One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

Someone did the calculation that I've always wanted to see. The result
is about what I would have guessed:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm


There are enough approximations in there that the final answer could be
wrong by a factor of two in either direction, but the order of magnitude
is absolutely correct.

Mandatory daytime running lights on all vehicles in the US would consume
~400 MILLION additional gallons of gasoline, add ~8 BILLION additional
pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere and cost drivers ~600 MILLION dollars
in extra fuel EVERY YEAR. Think about it, even if those numbers are
twice the real value because of the approximations made. Scary, isn't it?

 

Er...Steve? Your original subject line read "One reason DRLs shouldn't be
opposed". It looks to me as if you meant to type "One reason DRLs
shouldn't be mandatory" or "One reason DRLs should be opposed", so I took
the liberty of changing it.

 

I'm an idiot behind a keyboard. I started to title the thread "why DRLS
shouldn't be encouraged" and then meant to change it to "why DRLS should
be opposed." The meaning got reversed in translation.

 

Maybe ARL has a grant from Exxon?

 

Naw, Steve, like all conservative Texans, is in the back pocket of big
oil!!!



--Geoff

 

Man, what a load!

 

If DRL's save one family from being hit head-on, how much is THAT worth?

 

Still nothing.

 

Got anything to refute it?

 

Not really. Not all DRLs are headlights, my Camaro uses the turn signal
bulbs for example, and I know some vehicles use LEDs. Besides, most
people don't mind wasting gas, just look at all the SUV drivers...
Ulf

 

Another illustration of yankee values these days..

 

It is worth exactly $29.32.

 

It's an unpleasant fact, but a fact nonetheless: There is a price on every
citizen's life. Every safety regulation has a cost/benefit ratio, and "If
it saves just one life..." is NOT the standard applied -- not even close.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a dollar figure per
life saved, below which a safety device cannot be mandated because it
fails the agency's internal cost-effectiveness requirements. Sometimes
this requirement is waived for extrinsic (e.g. political) reasons -- an
example would be the US airbag mandate, which even using the *highest*
estimates of lives saved and the *lowest* estimates of costs imposed fails
the standard miserably. But other than that, the answer to your implied
question is "No". All-or-nothing illogic like yours ("If it saves just one
life", "Zero tolerance", etc.) is untenable and unworkable in the real
world.

DS

 

I'd say the need to pose the question of DRLs in the first place is a much
better illustration of yankee values these days: swaddle citizens in
ever-increasing regulations so that nobody need take responsibility for
his own actions and their effect on others' safety. In conditions of
compromised visibility, turn your lights on! It's really that simple.

DS

 

A REAL unpleasant fact if that family happens to be yours.

Arthur

 

Defending 'values', the last refuge of the scoundrel.

 

Hasnt word reached Canada yet that it is idiotic to top-post?

 

Probably not enough to offset the shortened lifespans of everyone
breathing the excess pollutants produced because of DRLS. Nevermind the
fuel cost.

But that doesn't even really matter. Everything we do every day entails
risks- its all about managing cost and risk. What if the PRESENCE of
DRL's cause another family to run off the road because the driver is
blinded or distracted by glare?

Dan's already expounded on the fact that "just one life saved..." or
"think of the children!!" isn't a valid reason for mandating an
engineering change, so I'll not repeat it.

 

it?

Can these be legally disconnected in Canada?

 

The problem with your position is that it assumes DRLs can only improve
safety -- in every single case -- and that they lack the potential for
detrimental effects on safety -- in even one case. Since that's not how
DRLs work (or anything else for that matter), your argument's veracity is
null.