# 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:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm

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?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
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:

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Maybe ARL has a grant from Exxon?
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Naw, Steve, like all conservative Texans, is in the back pocket of big oil!!!
:-)
--Geoff
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
If DRL's save one family from being hit head-on, how much is THAT worth?

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Arthur Alspector wrote:

Still nothing.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Another illustration of yankee values these days..

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Arthur Alspector 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.
DS
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Daniel J. Stern wrote:

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.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
| | 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 '90's! ;-)
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)
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

Oh, puh-leeze. Dragging the presidential race into the discussion of DRLs is just silly.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
| 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.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, James C. Reeves wrote:

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.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

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.
Regards,
Ed White
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, C. E. White wrote:

Nothin' new here.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
| | 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. | | Regards, | | 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).
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

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 have started 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 be needed.
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 need them.
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 15-20 hours of serious labor for hospital staff to start talking to the mother about a caesarian. If the mother understands that this long of a labor isn't unusual, and is determined to do it naturally, they can tell the doctor to fuck off, and 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?
Ted
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
When did they start putting DRL's on Fetal monitors? :-)
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: snip

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex 91505600&ent2832fab995bee9&eiP70 http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/july04/04-07-21.html
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 misfortune.
Ed
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
| 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).
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

## Site Timeline

• ### 2.4L engine failure modes???

• - next thread in Chrysler Cars
• ### 1994 Plymouth Sundance 2.2 engine swap

• - previous thread in Chrysler Cars
• ### 1972 Plymouth Fury Windshield Washer Reservoir Needed

• - newest thread in Chrysler Cars
• ### car wash and rear wiper

• - the site's newest thread. Posted in Car Maintenance
• Share To

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.