One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

| On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:
|
| > | 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
|
| Yeah, yeah, I get it. I still think dragging the Presidential race in was
| cheesy.

Hey, it's the season! ;-)

 

| 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.
| --
| Nick
|

GM trucks have had a ability to disable the DRLs for a while. It used to be
cycling the dome light 4-times and that would disable the DRL (and the auto
light function) for that ignition cycle ONLY. The next start, the system was
back to default (DRLs on). Could be that they simplified the procedure. OR,
maybe they are finally listening to their customers (radical idea).

 

If DRL'S are useless as some people like to think, how come they have been
used for years and continue to be used by commercial vehicles, such as large
trucks, buses, trains, streetcars, etc. You would think the major
corporations running these vehicles would want to save a penny or two on
fuel. Obviously, the directors or these industries feel there are many
benefits of the DRL'S which overshadow the reasonings of a few pseudo
intellects, tree huggers and conscientious objectors who will say 'No' just
because they like to say 'No'

There, this Canadian Idiot put his post on the bottom where everyone wants
it. : )

 

Well, when low powered LCD's are introduced the fuel penalty will be
eliminated. A local company in my town is developing the next generation
LCD's intended for general lighting and automotive use. Can't say any more
on this but it is a product you will see in your lifetime.

Richard.

 

Well...no, it's not, because you don't mean "LCDs". LCD = Liquid Crystal
Display. You mean LED, Light Emitting Diode. And LED DRLs already exist.
They consume next to no power, thus eliminating the objection of
currently-common filament or discharge light sources for DRLs. Pity
there's only one car that comes with them so far.

 

I just wonder why none of those tree hugging pseudo intellects have
never spoken out against power steering, power brakes, power windows,
HID headlights, air conditioning and ground thumping, window rattling
stereos? Don't they all use some power?

Me too ;-)

--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

 

The full size GM pickups, vans, and SUVs use a separate (and inoffensive,
compared to the high beams that GM uses in many other vehicles) white lamp
as the DRL (it doesn't appear to be used for anything else). Many of these
trucks have one or both of them burned out. Couldn't someone who really
doesn't like any DRLs just remove the bulbs?

 

OOPS! I meant to say "ever" instead of "never"....but you all knew
that ;-)

--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

 

">

Man what a hoot! Keep it coming!

 

I beg to differ here. The phenomonon of greatly increased use of fetal
monitors and cooresponding increase in caesarian births has already
been documented by the watchdogs in the
medical industry. It follows the typical pattern of ALL new medical
devices. (we are seeing the same thing with MRI scanners today,
by the way)

What happens is the medical industry comes up with a brand new
medical toy and take a bunch of patents out on it, then start ramping
up production and churning out a ton of them. They then fire up
the usual scare campaigns to coerce the hospitals into buying them.
The hospital then drops $200,000 on the new fetal
monitors (or in Monty Python parlance, the very expensive machine
that goes !ping!) now they have to pay for them. So they pressure
the obs to use them so they can bill the patients for them. After a
few years the machine has been paid for so the pressure to bill out
for them alleviates. At the same time a much of med students have
been just finishing up their thesis on why the new toys don't do anything
useful for most people, and the various government research institutions
have started
churning out 4 year studies and such that also say the same thing. The
machines then get pushed into the corner and hardly ever used except
in the rare cases that a blind monkey could figure out that they would
be needed.

And then the next new medical toy comes out and the cycle starts
all over again.

There's no denying that fetal monitors have saved a few babies lives,
they have. But in the beginning, there were no guidelines on use, and
expectant mothers, particularly new ones that never had a baby before,
oftentimes don't know any better and would take whatever was pushed
onto them. So they got pushed on a whole lot of people who didn't
need them.

Today, there's guidelines on their need that are gradually being accepted,
and people are learning that even new expectant mothers and fathers, the
most vulnerable of medical patients to scams, have to take the bull by the
balls and start dictating the kind of care they want. Today, nobody has
to take a fetal monitor if they don't want it, they can ask in advance when
shopping hospitals and if the hospital says they are mandatory they can
go elsewhere. And as for caesarians, that is also the woman's choice
in a lot more situations than most people think. It is not unusual after
15-20
hours of serious labor for hospital staff to start talking to the mother
about a
caesarian. If the mother understands that this long of a labor isn't
unusual,
and is determined to do it naturally, they can tell the doctor to **** off,
and
usually rally enough so the kid is popped out in the next 4-6 hours. If
however the mother doesen't know shit from shinola, they may panic and
stop pushing and then there's nothing for it but to do the caesarian because
the kid is never going to come out normally.

