Why do folks hate DRLs?

[LittleBlueGT]

We all know that just because a couple of guys on the internet say something is good for us, it must be true. We know numbers can't be manipulated to prove a point either way...

 

This is the same kind of argument people use when they want to raise the minimum drivers age. They say "16 yo's have all the accidents so we should raise the age." If they made that age 25, they'd be the ones having all the accidents because it's still their first year driving!

 

DRLs are another in the "where is it going to stop" category. When DRLs are mandatory, what's the next requirement going to be? Safety nazi's won't stop with that one -- anything statistics say might improve safety will be the next thing slapped onto a vehicle. Soon all cars will be neon green with flashing beacons on top and warning beepers front and rear.

 

People don't like change.

 

Drive where DRLs have been the law for years, and then go back. Likely you will change your tune.

[Vimy101]

^ It's the same reason that the US hasn't moved to the metric system. Fuddy Duddies don't like change.

[LittleBlueGT]

^ It's the same reason that the US hasn't moved to the metric system. Fuddy Duddies don't like change.

 

That and the fact that there mile marker system actually works pretty good. I really like how exits are marked according to the mile, it makes navigating a breeze.

 

How many feet are ther in a mile again? 5280.004788378378374

 

How many meters in a km? 1000. So easy:icon_wink

[Vimy101]

^ Any system that prevents a car from getting totalled in an avoidable collision is good for the enviroment because a great deal more energy is used in the construction of a new vehicle than the energy used to run the DLR.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Good cripes.

 

What did people ever do before people got the bright idea to leave lights on all day, and then ask the government to mandate it.

 

A light is a light. if you are relying, even just a little bit, on whether a car has lights on or not to evaluate whether it is moving or not, you seriously need to develop better attention to detail.

 

I can see the outlines of vehicles in the day time. I can see whether they are moving, and how far away, and within a fairly short time, how fast. Usually I can identify make model and year-range in much less time than it takes to speak it.

 

If it is less than daylight, I can turn my lights on by myself, like a big boy, and I would expect others to, as well. Expectations, aren't they amazing?

 

And John M is correct about motorcycles, busses, and emergency vehicles. I ride a motorcycle, and my parents are both emergency volunteers, and I have seen morons completely disregard their HUGE RED/WHITE/YELLOW REFLECTIVE FLASHING HONKING AND LOUD emergency vehicles. And you think your fraction-powered headlights make a difference... keep telling yourself that.

 

If you are complaining because it is easy for your brain to start dismissing things that don't have lights on while they are moving in daylight conditions, then your brain can start taking for granted things that do have lights on. It is the same matter of inattention to what is really going on, and that is what makes me nervous when I ride my motorcycle at any time of the day or night.

 

What else do you have to do that is so pressing while you are driving in the day time that you can't spend the time to evaluate the traffic around you within your feild of vision, and you need the "extra time"? What are you going to do with that extra time? if an accident is imminent, then the other vehicle is too close for you to react to, lights or no lights, and if you can't see a vehicle in that proximity without it burning the headlights, then you seriously should reconsider your driving qualifications, for your own safety, and mine.

 

IF DRLs make cars more noticeable sooner and while that car is further away, what are you going to do about it? panic? take a detour around any and all other traffic? Nothing. I thought so. And while you worry about that oncoming car that is 1000 yards away with it's DRLs, you are drifting out of your lane, and crowding me, and you are not paying attention to that car that is merging into your lane, that you can't see their DRLs from astern, anyway.

 

Pay attention to traffic, not just lights. And if it is dark, then turn your headlights on, like people have been doing since cars had literal HORSE power.

 

DRLs of COURSE are going to be advocated by government bureaucrats that tout safety. If they didn't have something to tout for safety, they would loose their jobs for lack of usefulness, which is nearly the case already. The way the NHTSA acts, one would think that everyone esle is grossly incompetent, and that only by an astronomically huge random chance, we haven't all killed each other off already.

 

Pay attention and drive, and stop worrying about whether MY LIGHTS ARE ON OR NOT!

