Daytime Running Lights Standardization Needed?

| > I agree and since the data statistically shows a increased rate of rear end | > collision for DRL equipped vehicles suggests that your observation is even more | > important for those that want/need to use DRLs. As far as I know, Volvo is the | > only manufacturer that understands this fact and design's their DRL setups to | > include illumination of the side marker and tail lamps...or at least they used | > to. | >

| >

| Toyota used to too. I don't know if they still do. My '91 tercel was | so equipped. The only things you didn't get without the switch was high | beams and dash illumination. | | Dan |

Toyota is a interesting example here in the "States". At around the 2000 model year they began putting mandatory DRLs on their line of cars/SUVs/trucks. However, their implementation did not illuminate the tail/marker lamps like a Volvo. For what ever reason Toyota apparently stopped doing it in 2002. A couple of friends I know that buy Toyotas tell me that they only activate the DRLs now when requested by the customer. In fact one friend has a 2000 Camry that has DRLs and a 2002 Camry that doesn't. Does anyone know why Toyota would reverse their mandatory DRL policy somewhere between 2000 and 2002? A article I read a year or two ago may shed some light on it. In a interview with Daimler execs, they basically said in the article that surveys of their customer base was (overwhelmingly??) opposed to mandatory DRLs (at that time, anyway). Maybe Toyota is/was listening to their customers? Hmmmm.....what a radical idea! ;-) Hey GM! Are YOU listening?!

Probably true since most manufacturers run the headlamp/high-beam filament as DRLs at reduced voltage, so use as a DRL would have lesser impact to frequent burn-outs (although would impact it slightly). The VW beetle is one that runs the filaments at full voltage, probably because the "projector" headlamp has a fairly sharp cutoff above horizontal, so full light from the filament is required to get the required light levels above horizontal (I'm speculating) to be effective as DRLs. I believe halogen headlamp bulbs have a rated life of

500 hours at rated voltage operation so you'll go through them fairly quickly on the Beetle (every 500 driving hours, approx., OR every 250 days assuming 2 hours driving per day). What I do see is quite a few amber DRLs burned out (the turn signal type) AND lots of Chevy Silverado's driving around with "one eye" out in the daytime (separate DRL lamps on the Silverado)

Using LED arrays may be a good solution...the long life of LEDs is much better suited to near continuous duty applications like DRLs.

On the Toyota newsgroup they say that some of the new ones have DRL/Off/Parking/Headlight on the switch. To me, that defeats the purpose. The whole idea is not to see, but to be seen. I can't reach over and switch on YOUR lights if I can't see YOU.

Dan

In the states, jurisdictional lighting laws charge the operator of said vehicle as the one that is responsible for the proper operation of the vehicles lights AND they typically clearly define the specific criteria for which they are required to be on. To fail to comply invites a citation and fine. Nowhere in any code that I have read has either the manufacturer OR "another driver" been identified as being responsible for the operation of someone else's car lights. Are we going the commie route here. The "state" knows best? This is crazy?

Now, if you can't see a car in broad daylight, there are some other significant issues at play here. Thirty plus years of driving and I've never ever had that problem. Why has seeing become such a big problem all of a sudden?

Told, yes! Absolutely! Done for them, no!

| and by a body that can enforce action if | necessary..

Yes, enforce, I agree.

| |anarchy is the other option.. |

Anarchy is effectively controlled with proper law _enforcement_ (e.g. fines, citations, penalties, jail, etc.) A state taking control away from it's citizenry is NOT enforcement, it's the state taking control over your actions. Sounds commie to me!

Tyranny is the where the road you're selecting ultimately leads to over time. Beware of it or you will one day find yourself living under it.

Denial of the data doesn't make the reality go away. You've yet to explain why that statistic exists (just deny that it does)

| and the more motorcyles that exist on | the road, the more likely one is to be involved in a wreck.. I was a victim | of not being seen one time, before the intro of DRL's on motorcycles.. like | the good citizen that I am/was. I exercized my right to not use lights in | daylight.. the result was a trashed motorcycle, a car almost cut clean in | half, two broken arms, two broken ribs, a broken leg.. I wish that somebody | had taken the choice from me and switched my lights on.. I have suffered | with bad arthritis since I was 17 yrs old because of injuries sustained that | day, and all because I exercized my right to choose and thought that I knew | better..

