Day Time Running Lights!

[Domush]

should be the law EVERYWHERE. Wish it was here as well.

I [have] no problem with "YOU" running all-season (summer) tires in winter so long as you can guarantee me that you wont take me out as a result of your cheapness/stupidity when winter comes and you shoot off into the ditch. We all know that is an impossible guarantee to make, therefore legislation is required to force you to have at least the proper tires to be somewhat safe.

And you cannot guarantee me even driving a tank will keep you from running into me when you hit black ice. So maybe we should ban driving altogether. After all, that is the only way to GUARANTEE no auto accidents. All of these silly fear mongering arguments are the same. "Oh, think of the children!" "500 people PER YEAR die from this and such!" (when hundreds of thousands die from smoking and diabetes every year, yet junk food and cigarettes are legal). If you hate the "ra ra freedom" types, there are plenty of theocracies and dictatorships to live under. Better yet, buy everyone you see winter tires if you see bald tires, then it'll be just like you live in that dictatorship you always wanted.

Several years ago there was a young girl that went off the road here killing her 2 children.. the cause? worn, "all season" tires on a slushy day. Im sure she would gladly give the several hundred dollars for winters if she could have her kids back today.

And? So, everyone should be required to own two sets of tires because some idiot refuses to drive safely? Nice slippery slope argument. What about slip and fall injuries? Should everyone be mandated to wear cleats in winter? How about helmets when walking? There are thousands of deaths and head injuries every year from simple slip and fall accidents. Don't forget your helmet when you leave the house (or we'll imprison you)!

There are laws against endangering others on the books today. Making redundant laws which only serve to add costs to otherwise safe drivers is exactly what the government is not for.

 

[Scooby074]

Its not a slippery slope argument to have certain minimum requirements to drive a vehicle on public highways.

Do you have MVI's in Kentucky? If so, the Government (oooh boogeyman) has set a minimum set of requirements for a vehicle to be allowed on the road. Would you like to be on the roads with guys running their cars minus the front brakes? Or perhaps ones with broken steering?

Winter tires.. for WINTER.. is just part of these rules. Makes sense dont it? Snow tires for snow?

Remember driving isnt a right.. and the government is well within their powers to set the rules we citizens have to abide by to travel the roads. Be it in licensing, health requirements or vehicle safety equipment.

 

[JasG]

Lots of claims thrown out but I have seen little in the way of facts. Below is what I have found and I see little harm in having a set of lights on. Around here so many hills and road lined with trees I over time have gotten to a point I run with lights on all the time. I feel there have been fewer times some one pulls out and created a near miss. Still have people who will cut you off, or not stop, they tend to not even look. I just took a trip with the family and did most of my driving around dusk and the number of people running with no lights even after dark is amazing.

It just makes you stand out that little extra IMO that can make a difference.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0178-W.pdf

In Australia bright yellow DRLs should be permitted
on motorcycles but should continue to be disallowed
on other vehicles. These would be far more effective
as DRLs than headlights and have the potential to
reduce fatal motorcycle crashes by more than 13%.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811029.pdf


http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809760.pdf

Conclusions
The effectiveness of daytime running lamps, based on the simple odds, was analyzed in the preceding
sections using data from FARS and NASS/GES from calendar years 1995 to 2001. FARS and
NASS/GES data show that during the period of the study 1995 to 2001, DRLs reduced daylight two
passenger vehicle opposite-direction crashes by about 5 percent. DRLs have also been shown to
reduce fatal opposite direction crashes between a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle by 23 percent.
The results for two-vehicle daytime opposite-direction crashes are statistically significant at the p < 0.10
level, although one would prefer a statistical level of

 

[Domush]

Its not a slippery slope argument to have certain minimum requirements to drive a vehicle on public highways.

Wrong, it is, because the 'minimum' can be expanded infinitely up to not allowing any vehicles on the roads, no matter how slow, equipped and fluffy it is.

Do you have MVI's in Kentucky?

No, we don't, because there are already laws which hold those who get into accidents responsible for them. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they do not get into an accident. If they do, they are held accountable. You know, that icky freedom and personal responsibility thing you want abolished.

Would you like to be on the roads with guys running their cars minus the front brakes? Or perhaps ones with broken steering?

If they are driving to their equipment's abilities I have no issue with it. If they are endangering others by driving beyond the abilities of the car, then it is already illegal, and they will be cited/arrested accordingly, under already existing laws. Bald tires during rain/snow are already covered under these laws.