 

Why not consider something else more pressing, like why subaru put DRLs on the cars, but gave them such a weak pathetic excuse for a horn that you can't hear me when I honk at you for not paying attention.

[Vimy101]

The studies apply and statically bear out the hypothesis that DRL reduce vehicle to vehicle collisions. Next you're going to say that turn signals and brake lights are stupid.

[IwannaSportSedan]

There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

 

Statistics can be so skewed, they can show that brake lights and turn signals are stupid, if you know how to manipulate the circumstances, and the data set that is used. Everyone refers to these studies, but no one has yet produced the numbers and methodologies. it is hearsay at best, at this point, in this thread.

 

If you are going to hit another car, and your headlights would make a difference in that outcome, don't you think you should have your headlights switched on yourself? and if it happens regularly, don't you think you should just leave them on all the time?

 

Do tail lights prevent rear-end accidents? why not just mandate them at all times of the day, too? Why not mandate that cars be covered in a thick layer of foam? Why not mandate that the car be monitered by GPS, and limited to travel only in your lane of traffic, at the prescribed speed limit, regardless of the driver's input? Why not mandate that the government comes and drives your car for you?

 

Where has responsibility gone? Common Sense is probably hiding there with it.

 

And if you are getting into accidents because someone else doesn't see your car in the daytime, don't you think that is their fault for being incapable of operating a motor vehicle?

 

DRLs, at worst, are an enabling device that allows for further driver laziness. you see the lights, OK, good, now pay attention to something else...

 

TRY PAYING ATTENTION TO MORE THAN JUST LIGHTS!!! Regardless of what time of the day or night.

 

And please don't base an argument on putting words in my mouth. It is a weak move, and if you can't judge what a car is doing without lights on, you certainly can't extrapolate what I am about to say.

[JensL]

Ok, let's do another example.

 

Imagine driving on a small, twisty 2-lane road.

Then you come around a bend onto a straight, where you see two cars side by side, not very far ahead of you.

 

In what situation do you think you'll determine fastest if this is just two cars in each direction, or an idiot doing a dangerous overtaking?

With obligatory DRLs or not?

[JensL]

What did people ever do before people got the bright idea to leave lights on all day, and then ask the government to mandate it.

 

Maybe someone found out that this was a good idea, that made traffic safer, but it was hard to reach everybody else, therefore using the government.

It isn't that long ago that they found out that seatbelts was a pretty good idea.

There are places in Russia where drivers aren't using seatbelts because they're convinced they're dangerous. It was on the news a little while ago.

 

A light is a light. if you are relying, even just a little bit, on whether a car has lights on or not to evaluate whether it is moving or not, you seriously need to develop better attention to detail.

 

I'm not RELYING on it, it just helps me deal with that detail a bit faster, so that I can concentrate on other details.

 

I can see the outlines of vehicles in the day time. I can see whether they are moving, and how far away, and within a fairly short time, how fast. Usually I can identify make model and year-range in much less time than it takes to speak it.

 

Sure you can. But driving through a city street, don't you think it will be quicker to determine which cars are parked/inactive if they got their lights off, and the "active" cars had theirs on?

 

If it is less than daylight, I can turn my lights on by myself, like a big boy, and I would expect others to, as well. Expectations, aren't they amazing?

Unfortunately, not everyone is as attentive or adult as you.

Again, the human factor needs to be removed.

 

And John M is correct about motorcycles, busses, and emergency vehicles. I ride a motorcycle, and my parents are both emergency volunteers, and I have seen morons completely disregard their HUGE RED/WHITE/YELLOW REFLECTIVE FLASHING HONKING AND LOUD emergency vehicles. And you think your fraction-powered headlights make a difference... keep telling yourself that.

 

Of course there are morons on the roads. That's why accidents happen, right?

But will the light of a motorcycle be invisible if all vehicles used their lights?

I can see them just fine.

 

If you are complaining because it is easy for your brain to start dismissing things that don't have lights on while they are moving in daylight conditions, then your brain can start taking for granted things that do have lights on. It is the same matter of inattention to what is really going on, and that is what makes me nervous when I ride my motorcycle at any time of the day or night.