Then live in China. They will tell you what to do all you want, I'm sure.

| | Incidentally, four states repealed helmet laws, and guess what?.. incidence | of death has increased.

So what? People made a decision knowing the risk. Some paid a consequence. That is how life is. One takes a risk crossing a street. Shall we outlaw crossing a street? Of course not.

| | "NHTSA also found that motorcycle deaths rose significantly, from 2,483 in | 1999 to 2,862 in 2000. It's the third straight year of higher motorcycle | fatalities after 17 years of declines. Motorcycle deaths reached a low point | in 1997. Since then, at least four states -- Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky and | Louisiana -- have repealed their mandatory helmet laws for adult drivers."

So...

Read the Perot & Prowler white paper for some real reasons.

| | The bright side is that they were all martyrs to the cause of free choice.. | that must comfort the relatives..

A history lesson. Fill in the blank. The opposite of free choice is........ Does free choice come with a price, of course it can. The alternative is much worse, history proves it.

| | A quote of yours.. " Whole populations are capeable of being | deceived...given half of a picture for the purpose of making a case (I call | it purposful deception). It's human nature we're all suceptable to.".. I | will mention just two things here.. a victory needed for the purpose of | re-election, and WMD (or lack of)..

Perfect example.

| | ABS braking takes some getting used to for sure, but not all ABS systems | perform as they should.. education is a key factor.. GM supplied video with | their abs equipped GMC Jimmy's, and they may still do it.. I saw a GMC Jimmy | on a used car lot recently.. the video had never been opened.. I guess the | previous owner was not about to be told how to do something..

It doesn't matter what you think of ABS IF some do-gooder legislator introduces and gets a bill passed that makes them _mandatory_ ....you then no longer have choice in the matter at that point.

Tell the thousands of petite women and children that were killed in small fender benders by state mandated air bags (early implementations) that the government knew best what they forced on them. Loss of life by ones own actions is one thing...THEY decided, But when it occurs by the actions of some regulator (albeit well meaning), it's quite another thing.

I was heart broken a few years ago over a news article. A 14 year old girl was leaning over in order to tune in a baseball game on the radio for her dad who was driving when the dad had a minor collision with a car in front of him. Little damage occurred to either vehicle (the dad was driving a Caravan, I think), but the deployment of the airbag broke the 14-year-old girl's neck and killed her instantly. The article had about a dozen of these situations where the airbag was clearly the cause of death or serious injury. Even with the new generation airbags, these situations still occur, but with less frequency, thankfully.

Bullshit.

Nobody pays for the ability of a person to get off his ass and walk around. If that person chooses to walk across a street thereby getting himself pasted across a bus, then it is his problem.

By contrast, we ALL pay a pretty significant amount of tax money in fuel and general fund taxes to maintain the roads. Thus we ALL have the right to have a say in what goes on, on the roads.

If we ALL hold an election and the majority of people decide that you aren't going to be allowed to ride your motorcycle around on the roads without a helmet, then you have no right to do so. So you can stuff your helmet rights up your asshole, asshole. This is called a democracy.

Additionally, if we ALL hold an election and the majority of people elect a representative who then goes and appoints a regulator who institutes airbags on cars, why then guess what, this is what is called a "representative democracy", ie: a Republic, you know like the word Republican (your favorite word, remember) and this just happens to be how the USA is governed, asshole, and if you don't like it, move to China. I'm sure they probably hold as divergent views of republics and democracies as you do, you will get along fine.

If you happen to think the regulator is doing the wrong thing, then tell your representative to replace him. And if your representative doesen't do as you say, then don't vote for him.

And the fruit of ignorance - which you seem to have about governments in abundance - is subjugation by tyrants. THAT is the lesson of history.

You can argue all you want about why we should ban helmet laws or DLR's or whatever. Good. Opposing points of view are critical to fighting ignorance.

But don't ever question the right of the government - meaning you, me, and all of us - to dictate what the rules of use of the public roads are. You seem to have a real problem with understanding that there is no right to drive in this country.

No, frankly it isn't. People rarely have much choice in the options of making fatal mistakes these days - there's so much out there beyond our control. A moments inattention and a person can step off the curb and be killed by a bus. I know it's probably important to your self image to believe that you have some control over your life, but you really don't. You could eat a hamburger tomorrow and contract Mad Cow Disease and be dead in a year. Life is dangerous.

