is really about who
has what role in the process and who should decide _what_ is required to be
regulated.

Governments _should_ make laws and enforce those laws through citations, fines.
etc. Laws about stopping at red lights/stop signs, safe speeds, maximum
consecutive driving hours, what weather conditions require lights, etc.

The Citizenry (and ONLY the citzenry) is charged with compliance with said
laws. If they don't comply, face some sort of consequence (fine, points, jail,
whatever). No problem at all with that.

However, laws telling somebody to wear a helmet is well beyond anything that
resembles what would be considered a traffic law (how you are to drive and
correspond with your fellow drivers, signs and signals). Wearing or not
wearing a helmet effects nothing in regards to "rules of the road".

As I said before, the citizen must have free choice on _how_ to comply NOT the
government mandating how to comply. Using a DRL law as an example, the citizen
should choose for themselves if they want a automatic system or a manual one
(or a combination). After all THEY will be the one to get the ticket for not
complying. If you have ever belonged to a astrology club, you will understand
how difficult it is to get to a astrology site in a GM vehicle since the
ediquette is to arrive with lights off so not to obcure the other star gaizers.
In my personal case, my headlights shine into the bedrooms of family members
when I arrive home late and turn into the driveway...I choose to cut my lights
before I turn in so not to wake my family...one can't do that in a GM car (but
I can in my 2004 Chrysler Sebring...thank goodness!). There are many real
world examples where one may need to operate a car without the lights on.
Other examples. One post over a alt.autos.gm...a owner of a Impala wanted to
watch a drive in movie on a hot night with the air conditioner running, he
couldn't turn his lights out...the switch did nothing...he was told to leave.
Another is just driving through Christmas light displays this time of
year...how rude to shine headlights/DRLs on the displays (and even more rude to
not have a ability to turn them out). The owner, weather they like DRLs or
not, _should_ be able to turn them off when ever they are in a situation where
that would be appropriate.

|
| >
| > Tell the thousands of petite women and children that were
| > killed in small fender benders by state mandated air
| > bags (early implementations) that the government
| > knew best what they forced on them. Loss of life
| > by ones own actions is one thing...THEY decided,
| > But when it occurs by the actions of some regulator
| > (albeit well meaning), it's quite another thing.
| >
|
| No, frankly it isn't. People rarely have much choice in
| the options of making fatal mistakes these days -
| there's so much out there beyond our control. A
| moments inattention and a person can step off
| the curb and be killed by a bus. I know it's probably
| important to your self image to believe that you have
| some control over your life, but you really don't.
| You could eat a hamburger tomorrow and contract
| Mad Cow Disease and be dead in a year. Life is dangerous.

Exactly. So, you want to add to this excellent list of examples even more
things that the government has made that would also be out of your control (and
possibly dangerious)? These items of yours, for the most part, are laws of
nature and natural consequence and are understandable as things that happen.
You've been eating hamburgers recently, haven't you?!

|
| > I was heart broken a few years ago over a news article.
| > A 14 year old girl was leaning over in order to tune in
| > a baseball game on the radio for her dad who
| > was driving when the dad had a minor collision with a
| > car in front of him. Little damage occurred to either
| > vehicle (the dad was driving a Caravan, I think), but
| > the deployment of the airbag broke the 14-year-old girl's
| > neck and killed her instantly.
|
| Might be that the dad was so interested in the ballgame
| that he wasn't paying attention and thus caused the
| collision. Of course, if that was the truth your never
| going to see it in the newspaper -

Yes it did mention it, the dad was "helping" to find the station...looked down
at the frequency display for a moment. How is that relivant? The accident
occured via human nature...a moment of inattentiveness (we all have them),
death occured by mandatory government requirement by design that would not have
occured otherwise in that situation.

| even the most cynical reporter or editor isn't going
| to speak ill of a father who loses his 14 year old
| daughter in an accident that could happen to anyone,
| where no obvious signs of reckless driving were present.