 

I'm not dismissing non-lighted moving objects during the day, I can pay more attention to them, because every lighted moving object is more quickly identified.

 

What else do you have to do that is so pressing while you are driving in the day time that you can't spend the time to evaluate the traffic around you within your feild of vision, and you need the "extra time"? What are you going to do with that extra time? if an accident is imminent, then the other vehicle is too close for you to react to, lights or no lights, and if you can't see a vehicle in that proximity without it burning the headlights, then you seriously should reconsider your driving qualifications, for your own safety, and mine.

 

DRLs might give you the extra tenth of a second reaction time that you'll need to avoid the accident. It might not, but if all lights are off, it definitely won't.

 

IF DRLs make cars more noticeable sooner and while that car is further away, what are you going to do about it? panic? take a detour around any and all other traffic? Nothing. I thought so. And while you worry about that oncoming car that is 1000 yards away with it's DRLs, you are drifting out of your lane, and crowding me, and you are not paying attention to that car that is merging into your lane, that you can't see their DRLs from astern, anyway.

 

Hmmm....just came to think of something. In the US, when a car is using what you call Daytime Running Lights, aren't the rear lights on, is it only the fronts?

 

Pay attention to traffic, not just lights. And if it is dark, then turn your headlights on, like people have been doing since cars had literal HORSE power.

 

Attention to traffic is definitely important. Headlights during the day WILL make it easier to pay attention to the important things, lighted or not.

 

DRLs of COURSE are going to be advocated by government bureaucrats that tout safety. If they didn't have something to tout for safety, they would loose their jobs for lack of usefulness, which is nearly the case already. The way the NHTSA acts, one would think that everyone esle is grossly incompetent, and that only by an astronomically huge random chance, we haven't all killed each other off already.

 

Well, those damned bureaucrats advocated the use of seatbelt some years ago. Damn them all. ;-)

 

Pay attention and drive, and stop worrying about whether MY LIGHTS ARE ON OR NOT!

 

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that.

 

 

 

By the way, I was driving around in Portugal this summer, where they don't have obligatory DRL. There's quite a few tunnels there, where people turn on their lights. The problem was that some forgot, some are just idiots and some were too busy on the phone and eating.

It was shocking to see how many that waited way too long to switch on their lights when it got darker.

 

Also, the Portuguese park absolutely everywhere in their narrow streets, which made it hard to determine if they were driving or not.

 

Another thing I hadn't thought about for a long time, is how much DRL helps getting aware of cars in the rearview mirros.

 

Even my girlfriend made several comments on how much harder it was to see what cars were doing when their lights were off during the day.

[JensL]

There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

 

Statistics can be so skewed, they can show that brake lights and turn signals are stupid, if you know how to manipulate the circumstances, and the data set that is used. Everyone refers to these studies, but no one has yet produced the numbers and methodologies. it is hearsay at best, at this point, in this thread.

 

Well, I agree that statistics can be just another way to lie.

I can try to find some of the studies, if you want. However, it might be difficult to find them in English.

 

By the way, can you show some studies that shows that DRL is a bad thing?

 

If you are going to hit another car, and your headlights would make a difference in that outcome, don't you think you should have your headlights switched on yourself? and if it happens regularly, don't you think you should just leave them on all the time?

 

Hmmm...I think this was exactly the conclusion of the studies. :-)

 

Do tail lights prevent rear-end accidents? why not just mandate them at all times of the day, too? Why not mandate that cars be covered in a thick layer of foam? Why not mandate that the car be monitered by GPS, and limited to travel only in your lane of traffic, at the prescribed speed limit, regardless of the driver's input? Why not mandate that the government comes and drives your car for you?

 

Where has responsibility gone? Common Sense is probably hiding there with it.

 

Tail lights definitely helps read-end accidents, no matter day or night. So do brake lights.

A thick layer of foam on the outside? Isn't it better to have it inside? Airbag II. :-)

GPS-surveillance are being done in rental cars in the US right now, isn't it?

