day time lights

Page 8 of 11  


Irrelevant, who are you anyway. Who made you the King of Usenet, LOL :).
A reminder: This thread is a discussion of the pro, cons or indifference towards daytime running lights.
Your comment is a personal attack and will not be addressed. If you would like to carry out an intellectual discussion on the actual topic, feel free. Any future personal attacks will be thoroughly ignored.
Thanks for your time and God bless
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I did not say you couldn't be here. All I said is you seem to have came in out of the blue, for the sole purpose of stirring up the group.
<Snip repeat of BS>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I found out about this thread from a google search. I don't want to stir anything up, just speaking my mind. It is not my intent to create controversy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I already did lay out the information, you simply ignored it. What you are discussing here is how you like to drone on and on about nothing. You want to beat anyone down that disagrees with you, that is very clear.
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm not the one trying to outlaw DRL's, only because I don't like them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah, a post to respond to. Well, yes, I would love to outlaw DRLs, absolutely and it is not just because I don't like them. Ford, Chrysler and Toyota could care less for starters. 22 states had laws against daytime light use and those laws should have stood. I have never pretended that I would not like to go back to the way it was before 1994, so I don't see how you expect that comment to bother me.
Currently there is personal choice on this issue, I am sorry that my choice is not to your liking. The reality, at this time, is that it is a market based fight, that involves helping to educate the car companies and others on perspectives. I would hope that NHSTA will come around and put the rights on light regulation back to the states, but until then, as Mike pointed out in his first post, it won't be mandated on all cars so even the U.S. Federal Government doesn't want them.
So, with many of the car companies and the U.S. government not implementing them fleetwide, I am in good company.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If DRL's are so dangerous, why do some States, and Canada use them? Surely it would be cheaper to not install the feature at all. As for outlawing them, that seems to be exactly what you want to do, and the main reason I see is because you don't like them. Other then your personal opinion, I have seen nothing that makes me want to fight to have DRL's outlawed.

But why? What have DRL's done, or are doing, that makes you hate them so? Give me some good factual reasons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

None of the states or the federal government have mandated DRLs. The only reason we have DRLs in the U.S. is because General Motors wanted to make one car for North America. They pushed NHSTA to overturn the light rules of 22 states that prohibited the use of lights during the day. Before GM pushed, they were outlawed in those states, and would have remained so. I would like for NHSTA to get its nose out of the business of the States and allow the rule of law to continue. It isn't just my opinion, it is the opinion of 22 states and the majority of auto makers. If it wasn't for GM, DRLs would have been dead in the water in the States. I just want the laws to revert to where they were before 1994.
It is cheaper for GM to not have to turn them on for one market and not the other. The reason they wanted DRLs is for cost savings and not for safety reasons. I guess the root of the problem was the mandate in Canada, or GM would not have pushed so hard. Ford and Chrysler could have realized the same cost savings but don't, because they don't see it as a safety feature that the U.S. customer would want (so why would GM think that way?).

I already have given factual reasons and personal reasons, I won't go back into all of that. See the other posts by Sharon and myself.
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For the same reason you end up with anti-DRL people who rely on nothing more than hyperbole and exagerations to support their cases. Neither side has put forth an awful lot of real evidence. Both rely on emotional bolstering of their otherwise weak positions. Both are taking something that is not as life and death as they'd like to have it be, and are trying to exagerate the value of their position in attempt to make something that is really quite trivial and more a matter of preference, in order to legitimize their zeal.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
no mater one opinion, debating DRLs in a NG is like debating the benefits of lead in gasoline, one will never see either in the US LOL
mike

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

Mike,
Let us suppose that you are correct and there is no evidence for either side. If that is a given, what you have here are a group of folks that are doing something, with no proof of benefit, that irritates other folks that hate what they are doing. If there is no proof either way, then why would people wish to use their lights during the day and irritate others? And if even by a slim chance the mere fact that they irritated another driver leads to a confrontation or accident, then why would anyone in their right mind wish to even remotely cause that kind of situation.
So, although I personally see plenty of reasons, precedence and evidence against DRLs. I would just be happy if folks would just be considerate and kind and turn their lights off when they are not needed. Once you get past all of the arguments, that is what it gets down to, are we willing to give other drivers the benefit of the doubt and stop irritating them? The answer should be easy to turn of the lights and help people to drive safely.
Thanks for bring that up,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you ever think that some people are irritated by people who *don't* have DRL's? Why is it that your choice is the proper one? Let's hypothetically do as you said, and say there is no evidence for either side. At which point, we are down to something basic. Driving with lights on, or off. Who are you to tell people which one is the 'proper' way? Also, there was a poster a couple of days ago saying how the Postal Service has reduced accidents by 35% after using DRL's, yet you did not comment on that. Any reason?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Easy answer, people have driven without lights on for years and you could see all cars, pedestrians, etc.. equally. It already works that way.
If everyone had lights on, then all you would see is a bunch of cars with lights and would not see the unlit objects. So, no that would not be a good idea. And, of course, if they all had their lights on then no car would be seen more than the other, so you might as well just turn them all off and have the same affect.
I could not find that information, hadn't heard of that before and if I had it would have been big news. So, if you know where to find it then please enlighten us.
I did stumble upon this:

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc/1992cycle/mbch4.html The appendix: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc/1992cycle/appendC.html
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

People used to drive without seat-belts, air-bags, and many other things as well. Does that mean they are too useless, because it used to work that way?

As I have continually stated, here in Canada, all cars do have there DRL's on, and yet I can see everything quite fine.

