One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

Someone did the calculation that I've always wanted to see. The result is about what I would have guessed:

formatting link

There are enough approximations in there that the final answer could be wrong by a factor of two in either direction, but the order of magnitude is absolutely correct.

Mandatory daytime running lights on all vehicles in the US would consume ~400 MILLION additional gallons of gasoline, add ~8 BILLION additional pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere and cost drivers ~600 MILLION dollars in extra fuel EVERY YEAR. Think about it, even if those numbers are twice the real value because of the approximations made. Scary, isn't it?

Reply to
Steve
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

I'm an idiot behind a keyboard. I started to title the thread "why DRLS shouldn't be encouraged" and then meant to change it to "why DRLS should be opposed." The meaning got reversed in translation. :-p

Steve wrote:

Reply to
Steve

Maybe ARL has a grant from Exxon?

Reply to
Joe Pfeiffer

Naw, Steve, like all conservative Texans, is in the back pocket of big oil!!!

:-)

--Geoff

Reply to
Geoff

Man, what a load!

Reply to
Rick Blaine

If DRL's save one family from being hit head-on, how much is THAT worth?

Reply to
Arthur Alspector

Still nothing.

Reply to
223rem

Got anything to refute it?

Reply to
Steve

Not really. Not all DRLs are headlights, my Camaro uses the turn signal bulbs for example, and I know some vehicles use LEDs. Besides, most people don't mind wasting gas, just look at all the SUV drivers...

Ulf

Reply to
Ulf

Another illustration of yankee values these days..

Reply to
Arthur Alspector

It is worth exactly $29.32.

Reply to
CLK

It's an unpleasant fact, but a fact nonetheless: There is a price on every citizen's life. Every safety regulation has a cost/benefit ratio, and "If it saves just one life..." is NOT the standard applied -- not even close. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a dollar figure per life saved, below which a safety device cannot be mandated because it fails the agency's internal cost-effectiveness requirements. Sometimes this requirement is waived for extrinsic (e.g. political) reasons -- an example would be the US airbag mandate, which even using the *highest* estimates of lives saved and the *lowest* estimates of costs imposed fails the standard miserably. But other than that, the answer to your implied question is "No". All-or-nothing illogic like yours ("If it saves just one life", "Zero tolerance", etc.) is untenable and unworkable in the real world.

DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

I'd say the need to pose the question of DRLs in the first place is a much better illustration of yankee values these days: swaddle citizens in ever-increasing regulations so that nobody need take responsibility for his own actions and their effect on others' safety. In conditions of compromised visibility, turn your lights on! It's really that simple.

DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

A REAL unpleasant fact if that family happens to be yours.

Arthur

Reply to
Arthur Alspector

Defending 'values', the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Reply to
223rem

Hasnt word reached Canada yet that it is idiotic to top-post?

Reply to
223rem

Probably not enough to offset the shortened lifespans of everyone breathing the excess pollutants produced because of DRLS. Nevermind the fuel cost.

But that doesn't even really matter. Everything we do every day entails risks- its all about managing cost and risk. What if the PRESENCE of DRL's cause another family to run off the road because the driver is blinded or distracted by glare?

Dan's already expounded on the fact that "just one life saved..." or "think of the children!!" isn't a valid reason for mandating an engineering change, so I'll not repeat it.

Reply to
Steve

Can these be legally disconnected in Canada?

Reply to
Bill Seas

The problem with your position is that it assumes DRLs can only improve safety -- in every single case -- and that they lack the potential for detrimental effects on safety -- in even one case. Since that's not how DRLs work (or anything else for that matter), your argument's veracity is null.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

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.