Winter tires.. for WINTER.. is just part of these rules. Makes sense [doesn't] it? Snow tires for snow?

Wow, what logic.. Mandating something by calling it the same name as the season. So, are you also for mandating mud tires on all dirt roads during and after rain? MUD tires for MUD! Should make for quite the garage full of tires. What about OFF-ROAD tires for entering and exiting your driveway, which is OFF THE ROAD? Then there are ALL-SEASON tires for.. wait for it.. ALL SEASONS. I may be mistaken, but I think winter is a season. But that doesn't fit your dictatorship argument, so we'll just pretend that one doesn't exist. BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Phew, people almost realized how empty your argument was for a second there.

Remember driving isn't a right.. and the government is well within their powers to set the rules we citizens have to abide by to travel the roads. Be it in licensing, health requirements or vehicle safety equipment.

The government is well within its powers to imprison you without trial, jury, legal counsel or even a hearing, indefinitely. I have the ABILITY to do many things I would be an absolute jerk in doing. So, what's your point? Are you honestly condoning people to do anything they are legally allowed to do? This is your argument? "They should because they can"?

 

[Scooby074]

If you have no issues with people driving on the same highways as you without proper brakes / safety equipment.. etc etc. then your a bigger man than me.. I have all kinds of problems with that, both for my safety and the safety of my kids, whether in my car or walking the sidewalk.

To say they'll be held accountable for their vehicles deficiencies AFTER they kill me or my children wont do much to bring either of us back, now will it?

MVI's ensuring that vehicles are safe is the bare minimum, cops (and the DoT) here also have the ability to impound and inspect vehicles for deficiencies, which they do, but their numbers and time are limited, garage MVI's take most of the load off. I dont know how your local authorities can possible notice and inspect all the defective vehicles in your area.

 

[WilliamBos]

It makes total sense. But for folks that may not see much snow, it is real easy to argue against it.

Its not a slippery slope argument to have certain minimum requirements to drive a vehicle on public highways.

Do you have MVI's in Kentucky? If so, the Government (oooh boogeyman) has set a minimum set of requirements for a vehicle to be allowed on the road. Would you like to be on the roads with guys running their cars minus the front brakes? Or perhaps ones with broken steering?

Winter tires.. for WINTER.. is just part of these rules. Makes sense dont it? Snow tires for snow?

Remember driving isnt a right.. and the government is well within their powers to set the rules we citizens have to abide by to travel the roads. Be it in licensing, health requirements or vehicle safety equipment.

 

[Domush]

Not that I care one way or the other on DRL, so long as I can override them when desired, the studies people are quoting are all older and less complete than the most recent NTSB study (included as a link by JasG, but interestingly left out of the quotes):

The analysis found that DRLs have no statistically significant overall effects on the three target crashes. When combining
these three target crashes into one target crash, the DRL effects were also not statistically significant. When examined
separately for passenger cars and light trucks/vans (LTVs), DRLs in LTVs significantly reduced LTVs’ involvements in the
target two-vehicle crashes by 5.7 percent. However, the remaining DRL effects on these three target crashes were not
statistically significant. Although not statistically significant, DRLs might have unintended consequences for pedestrians and
motorcyclists. Particularly, the estimated negative effects for LTVs were relatively large and cannot be completely ignored.

Emphasis is mine, but clearly shows not everything is rainbows and laughing babies with DRL mandates.

 

[JasG]

Not that I care one way or the other on DRL, so long as I can override them when desired, the studies people are quoting are all older and less complete than the most recent NTSB study (included as a link by JasG, but interestingly left out of the quotes):



Emphasis is mine, but clearly shows not everything is rainbows and laughing babies with DRL mandates.

I don't think anyone is saying they are a perfect solution or have an effect in all condtions, yet in many cases they do have a positive effect.

 

[oldyellr]

Winter tires.. for WINTER.. is just part of these rules. Makes sense [doesn't] it? Snow tires for snow?

Wow, what logic.. Mandating something by calling it the same name as the season. So, are you also for mandating mud tires on all dirt roads during and after rain? MUD tires for MUD! Should make for quite the garage full of tires.