Might be that the dad was so interested in the ballgame that he wasn't paying attention and thus caused the collision. Of course, if that was the truth your never going to see it in the newspaper - even the most cynical reporter or editor isn't going to speak ill of a father who loses his 14 year old daughter in an accident that could happen to anyone, where no obvious signs of reckless driving were present.

From another (possibly more or less cynical) viewpoint, I feel compelled to point out that the potential always exists that any new auto safety improvement will cause harm to some class of people. Certainly there were some infants killed because their car seats were in the front passenger seats and the airbag deployed. And when seat belts were introduced plenty of stories circulated about how someone was killed because their car drove over a cliff into a river and they couldn't get unbuckled in time to swim to safety.

The question though is not whether some 14 year old girl gets killed by an air bag. After all, check your owners manual and check any child safety expert, they will tell you that children belong in the back seat. The 14 year old girl wasn't supposed to be in the front passenger seat to begin with. The question is, did the introduction of air bags save more lives IN TOTAL than by not introducing them? And I think you will find that they have. Unfortunately, this is probably because too many people still do not use their seat belts, thus the airbags save their lives when otherwise they would die - so you probably could make an argument that airbags interfere with the laws of Natural Selection and it's better for the rest of us if we continue to let the idiots get killed off in car wrecks - but thankfully safety mandates aren't made on this basis.

And when it is shown that a new safety improvement harms some group of people, why then you modify it to correct the fault and move forward. Yes, perhaps someone or some people will die to find out there's a fault. But their deaths will save the lives of many more people.

It is very sad, but at one time people were willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of humanity. I guess that overpopulation has so cheapened life that today people view other people as nothing more than a nuisance, and wouldn't lift a finger for them.

Ted

Well, MERRY FREAKIN' CHRISTMAS TO YOU, TED!! 8^)

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

| | Bullshit.

Merry Christmas! :-)

| | Nobody pays for the ability of a person to get off his | ass and walk around. If that person chooses to walk | across a street thereby getting himself pasted across | a bus, then it is his problem.

I agree, it is his problem. You don't pay for public sidewalks and "walk/don't walk" signals or the road he's crossing where you live? :-) Why the two standards?

| | By contrast, we ALL pay a pretty significant amount of | tax money in fuel and general fund taxes to maintain | the roads. Thus we ALL have the right to | have a say in what goes on, on the roads.

I agree...what goes on "on the roads". (a.k.a. "Rules of the Road") No problem here.

| | If we ALL hold an election and the majority of people | decide that you aren't going to be allowed to ride | your motorcycle around on the roads without a | helmet, then you have no right to do so. So | you can stuff your helmet rights up your | asshole, asshole. This is called a democracy.

I agree that if the law exists, one must comply with it. I disagree that the law should exist. (I especially disagree with the part about me being a asshole) <g> BTW: I don't have a helmet to try your suggestion...sorry. You must have forgotten. ;-) Actually, I don't have a motorcycle. If I did, I'd personally choose to wear a helmet.

| | Additionally, if we ALL hold an election and the | majority of people elect a representative who then | goes and appoints a regulator who institutes airbags | on cars, why then guess what, this is what is | called a "representative democracy",

I agree the law can be passed (obviously). I disagree that it should be though. Who is liable for the unnecessary deaths caused by such action, however?

| ie: a Republic, you know like the word Republican (your | favorite word, remember)

Where did I say that?

| and this just happens to be how the USA is governed, | asshole,

You like that "asshole" word, don't you. How does it add value to the discussion other than unnecessarily cheapening your very good discussion points?

| and if you don't like it, move to China. | I'm sure they probably hold as divergent | views of republics and democracies as you do, | you will get along fine.

We're already moving slowly in the direction of how things are done in China. Then where do we go?

| | If you happen to think the regulator is doing the | wrong thing, then tell your representative to | replace him. And if your representative doesen't do as | you say, then don't vote for him.

I agree. I'm fairly active in using opportunities in making public comment and always vote. So, right there with you. Somebody has to balance out the Saddam control freaks like you out there! :-)

| | >

| > A history lesson. Fill in the blank. The opposite of free | choice is........ | > Does free choice come with a price, of course it can. | > The alternative is much worse, history proves it. | | | And the fruit of ignorance - which you seem to have about governments in | abundance - is subjugation by tyrants. THAT is the lesson of history.