 

In the future, I guess the government WILL drive your car. Just dial in where your going, and let the autopilot do the job.

It might be a few years off, fortunately. :-)

 

 

And if you are getting into accidents because someone else doesn't see your car in the daytime, don't you think that is their fault for being incapable of operating a motor vehicle?

 

Yeah, there's lot's of people on the roads today that definitely shouldn't be. Unfortunalty it seems that someone thinks that driving a car is a human right. I don't think it should be.

 

But, if having my headlights on during the day, might help these people seeing be better, I'll put'em on.

 

DRLs, at worst, are an enabling device that allows for further driver laziness. you see the lights, OK, good, now pay attention to something else...

 

Exactly! You see the lighted vehicles faster and more easily, and know where they are, now you can look for that child running after the ball...

 

TRY PAYING ATTENTION TO MORE THAN JUST LIGHTS!!! Regardless of what time of the day or night.

 

No problem, already doing that. :-)

 

And please don't base an argument on putting words in my mouth. It is a weak move, and if you can't judge what a car is doing without lights on, you certainly can't extrapolate what I am about to say.

 

Fair enough.

[JensL]

North American DRL systems only activate the front headlamps at a "less than low-beam" brightness.

 

I leave my low-beam lights on all the time as this activates my tail lights as well. Again, the presence of tail lights on a car up ahead indicates to me that the car is a potential hazard and can pull away from the curb at any time.

 

Really? DRL = no tail lights?

 

Too bad, the tail lights really help in daytime too.

But hey, even more bulbs you won't need to replace anytime soon. ;-)

[TravisS]

Really? DRL = no tail lights?

 

Yes, that's what some of us were complaining about earlier.

 

What you end up with is people that drive around at night, without their tails on, because the headlights *look* like they're on. I've seen it many times, and it's more frustrating to me to have people running around at night without taillights then during the day without headlights.

[JensL]

Yes, that's what some of us were complaining about earlier.

 

What you end up with is people that drive around at night, without their tails on, because the headlights *look* like they're on. I've seen it many times, and it's more frustrating to me to have people running around at night without taillights then during the day without headlights.

 

Yeah, I can understand that.

That sounds very dangerous, and strange.

[IwannaSportSedan]

I didn't claim credibility based on studies saying that DRLs are bad, so I don't have to quote any. My opinion is based on common sense.

 

In my opinion, they are at best inconsequential to someone paying attention, and at worst, they allow inattentive drivers to take other traffic for granted, and pay attention to things other than traffic. Maybe some of you pay attention to traffic after you divert your attention from cars that have their lights on. good for you.

 

I think it is potentially dangerous to divert your attention away from traffic just because they are a "known quantity" with their DRLs on. They could do something crazy regardless of their lights, and you have moved your attention on to other things, other traffic, or otherwise.

 

To me, lights on or off doesn't really affect my attention span during daylight hours. Cars forgetting to turn their tail lights because their DRLs are acting like headlights after dusk does. Cars not turning their lights on when they should, in a tunnel, or otherwise, is another matter.

 

With a lighted dash, and DRLs lighting the road, and NON-automatic headlights, like the Legacy GT has, is stupid. It is a recipe for forgetting to turn on the regular headlights soon enough, or in the non-daylight situations that everyone keeps bringing up.

 

I am usually busy paying attention to traffic, and I should not have to second guess my car's lighting state. Without DRLs, I know my headlights aren't on until I turn them on, and I turn them on when I need to, and often times before it becomes truly necessary.

 

If lights should be on all the time, then why is there a lighting switch? Why not have it hard-wired to have the headlights, markers, and tails on ALL The time when the ignition is switched on? DRLs (Daytime RUNNING Lights) should include markers and tails as RUNNING lights, No? Why not take the choice away from drivers? High beam and turn signals would be the only switchable illumination... and some cars even have automatic high beams... if we follow the logic here that states that people are too stupid to manage a lighting switch on their own.

