One reason DRLs shouldn't be opposed...

GM trucks have had a ability to disable the DRLs for a while. It used to be cycling the dome light 4-times and that would disable the DRL (and the auto light function) for that ignition cycle ONLY. The next start, the system was back to default (DRLs on). Could be that they simplified the procedure. OR, maybe they are finally listening to their customers (radical idea).

If DRL'S are useless as some people like to think, how come they have been used for years and continue to be used by commercial vehicles, such as large trucks, buses, trains, streetcars, etc. You would think the major corporations running these vehicles would want to save a penny or two on fuel. Obviously, the directors or these industries feel there are many benefits of the DRL'S which overshadow the reasonings of a few pseudo intellects, tree huggers and conscientious objectors who will say 'No' just because they like to say 'No'

There, this Canadian Idiot put his post on the bottom where everyone wants it. : )

Well, when low powered LCD's are introduced the fuel penalty will be eliminated. A local company in my town is developing the next generation LCD's intended for general lighting and automotive use. Can't say any more on this but it is a product you will see in your lifetime.

Richard.

Well...no, it's not, because you don't mean "LCDs". LCD = Liquid Crystal Display. You mean LED, Light Emitting Diode. And LED DRLs already exist. They consume next to no power, thus eliminating the objection of currently-common filament or discharge light sources for DRLs. Pity there's only one car that comes with them so far.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:44:52 GMT, "Arthur Alspector" spake thusly:

I just wonder why none of those tree hugging pseudo intellects have never spoken out against power steering, power brakes, power windows, HID headlights, air conditioning and ground thumping, window rattling stereos? Don't they all use some power?

Me too ;-)

The full size GM pickups, vans, and SUVs use a separate (and inoffensive, compared to the high beams that GM uses in many other vehicles) white lamp as the DRL (it doesn't appear to be used for anything else). Many of these trucks have one or both of them burned out. Couldn't someone who really doesn't like any DRLs just remove the bulbs?

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:43:13 GMT, Opus- spake thusly:

OOPS! I meant to say "ever" instead of "never"....but you all knew that ;-)

">

Man what a hoot! Keep it coming!

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 f*ck 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

Which you can avoid simply by buying the relevant safety apparatus and installing it and using it.

For example - you could go out and install a roll cage and 5 point seatbelts in your vehicle then use them regularly, and you could also drive the speed limit at all times, and slower during inclement weather, and you could buy a full helmet and body armor and don that every time you get in the car.

You would now most likely be able to survive just about every kind of the worst automobile crash example on American highways.

What the US safety regulations are designed for is to mandate equipment that will keep accidents survivable for people who jump in their cars and not wear their seatbelts and drive like maniacs, all the while while chugging down a quart of Old Paint Remover. But, even with this in mind, the US safety regulations certainly do not go anywhere near as far as one could go in making their vehicle safer. You are perfectly able to go further if you want to be safer.

Ted

Probably because if your goal is to reduce what is damaging the environment you focus on the biggest problems first.

The extra pollution put into the environment by DLR's is insignificant compared to the extra pollution that would be dumped into the environment if, for example we did not have vehicle emissions inspections and just let everyone run around with their clogged EGR valves and burned out catalytic converters. It is also insignificant compared to the reduced pollution dumped into the environment if we could at least slow the growth in the market of the monster SUV's purchased by people with no apparent need for them.

The real question on fuel economy that I always wonder about is why aren't more of the "tree huggers" pushing for manual transmissions with clutches being offered as an option in model car lines. It seems today that only the tinbox economy cars (of which very few are sold in the US) and the sports cars have manual transes. Yet I know a lot of people who would love to buy a sedan, truck, or van that came with a manual gearbox. And if manual trans were even a mere 20% of these markets, you would have enormous fuel savings. This seems one area where the enviro types would be in perfect agreement with the car consumers, and the car companies appear to be deaf, as usual.

Ted

Well, Ted, that would be because the manual transmission vehicles emit a larger-than-acceptable (to the greenies) puff of emissions during the gear change process that gives the automakers fits when they try to meet emissions standards. Not sure what the offending pollutant is, but I do know that the problem is big enough that the automakers have considered doing away with standard transmissions altogether in light passenger vehicles in response. Yet another case of the liberal greenies wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. Of course, they'd be happier if we all were riding bicycles.

--Geoff

Thanks for the correction. What car has the LED DRL's? Just wait till general lighting "white LED's hit the street.

Richard.

Arthur,

Your assumption that EVERYONE prefers bottom posting is absolutely not correct.

I very much prefer top posts since they allow me to read through an entire thread without needing to scroll through the body of the older messages. In addition, since many newsreaders check the number of lines of new (versus old) text, many times I've needed to trim a considerable portion of the previous post, especially when the response is very short. That said, even though I personally prefer top posts since they make me more efficient, I have always appreciated the timely advice/responses I've received from this newsgroup and the information in the message was always far more important than its location!

Bob

White, separate segment, non-glare DRL's were mandated in Northern Europe where the winters are long and the days are short. Tests suggested about a

15% reduction in accidents. Canada and the northern border states enjoy almost the same conditions. There is no data to suggest that a 15% reduction would be experienced in other environments. There is no data I have seen to demonstrate that amber and high beam reduced output DRL's would provide the same level of benefit. We know that high beam reduced output lights produce glare. I don't know if long term studies continue to show any benefit anywhere.

Richard.

That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Shifting a standard is no different than letting off the throttle rapidly in an automatic and then stomping it down again. This has all the markings of an urban legend. Do you have any reliable references at all that support this assertion?

Matt

Thank You, Bob : ) Arthur

When did they start putting DRL's on Fetal monitors? :-)

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: snip

The offensiveness of DRL's is that they are a significant drain all of the time. Power steering, power windows, and AC only really draw power when they are used. Power brakes use throttle body vacuum, which is nearly free (cost of power brakes is part of the penalty for throttling the engine). SoCAM (the group shaking down malls and dentists for playing the radio where other people can hear it, without paying a license fee) will eventually get around to suing everybody who play copywritten music where anybody can hear it without paying for it (this was recently slashdotted).

That makes three of us, but I will claim to being merely Canadian, not an idiot.