IMHO the only people that would seriously believe that John Edwards
is responsible like you said for this are people who have a) never had
kids or b) men who were on the golf course when their wife was popping
out their kids, and wouldn't know the difference between a spatula and
a tongue depressor. Unfortunately, as the hospitals didn't let the men into
the delivery room until the last ten years or so, there's too many old farts
out there who fall into the b category and would swallow your crap.

Like was already said, how is he responsible for DRLs?

Ted

 

Which you can avoid simply by buying the relevant safety apparatus and
installing it and using it.

For example - you could go out and install a roll cage and 5 point
seatbelts in your vehicle then use them regularly, and you could also drive
the speed limit at all times, and slower during inclement weather, and
you could buy a full helmet and body armor and don that every time
you get in the car.

You would now most likely be able to survive just about every kind
of the worst automobile crash example on American highways.

What the US safety regulations are designed for is to mandate equipment
that will keep accidents survivable
for people who jump in their cars and not wear their seatbelts and
drive like maniacs, all the while while chugging down a quart of Old Paint
Remover. But, even with this in mind, the US safety regulations certainly
do not go anywhere near as far as one could go in making their vehicle
safer. You are perfectly able to go further if you want to be safer.

Ted

 

Probably because if your goal is to reduce what is damaging the environment
you focus on the biggest problems first.

The extra pollution put into the environment by DLR's is insignificant
compared
to the extra pollution that would be dumped into the environment if, for
example
we did not have vehicle emissions inspections and just let everyone run
around
with their clogged EGR valves and burned out catalytic converters. It is
also
insignificant compared to the reduced pollution dumped into the environment
if
we could at least slow the growth in the market of the monster SUV's
purchased
by people with no apparent need for them.

The real question on fuel economy that I always wonder about is why aren't
more
of the "tree huggers" pushing for manual transmissions with clutches being
offered
as an option in model car lines. It seems today that only the tinbox
economy
cars (of which very few are sold in the US) and the sports cars have manual
transes.
Yet I know a lot of people who would love to buy a sedan, truck, or van that
came with a manual gearbox. And if manual trans were even a mere 20% of
these
markets, you would have enormous fuel savings. This seems one area where
the enviro types would be in perfect agreement with the car consumers, and
the car
companies appear to be deaf, as usual.

Ted

 

The real question on fuel economy that I always wonder about is why aren't

Well, Ted, that would be because the manual transmission vehicles emit a
larger-than-acceptable (to the greenies) puff of emissions during the gear
change process that gives the automakers fits when they try to meet
emissions standards. Not sure what the offending pollutant is, but I do
know that the problem is big enough that the automakers have considered
doing away with standard transmissions altogether in light passenger
vehicles in response. Yet another case of the liberal greenies wanting to
have their cake and eat it, too. Of course, they'd be happier if we all
were riding bicycles.

--Geoff

 

Thanks for the correction. What car has the LED DRL's? Just wait till
general lighting "white LED's hit the street.

Richard.

 

Arthur,

Your assumption that EVERYONE prefers bottom posting is absolutely not
correct.

I very much prefer top posts since they allow me to read through an entire
thread without needing to scroll through the body of the older messages. In
addition, since many newsreaders check the number of lines of new (versus
old) text, many times I've needed to trim a considerable portion of the
previous post, especially when the response is very short. That said, even
though I personally prefer top posts since they make me more efficient, I
have always appreciated the timely advice/responses I've received from this
newsgroup and the information in the message was always far more important
than its location!

Bob

 

White, separate segment, non-glare DRL's were mandated in Northern Europe
where the winters are long and the days are short. Tests suggested about a
15% reduction in accidents. Canada and the northern border states enjoy
almost the same conditions. There is no data to suggest that a 15% reduction
would be experienced in other environments. There is no data I have seen to
demonstrate that amber and high beam reduced output DRL's would provide the
same level of benefit. We know that high beam reduced output lights produce
glare. I don't know if long term studies continue to show any benefit
anywhere.

Richard.

 

That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Shifting a
standard is no different than letting off the throttle rapidly in an
automatic and then stomping it down again. This has all the markings of
an urban legend. Do you have any reliable references at all that
support this assertion?


Matt

 

Thank You, Bob : )
Arthur

 

When did they start putting DRL's on Fetal monitors?

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
snip

 

Sort of, but I do not really know. I drive an ex-police cruiser that was
used for stake-outs (?). The dome light does not come on when the door is
opened, and the DRL's are run through a toggle switch on the dashboard.
Obviously, the police got dispensation to do this. Whether anyone can
disable them is still open to debate.

For what it is worth, I have not noticed any difference in how all of the
other assholes on the road drive whether my DRL's are on or off [reference to
a previous DRL thread where someone claimed that people drive like jerks, now
that he has to drive a DRL-equipped car].