Someone did the calculation that I've always wanted to see. The result
is about what I would have guessed:
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?
Er...Steve? Your original subject line read "One reason DRLs shouldn't be
opposed". It looks to me as if you meant to type "One reason DRLs
shouldn't be mandatory" or "One reason DRLs should be opposed", so I took
the liberty of changing it.
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Steve wrote:
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.
Turn your lights on if visibility is poor...
Turn your wipers on if its raining...
Set the brake and put it in park before you turn off the key...
Stop the lawnmower before you reach under it...
Be ready before you put the car in gear...
Lock your doors when driving...
All those things worked just fine for 50+ years before our brains turned
to goo and we started needing our machinery to have built-in nanny
functions sometime in the 80s or 90s.
| Turn your lights on if visibility is poor...
| Turn your wipers on if its raining...
| Set the brake and put it in park before you turn off the key...
| Stop the lawnmower before you reach under it...
| Be ready before you put the car in gear...
| Lock your doors when driving...
| All those things worked just fine for 50+ years before our brains turned
| to goo and we started needing our machinery to have built-in nanny
| functions sometime in the 80s or 90s.
So it's "goo" that is coming out of my ears...been doing that since the early
It's trial lawyers like John Edwards why these things exist. Folks like him
get rich and we have to deal with the added insurance costs to pay him as well
as the "nanny functions" to help people like him from continuing to collect
even more from our insurance companies (i.e. our premiums)
| On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:
| > It's trial lawyers like John Edwards why these things exist.
| Oh, puh-leeze. Dragging the presidential race into the discussion of DRLs
| is just silly.
I was responding to the topic of the recent move in implementing "nanny
functions" (I believe the post used as reference) in general...the topic being
only but one of many such "nanny function". And, lawyers in general are indeed
the driving force behind the general move away from personal responsibility
that forces manufacturers to implement stuff that tries to protect people from
themselves. (Which is what is truly silly). AND the dollars paid to them for
our inconvenience, no less, come from you and I from costs of goods, services,
etc. John Edwards is of that persuasion, is he not? Just a point of
fact...take it as you wish.
Alright, well, when you can find and document an example -- just one
example -- of John Edwards doing *anything* personally or professionally
to push the installation or mandate of DRLs in the US, be sure and get
back to us.
He said "like" John Edwards, not John Edwards specifically.
I do think you can make a case that John Edwards is
responsible for the greatly increased use of a fetal
monitors and an increase in the number of caesarian births -
at least in North Carolina. WHether or not these are good
thing is beyond my level of knowledge. I do know that having
a child in an NC hospital is an expensive proposition. I
assume there might be some other trial lawyer somewhere,
"like" John Edwards who is responsible for the
implementation of dubious "safety" devices "like" DRLs.
| He said "like" John Edwards, not John Edwards specifically.
| I do think you can make a case that John Edwards is
| responsible for the greatly increased use of a fetal
| monitors and an increase in the number of caesarian births -
| at least in North Carolina. WHether or not these are good
| thing is beyond my level of knowledge. I do know that having
| a child in an NC hospital is an expensive proposition. I
| assume there might be some other trial lawyer somewhere,
| "like" John Edwards who is responsible for the
| implementation of dubious "safety" devices "like" DRLs.
| Ed White
And the context was the laundry list of "nanny functions" I was responding to
(DRLs I don't think was even on the list I was responding to).
I beg to differ here. The phenomonon of greatly increased use of fetal
monitors and cooresponding increase in caesarian births has already
been documented by the watchdogs in the
medical industry. It follows the typical pattern of ALL new medical
devices. (we are seeing the same thing with MRI scanners today,
by the way)
What happens is the medical industry comes up with a brand new
medical toy and take a bunch of patents out on it, then start ramping
up production and churning out a ton of them. They then fire up
the usual scare campaigns to coerce the hospitals into buying them.
The hospital then drops $200,000 on the new fetal
monitors (or in Monty Python parlance, the very expensive machine
that goes !ping!) now they have to pay for them. So they pressure
the obs to use them so they can bill the patients for them. After a
few years the machine has been paid for so the pressure to bill out
for them alleviates. At the same time a much of med students have
been just finishing up their thesis on why the new toys don't do anything
useful for most people, and the various government research institutions
churning out 4 year studies and such that also say the same thing. The
machines then get pushed into the corner and hardly ever used except
in the rare cases that a blind monkey could figure out that they would
And then the next new medical toy comes out and the cycle starts
all over again.
There's no denying that fetal monitors have saved a few babies lives,
they have. But in the beginning, there were no guidelines on use, and
expectant mothers, particularly new ones that never had a baby before,
oftentimes don't know any better and would take whatever was pushed
onto them. So they got pushed on a whole lot of people who didn't
Today, there's guidelines on their need that are gradually being accepted,
and people are learning that even new expectant mothers and fathers, the
most vulnerable of medical patients to scams, have to take the bull by the
balls and start dictating the kind of care they want. Today, nobody has
to take a fetal monitor if they don't want it, they can ask in advance when
shopping hospitals and if the hospital says they are mandatory they can
go elsewhere. And as for caesarians, that is also the woman's choice
in a lot more situations than most people think. It is not unusual after
hours of serious labor for hospital staff to start talking to the mother
caesarian. If the mother understands that this long of a labor isn't
and is determined to do it naturally, they can tell the doctor to fuck off,
usually rally enough so the kid is popped out in the next 4-6 hours. If
however the mother doesen't know shit from shinola, they may panic and
stop pushing and then there's nothing for it but to do the caesarian because
the kid is never going to come out normally.
IMHO the only people that would seriously believe that John Edwards
is responsible like you said for this are people who have a) never had
kids or b) men who were on the golf course when their wife was popping
out their kids, and wouldn't know the difference between a spatula and
a tongue depressor. Unfortunately, as the hospitals didn't let the men into
the delivery room until the last ten years or so, there's too many old farts
out there who fall into the b category and would swallow your crap.
Like was already said, how is he responsible for DRLs?
BTW, I think Edwards is basically a well meaning and decent human being
who has taken advantage of a flawed legal system to make himself rich,
while helping a few of the many thousands of people who suffer from
| On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:
| > | > It's trial lawyers like John Edwards why these things exist.
| > |
| > | Oh, puh-leeze. Dragging the presidential race into the discussion of DRLs
| > | is just silly.
| > I was responding to the topic of the recent move in implementing "nanny
| > functions" (I believe the post used as reference)
| Alright, well, when you can find and document an example -- just one
| example -- of John Edwards doing *anything* personally or professionally
| to push the installation or mandate of DRLs in the US, be sure and get
| back to us.
Reading comprehension Dan (you're usually good at that)...Please read my quoted
text two paragraphs up again...the poster changed the topic within the body of
the post to "nanny functions" in general. Again, I will state, I was
responding to "nanny functions" (and the laundry list of said nanny functions
that was provided as an example).
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.