daytime running lights on my 2005 Expedition

Page 2 of 3  
Mike Hunter wrote:

Thanks for letting me know.

Reference please.

So your original claim about $136 going to the state treasury is incorrect.

URL, please.
You said for ages that the VIN has something to do with content without referencing a URL, referencing the commerce department web site. For any credibility, you need an exact URL.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are free to believe whatever you choose. You are also free to search the sites I suggest, or not, as you choose.
What I posted was factual and can be verified, if one choose to do so. As for me personally, I could not care less what you choose to believe.
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

And I believe the truth, which is rarely what you say.

You didn't suggest any sites.

Yeah, and if what you say is correct, then I was correct when I said that the state treasury doesn't get a lot of the money.
When you get a clue, let us know.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No, you were simply wrong once again. You have this ongoing tendency to comment on subjects about which you obviously have little or no knowledge, just so you can be heard on most every subject posted in your favorite NGs. That is your privilege but perhaps you would be better served by first saying in my opinion, rather than attacking those with whom you so often disagree.
The District Court makes monthly submissions, of all fines and fees collected, to the Commonwealth treasury. The State Treasurer retains half of the fines, its portion of the costs and distributes the balance quarterly to the County Courts, the jurisdictions and the EMS providers etc. The CAT Fund receipts are retained and administered by the commonwealth to the various providers, under the old law.
In review of where I told you to look for fines and fees.
" The information can be found on line at the PA web site in Title #75, the PA Vehicle code as well as the portion covered under the PA criminal code I E Death by motor vehicle while intoxicated etc.."
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

I was not.

This is an example of where a poster should have said, "In my opinion."

You stated, "One can see them most anytime at dusk being stopped by the PSP and donating $135 to the state treasury."
As you see, you were wrong. While the state treasury retains some of the money, it doesn't get all of it.

If think that there is a link on the PA web site called "Title #75," keep believing that.
http://www.state.pa.us /
Unless you can say something worthwhile on this matter, I will not waste my time responding to you on this thread.
Have a lovely evening.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ok how about seat belts. Studies have shown that there is a small percentage where wearing a seat belt caused the death of an occupant,. but for the greater good seatbelts save more than they kill. I put drl's in the same category. You can argue two ends of a situation till your blue in the face, and on any given day any side can win . I will always put my money on the bet with the best odds., seatbelt and drl's are a good thing and put the odds in your favour Jim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Northey wrote:

Lethal seatbelts? Hardly! Any study of belted occupants I've seen in the last TWENTY years or so clearly indicates that a properly belted (lap AND shoulder) occupant is almost indestructible at 'real-world' collision speeds. You may be thinking of SRS air bags; the jury is still out on those, even including the new lower velocity deployment ones. In any event, comparing something that only protects the occupants of a vehicle in the event of a collision to DRLs that can CAUSE accidents is ludicrous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sharon Cooke wrote:

Actually, people who do wear seat belts do die in crashes. The odds are much lower that you will die in a crash with seat belts than without, however.
A combination of seat belts and air bags reduce the risk of head injury by 85% vs 60% for just seat belts.
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/airbags.html

DRLs can also prevent accidents.
<http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/Background.htm
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

<http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/Background.htm

The seat belt study cited really doesn't focus on how effective seat & shoulder harness alone is, merely how effective seat belts are when used with SRS airbags. Also note the detailed warnings associated with the SRS airbags. BTW, I survive a high speed crash, falling down an embankment, and a rollover wearing just a seat/shoulder harness. The car itself was totaled, but I didn't have a mark on me.
The DRL study summary LOOKS convincing, but you'll notice that most of the studies cited were in far northern countries. Since about 95% of the USA population lives below 45 N. Latitude, and has abundant lighting in the daytime most of the year (unlike say, Canada), that study really has little relevance to us folks living down here. Here's a site for you to check out, explaining how the government and GM studies about DRLs were 'created', with many links to source data: http://www.lightsout.org/story.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sharon Cooke wrote:

And I would do what with this biased information?
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

