One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

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:

Maybe ARL has a grant from Exxon?

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

:-)

--Geoff

Man, what a load!

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

Still nothing.

Got anything to refute it?

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

Another illustration of yankee values these days..

It is worth exactly $29.32.

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

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

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

Arthur

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

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

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.

Can these be legally disconnected in Canada?

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.