One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

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.

Reply to
Steve
Loading thread data ...

It depends on your provincial highway code.

Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 requires compliant DRLs on all new vehicles manufactured on or after 1/1/1990. Once a vehicle is registered and in use, Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards *themselves* no longer apply, since vehicles in use are regulated by each individual province. Some provinces are beginning to adopt Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards either by reference or by duplication into their highway codes, and if your province's highway code contains a specific requirement for DRLs then you may not deactivate them legally.

I'm in Ontario. The highway code does not require DRLs, and the provincial rubric for vehicle safety inspections includes only the following lighting-related items:

-Headlamp aim

-All bulbs working and lamps undamaged

-All reflectors undamaged

DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

And when your pet safety feature is the direct cause of death for someone who would have survived had it not been there, what then?

Airbags are a case in point.

Reply to
Brandon Sommerville

So, tell this 'Canadian idiot' what "top-posting" is.

Reply to
Arthur Alspector

| | 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. | |

I agree!

Reply to
James C. Reeves

Hey, everyone doesn't agree on Top posting.

Reply to
High Sierra

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)

Reply to
James C. Reeves

Curious why that sentiment. The electrical generation to power the lamps comes from.....exactly where if not from the alternator which is driven by the engine which runs on gasoline. The electrical energy isn't free, for heaven's sake! It comes from somewhere. Even if you use the lights with the engine off and drain the battery a bit, the alternator (thus the engine fueled by gas) had to consume a bit more horsepower to generate the electrical energy to recharge the battery.

The howstuffworks post has been out there for quite a while. But the facts it states actually is not disputed by either group (the opposes of DRLs OR the supporters). Both groups know that the additional fuel consumption is part of the "cost" of having DRLs.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

Yes - I think that people ought not to be allowed to drive cars at all. After all, if it saves just *one* life... 8^)

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Reply to
Bill Putney

Well, what are the hundreds, if not thousands of additional lives lost to air pollution worth? Ever hear of unintended consequences? The feds banned alcohol last century to save lives, and wound up killing even more because prohibition was one of the primary factors that led to the creation of organized crime. For this to really mean anything you have to look at the end to end costs in lives and money for everything that's related. I suspect that the lives we spend defending out energy resources and the lives that are lost to pollution directly and indirectly are far higher than any that are lost due to not having DRLs.

JazzMan

Reply to
JazzMan

Oh, puh-leeze. Dragging the presidential race into the discussion of DRLs is just silly.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

You guys make this Canadian idiot laff......you rant on and on about the affect two wee little light bulbs have on the consumption of fuel and creation of deadly pollution, and go on to extol the 300C, Pacifica and all the other guzzlers on the road with little old ladies or privileged teens behind the wheel and no one else in the car. LOL : ) You break me up!

Reply to
Arthur Alspector

Ah, but you're grossly mistaken. It isn't "_two_ wee little light bulbs", it's _400,000,000_ wee little light bulbs (in the USA alone). And they aren't really so "wee little"! Most are 23-55 watts each! Then add that to real-world insurance loss data that show zero benefit of DRLs in reducing "loss"...so that then makes them a unnecessary waste.

However, I will agree with you on the direction we seem to be going with vehicles that consume far more fuel then they have to (DRLs or not)...also a unnecessary waste. No argument there!

Reply to
James C. Reeves

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.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

BTW: I have a question. I wonder why your posts never seem to continue withing the relivant discussion thread....it seems to almost always post in some other unrelated location within the discussion. Odd...

Reply to
James C. Reeves

I realize the list could be long but, is there a list of American autos that come with DRLs standard? Do all GM cars have them now? What about the imports?

Thanks...

Reply to
Bill Seas

Since most of the above are already in most products, to force them upon us is ridiculous. If they prefer, these systems should be used only for the mentally or physically challenged.

Reply to
Tibur Waltson

All GM vehicles All VWs All Volvos All Saabs Many/most Toyotas Many/most Lexus Many BMWs

There may be more

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

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.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

Thank you.

Reply to
Bill Seas

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.