One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

Yeah! Believe those stupid laws of physics and simple arithmetic if you
want to, but it's stupid! Rick Blaine's arbitrary notion of what's
significant and what isn't, now *there's* good science.

Pffft.

 

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act (which contains all of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) is indeed so written.

Tinted glass supplied by the vehicle's manufacturer in compliance with
applicable FMVSS provisions is legal in every state, simply because no
state has the authority to rule otherwise.

*AFTERMARKET* tinting (lights, tires, and all other items of motor vehicle
equipment) are not regulated by Federal standards and are under the
jurisdiction of each state.

DS

 

All car taillamps are much easier to see -- rain or not -- when they're
turned on than when they're left off.

 

Er...no. DRLs are *NOT* enough in rain, at dusk or at dawn. All of those
situations call for low beam headlamps with parkers, tails and markers.

 

"> Yeah! Believe those stupid laws of physics and simple arithmetic if you

Whose questioning the laws of physics? Try not to be an ass Dan. I
question the accuracy of the formula.

 

| James C. Reeves wrote:
| >
| > So, with that, I think the real issue (as of right now) is that there is a
| > significant consumer backlash against DRLs and it is growing over time.
Even
| > current non-GM customers that might be "would-be customers" are often found
to
| > be "annoyed" by DRLs, especially some of GM's high beam implementations, in
| > particular. Additionally, enough time has passed where real-world long
term
| > insurance data is available. From what my insurance company has told me,
their
| > "loss data" has not shown any apparent benefit of DRLs in actually reducing
| > "loss" and some of the more recent studies that have been done by truly
| > independent entities (not GM puppet entities) have been largely
inconclusive.
| > Other studies (on file with the NHTSA) tie DRLs to safety negative issues.
| > Over time the customer has become more educated over the issue and most
simply
| > don't want DRLs any more (if most ever did). Result? GM is loosing sales
| > because of it and they know it.
|
| I doubt it. The vast majority of buyers are fucking clueless. A lot of idiots
| who own vehicles with fog lights run them not only on clear nights, but
during the
| day too. And you expect them to dislike DRLs? I bet they love them!

Any time the NGTSA has requested public comment, the vast majority (probably 8
to 1 or higher) against them. So I disagree. Also, the majority of driver
use their lights properly (more or less) it's only a few that don't, in my
opinion.

 

Now you went and spoiled it for Brian.

 

| >
| > Yes, but if you have DRLs you don't have to turn on the headlights as
| > often. My DRLs consume 54W (2x27W) while the head, parking, tail, side
| > marker, and interior lights together consume over 150W. This means that
| > if I drive a lot in rain, dusk, dawn, and other situations where DRLs
| > are enough I might even save gas.
| >
|
| Aha! So you're one of the fuckwits driving around in the rain with no
| lights on! Turn the fucking lights ON before I rear end you!!!!!!
| ARGH!!!!

....and that is one of the accident categories (rear end collisions) that is
several studies have shown statistically occurs more frequently with cars
equipped with DRLs vs. cars that are not. Now we know why!

 

btw, I apologize for the profanity in my post earlier. that was
uncalled for, I just couldn't believe someone actually admitted that
they drive around in poor visibility with only their DRL's on. I
couldn't ask for better reinforcement for my belief that not only DRL's
are a waste of money, but possibly dangerous if used improperly.

I DO drive with my lights on when driving on undivided highways because
it does increase visibility for oncoming traffic, but I still fail to
see the need for lights in bumper to bumper rush hour traffic...

Ray

 

| James C. Reeves wrote:
| > | >
| > | > Yes, but if you have DRLs you don't have to turn on the headlights as
| > | > often. My DRLs consume 54W (2x27W) while the head, parking, tail, side
| > | > marker, and interior lights together consume over 150W. This means that
| > | > if I drive a lot in rain, dusk, dawn, and other situations where DRLs
| > | > are enough I might even save gas.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Aha! So you're one of the ***** driving around in the rain with no
| > | lights on! Turn the ***** lights ON before I rear end you!!!!!!
| > | ARGH!!!!
| >
| > ...and that is one of the accident categories (rear end collisions) that is
| > several studies have shown statistically occurs more frequently with cars
| > equipped with DRLs vs. cars that are not. Now we know why!
| >
| >
|
| btw, I apologize for the profanity in my post earlier. that was
| uncalled for, I just couldn't believe someone actually admitted that
| they drive around in poor visibility with only their DRL's on. I
| couldn't ask for better reinforcement for my belief that not only DRL's
| are a waste of money, but possibly dangerous if used improperly.

Not a problem, don't think twice about it.
As Dick Cheney said, you only said what others were thinking! ;-)

|
| I DO drive with my lights on when driving on undivided highways because
| it does increase visibility for oncoming traffic,

I will look for the links, but you may be interested in studies done by the
state of Wisconsin in the late 1980's and, more recently the state of
Washington. Both were regarding accident rates on sections of undivided
highways in their states before and after they posted "lights on for safety".
Hint, the accident rate remained unchanged. Now the caveat is that they stated
that the couldn't determine what percentage of drivers complied with the
request on the signs. Even in that situation, it's possible that DRLs don't do
as claimed either.