The bias is where?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sharon Cooke wrote:

<...>
The name of the organization is lightsout.org. Certainly, the organization is biased against DRLs.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Everyone is biased. The difference betweeen "non-biased" and "biased" sources is simply that the non-biased sources aren't revealing their bias. The biased sources are honest about where they are coming from. In fact the first step to trying to become less biased is to understand your own biases, and be completely upfront about them. Otherwise if you don't know what your own biases are, how can you try to avoid them?
If you want the truth then read the biased sources on ALL sides of the issues and use your brain to analyze the arguments and rebuttels and figure out which is consistent and which isn't. And of course, remember that some issues (like abortion) have no right answer because they cannot be decided on any logical basis.
The biggest problems with most of these "studies" I've seen is they fail to make their raw data available along with their conclusions, so it can be subject to someone else's interpretation. That is one of the basic premises of the Scientific Method, and if the study doesen't do that, it can be immediately rejected and discounted as nothing more than a propaganda piece.
Unfortunately very few people understand this. I've been in company meetings where a "research firm" has been in trying to pitch a marketing study, and asked the firm if they provide the raw survey data the study was based on, and been told that this was against their company policy. And right next to me there's people sitting who after hearing this are still campaigning to spend the $10K or so to buy the study.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

Ted, I appreciate your obvious FULL understanding of the question I asked, "The bias is where?" :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Stick it up your socialist ass, eh
Love, a motorcyclist
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Northey wrote:

I'm not aware of any information where seatbelts were a causal component of any type of accident itself. Anyone have information on that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sharon Cooke wrote:

Yes, lights have been used by the military since WWII as one of many masking techniques. Under certain common daytime lighting/backlighting conditions, lighting an object can make an object nearly imperceptible to the human eye.
The problem is that lighting in daytime situations is so changeable and variable (often changeable second-by-second). One second a DRL may be useful, the next second it may be detrimental.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard wrote:

I typically use the example of "Where's Waldo" when discussing DRL's
For those unfamiliar with the childhood books "Where's Waldo", the books have several pages of "busy" cartoon scenes of people, including the main Waldo character. The task then is for children to learn to scan the scene to locate the Waldo character. Waldo is difficult to find in the crowd, no doubt. Often he is partly hidden' etc. However, if one were to give Waldo a flashlight, one could pick him out of the crowd immediately. Now if we give everyone (or just half the people) in the scene a flashlight, Waldo would be even more difficult to find than he was before the introduction of any flashlight. The resulting glare on the human eye of the hundreds of flashlights obscures the finer detail of the the overall scene. One sees many lights, but also sees less detail of the objects themselves.
What does that tell us? DRL's are excellent devices for adding conspicuity to a single entity "hidden" among many entities. But, DRL's proliferating into a "sea of light" causes, as with the "Where's Waldo" example, relative obfuscation of the overall road scene that would be normally lit (and be normally/naturally visible in greater detail) by natural/ambient light. The human eye/brain also has difficulty with the task of tying an individual point of light to specific objects as well.
The NHTSA has been studying DRL's for over 12 years now. They've yet to make a final DRL rule. I believe it is due to the apparent complexity of the overall dynamics that DRS's add to the driving environment. Many studies show benefit, other show none. Still others show DRLs actually contribute to increase in collision for certain road users (motorcycles, pedestrians, etc. are some losers few dispute). So, in the end, the final DRL rule in the USA (if there is one) will come down to some winners and some losers. I'd hate to be the one deciding for everyone!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jcr wrote:

The thing about DRLs is that they are not there for people to find Waldo or say mom or dad or cousin Fred. They are there so that you can determine that someone is there without determining who.
So your Waldo analogy, while interesting, doesn't really apply.
As far as the DRL rule coming down to winners and losers, that's true of everything. Unfortunately, there are tradeoffs in everything we do.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

So your idea of a "tradeoff" is to allow motorcyclists to die (in ever increasing numbers) so you can be "conspicuous" with your headlights on while driving around in your 3-ton SUV?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.