No, "winter tires" are a specific tread and rubber designed for snow and ice and cold temperatures. They carry this symbol:

Many people used to think that so-called "all season" tires were okay for year 'round use, but they're quite dangerous in winter conditions. We call them "no season" tires. But you'll always get people who try to circumvent safety regulations such as DRLs and winter tires just to assert their "freedom".

 

[cqaigy2]

This isn't about DRL, but i hate it that i turn on my defrost and my air conditioner turns on. Was that the government that did that?

 

[oldyellr]

This isn't about DRL, but i hate it that i turn on my defrost and my air conditioner turns on. Was that the government that did that?

Not the government but science. The a/c dries the air so it will defog or defrost more effectively.

 

[Domush]

If you have no issues with people driving on the same highways as you without proper brakes / safety equipment.. etc etc.

Now you are simply changing statements to fit your argument, instead of honestly responding. Your original question asked about roads ("set of requirements for a vehicle to be allowed on the road"), and not all roads are highways. I'm fine with tractors, UTV's, scooters, bicycles, horse buggies, mule carts and motorcycles all being driven down the road. Some are more able than others to go fast, corner quickly, drive on dirt, gravel, in snow, through mud, up hills and, yes, on highways. Making a subjective set of mandates for each and every possible vehicle ever to cruise down a public way, based on little more than paranoia, is irrational and, yet again, a slippery slope.

To say they'll be held accountable for their vehicles deficiencies AFTER they kill me or my children wont do much to bring either of us back, now will it?

Back to the slippery slope so soon, are we? Using your fallacious logic, the government should also prohibit every action which MAY adversely impact any person, ever:

- Enjoy sports? Too bad, it's illegal, now. Baseball? Balls are far too dangerous, and thrown at high speeds. People have died playing baseball, horseback riding, football, soccer, hockey, bicycling and roller blading. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

- Like to imbibe once in a while? Tough luck, it's illegal, now. All manner of deaths have occurred because of alcohol. SAFETY PREVAILS!

- Ever eat fast food or junk food? Not anymore! Diabetes contributed to a total of 231,404 deaths in America in 2007 alone. IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!

- Enjoy television, movies or the opera? Kiss it goodbye! Obesity is the #2 cause of death in the US, behind tobacco use! It doesn't matter how much you exercise, because if some people are fat and watch television, it must be banned for everyone! As a bonus, those germ infested theaters and concert halls will no longer spread disease. SCORE ONE FOR THE HEALTH NUTS!

It should be noted every single one of the items listed directly contribute to far more deaths than your super important inspections and daytime running lights possibly prevent. Also, every item listed above SAVES the person money by making illegal. Amazing!

Forget arguing for DRL or winter tires, let's make freedom illegal! After all, it directly contributes to all of the above deaths every year! This pattern of logic you developed sure is good for safety. Arrest them BEFORE they can even consider doing bad things. Brilliant! Of course, this method you envision is not entirely new.. North Korea has been doing this for decades.

MVI's ensuring that vehicles are safe is the bare minimum, cops (and the DoT) here also have the ability to impound and inspect vehicles for deficiencies, which they do, but their numbers and time are limited, garage MVI's take most of the load off.

And people must pay for the time taken to inspect the vehicles. That money is simply diverted to garages instead of to police departments for traffic safety where and when it is needed. The difference is money is always spent with inspection, but only spent when needed with enforcement. With that money you get garages who don't care if you are inspectable after you leave, so long as you are when you arrive.

So, your mandated inspections ensure every vehicle is reasonably fit to drive for one hour per year (or few years, depending on the state), except for all of those vehicles which don't require them or are simply outright banned. Hope you won't be needing that tractor of yours down the road any time soon. Oh, wait, you don't get your tractor inspected? That should be MANDATED, along with DRL, blinkers, hazards, air bags, crumple zones and most importantly, windshield wipers! Wait, it doesn't have front breaks, either?! MANDATED! I hope you don't plan to use those ag tires on the pavement.. MANDATED! Hope that doesn't add much to the cost of your tractor.. oh well, IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN! :cloud9:

 

[chopped]

This isn't about DRL, but i hate it that i turn on my defrost and my air conditioner turns on. Was that the government that did that?

I pull the AC relay under the hood at the end of the summer. I agree why waste gas and money when you dont really need it..
On the DRL yes pull the park brake one click and they go out. Also DRL are good if you wish to drive with no tail lights.(at night)

 

[Domush]

Many people used to think that so-called "all season" tires were okay for year 'round use, but they're quite dangerous in winter conditions. We call them "no season" tires. But you'll always get people who try to circumvent safety regulations such as DRLs and winter tires just to assert their "freedom".