See previous...dad's action was contributory.

|
| From another (possibly more or less cynical) viewpoint,
| I feel compelled to point out that the potential always
| exists that any new auto safety improvement will
| cause harm to some class of people. Certainly there
| were some infants killed because their car seats
| were in the front passenger seats and the airbag
| deployed. And when seat belts were introduced
| plenty of stories circulated about how someone
| was killed because their car drove over a cliff into
| a river and they couldn't get unbuckled in time
| to swim to safety.

All good points. That is why the citizen should choose what cost benefit THEY
are most comfortable with and me allowed to make the choice _freely_.

|
| The question though is not whether some 14 year old girl
| gets killed by an air bag. After all, check your owners
| manual and check any child safety expert, they
| will tell you that children belong in the back seat.

That suggestion didn't exist back then. No warning signs in those days that
air bags killed certain people or under what circumstances the deaths occured.
The citizens were told it made everyone safer, which was only half truth
(typical..same situation with this phase of the DRL experiment).

| The 14 year old girl wasn't supposed to be
| in the front passenger seat to begin with.

We know that now...no one was saying that then. No annoying prominent warnings
on the sun visors back then either.

| The question is, did the introduction of air bags save more
| lives IN TOTAL than by not introducing them?

Yes they have...no doubt about it. That isn't really the topic. Many average
sized males were saved at the expense of a few petite women and children. A
trade off, I suppose. But a moral delemma, wouldn't you agree? As stated
before, _everything_ has some pro/con aspect to them. Benefit here, added risk
there. But again, THAT decision belongs with the individual. It has nothing
to so with "rules of the road"...stopping at stop signs, etc. In the case of
air bags, I would personally choose to use them, a petite woman that works for
me would choose not to (for good reason)

| And I think you will find that they have.

Yes, definately saved more people then they have killed. Some groups
benefited, others lost. However, if you're a small petite woman, you have
resoonable cause for real concern (yes even today). I have a very small woman
that works for me that sits 3" from her steering wheel in her Accord...she is
more afraid of the air bag than anything else. In that case _she_ should be
able to decide to turn the air bag off for her own piece of mind. Does that
not make perfect sense to you?


| Unfortunately, this is probably because too
| many people still do not use their seat belts,
| thus the airbags save their lives when
| otherwise they would die - so you probably
| could make an argument that airbags interfere
| with the laws of Natural Selection and it's better
| for the rest of us if we continue to let
| the idiots get killed off in car wrecks - but
| thankfully safety mandates aren't made
| on this basis.

A silly premise of allowing natural selection to occur, frankly. I've just
given a example where choice is beneficial (for the petite woman driver).
Studies show that air bags are not very effective when not buckled in...both
restraint systems work best together anyway.

| And when it is shown that a new safety improvement
| harms some group of people, why then you modify it
| to correct the fault and move forward.

Regarding air bags? When will the fault be "corrected"? Do you know? It's
only been improved...there is still a relatively significant risk to petite
women and children even today (thus the warnings you mention). Now if somehow
you could find a way for petite women to drive from the back seat, all will be
perfect, I suppose?!

| Yes, perhaps someone or some people will die
| to find out there's a fault. But their deaths will save the
| lives of many more people.

So there is a situation in your mind where it's okay that some must die
unnecessarily (that wouldn't have othewise died) in order to save others. If
you can live with being the one that makes that decision, knock yourself out.
I think people should choose for themselves if they want to participate in
experiments. My personal choice would be to use crash dummies or other
technologies to find out and _know_ in no uncertain terms how effective a so
called safety device is _before_ experimenting on the general population. IF
this had been done, a properly designed DRL would have been developed that
would perform better and more efficiently then the cost saving crap that is out
ther now. Did you know that Canada actually had a reasonable good DRL standard
under consideration until the GM lobby talked them into going on-the-cheap with
what we have on the road today?

| It is very sad, but at one time people were willing
| to sacrifice themselves for the good of humanity.
| I guess that overpopulation has so cheapened
| life that today people view other people as nothing
| more than a nuisance, and wouldn't lift a finger for them.

I hope that isn't true. But, you suggest we force said experiments on the
population against their will instead? That may explain this dynamic you
mention, actually. We have examples of people today "sacrificing themselves"
for the rest of us. I don' t think your observation is a correct on in a
general sense.