You seem to be treating DRL's as if they are flood-lights attached to the front bumper. We are talking about headlamps used at a reduced brightness. There is a big difference.

I had never heard of it either, until I read the post. Perhaps if you ask him where he read it, he would post it for you.

"The committee found this evidence unconvincing." Great start there. Wow, what a read. Even the group who made that report can't come to a conclusion on if they are worthy or not. At the end, they recommend the DRL's remain voluntary. How does this help you, Larry? That means, people can still use them if they want too. You want them gone completely, and even with all of that "evidence", the group decided not to do so. Also, this was only about motorcycles, nothing about cars, which take up much more road time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't remember who posted it originally, would like to know.

I didn't read all of it, like I said I just stumbled onto it. It doesn't matter how you read it, by the way. Just threw it out there. However, they did not recommend implementation state wide, so it is not a glowing endorsement. One thing you have to realize is that government entities have to appease many different players.
A good example is the U.S. government, they don't enforce DRLs, but allow them. Why, because there is no consensus amongst the people and manufacturers as to the actual benefits of DRLs. However, there are manufacturers such as GM that want to level out costs and they have a good ear in NHSTA to enable them to continue manufacturing the cars with daytime running lights. So, even though there is no proof of any real benefit, the Feds play the fence to appease both sides.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Open letter to the negative folks..
You have wasted too much of our time. From this point forward, I will only respond to reasoned discussions. I will not be responding to any personal attacks, as they are just a waste of time. I hope you have had fun, at the expense of everyone else.
By the way, I don't care of you think I have a flaming torch to get rid of DRLs, I would love that. However, as a realist, if we could just get rid of the glare, that would be a great start. Any reasonable person would understand that it is better to compromise on such things, if you can't get absolution, no matter how you may feel. I think enough has been said, and I am the last to bow out, but unless something good is posted I will have to assume this discussion has played its course.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have only one question about the above statement: Who are "we"? You talk as if there are many people in this discussion, on your side

The problem is, not everyone is bothered by this "glare". If 8% of the drivers in the USA decided that the seatbelts in there car kept giving them rashes on there shoulders, should they be removed from all cars? Should they be redesigned? You speak as though everyone agrees with your assessment of DRL's. Please explain why.

I have replied to a post you made a couple of days ago. Please give it a look.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We aren't talking about seatbelts. I don't feel that everyone agrees with my positions on this issue, that would be a flawed assumption.
By the way, here are comments from a Canadians on the subject of glare:
http://groups.google.com/group/hfx.general/browse_thread/thread/b2368307f7be9458/7b8bdac30ca16fd7?q ytime+running+lights&rnum=2#7b8bdac30ca16fd7
Troy & Vicky Jollimore
"For the most part. An odd thing is that I read for YEARS about how the Americans complained about being dazzled by certain DRLs. "Pish Posh," I'd reply to the drivers on forums, "We've had them for YEARS, and not ONCE has that happened to me."
Well, when I was in Florida a few years back we were driving towards Grosse Pointe on a beautiful sunny day when...BLINDED! It was the DRLs of a Saturn, and they were definitely dazzling, even in the bright sunshine. Heh, I had a lot of apologizing to do... ;) Still don't know why, though. Have never had that happen here, even with the same make/model of Saturn car. "
axemen99
"BMW (I believe) first came out with the modified Flood/Fog light DRL which allowed the driver to see miles in the dark highways in German or France. It is quite similar to the flood light used in Police cars. It is NOT the typical Canadian version of the DRL. Somehow, the Canadian and US goverment accepted the flooded version of the DRL, althought both government agreed that the modified flooded DRL would cause accidents instead, (prolly complaints by BMW and German goverment). Good Canadian invention gone WILD."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What are you talking about? I read the paper, and pointed out what it said. You are acting as if I am lying as to what it contained.

They also did not recommend outlawing them either. I don't think either side benefited from that paper.

If DRL's are so unsafe, why hasn't the US Government outlawed them, like you want?

How does it cost GM less money to add more features to a vehicle?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't say that you didn't read what you read. I didn't read all of it. But, I only mentioned that you can read into it what you want to. I wasn't calling you a liar.

Yes, the mere fact that they didn't recommend full implementation openly says that trying to enforce DRLs on the basis of safety would not fly. Of course, this is my read of it :).

I already explained that in the post you responded to.

They already have to manufacture the vehicle for the Canadian market with DRLs. They were having to leave out a module, fuse or other items in order to manufacture the vehicles for the U.S. market. With the allowing of DRLs in the U.S., they can just make one car with one specification and one wiring harness.
My 1991 Chevy Truck had a spot in the fuse panel marked for the DRL fuse, however, that spot did not have any contacts in it to place a fuse. If I had wanted DRLs, I could not have enabled them by placing a fuse in that spot. Even though the truck was manufactured in Canada, it was modified to not allow for DRLs, it did not have the proper harness to accomodate. This was the case, even though that truck went down the very same assembly line as Canadian bound trucks that had the fuse contacts and proper harness. The different harnesses and labor changes cost GM time and money on the assembly line.
Fast forward to 1998, after GM got NHSTA to allow daytime lights. My 98 Chevy pickup came with DRLs and now the fuse #15 has the fuse contacts and a fuse and the proper wiring to run the DRL lights. I pulled the fuse on the dealer lot, but can turn it back on at anytime without any expense. Now, the U.S. bound trucks use the same wiring and fuse pickups as the Canadian bound trucks and GM reaches cost savings by volume and less labor in installing the same wiring in each vehicle. Simple economies of scale.
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.