1. Home
  2. Chrysler Cars
  3. Hoopla over DRL
  4. Page 2

Hoopla over DRL

Don't blame the US for this one. Sure, Canada could mandate that. Would GM file a lawsuit? Probably. Would they WIN a lawsuit? That is not at all for certain.

If all the regulations changes that Canada mandated were backed up by supportable, repeatable studies - not just one single study that was done 5 years ago in Europe - the chances of a restraint of trade lawsuit prevailing would be far lower than you make it out to be. Not to mention the political implications being extremely serious. Imagine for example if GM were to file this lawsuit and Chrysler were to file a brief supporting Canada then start advertising that their vehicles are safer than GM vehicles. Get a few others involved like Ralph Nader and when GM sees their sales affected, that lawsuit would get settled out of court quicker than grapes through a goose.

You have to understand that in the US, the THREAT of a lawsuit is used much more than the actual lawsuit is. Just about everyone will claim they are going to sue your ass if you do something they don't like - but if you go ahead and do it anyway, most people won't end up filing. This is how the US culture reacts to things it doesen't like - a lot of bluster and talk, very little actual doing anything except for trying to propagandize the mob in the street.

If Canada really wanted Amber turn signals all they have to do is mandate those plus about 5 other safety improvements. If GM sues, then they settle out of court and agree to only mandate the Amber turn signals. Then 5 years later Canada does the same thing again, and settles out of court again. Little by little all the stuff that Canada wanted would eventually get implemented, because as you pointed out all the automakers would have to do is change the US regulations to match, to have a single inventory. And since the US regulators are basically in the pockets of the automakers, that wouldn't be too difficult.

That is how politics/business works in the United States. Sorry that you don't like it, but once you understand it, it is quite possible to get things done. Many other people have got a lot more serious safety improvements forced into law down here than amber turn signals, just by playing the game. If Canada regulators don't want to play the game then they only have themselves to blame for it.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt
Loading thread data ...

I can and I do. There are additional factors at work that I cannot post in public because they are confidential. Suffice to say I know more than you do on this particular matter.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

Reply to
deadbeat

You should check out alt.conspiracy.jfk since you seem to think that people should believe you just because you claim to have some secret knowledge.

That "I cannot post in public because they are confidential. Suffice to say I know more than you do on this particular matter" is pretty big with the conspiracy theorists on that group. Believe it or not, the lone-nutters find that argument quite hilarious.

I wonder why?

Reply to
doc

You mean the secret deal where the Canada regulators agreed to forgo mandating amber turn signals in exchange for some other thing?

Yeah, Dan, I may not know the exact details of what your talking about but I know politics. Canadian regulators have the power to mandate safety regulations. They are only going to give up that power in exchange for getting something else that they want. Quite obviously in this situation if the Canadian regulators have given up the authority to mandate amber turns - as you claim - then there was some payback. Quite obviously somebody got something they wanted in Canada in exchange for not causing trouble.

The US is of course going to do what is best for the US manufacturers who finance the various political campaigns of the US politicians. In this case the proposed Canadian regulations would cost some of these US manufacturers money. So they are going to threaten and fight against them. That is what countries do and all countries act in this manner. You even have subgroups within Canada

- like the French - who do the same thing, by forcing idiot laws through that require signs in English to have the same thing in French in letters twice as big, although nobody there speaks French.

But it is still your countries choice whether they are going to fight against this or not. In the case of the crazies in Quebec, apparently the rest of Canada has decided it's not worth fighting them. In the case of vehicle safety regulations, apparently Canada has decided it isn't important enough to fight with the US about. But, just because they decided not to fight, doesen't mean that the US won and they lost, like your trying to make it out to be. They - you - still decided not to fight over it. Until your country decides to make a stink about it and fight over it - and I haven't read diddly squat in the newspapers about US threatening trade sanctions against Canada because the Canadians are requiring vehicles to be made safer - it's your fault that your rolling over and playing dead, not ours.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

"James C. Reeves" wrote

That's only a problem where DRLs are not mandatory. Where they are, then there is no distraction issue. As to sun angles, the height of the sun in Summer in most of the heavily populated areas of Canada is far higher than the height of the winter sun even in the deep South, so I don't think that matters.

Reply to
Dave Gower

You talk like this is the FIRST time a DRL thread has stirred up the whole place! Far from it...

Reply to
Steve

FWIW, there was a blurb in the paper over the weekend saying that DaimlerChrysler sales were up by something like a factor of 3 over this time last year. ALL of the gain was in the North American arm (Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep) of the company.

If this keeps up, maybe they'll drop the "Daimler" half of the name- its draggin' us down, after all. :-p

Reply to
Steve

If your statement is true, by definition then DRLs provide no added benefit once all vehicles are outfitted with them.

| As to sun angles, the height of the sun in | Summer in most of the heavily populated areas | of Canada is far higher than the height of the | winter sun even in the deep South, so I don't | think that matters. |

Perhaps only if comparing Canadian summers to US winters...how is that relevant? Even in Finland (or maybe it was Sweden...I forget which), initial DRL laws required them only during the winter months.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

The Canadian softwood lumber industry and the beef industry just end up paying for it in the end. American politicians, for all their inefectual blustering, ARE the schoolyard bullys. They DO extract their "pound of flesh" in revenge - one way or the other. There is no such thing as an "equal partership" between a Chimpanzee and a lowland gorilla. (or an elephant and a mouse)

Reply to
nospam.clare.nce

Canada is like a Possum on the road. They can lie at the side of the road and play dead, or they can come out fighting - and BE dead. The American (US) economy is in the order of TEN times the size of Canada's. Mabee even a lot more than that. Their "bully factor" is significantly higher than that, and if push comes to shove, what is the castrated Canadian military going to do against the US? Think back to the AVRO ARROW. Canada WAS at the head of the class in aerospace engineering, and the US would have none of that, so they blackmailed Canada into destroying the entire project, with promises of Canadian involvement in NASA and the space race.

Reply to
nospam.clare.nce

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.