I agree. We're in the process of being subjugated, perhaps not yet by "tyrants", but the groundwork is being put in place should that eventuality ever occur....the acceptance of subjugation by the citizenry in the name of "laws for their own good" is a start. (which is the normal 1st step in such a process...numb the populace in preparation using false pretenses).

| | You can argue all you want about why we should ban helmet | laws or DLR's or whatever. Good. Opposing points of | view are critical to fighting ignorance.

I agree. Good discussion to that end. I'm sure we won't change each others minds though. :-) I do understand your points however, I just don't agree with them.

| | But don't ever question the right of the government - meaning | you, me, and all of us - to dictate what the rules of use of | the public roads are. You seem to have a real problem with | understanding that there is no right to drive in this | country.

I have no problem with laws dictating "rules of the road". (i.e. traffic laws...speed, rules of turning, obeying stop signs, when lights are required, etc.) I've said that repeadedly. I think this discussion is really about who has what role in the process and who should decide _what_ is required to be regulated.

Governments _should_ make laws and enforce those laws through citations, fines. etc. Laws about stopping at red lights/stop signs, safe speeds, maximum consecutive driving hours, what weather conditions require lights, etc.

The Citizenry (and ONLY the citzenry) is charged with compliance with said laws. If they don't comply, face some sort of consequence (fine, points, jail, whatever). No problem at all with that.

However, laws telling somebody to wear a helmet is well beyond anything that resembles what would be considered a traffic law (how you are to drive and correspond with your fellow drivers, signs and signals). Wearing or not wearing a helmet effects nothing in regards to "rules of the road".

As I said before, the citizen must have free choice on _how_ to comply NOT the government mandating how to comply. Using a DRL law as an example, the citizen should choose for themselves if they want a automatic system or a manual one (or a combination). After all THEY will be the one to get the ticket for not complying. If you have ever belonged to a astrology club, you will understand how difficult it is to get to a astrology site in a GM vehicle since the ediquette is to arrive with lights off so not to obcure the other star gaizers. In my personal case, my headlights shine into the bedrooms of family members when I arrive home late and turn into the driveway...I choose to cut my lights before I turn in so not to wake my family...one can't do that in a GM car (but I can in my 2004 Chrysler Sebring...thank goodness!). There are many real world examples where one may need to operate a car without the lights on. Other examples. One post over a alt.autos.gm...a owner of a Impala wanted to watch a drive in movie on a hot night with the air conditioner running, he couldn't turn his lights out...the switch did nothing...he was told to leave. Another is just driving through Christmas light displays this time of year...how rude to shine headlights/DRLs on the displays (and even more rude to not have a ability to turn them out). The owner, weather they like DRLs or not, _should_ be able to turn them off when ever they are in a situation where that would be appropriate.

| | >

| > Tell the thousands of petite women and children that were | > killed in small fender benders by state mandated air | > bags (early implementations) that the government | > knew best what they forced on them. Loss of life | > by ones own actions is one thing...THEY decided, | > But when it occurs by the actions of some regulator | > (albeit well meaning), it's quite another thing. | >

| | No, frankly it isn't. People rarely have much choice in | the options of making fatal mistakes these days - | there's so much out there beyond our control. A | moments inattention and a person can step off | the curb and be killed by a bus. I know it's probably | important to your self image to believe that you have | some control over your life, but you really don't. | You could eat a hamburger tomorrow and contract | Mad Cow Disease and be dead in a year. Life is dangerous.

Exactly. So, you want to add to this excellent list of examples even more things that the government has made that would also be out of your control (and possibly dangerious)? These items of yours, for the most part, are laws of nature and natural consequence and are understandable as things that happen. You've been eating hamburgers recently, haven't you?! :-)

| | > I was heart broken a few years ago over a news article. | > A 14 year old girl was leaning over in order to tune in | > a baseball game on the radio for her dad who | > was driving when the dad had a minor collision with a | > car in front of him. Little damage occurred to either | > vehicle (the dad was driving a Caravan, I think), but | > the deployment of the airbag broke the 14-year-old girl's | > neck and killed her instantly. | | Might be that the dad was so interested in the ballgame | that he wasn't paying attention and thus caused the | collision. Of course, if that was the truth your never | going to see it in the newspaper -

Yes it did mention it, the dad was "helping" to find the station...looked down at the frequency display for a moment. How is that relivant? The accident occured via human nature...a moment of inattentiveness (we all have them), death occured by mandatory government requirement by design that would not have occured otherwise in that situation.

| even the most cynical reporter or editor isn't going | to speak ill of a father who loses his 14 year old | daughter in an accident that could happen to anyone, | where no obvious signs of reckless driving were present.