Used to think? If I drove slow enough, I could likely drive in snow with racing slicks. It may be difficult to comprehend, but driving the speed limit isn't always needed to get from point A to point B. I have all-season tires on my truck (all season in this case being big, deep tread evenly spaced) and drive slower than the Indy car drivers with winter tires, and I make it to my destination in the same one piece. I know, it's amazing! Drive according to your car's ability and you don't crash.. it's awesome!

It's sad people have the ability to be cautious in many different aspects of life, yet when it comes to some things, they just throw up their arms and cry "I just don't get it, so mother government must do it for me, and YOU!", when the logic is exactly the same. Do you run full blast at all times? No, you slow down when you need to be careful or when risks are high. It's basic critical thinking. There doesn't need to be a government inflicted law to mandate you walk everywhere or wear a helmet, pads and cleats at all times because some people are idiots and run, slip and fall. You navigate to your ability and, when driving, this means to your vehicle's ability.

What happens when you drive the speed limit on snowy roads, even with winter tires? You slip. People don't crash from being poorly equipped, they crash from being aggressive, inattentive drivers driving beyond the ability of the vehicle. Why stop at winter tires? Let's push for mandated snow tracks. After all, it's for safety and our well being!

Why be so narrow minded? Let's add mandated AWD, GPS based traction control and external Mars-lander airbags to even the most basic of commuter vehicles. After all, "winter tires" are what we in the safety paranoia business call "bone splinter tires"! Snow tracks, AWD, traction control and external Mars-lander airbags are the bare minimum in our books, unless you are one of those "freedom" lovers who just want to go around killing everybody with your "rights".

 

[Scooby074]

Dmush. your going far, far off into a tangent to try and prove that the gubbment is trying to control your life... obesity, sports etc etc.. im not even going to bother debating that. This is a thread related to DRL's and lately MVI's. Both auto safety related.

Fact is, mandatory inspections pull a lot of defective cars off the road and serve to point out deficiencies to their owners so the owners can get them fixed. They have 14 days to address the defects to be exact. How many soccermoms have any idea what is going on underneath their car? Heck, how many even change a tire? Do you think they have a clue that their ball joints are loosening? Brake lines weeping? No. That is preciously the kind of stuff MVI picks up and addresses.

Unsafe cars are a risk to the other drivers on the road. If you want to build the Domush Expressway where cars with defective brakes can rule the road so long as " they are driving to their equipment's abilities I have no issue with it." as you said, have at it. However on the real roadways paid for with real tax dollars, my fellow citizens expect vehicles to have a minimum of problems for both their own safety and everyone else.

And garages ABSOLUTELY care if the car is legal after you leave. The mechanics especially. Its their license and lively hood on the line. A car that leaves with defects and a valid inspection will cost the garage and the mechanic in both fines and loss of license when this is discovered. Locally several mechanics and garages have lost their license for a year for inspecting unsafe vehicles.

 

[Domush]

Domush. your going far, far off into a tangent to try and prove that the gubbment is trying to control your life... obesity, sports etc etc.. im not even going to bother debating that.

The examples are exaggerated to show how off mark your logic is. Using your exact logic, all of that is supported. You think auto safety is somehow in a different category than personal safety? Death is death; injury is injury.

They have 14 days to address the defects to be exact.

In your state, maybe. In mine you cannot drive an unsafe vehicle, ever. Which makes my state safer than yours when it comes to safety enforcement.

How many soccermoms have any idea what is going on underneath their car?

And there it is, the age old "If I can't, nobody can" blanket mandate.
"This person is ignorant, so we'll make everyone jump through hoops and pay more."
"XX person fell from a height so now everyone must wear a full safety harness at any height."

These global mandates because of the idiot few are exactly why every state has thousands of laws.

That is preciously the kind of stuff MVI picks up and addresses.

These are the kinds of things anyone competent can check, and if they are not competent, they can go have checked. No government mandate required. These same people live in houses which aren't inspected every year by law, yet they manage to bubble out the IQ to call someone to do the work for them. Amazing how that works.

Unsafe cars are a risk to the other drivers on the road.

And what do you consider unsafe?

