Hoopla over DRL

Don't blame the US for this one. Sure, Canada could mandate that. Would GM
file a lawsuit? Probably. Would they WIN a lawsuit? That is not at all
for certain.

If all the regulations changes that Canada mandated were backed up by
supportable,
repeatable studies - not just one single study that was done 5 years ago in
Europe - the chances of a restraint of trade lawsuit prevailing would be far
lower than you make it out to be. Not to mention the political implications
being extremely serious. Imagine for example if GM were to file this
lawsuit and Chrysler were to file a brief supporting Canada then start
advertising that their vehicles are safer than GM vehicles. Get a few
others involved like Ralph Nader and when GM sees their sales affected, that
lawsuit would get settled out of court quicker than grapes through a goose.

You have to understand that in the US, the THREAT of a lawsuit is used much
more than the actual lawsuit is. Just about everyone will claim they are
going to sue your ass if you do something they don't like - but if you go
ahead and do it anyway, most people won't end up filing. This is how the US
culture reacts to things it doesen't like - a lot of bluster and talk, very
little actual doing anything except for trying to propagandize the mob in
the street.

If Canada really wanted Amber turn signals all they have to do is mandate
those plus about 5 other safety improvements. If GM sues, then they settle
out of court and agree to only mandate the Amber turn signals. Then 5 years
later Canada does the same thing again, and settles out of court again.
Little by little all the stuff that Canada wanted would eventually get
implemented, because as you pointed out all the automakers would have to do
is change the US regulations to match, to have a single inventory. And
since the US regulators are basically in the pockets of the automakers, that
wouldn't be too difficult.

That is how politics/business works in the United States. Sorry that you
don't like it, but once you understand it, it is quite possible to get
things done. Many other people have got a lot more serious safety
improvements forced into law down here than amber turn signals, just by
playing the game. If Canada regulators don't want to play the game then
they only have themselves to blame for it.

Ted

 

I can and I do. There are additional factors at work that I cannot post in
public because they are confidential. Suffice to say I know more than you
do on this particular matter.

 

Sorry! thought you were serious!

 

You should check out alt.conspiracy.jfk since you seem to think that people
should believe you just because you claim to have some secret knowledge.

That "I cannot post in public because they are confidential. Suffice to say
I know more than you do on this particular matter" is pretty big with the
conspiracy theorists on that group. Believe it or not, the lone-nutters
find that argument quite hilarious.

I wonder why?

 

You mean the secret deal where the Canada regulators agreed to forgo
mandating amber turn signals in exchange for some other thing?

Yeah, Dan, I may not know the exact details of what your talking about but
I know politics. Canadian regulators have the power to mandate safety
regulations. They are only going to give up that power in exchange for
getting
something else that they want. Quite obviously in this situation if the
Canadian
regulators have given up the authority to mandate amber turns - as you
claim -
then there was some payback. Quite obviously somebody
got something they wanted in Canada in exchange for not causing trouble.

The US is of course going to do what is best for the US manufacturers who
finance the various political campaigns of the US politicians. In this case
the
proposed Canadian regulations would cost some of these US manufacturers
money. So they are going to threaten and fight against them. That is what
countries
do and all countries act in this manner. You even have subgroups within
Canada
- like the French - who do the same thing, by forcing idiot laws through
that
require signs in English to have the same thing in French in letters twice
as
big, although nobody there speaks French.

But it is still your countries choice whether they are going to fight
against this
or not. In the case of the crazies in Quebec, apparently the rest of Canada
has
decided it's not worth fighting them. In the case of vehicle safety
regulations,
apparently Canada has decided it isn't important enough to fight with the US
about. But, just because they decided not to fight, doesen't mean that the
US
won and they lost, like your trying to make it out to be. They - you -
still
decided not to fight over it. Until your country decides to make a stink
about it and fight over it - and I haven't read diddly squat in the
newspapers
about US threatening trade sanctions against Canada because the Canadians
are requiring vehicles to be made safer - it's your fault that your rolling
over
and playing dead, not ours.

Ted

 

That's only a problem where DRLs are not mandatory. Where they are, then
there is no distraction issue. As to sun angles, the height of the sun in
Summer in most of the heavily populated areas of Canada is far higher than
the height of the winter sun even in the deep South, so I don't think that
matters.

 

You talk like this is the FIRST time a DRL thread has stirred up the
whole place! Far from it...

 

FWIW, there was a blurb in the paper over the weekend saying that
DaimlerChrysler sales were up by something like a factor of 3 over this
time last year. ALL of the gain was in the North American arm
(Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep) of the company.

If this keeps up, maybe they'll drop the "Daimler" half of the name- its
draggin' us down, after all.

 

|
| That's only a problem where DRLs are not mandatory. Where they
| are, then there is no distraction issue.

If your statement is true, by definition then DRLs provide no added benefit
once all vehicles are outfitted with them.

| As to sun angles, the height of the sun in
| Summer in most of the heavily populated areas
| of Canada is far higher than the height of the
| winter sun even in the deep South, so I don't
| think that matters.
|

Perhaps only if comparing Canadian summers to US winters...how is that
relevant? Even in Finland (or maybe it was Sweden...I forget which), initial
DRL laws required them only during the winter months.

 

The Canadian softwood lumber industry and the beef industry just end
up paying for it in the end. American politicians, for all their
inefectual blustering, ARE the schoolyard bullys. They DO extract
their "pound of flesh" in revenge - one way or the other.
There is no such thing as an "equal partership" between a Chimpanzee
and a lowland gorilla. (or an elephant and a mouse)

 

Canada is like a Possum on the road. They can lie at the side of the
road and play dead, or they can come out fighting - and BE dead. The
American (US) economy is in the order of TEN times the size of
Canada's. Mabee even a lot more than that.
Their "bully factor" is significantly higher than that, and if push
comes to shove, what is the castrated Canadian military going to do
against the US?
Think back to the AVRO ARROW. Canada WAS at the head of the class in
aerospace engineering, and the US would have none of that, so they
blackmailed Canada into destroying the entire project, with promises
of Canadian involvement in NASA and the space race.