See previous...dad's action was contributory.

| | From another (possibly more or less cynical) viewpoint, | I feel compelled to point out that the potential always | exists that any new auto safety improvement will | cause harm to some class of people. Certainly there | were some infants killed because their car seats | were in the front passenger seats and the airbag | deployed. And when seat belts were introduced | plenty of stories circulated about how someone | was killed because their car drove over a cliff into | a river and they couldn't get unbuckled in time | to swim to safety.

All good points. That is why the citizen should choose what cost benefit THEY are most comfortable with and me allowed to make the choice _freely_.

| | The question though is not whether some 14 year old girl | gets killed by an air bag. After all, check your owners | manual and check any child safety expert, they | will tell you that children belong in the back seat.

That suggestion didn't exist back then. No warning signs in those days that air bags killed certain people or under what circumstances the deaths occured. The citizens were told it made everyone safer, which was only half truth (typical..same situation with this phase of the DRL experiment).

| The 14 year old girl wasn't supposed to be | in the front passenger seat to begin with.

We know that now...no one was saying that then. No annoying prominent warnings on the sun visors back then either.

| The question is, did the introduction of air bags save more | lives IN TOTAL than by not introducing them?

Yes they have...no doubt about it. That isn't really the topic. Many average sized males were saved at the expense of a few petite women and children. A trade off, I suppose. But a moral delemma, wouldn't you agree? As stated before, _everything_ has some pro/con aspect to them. Benefit here, added risk there. But again, THAT decision belongs with the individual. It has nothing to so with "rules of the road"...stopping at stop signs, etc. In the case of air bags, I would personally choose to use them, a petite woman that works for me would choose not to (for good reason)

| And I think you will find that they have.

Yes, definately saved more people then they have killed. Some groups benefited, others lost. However, if you're a small petite woman, you have resoonable cause for real concern (yes even today). I have a very small woman that works for me that sits 3" from her steering wheel in her Accord...she is more afraid of the air bag than anything else. In that case _she_ should be able to decide to turn the air bag off for her own piece of mind. Does that not make perfect sense to you?

| Unfortunately, this is probably because too | many people still do not use their seat belts, | thus the airbags save their lives when | otherwise they would die - so you probably | could make an argument that airbags interfere | with the laws of Natural Selection and it's better | for the rest of us if we continue to let | the idiots get killed off in car wrecks - but | thankfully safety mandates aren't made | on this basis.

A silly premise of allowing natural selection to occur, frankly. I've just given a example where choice is beneficial (for the petite woman driver). Studies show that air bags are not very effective when not buckled in...both restraint systems work best together anyway.

| And when it is shown that a new safety improvement | harms some group of people, why then you modify it | to correct the fault and move forward.

Regarding air bags? When will the fault be "corrected"? Do you know? It's only been improved...there is still a relatively significant risk to petite women and children even today (thus the warnings you mention). Now if somehow you could find a way for petite women to drive from the back seat, all will be perfect, I suppose?!

| Yes, perhaps someone or some people will die | to find out there's a fault. But their deaths will save the | lives of many more people.

So there is a situation in your mind where it's okay that some must die unnecessarily (that wouldn't have othewise died) in order to save others. If you can live with being the one that makes that decision, knock yourself out. I think people should choose for themselves if they want to participate in experiments. My personal choice would be to use crash dummies or other technologies to find out and _know_ in no uncertain terms how effective a so called safety device is _before_ experimenting on the general population. IF this had been done, a properly designed DRL would have been developed that would perform better and more efficiently then the cost saving crap that is out ther now. Did you know that Canada actually had a reasonable good DRL standard under consideration until the GM lobby talked them into going on-the-cheap with what we have on the road today?

| It is very sad, but at one time people were willing | to sacrifice themselves for the good of humanity. | I guess that overpopulation has so cheapened | life that today people view other people as nothing | more than a nuisance, and wouldn't lift a finger for them.

I hope that isn't true. But, you suggest we force said experiments on the population against their will instead? That may explain this dynamic you mention, actually. We have examples of people today "sacrificing themselves" for the rest of us. I don' t think your observation is a correct on in a general sense.