To me, unsafe is driving anything beyond its abilities. Every vehicle has different abilities. My tractor can go down the road without front brakes, airbags, seatbelts or crumple zones and I am not at risk of killing the family of five coming down the road. I simply don't drive it 65MPH down the highway. Safety is relative to the condition you are driving in.

But apparently not in your world. You must always be in a $100,000 safety machine with every part less than 30 days old, able to drive 200MPH around 90 degree turns, even if you are driving next door to say hello to your neighbor, going 10MPH for 1/4 mile.

Somehow I have the suspicion you drive your uninspected tractor down the road occasionally, but are too invested in your ridiculous argument to admit it. As if you did you would have to confess you, too, agree safety is in how you drive what you are driving.

However on the real roadways paid for with real tax dollars, my fellow citizens expect vehicles to have a minimum of problems for both their own safety and everyone else.

Florida, Kentucky and a majority of states in the US have zero inspections and, wow, their inhabitants are still alive. How amazing!

In fact, recently New Jersey and Washington, D.C., dropped their inspection programs, both citing beliefs that there is no conclusive evidence that they are necessary. Something directly in opposition to your baseless claim.

Raymond P. Martinez, administrator of New Jersey’s Motor Vehicle Commission, told the state Assembly in April: "The bottom line is that the safety impact information available to us is inconclusive and does not justify the nearly $12 million taxpayer expense of mechanical defect inspections"

The Program Evaluation Division of the North Carolina Legislature said flatly, "The safety inspection program is not effective."

"Nearly three decades of research has failed to conclusively show that mechanical defects are a significant cause of motor vehicle accidents or that safety inspections significantly reduce accident rates," the report said.

The state of Nebraska found that the number of crashes caused by vehicle defects actually went down after the program was scrapped in 1982.

From the motor vehicle commission of NJ:

"It should not be the state responsibility to tell you to go get your car fixed," he said. "It is your responsibility to keep that car up."

He said that when it comes to accidents, "It always comes down to driver error."

They must not have "real" roads, according to your paranoid, momma-take-care-of-me view. In fact, a majority of states in the country must not have "real" roads according to your view, seeing as only a minority of states have mandated inspections.

Hmm, maybe it's a mass conspiracy and they're all out to get you. That seems much more likely than you being wrong..

 

[Bird]

This isn't about DRL, but i hate it that i turn on my defrost and my air conditioner turns on. Was that the government that did that?

Many years ago, folks didn't turn on their air-conditioner for months at a time, and as with anything not used or turned on, when they did want to use it, it wouldn't work. It's been too long ago for me to remember just what all the problems were; seals, dryer, compressor clutch, or exactly what. But the manufacturers determined that the air-conditioners would cause a lot less trouble if they were cycled occasionally. And that was why your air-conditoner came on with the defrosters; government had nothing to do with it. Now, as I said, that was many years ago, I don't know about now.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Many years ago, folks didn't turn on their air-conditioner for months at a time, and as with anything not used or turned on, when they did want to use it, it wouldn't work. It's been too long ago for me to remember just what all the problems were; seals, dryer, compressor clutch, or exactly what. But the manufacturers determined that the air-conditioners would cause a lot less trouble if they were cycled occasionally. And that was why your air-conditoner came on with the defrosters; government had nothing to do with it. Now, as I said, that was many years ago, I don't know about now.

I agree. It helps keeping it healthy.

Chris

 

[JerryK]

I agree. It helps keeping it healthy.

Chris

Yup, it was when they switched to the new type compressors [ remember when they used to look like a starter/generator unit ]. They said it would keep the compressor seals lubed...

 

[Diamondpilot]

Using things from time to time is key to any piece of machinery lasting a long time. I have owned 5 F-150 4x4's, 2 GM 4x4's, 3 Powerstroke 4x4's, a Mountaineer 4x4, a Nissan Titan 4x4, and few other I have forgotten about and never had a single issue with the 4 wheel drive on any. Not a hub, nothing other than a T-Case issue in one of the GM 4x4's where a shift fork broke off internally.

The key to this I believe is I use my 4 wheel drive weekly and if it has not been used in say 10 or so days I run it though 4 high for a 1/2 mile or so then shift it into 4 low and maybe go 100' in forward, then reverse.

My father told me this technique and he has owned well over 15 4x4 vehicles and has never had any issues either where others seem to have issues all the time with 4x4 not working when they seem to need it.

Chris