One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

While I respect your opinions on lighting, you are incorrect here.
Arrogance in the service of the truth can amuse or impress; otherwise
it only annoys, and that is the case with your completely incorrect
ideas concerning this issue.

It is plain human nature to read things in a certain order. You may have
noticed that every interview you have ever read places the answer to a
question after that question.

USENET is an extended human conversation, not a series of scrawlings on
a bathroom door. Nobody enjoys someone who insists on talking over his
conversational companions. Top-posting is a sign of:

* ego, because one assumes that everyone has such an interest in this
topic that they do not need the guidance of correct posting;

* rudeness, because it is annoying for your reader to correlate
statement and response when they are out of order;

* hubris, because it demonstrates that the top-poster feels himself
to be above the common standards painstaking laid down through more
than a decade of trial and error.

While you are I have both been on USENET much longer than most, neither
of us are yet "above the law". I suggest you reconsider your attitude.

 

That the top-vs-bottom posting debate continues is prima facie evidence
that yours is not the only correct position on the matter. There are
situations in which top-posting is the most appropriate, situations in
which bottom-posting is the most appropriate, and situations in which
interspersed comments are the most appropriate. Your assertion that
top-posting is always bad and that any opinion that differs from your own
is "completely incorrect" is puerile, childish and untenable, if for no
other reason than nobody forces anyone to read anything on Usenet. If you
dislike top-posts, skip them. Haughtily insisting that everyone conform to
your idea of what constitutes "correct" posting form on Usenet is an
exercise that can be ranked in efficacy and purpose somewhere between
pissing into the wind and herding cats.

 

There is no "law" against top-posting. And usenet, since you seem to want
to play Netcop, is not an acronym and therefore is not properly written in
all-caps. I will not conform to your arbitrary standard of usenet
rectitude; if you don't like it, skip my posts.

 

You know, Dan, if you did the right thing (bottom-posted) you would
have read my whole post in a single sitting and would not have had to
make two top-posts on the subject.

Naturally I'll continue to read your posts, no matter how poorly or
inconsiderately you compose them; when you are not accidentally
deconstructing your positions, you are one of my favorite
U[sS][eE][nN][eE][tT] personalities. Who else could get so worked up
about ATF - when the ATF in question is a fluid, not a government
agency? Who else would admit on a public forum that they deliberately
attempt to blind people with their headlights because they disapprove
of the other person's driving style? Who else is still fighting the
Pinto battle with Ford, thirty years later, in the manner of an
elderly, abandoned Japanese soldier in a lost Iwo Jima cave, waiting
for the emperor to arrive and declare victory? Shine on, you crazy
diamond!

 

| > 400,000,000 gallons of wasted fuel per year is peanuts? How many people
could
| > drive using 400,000,000 gallons of gas per year? Using you own
calculations of
| > 587 gallons used per vehicle on average...DRL's equate to having an
additional
| > 683,760 more cars on the road.
|
| No, you're not figuring that right, please read it again: 585 gallons
| are used per vehicle on average WITHOUT DRLs, 587 WITH DRLs. It's
| only 2 gallons per vehicle per year that DRLs cost.

This is really very elementary math. Let's try this again. The number is
correct...400,000,000 gallons of fuel saved per year would be like taking
683,760 cars off the road at 585 gallons per vehicle per year (the number at
587 gallons per year would be 681,431...which is not the result I quoted). So,
I used the right total cars off the road number in the calculation, but quoted
the wrong per vehicle fuel use number.

Now, you can do this simple equasion yourself, I'm sure. Take the total fuel
saved by eliminating DRLs (400,000,000) and divide that number by your average
annual fuel consumption per vehicle (585 gallons). Let us know what answer you
get. I bet it matches mine.

| Fill your tires properly and instead of saving .07 MPG (which DRLs
| cost), you can save 0.65 MPG, 9 times the amount. Turn off your AC
| and you'll could save 2-4 MPG, approx 50 times the amount of what DRLs
| cost.

Naturally, and I have the ability to do just that. The point is I can inflate
my tires when required (I check them weekly), I can turn off my AC, I can
remove my roof rack (and I have), I can combine trips (and I typically do), I
can drive the speed limit (or less), etc. If I have a GM car, I can't turn off
the DRLs.

 

| Larry Bud wrote:
|
| > So average mileage/vehicle has gone from 21.5 to 21.43 because of DRL.
| >
| > BIG DEAL.
|
| Its a big deal because its totally unnecessary. I'd gladly pay that
| penalty for better braking systems, but instead we get flimsier braking
| systems so that the gas savings there will offset the waste on DRLs and
| still meet CAFE requirements.
|

GM petitioned (and won approval) for DRLs to be off when their cars are tested
for EPA fuel ratings years ago. They knew it would be tougher to maintain CAFE
with the DRLs lit (obviously).

 

| wrote:
|
| > If everyone is so upset about mandatory lights of 54w or less using so much
| > more extra fuel why not go after the things we really DON'T need it our
| > vehicles such as high powered stereos, video systems, heated seats,....
| > Sure all of those are nice to have but none are neccessary.
|
|
| You make a good point, but for ME the difference is simple: the things
| you mention are all a matter of the driver's individual choices and
| preferences. DRLs are mandated fuel waste- mandated by the government WE
| elect.
|
| That's a HUGE difference- I'm much less willing to deny a small portion
| of the driving population the right to waste a little fuel than I am to
| (through my government) MANDATE the waste of fuel by every new car on
| the road.

Actually, in the USA, DRLs are not legally required. The only entity requiring
them in the USA is GM (and I think Volkswagen, Subaru and Mitsubishi).

