One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

I totally agree. However, in California at least, someone would have to be cited under the conflicting Vehicle Code section, and then take it to court and get it overturned on appeal, before police could (at least technically) start ignoring this Vehicle Code section.

Would you (or anyone else out there) happen to know if any such court ruling has happened affecting California yet?

Or, of course, the California legislature could make life easier for everyone by amending the Vehicle Code as required to make it conform explicitly to the federal regulations.

Rich Wales snipped-for-privacy@richw.org

That doesn't make much sense, those are sort of the opposite side of the same argument.

Damn usenet, they'll let anyone in here.

But it drops the speed faster, and if that causes you to overshoot, that savings just has to be made up with more fuel to get back up to speed on the next uphill (or apply a little throttle to keep from overshooting while descending or decelerating). But if you're stopping for a stop light, then it saves on brakes a little.

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

I think you misread what he wrote. He said that the regulator

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

There's a group of people who think that the HP 3000 was a great minicomputer in the newsgroup: comp.sys.hp.mpe.

OK, that could help. You'd probably have to put the fog-light controls on a different lever/knob than the high beams, which would probably confuse everyone, but....

Regrettably, you can send it to the same address no matter whom you wish to apologize to, courtesy of Ms. Carly Fiorina. Once again the worst tech won - administer an AlphaServer cluster and a Superdome for a while and see which you prefer.

Don't forget, they hired the VMS fellow, had him write the NT kernel (the parts that weren't stolen from BSD, of course) and then paid him off handsomely.

Most cops will take issue if you have a naked girl in the front seat of a car, 'knobs' or not. Personally, I prefer the ones with knobs.

:-)

--Geoff

Let me see if I understand this:

A company makes a product so severely defective that it causes a serious injury.

A jury of twelve normal people looks at the facts, decides that it is the fault of the manufacturer, and that the injury caused major harm to the person injured and awards a large sum of money as compensation for their injuries -- i.e., money to make them whole again.

The trial lawyer, who did not make the product, did not operate the product, took all of the risk and cost in the lawsuit gets a portion of what is awarded -- much of which goes to offset his out-of-pocket costs -- and you contend the problem is the lawyer?

In Japan, before there were product liability laws, televisions used to explode and kill people. The only reason that trial lawyers make money is that we have decided we want manufacturers to be socially responsible as well.

Oh, and by the way, trial lawyers are not the reason for daylight running lamps -- the safety nuts in Washington are -- and they are sponsored by the insurance companies, not the trial lawyers.

Oh, and by the way, trial lawyers are not the reason for daylight running lamps -- the safety nuts in Washington are -- and they are sponsored by the insurance companies, not the trial lawyers.

Not accurate. DRLs started in Northern Europe. A front white light in a different segment from turn, and headlight segments. No glare, and a study suggested a 15% reduction in accidents. They suffer from long dark winters.

When vehicle venders petitioned the guys in Washington to permit or mandate DRLs Washington decided to permit but not mandate them. But the USA car guys wanted to do it on the cheap, so instead of doing the way it was done in Northern Europe they got the OK from the Feds to use high beams with their brightness diminished as an alternative, or the use of amber turn light segments for DRL use. You know the rest of the story. Glare and confusion and wasted energy.

Richard.

I can't believe they got away with that s*it. GM makes it very difficult for your to permanently dis-able DRL's.

------------ Alex

I can easily get my car aligned, check my tire pressure and turn off my AC. I can't easily disable DRL's.

-------------- Alex

Sometimes this is the case; far more often the customers refuse to read the documentation or use the product in the manner intended.

And, of course, is emotionally manipulated by everyone involved. Would Mr. Edwards have become a multi-millionaire had he been possessed of a pockmarked face, a crooked back, a droning voice, and a habit of stuttering? Do you really think that the facts determine most of these cases? Or are normal people manipulated into us-versus-them emotional decisions, never considering that a corporation never truly pays, but rather passes misery on to its employees and customers?

That is correct. He has made nothing.

Also correct. He has done nothing.

As any other self-employed individual does in business.

But not *that* much, obviously, or Mr. Edwards and his ilk would not be so spectacularly wealthy.

He is certainly part of the problem. And you have not addressed the class actions which earn millions of dollars for individual attorneys and reward each member of the class with nine dollars, a coupon for a free product, or an apologetic letter.

I would suggest instead that trial attorneys earn money out of a basic lack of understanding on the part of the average American concerning the way corporations actually work. There is something in the psyche which loves to see the mighty brought low. For every common-sense justified award, there are many others which are the product of nothing but a misplaced desire to see someone - anyone - "pay".

Take a look at

to see who is sponsoring whom.