 

Plus, I have a general gut reaction to resist people, bureaucrats ESPECIALLY, regulating this sort of behavior. It is not freedom. it is regulatory tyranny, regardless of intention. The road to HELL is paved with good intentions.

 

Taking the "Human factor" out of it??? WHY? The human factor will always be a part of behavior, and regulating it more and more just makes human behavior lazy, with lack of expectation of competence. Regulating more makes more people complacent and incompetent than expecting people to be competent without micromanagement.

 

How would you feel to have all of your behavior pre-determined, and regulated? Who does the regulating? who makes the decisions? Do they bear responsibility for those decisions, or do you retain that responsibility.

 

People truly lose freedom when regulations create regulatory violations. When to act a certain way violates a regulation, and to do the opposite, or nothing, also violates a regulation, the population becomes de facto violators, at the mercy of the whims of enforcement.

 

DRLs, and the regulation of them do not present that much restriction, but blindly saying that the government has your best interests at heart will lead them to further restrict all of us, until we are living in tyranny, and freedom is just a propaganda word. It is a state of mind.

 

DRLs also don't have the obvious implications that seat belts and airbags do. Those are active safety systems, that sometime do act contrary to safety. But by far, they prevent more harm than they cause. DRLs are not nearly that directly involved in safely managing physical forces.

 

They are billed as a psychological preventative measure, that IMHO, is a snake-oil situation in most cases, and one that the "safety experts" have adopted, because it seems so non-invasive and benign on the surface, which is what some here are arguing... "what does it hurt???" I think the implication to driver irresponsibility could be greater than the potential safety margin that daytime lighting offers.

 

You might continue to pay attention to traffic after you have diverted attention from the car with DRLs, but who's to say that other drivers won't turn their attention to the movie playing on the LCD screens in their car, or managing their NAV systems, or flipping the radio station. Maybe we should regulate that, too... OR perhaps just hold people to the expectation that they should pay attention to their driving, and hold them accountable if they don't.

 

On one hand you argue that people are too inattentive to pay attention to traffic without DRLs, and with the other hand, you argue that people are not susceptible to take DRLs for granted, and disregard emergency vehicles, motorcycles, or busses with special circumstances, nor moving cars without lights that might appear to be parked if their lights aren't on.

 

Which is it, are people incompetent, or not? and saying "I am not incompetent, but ____ (neighbor, other drivers, kids-these-days, etc.) is..." is not a valid statement on which to discus policy and regulations, because both you and they are usually affected by it.

[bosco]

 

Which is it, are people incompetent, or not?

 

 

for the people who are incompetent DRL are a good thing which btw is the majority of drivers. to the ones who are competent such as yourself which you stated in the above post i don't see what the big deal is. do they offend you since you a such a competent driver and feel you are being punished for the incompetency of others? or are you smarter than the insurance industry who says they help reduce accidents which i believe b/c one can see and judge distance/movement better. it's real simple DRL work. bosco

[Vimy101]

DRL make me even more competent.

 

Any advantage I get I'll take no matter how small.

[IwannaSportSedan]

I am not offended, as long as it isn't a regulatory mandate. I just think that bowing at the alter of government sponsored safety enforcement based on whatever statistics they want to tell you about, is less than free-thinking.

 

It is like any other thing that people say "The government should..." or "There should be a law..." Are there not enough laws? I personally think we could use a few less of the more inane ones that are purely regulatory.

 

People can have DRLs if they want them, and think they work. I don't have them, don't want them, don't need them, and don't even need you to have them. I do need you to be a competent driver who can handle a motor vehicle, and pay attention.

 

If you run into me just because of that, you can be pretty sure you are paying to fix or replace my car, and pay for my medical care. And with that thin of an excuse, pray you either don't kill my family, or kill us all instantly, because if you come up with that excuse to my face, I might have real use for the insanity plea.

 

"Oh. I feel so bad that your family was killed in that accident, when I ran into you, just because I didn't see you (on a well-lit day), but if you had just had some more lights on your car..." Does that sound uber-weak to anyone else?

