One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

Turn your lights on if visibility is poor...
Turn your wipers on if its raining...
Set the brake and put it in park before you turn off the key...
Stop the lawnmower before you reach under it...
Be ready before you put the car in gear...
Lock your doors when driving...



All those things worked just fine for 50+ years before our brains turned
to goo and we started needing our machinery to have built-in nanny
functions sometime in the 80s or 90s.

 

It depends on your provincial highway code.

Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 requires compliant DRLs on all
new vehicles manufactured on or after 1/1/1990. Once a vehicle is
registered and in use, Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards *themselves*
no longer apply, since vehicles in use are regulated by each individual
province. Some provinces are beginning to adopt Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards either by reference or by duplication into their highway
codes, and if your province's highway code contains a specific requirement
for DRLs then you may not deactivate them legally.

I'm in Ontario. The highway code does not require DRLs, and the provincial
rubric for vehicle safety inspections includes only the following
lighting-related items:

-Headlamp aim
-All bulbs working and lamps undamaged
-All reflectors undamaged

DS

 

And when your pet safety feature is the direct cause of death for
someone who would have survived had it not been there, what then?

Airbags are a case in point.
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Cheney Wows Sept. 11 Commission By Drinking
Glass Of Water While Bush Speaks
http://www.theonion.com/index.php?issue=4016

 

So, tell this 'Canadian idiot' what "top-posting" is.

 

| Arthur Alspector wrote:
|
| > If DRL's save one family from being hit head-on, how much is THAT worth?
| >
|
| 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.
|
|

I agree!

 

Hey, everyone doesn't agree on Top posting.

Hey, everyone doesn't agree on Top posting.

 

|
| Turn your lights on if visibility is poor...
| Turn your wipers on if its raining...
| Set the brake and put it in park before you turn off the key...
| Stop the lawnmower before you reach under it...
| Be ready before you put the car in gear...
| Lock your doors when driving...
|
|
|
| All those things worked just fine for 50+ years before our brains turned
| to goo and we started needing our machinery to have built-in nanny
| functions sometime in the 80s or 90s.

So it's "goo" that is coming out of my ears...been doing that since the early
'90's! ;-)

It's trial lawyers like John Edwards why these things exist. Folks like him
get rich and we have to deal with the added insurance costs to pay him as well
as the "nanny functions" to help people like him from continuing to collect
even more from our insurance companies (i.e. our premiums)

 

|
|
| Man, what a load!
|
|

Curious why that sentiment. The electrical generation to power the lamps comes
from.....exactly where if not from the alternator which is driven by the engine
which runs on gasoline. The electrical energy isn't free, for heaven's sake!
It comes from somewhere. Even if you use the lights with the engine off and
drain the battery a bit, the alternator (thus the engine fueled by gas) had to
consume a bit more horsepower to generate the electrical energy to recharge the
battery.

The howstuffworks post has been out there for quite a while. But the facts it
states actually is not disputed by either group (the opposes of DRLs OR the
supporters). Both groups know that the additional fuel consumption is part of
the "cost" of having DRLs.

 

Yes - I think that people ought not to be allowed to drive cars at all.
After all, if it saves just *one* life... 8^)

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

 

Well, what are the hundreds, if not thousands of additional
lives lost to air pollution worth? Ever hear of unintended
consequences? The feds banned alcohol last century to save
lives, and wound up killing even more because prohibition
was one of the primary factors that led to the creation
of organized crime. For this to really mean anything you
have to look at the end to end costs in lives and money
for everything that's related. I suspect that the lives
we spend defending out energy resources and the lives
that are lost to pollution directly and indirectly are
far higher than any that are lost due to not having DRLs.

JazzMan
--
**********************************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
**********************************************************
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
**********************************************************

 

Oh, puh-leeze. Dragging the presidential race into the discussion of DRLs
is just silly.

 

You guys make this Canadian idiot laff......you rant on and on about the
affect two wee little light bulbs have on the consumption of fuel and
creation of deadly pollution, and go on to extol the 300C, Pacifica and all
the other guzzlers on the road with little old ladies or privileged teens
behind the wheel and no one else in the car. LOL : ) You break me up!

 

| You guys make this Canadian idiot laff......you rant on and on about the
| affect two wee little light bulbs have on the consumption of fuel and
| creation of deadly pollution, and go on to extol the 300C, Pacifica and all
| the other guzzlers on the road with little old ladies or privileged teens
| behind the wheel and no one else in the car. LOL : ) You break me up!
|

Ah, but you're grossly mistaken. It isn't "_two_ wee little light bulbs", it's
_400,000,000_ wee little light bulbs (in the USA alone). And they aren't
really so "wee little"! Most are 23-55 watts each! Then add that to
real-world insurance loss data that show zero benefit of DRLs in reducing
"loss"...so that then makes them a unnecessary waste.

However, I will agree with you on the direction we seem to be going with
vehicles that consume far more fuel then they have to (DRLs or not)...also a
unnecessary waste. No argument there!

 

| On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:
|
| > It's trial lawyers like John Edwards why these things exist.
|
| Oh, puh-leeze. Dragging the presidential race into the discussion of DRLs
| is just silly.
|

I was responding to the topic of the recent move in implementing "nanny
functions" (I believe the post used as reference) in general...the topic being
only but one of many such "nanny function". And, lawyers in general are indeed
the driving force behind the general move away from personal responsibility
that forces manufacturers to implement stuff that tries to protect people from
themselves. (Which is what is truly silly). AND the dollars paid to them for
our inconvenience, no less, come from you and I from costs of goods, services,
etc. John Edwards is of that persuasion, is he not? Just a point of
fact...take it as you wish.

 

BTW: I have a question. I wonder why your posts never seem to continue
withing the relivant discussion thread....it seems to almost always post in
some other unrelated location within the discussion. Odd...

 

it?

I realize the list could be long but, is there a list of American autos that
come with DRLs standard? Do all GM cars have them now? What about the
imports?

Thanks...

 

Since most of the above are already in most products, to force
them upon us is ridiculous. If they prefer, these systems should
be used only for the mentally or physically challenged.

 

All GM vehicles
All VWs
All Volvos
All Saabs
Many/most Toyotas
Many/most Lexus
Many BMWs

There may be more

 

Alright, well, when you can find and document an example -- just one
example -- of John Edwards doing *anything* personally or professionally
to push the installation or mandate of DRLs in the US, be sure and get
back to us.

 

Thank you.