One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

He said "like" John Edwards, not John Edwards specifically.
I do think you can make a case that John Edwards is
responsible for the greatly increased use of a fetal
monitors and an increase in the number of caesarian births -
at least in North Carolina. WHether or not these are good
thing is beyond my level of knowledge. I do know that having
a child in an NC hospital is an expensive proposition. I
assume there might be some other trial lawyer somewhere,
"like" John Edwards who is responsible for the
implementation of dubious "safety" devices "like" DRLs.

Regards,

Ed White

 

No they didn't work fine.

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).

 

....while others may think "Hey, I have DRLs, I don't have to turn my
lights on," too stupid to realize their rear tail lights are not on at
all.

Ivan

 

It is adding your comment to the top of the previous posts, rather than
scrolling to the very bottom and adding it there. It is a complaint that
seems to be the last refuge of those who have nothing to add to a
discussion, so they start ranting about the form of the post, carefully
ignoring all content.

 

And don't forget that if EVERYONE drove the most eonomical car
available, then the DIFFERENCE made by the DRL's would be a much larger
percentage of the total fuel consumption than it is right now!

 

Learn how the delete key works and trim the post.

Interestingly enough, I've always thought the same about a purely
emotional appeal, which is what the first top posted response was.
--
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

 

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.

 

Nothin' new here.

 

As a minor point of clarification/support, one of the "choices"
personalized to your key when you take delivery of a new E46 BMW is
DRL settings. For instance, you could choose to deactivate DRLs any
time your key is used and your spouse might choose to have them on.
However, if you do not make a choice, the off-the-lot default is
set to "No DRL".

When I got my '03 Disco, I was informed that for $80 they would set my
key so I could run both the foglights and high beams at once. While
the prospect of absolutely blinding all oncoming traffic was
delightful, I didn't want to spend the eighty bones.

 

Actually, the proper way to post is directly below text that one is
addressing. Other text is trimmed (deleted). Unless a lot of quoted
text is addressed with multiple interspaced comments, most properly
formatted posts will not require scrolling at all.

 

Well it is not just your 300C using a lot of gas. It is the 400,000+
300C's Chrysler hopes to sell.

 

|
| 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...
|


I assume you are speaking of American cars sold in the USA.

GM is the only American car company that mandates DRLs on all current models.
Last I checked, they are not a option...you must accept them on the GM vehicles
or go elsewhere with your dollars. GM will not disable them, even if you want
them to. The customer is not always right in their minds...I guess. One
exception that I'm aware of are the large GM pickups and SUVs where the DRLs
(and auto light control system) can be temporarily programmed to be disabled
_FOR ONE IGNITION CYCLE ONLY...THEN IT DEFAULTS BACK TO ENABELED AT THE NEXT
START_.

Ford does not mandate DRLs, but I understand they can be enabled at the owners
request (a BCM programming change). Last I read, they do not intend to force
them on their customers, allowing their customers to choose for themselves.

Chrysler is a German-owned company now, but for those that still consider it an
American company, DRLs are optional on their vehicles as well and I don't
believe they are planning to force them on their customers either.

Now, to gauge how many people really want DRLs, how many Ford/Mercury and
Chrysler/Dodge vehicles do you see with DRLs? Damn few!

 

| On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Bill Seas wrote:
|
| > 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?
|
| All GM vehicles
| All VWs
| All Volvos
| All Saabs
| Many/most Toyotas
| Many/most Lexus
| Many BMWs
|
| There may be more
|
|

To clarify (last time I checked)

GM...Mandatory
VWs...Mandatory
Volvos...Owner Controlled Option, default on
Saabs...Mandatory (Same as GM)
Toyotas...Owner Requested Option, default setting differs per model
(Toyota used to be mandatory, but changed position in 2002)
Lexus...Same as Toyota
BMWs...Owner Controlled Option, default is off

Also...

Mercedes...Optional (not sure if owner controlled or request)
default off
Mitsubishi...Mandatory (as of 2004)
Subaru...Mandatory
Ford...Owner requested option, default off
Chrysler...Owner requested option, default off

 

| 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)
|
| 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.

Reading comprehension Dan (you're usually good at that)...Please read my quoted
text two paragraphs up again...the poster changed the topic within the body of
the post to "nanny functions" in general. Again, I will state, I was
responding to "nanny functions" (and the laundry list of said nanny functions
that was provided as an example).

 

|
| He said "like" John Edwards, not John Edwards specifically.
| I do think you can make a case that John Edwards is
| responsible for the greatly increased use of a fetal
| monitors and an increase in the number of caesarian births -
| at least in North Carolina. WHether or not these are good
| thing is beyond my level of knowledge. I do know that having
| a child in an NC hospital is an expensive proposition. I
| assume there might be some other trial lawyer somewhere,
| "like" John Edwards who is responsible for the
| implementation of dubious "safety" devices "like" DRLs.
|
| Regards,
|
| Ed White

And the context was the laundry list of "nanny functions" I was responding to
(DRLs I don't think was even on the list I was responding to).

 

|
| | >
| > | > | 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!
|
|
| Well it is not just your 300C using a lot of gas. It is the 400,000+
| 300C's Chrysler hopes to sell.
|

Except I don't have a 300C. The rest of your premise is on the mark though.

 

He was speaking of cars of whatever nationality, sold in the USA.

Unless you are prepared to factory-order your car rather than take one out
of lot stock *and* you can find a very cooperative and knowledgeable
salesman who will agree to order your GM car with "RPO T62" *and* GM
accepts the order and builds the car accordingly. That is "Regular
Production Option T62". Regular Production Options are GM's term for all
the different variants of all the different aspects of the basic vehicle.
US headlamps, Export/RHD headlamps, Export/LHD headlamps. Fed/Can
emissions, California emissions, European emissions, Japanese emissions,
Middle East emissions w/o catalyst. MPH speedometer, KM/H speedometer.
Every possible trim package, every possible tire. You name it, there's an
RPO for it, and T62 is "Daytime Running Lamps - Delete".

GM is fervently trying to get NHTSA to mandate DRLs in the US.

Ford's position is that there's no demonstrated significant safety benefit
to DRLs.

Also true. It does not help that Consumer Reports, Woman Motorist and
other such publications continue to harp the praises of DRLs on faulty "If
it saves just one life..." illogic.

 

And increasingly *very difficult* to disable -- they've got 'em linked
into the fault chime, the "Check Engine" light, etc.

But usually reasonably easy to defeat

But usually *very* easy to defeat

There is a TSB from Toyota giving detailed procedures for how to defeat
DRLs on all Toyota-made models if the customer so wishes

Easy to moderately easy to defeat

 

Yeah, yeah, I get it. I still think dragging the Presidential race in was
cheesy.

 

If I remember correctly, the '03 GMC 3500 cargo van where I work has a
setting on the headlight switch to not use the DRL's. The settings are
"O", the "DRL" icon (identical to the idiot light), "parking lights" and
"headlights." I am pretty sure that if you chose the "O" (which is on
the far left) the DRL's go off, or at least the idiot light on the dash
does.