 

At the risk of turning this into another marathon political thread,
which we haven't had here in a while, you do realize that the last new
refinery built in the U.S. was built in 1976? And why? Because of
"environmental concerns". I wonder how much more efficient a new
refinery could be, and how the net impact to the environment would
actually be better with new refineries.

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

 

You can legally disconnect them, but it is illegal to sell the car
with them disconnected, and if pulled over (for any reason) you can be
charged with having a defective vehicle if any mandated safety
equipment is non functional for any reason.
Have not heard of anyone being charged, but I do know of warnings,
where the vehicle had to be submitted for confirmation of repairs
within 7 days.
So it's legal to disconnect them, but not to drive with them
disconnected.

As for the power wasted, fuel consumed, and polution caused, air
conditioning is a MUCH worse culprit, and underinflated tires are MUCH
worse as well. Even a small misalignment (excessive toe in or toe out)
wastes more fuel, and the vast majority of cars on american roads are
either out of alignment, underinflated, or both, and run the AC all
summer.

 

Daniel, you are mistaken.
In Ontario ALL PERSCRIBED LIGHTS AND REFLECTORS must be PRESENT AND
FUNCTIONAL..

The interpretation of this varies, but the prevalent interpretation is
they MUST work for a safety check, and if a cop is looking for
something to charge you with (knows you were speeding, but could not
get a fix on you, etc., he CAN charge you with having defective
equipment, and he CAN win.

 

|
| [SNIP]
|
| As for the power wasted, fuel consumed, and polution caused, air
| conditioning is a MUCH worse culprit, and underinflated tires are MUCH
| worse as well. Even a small misalignment (excessive toe in or toe out)
| wastes more fuel, and the vast majority of cars on american roads are
| either out of alignment, underinflated, or both, and run the AC all
| summer.
|

Yes, of course! However, the vehicle owner can choose to remedy those issues
themselves. The owner can't "choose" to remedy the "DRL waste" themselves.

 

| Daniel, you are mistaken.
| In Ontario ALL PERSCRIBED LIGHTS AND REFLECTORS must be PRESENT AND
| FUNCTIONAL..
|
| The interpretation of this varies, but the prevalent interpretation is
| they MUST work for a safety check, and if a cop is looking for
| something to charge you with (knows you were speeding, but could not
| get a fix on you, etc., he CAN charge you with having defective
| equipment, and he CAN win.

Flip the light switch and BINGO, the headlamp will light up. Thus it
functions. It meets the test Daniel mentions.

 

And I guess that's why "automatic headlamps" have become so common.
Can't drive my TransSport without full lighting after dark, even if I
want to.

 

| On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:04:27 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
|
| >On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, davefr wrote:
| >
| >> Most idiot drivers say, "I can see the road, I don't need to turn my
| >> lights on". They're too stupid to realize that light have two purposes.
| >> (to see and BE SEEN).
| >
| >Several different types of DRLs common in North America *encourage* driver
| >misuse of lights (driving in bad weather and/or after dark without proper
| >lights turned on). It's much easier for a cop to spot a dark car than an
| >improperly-lit car.
| >
| And I guess that's why "automatic headlamps" have become so common.
| Can't drive my TransSport without full lighting after dark, even if I
| want to.

Probably so...but "auto headlamp control" create another issue. People that
have them get used to the auto system doing their job for them so they forget
that often they still need to manually turn their regular lights on when it's
foggy out (in the daytime). For some cars...ditto for daytime rain and snow
conditions.

 

No, Clare, once again, it is you who are mistaken. Normally I no longer
see the crapola you spew on a continual basis, but the crossposting of
this thread shows me I need to tweak your killfile filter so I don't see
you in rec.autos.tech, rec.autos.driving, *or* rec.autos.makers.chrysler.

Yes, but the lights in question are those prescribed by the Ontario
Highway Code, not by CMVSS 108/108.1.

Only in your befuddled little mind.


Bye, now!

 

I got it, but and I don't like nanny government anymore than the next
guy, but you have to pick your battles, and this one is a small fry.

 

726 million dollars is less than $3 per person in this country, for

As I stated to someone else, you have to pick your battles, and this
one is a small fry. Fight against ridiculous laws which actually have
a large impact on your life, such as mandatory seat belt laws,
mandatory DUI checks, etc.

Where did I ever state I opposed domestic oil exploration? I think
you've got me confused with someone else.

 

Daniel J. Stern replied:

It could be more complicated than that.

The California state constitution [art. 3, sec. 3.5] explicitly
prohibits state agencies from deciding whether or not state laws
are unconstitutional or preempted at the federal level. Only the
courts are allowed to make such rulings.

Presumably, if/when the matter ever does end up in court, CVC 24800
will indeed be found invalid. But unless/until a court so rules, or
unless/until the California legislature decides to repeal CVC 24800,
I assume it can still be enforced.

Disclaimer: I haven't done a detailed study of either the California
Vehicle Code (to see if there's some specific provision that already
says something about conflicting federal vehicle laws/regulations)
or case law (to see if some court may already have struck down CVC
24800). Also, I'm not a lawyer, and none of what I've said here is
intended to be taken as legal advice.

Rich Wales http://www.richw.org

 

Likewise.
As far as AC, it contributes to fuel consumption ALL the time due to
the extra weight. It contributes more significantly when used.

 

You've just described the crux of the state/federal jurisdictional battle.
But, in every state, in every case where a state has objected to an item
of motor vehicle equipment permitted by Federal standards, the Feds have
prevailed.