I was recently in Pennsylvania where they have a state law requireing lights on
in construction zones. We drove through a few construction zones and the
lights-on law was clearly posted on signs. However, I saw only a few people
(that didn't have DRLs anyway) complying with that law.

| but I still fail to see the need for lights in bumper to
| bumper rush hour traffic...
|

Me either. It's particularly annoying if the vehicle stuck behind you is a
truck with high-mounted DRLs shining directly into your rear-view mirror. At
least a close-following car's DRLs are below the trunk lid, so not focusing a
intense spot onto your mirror.

 

Careful, Bill, you're running dangerously close to crashing into the big
eco-greenie argument for electric cars: why, by just moving all the energy
generation to centralized locations, we can control emissions that much more
easily! So why should 3-400 (useless) computer watts be a problem for the
environment? The greenie weenies seem to think that the nations electric
distribution infrastructure can handle thousands of times that much
additional load when we get past our foolish love affair with owning
infernal combustion engines and get smart and downsize everything to 1500lb
electric shoeboxes on wheels! (Remember the 2003 blackout? I do. *Suuure*
it can handle the additional load!)

As Dan is fond of saying: Pffft.

Oh, and by the way, *my* computers don't sit idle all day--some are doing
SETI@Home (www.setiathome.berkeley.edu) , and the others are displaying my
hundreds of Mopar pics as screensavers.

--Geoff

 

You know, Bill, I'm all for the profligate, conspicuous, excessive
consumption of fuel and energy. The bigger and faster it is, the better I
like it. I like my A/C ice cold, my windshield and backlight *perfectly*
defrosted in the winter (I won't drive a car with a spec of snow on it) and
I use my windshield wipers with wanton disregard as soon as I've got a spot
of dirt on the glass. There isn't a freeway ramp in town I have had
occasion to use that I haven't done so using at least 75% throttle. If I
ever got my hands on a car that had an engine block heater, I'd be dumping
500 watts into my motor oil two hours before I was scheduled to leave the
house on a cold morning. I heat and cool my house the same way, and I use
the dishwasher like there's no tomorrow. I've got a spare refrigerator in
my garage just for beer, and that space is separately heated when I have
occasion to work out there from November through April. My computers spend
their free time calculating fast fourier transforms on static (static!) just
on the odd chance that there's little green men out there broadcasting their
equivalent of The Honeymooners to us.

All that being said, DRLs are still a dumb, bad idea that I wish would die!
die! die!



Curiously, I don't mind fog lamps. (ducking...running...)

--Geoff

 

I hope you are right.

I dont know.

It seems to me that the majority of those who have vehicles equipped with
fog lights use them all the time. Probably they think it is safer. The
same stupid philosophy that's behind DRLs.

 

You are.

....without telling us what you find inaccurate or providing an alternate
formula. IOW, you've made up your mind and don't wish to be pestered with
facts.

 

I live in Winnipeg, so it's cold and wintry 6 months of the year, so
running with your lights on is a good idea - it's often "not quite dark
enough to NEED headlights" weather. We have a lot of 2 lane highways
out here as well... but I don't think it needs to be mandatory... I
disabled the DRL's on my cars, but I put the lights on when they should
be on....

Ray

 

...without telling us what you find inaccurate or providing an alternate

And you accept it without question. Without knowing who wrote it or why.
It is not fact, it is at best an approximation.

 

You may have heard of Aristotle. He said,

"It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of
precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness
when only an approximation of the truth is possible."

You don't even approximate the truth, and dumb ol' Aristotle predated you
by at least 2000 years. Of course, you're at least 2000 years smarter,
right?

 

I love your sense of humor mixed in with a dose of truth!

--
_______________________________________
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is
like an eggs-and-ham breakfast:
The chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."

http://community.webshots.com/user/godwino

 

It doesn't matter who wrote it or why -- the math is correct whether it
was written by Citizens to Eliminate DRLs from the Face of the Earth or
Coalition to Install DRLs on Every Car Everywhere. Likewise, I accept a
statement that 2+2=4 whether issued by a Democrat or a Republican.

Yes, the point is that the *order of magnitude* is correct. Their
calculation comes up with a result of 406,000,000 gallons of gasoline per
year. Their approximations and assumptions aren't hidden; they're right
there for everyone to see and independently confirm, and none of them is
particularly questionable. It doesn't matter if the real figure is
300,000,000 gallons or 600,000,000 gallons -- the *order of magnitude* is
correct, which means the real answer isn't 500 gallons or 5,000,000,000
gallons.

Suggest you read this message three or four times -- slowly -- to let this
basic mathematic concept seep into your brain.

 

Suggest you read this message three or four times -- slowly -- to let this

I have no problem with basic math, I just don't accept dubious formula's
written by who knows who. I think you will believe anything if it supports
your position. I am not as naive.