 

Help reduce accidents? How exactly do they go about quantifying that? Either they reduce them, or they don't. Just because the collision rates go down in recent years, isn't a definite correlation to some people burning their DRLs in the daytime. You need to establish more of a correlation than that.

 

Do you get a deduction on your car insurance for having your DRLs activated? Or installed on a car that doesn't normally have them?

(read: is the insurance industry moved enough to actually put your money where their mouth is...)

 

You think you can judge distance and movement better. maybe you can, but you can't quantify it, and what do you do with that information? Either that car is too far away to make a meaningful difference, too close make a difference in reaction time based on light activation, or the environment is getting dark, and lights should be turned on anyway...

 

People here are arguing that it allows them to acknowledge the vehicle, and then go on to pay attention to other traffic factors. I suggest that it might also allow for people to be more easily distracted after acknowledging that vehicle, and allows the more inattentive drivers to disregard more than that, which is what DRLs are supposed to prevent, by capturing the attention of said inattentive drivers, which as you say are the majority.

 

SO you say most people are incompetent... why? what should be done? what has caused them to feel comfortable in their state of inability or ignorance?

 

If you or I are not incompetent, and are expected to be competent, why are those people allowed to be incompetent? Double standard? regulatory enabling?

 

Most importantly, how would a DRL law, or other possibly more invasive laws be defferential to you or me, and our state of competence? How would we be treated any differently than the lowest common denominator?

 

We wouldn't, and that is why regulations are a double edged sword, and start to erode freedom. Regulations have to be very carefully considered (which most of the time, are NOT...) as to whether they are necessary, and don't have secondary negative effects, rather than enacted, just because they sound good on the surface.

 

How is it worse to expect competence, and enforce it when incompetence causes problems, rather than enable and coddle incompetence, and bend over backwards to regulate everything to that end.? Plan for incompetence, and you can be sure you'll get it. Make something fool proof, and only fools will use it.

[JensL]

IwSS, how do you feel about this:

 

Every car comes with an automatic switch for the head- and tail-lights (low beam). Nobody needs to think about turning lights on or off at any time.

They only need to keep the lightbulbs in working order, which is no change from today.

 

Would this be horrible to live with?

[Guest]

People still have wrecks at night, when every car has its lights on.

 

Yeah, you wish. It's not that rare to see a car WITHOUT lights AT ALL at night around here. Happens on well lit roads/malls.

 

If you can't see my vehicle traveling down the road when it's close enough to you to be considered a potential risk, you shouldn't be driving! If you can't tell a car is moving when its lights are off, you shouldn't be driving!

IMHO 60% of US driver population has no place behind the steering wheel.

 

It's abysmal and I don't get it why nothing is done to go after driving monkeys here, except enforcing "evil speeders"....

 

Why the US cannot get driver education above 3rd world country standards?

[Jedi Pimp]

I think an intelligent lighting system would be the best. So okay if the ambient light drops outside a certain amout, like if its really cloudy or raining, then bing your DRL's come on. If its night, then you go from DRL's to full lights. So that way in full sun you aren't driving around with lights on at all.

[bosco]

I think an intelligent lighting system would be the best. So okay if the ambient light drops outside a certain amout, like if its really cloudy or raining, then bing your DRL's come on. If its night, then you go from DRL's to full lights. So that way in full sun you aren't driving around with lights on at all.

 

you willing to pay more for that feature? i'm not. the way it works now is fine with me. KISS. bosco

[JensL]

I think an intelligent lighting system would be the best. So okay if the ambient light drops outside a certain amout, like if its really cloudy or raining, then bing your DRL's come on. If its night, then you go from DRL's to full lights.

 

Nah, sounds like something most carmakers won't be able to make work reliably.

 

So that way in full sun you aren't driving around with lights on at all.

 

What's so dangerous or horrible with this?

[bosco]

What's so dangerous or horrible with this?