The did get away with it. GM basically gets what it wants, apparently.

| >| >> Most idiot drivers say, "I can see the road, I don't need to turn my | >| >> lights on". They're too stupid to realize that light have two purposes. | >| >> (to see and BE SEEN). | >| >

| >| >Several different types of DRLs common in North America *encourage* driver | >| >misuse of lights (driving in bad weather and/or after dark without proper | >| >lights turned on). It's much easier for a cop to spot a dark car than an | >| >improperly-lit car. | >| >

| >| And I guess that's why "automatic headlamps" have become so common. | >| Can't drive my TransSport without full lighting after dark, even if I | >| want to. | >

| >Probably so...but "auto headlamp control" create another issue. People that | >have them get used to the auto system doing their job for them so they forget | >that often they still need to manually turn their regular lights on when it's | >foggy out (in the daytime). For some cars...ditto for daytime rain and snow | >conditions. | >

| | Not with my Trans-Sport. It errs on the cautious side, turning on full | lights LONG before most drivers would suspect it might be prudent.

Unusual, but I have seen that too. The ones I've had were the opposite...applied lights way too late (for my preference)

| | Now, a BRIGHT rainy day, you know, when you need sunglasses AND an | umbrella? No headlights or tail lights - just daylighters.

But most states stilll require all lights when raining. So, manual operation is required in this case.

| | There are SOME vehicles that apparently turn on full lighting when the | wiper switch leaves the "off" position. |

True... Wipers aren't always needed in fog or very dry/fluffy snow conditions however.

"Jack Baruth" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@goldfish.calamarco.com... | In article , Thomas Arneson wrote: | >

| > A company makes a product so severely defective that it causes a | > serious injury. | | Sometimes this is the case; far more often the customers refuse | to read the documentation or use the product in the manner intended. | | > A jury of twelve normal people looks at the facts, | | And, of course, is emotionally manipulated by everyone involved. Would | Mr. Edwards have become a multi-millionaire had he been possessed of a | pockmarked face, a crooked back, a droning voice, and a habit of | stuttering? Do you really think that the facts determine most of these | cases? Or are normal people manipulated into us-versus-them emotional | decisions, never considering that a corporation never truly pays, but | rather passes misery on to its employees and customers? | | > The trial lawyer, who did not make the product, | | That is correct. He has made nothing. | | > did not operate the product, | | Also correct. He has done nothing. | | > took all of the risk and cost in the lawsuit | | As any other self-employed individual does in business. | | > gets a portion | > of what is awarded -- much of which goes to offset his out-of-pocket | > costs | | But not *that* much, obviously, or Mr. Edwards and his ilk would | not be so spectacularly wealthy. | | > and you contend the problem is the lawyer? | | He is certainly part of the problem. And you have not addressed the | class actions which earn millions of dollars for individual attorneys | and reward each member of the class with nine dollars, a coupon for | a free product, or an apologetic letter. | | > In Japan, before there were product liability laws, televisions used | > to explode and kill people. The only reason that trial lawyers make | > money is that we have decided we want manufacturers to be socially | > responsible as well. | | I would suggest instead that trial attorneys earn money out of a basic | lack of understanding on the part of the average American concerning | the way corporations actually work. There is something in the psyche | which loves to see the mighty brought low. For every common-sense | justified award, there are many others which are the product of nothing | but a misplaced desire to see someone - anyone - "pay". | | > Oh, and by the way, trial lawyers are not the reason for daylight | > running lamps -- the safety nuts in Washington are -- and they are | > sponsored by the insurance companies, not the trial lawyers. | | Take a look at | |

No need for my reply...well stated facts.

| >

| > Arthur Alspector wrote: | > >

| > > ...I recall that those old vehicles I mentioned did very | > > well when they were moving, but required an enormous amount of exertion | to | > > get out of tight parking spaces. No one-finger steering then. | >

| > That's why they invented steering wheel knobs - you know - the ones with | > the naked girls on them and stuff (I think they're illegal now - the | > knobs, not the girls). | | Most cops will take issue if you have a naked girl in the front seat of a | car, 'knobs' or not. Personally, I prefer the ones with knobs. | | :-) | | --Geoff | |

Pointy knobs? Or, round knobs?

It not only is possible, it is the norm for small cars with small engines. The difference in mileage is often quite substantial (10% or so). Larger vehicles tend to do as well or better with an automatic, however, really large vehicles (OTR rigs) still do better with manual. There have been attempts over the years to develop an automatic for the large trucks, but so far they've not succeeded ... at least not the last I knew.

Matt

Sure it is. It is using some of the gasoline that was used to accelerate the car to speed or to climb the hill that it is now going down. There is no free lunch.

Matt