 

 

nothings wrong with DRL's people are just bored and want to change something on their car to say they did something. what a waste of time. they would be better off to maintain their car correctly or learn how to drive it better. this is just as dumb as taking the air cleaner silencer off. bosco

[IwannaSportSedan]

What is so horrible about driving around without your lights burning all day, and then....

 

 

wait for it...

 

 

 

Turning the lights on when it starts to get darker.

 

 

WOW.

 

KISS is right. Keep it Simple, Son. (stupid, s.... whatever) A light switch should not be too difficult for even a chimp to use, let alone any sort of human that is operating a motor vehicle.

 

Electricity is energy. It has to come from somewhere. In this case, from burning gasoline to run the engine, to turn the alternator, to supply the electrical system, and maintain the battery.

 

It isn't free, although it may be somewhat small. Overall it isn't insignificant, when, according to another BS poll and statistical analysis, 70% of people want the government to mandate 40MPG ratings for all new cars in the near future... that means turning off things that take fuel to run, and even then it is too rediculous to think that will happen soon.

 

Everyone always wants the magic pill. DRLs to protect them from front end collisions in the daytime, government mandates to use less fuel, less CO2, AND less noxious gasses in the exhaust, more mileage and better performance in every condition from the tires, impenetrable safety ratings, light weight, good handling, lots of power, but no loss of traction... And the government promises, regardless of whether it is feasible or not, and we all get more and more regulation.

 

there is no free lunch. Gains are made, but cost something, large or small. Don't complain about a couple of measley MPG on your turbocharged AWD sporty car, or aggregate US dependence on petrochemical energy, when you are all for burning your headlights at all times. watts are energy, like torque is. It has to come in through the fuel filler.

 

Do you all put compact flourescent bulbs, and make sure lights are turned off in unused parts of your houses? Because a 60watt bulb uses coal energy from some power plant somewhere? How is that different than a pair of 55 watt bulbs on a DC system powered by gasoline onboard?

 

People who want governtment to do things for them are also usually political cause crusaders, and the environment is one of the big political causes... the question is, how do you square wanting to use more energy in one way, and less energy in the other?

[bosco]

What is so horrible about driving around without your lights burning all day, and then....

 

 

wait for it...

 

 

 

Turning the lights on when it starts to get darker.

 

 

WOW.

 

KISS is right. Keep it Simple, Son. (stupid, s.... whatever) A light switch should not be too difficult for even a chimp to use, let alone any sort of human that is operating a motor vehicle.

 

Electricity is energy. It has to come from somewhere. In this case, from burning gasoline to run the engine, to turn the alternator, to supply the electrical system, and maintain the battery.

 

It isn't free, although it may be somewhat small. Overall it isn't insignificant, when, according to another BS poll and statistical analysis, 70% of people want the government to mandate 40MPG ratings for all new cars in the near future... that means turning off things that take fuel to run, and even then it is too rediculous to think that will happen soon.

 

Everyone always wants the magic pill. DRLs to protect them from front end collisions in the daytime, government mandates to use less fuel, less CO2, AND less noxious gasses in the exhaust, more mileage and better performance in every condition from the tires, impenetrable safety ratings, light weight, good handling, lots of power, but no loss of traction... And the government promises, regardless of whether it is feasible or not, and we all get more and more regulation.

 

there is no free lunch. Gains are made, but cost something, large or small. Don't complain about a couple of measley MPG on your turbocharged AWD sporty car, or aggregate US dependence on petrochemical energy, when you are all for burning your headlights at all times. watts are energy, like torque is. It has to come in through the fuel filler.

 

Do you all put compact flourescent bulbs, and make sure lights are turned off in unused parts of your houses? Because a 60watt bulb uses coal energy from some power plant somewhere? How is that different than a pair of 55 watt bulbs on a DC system powered by gasoline onboard?

 

People who want governtment to do things for them are also usually political cause crusaders, and the environment is one of the big political causes... the question is, how do you square wanting to use more energy in one way, and less energy in the other?

 

are you for real? are you trying to justify this as a way to save fuel and not as it's intended use to save a life? i'm done with this, good luck in your future endeavors. btw KISS for you is stupid, not son. bosco