Tell me one good reason why all cars aren't mandated to have daytime running lights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongLegsInAlaska

Only complete retards own vehicles that don't have great visibility.

---

pffft, you are CLEARLY retarded for not putting tin foil up on all the windows in your vehicle, if at least to prevent against the radiant heat of the earth based molepeople.

Clearly you don't even have a clue as to what this topic is about and should stay about. Molepeople and their systematic attempts at convincing us to drive with the DRL off.

Morons.

me?

I'm wearing my tin foil hat and underoos right now.

Sure, I am getting wierd looks from my clients, but my juices are basting my yambag right now and the molepeople won't get any of it's goodness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

my juices are basting my yambag right now and the molepeople won't get any of it's goodness.

---

You selfish git.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeleHoar

Explain to me again how leaving your lights on waste gas.
Extra drag on the alternator?
heh...

---

Umm, yes? This seems unlikely to you somehow? :nonono2: Turn you headlights on and off and you can hear your motor speed increase and decrease as the drag comes and goes. This is a pretty compact piece from Wiki that might help bring you up to speed.

Quote:

---

Environmental impact

DRL power consumption varies widely depending on the implementation. Current production DRL systems consume from 8 watts (dedicated LED system) to over 200 watts (headlamps and all parking, tail, and marker lights on). International regulators, primarily in Europe, are struggling to balance the potential safety benefit offered by DRL with the increased fuel consumption due to their use. Because the power to run the DRLs must be produced by the engine, which in turn requires burning additional fuel, high-power DRL systems increase CO2 emissions sufficiently to affect a country's compliance with the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.[4] For that reason, low-power solutions are being encouraged [5] for use when and if DRL become mandatory in ECE Regulations. LEDs and low-wattage, high-efficacy, long-life light bulbs produce appropriate amounts of light for an effective DRL without significantly increasing fuel consumption or emissions. Fuel consumption reductions of up to 0.5 mpg may be found when comparing a 55-watt DRL system to a 200-watt DRL system. [6] In 2006, the UK's Department of Transport also found significant reductions in emissions and fuel consumption when comparing a 42-watt DRL system to a 160-watt full headlight DRL systems. [7] DRL fuel consumption can be reduced to insignificant levels by the use of 8- to 20-watt DRL systems based on LEDs or high-efficacy filament bulbs.

---

Also this link, which calculates a DRL mandate in the US would run us an extra 406 million gallons of fuel per year and add 8 billion pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

pffft, you are CLEARLY retarded for not putting tin foil up on all the windows in your vehicle, if at least to prevent against the radiant heat of the earth based molepeople.

Clearly you don't even have a clue as to what this topic is about and should stay about. Molepeople and their systematic attempts at convincing us to drive with the DRL off.

Morons.

me?

I'm wearing my tin foil hat and underoos right now.

Sure, I am getting wierd looks from my clients, but my juices are basting my yambag right now and the molepeople won't get any of it's goodness.

---

Huh? I couldn't resist calling a Danno a complete retard.

And BTW, are you still driving the Seward Highway?

My ninja skills are far better when I don't have drls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongLegsInAlaska

Only complete retards own vehicles that don't have great visibility.

---

guilty as charged. :(

But it's handy to be able to sleep in the back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

FUCKING RETARDED. A two lane mountain road at 8 am, yeah buddy, I realize you can see, but NO ONE CAN SEE YOU.

Why the fuck do cars even go into gear without the headlights going on?

---

Yeah - cars should only be able to go 55mph max too. And the seatbelts should automatically lock you in when you sit down. I really wish somebody would babyset me and hold my little hand throughout every aspect of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongLegsInAlaska

Only complete retards own vehicles that don't have great visibility.

---

PACERS FOR EVERYONE!

http://pacer.free.fr/images/pacer/pa026.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

I really wish somebody would babyset me and hold my little hand throughout every aspect of my life.

---

I never woulda thunk you were so....comfortable with your sexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uglymoney

Umm, yes? This seems unlikely to you somehow? :nonono2: Turn you headlights on and off and you can hear your motor speed increase and decrease as the drag comes and goes. This is a pretty compact piece from Wiki that might help bring you up to speed.

Also this link, which calculates a DRL mandate in the US would run us an extra 406 million gallons of fuel per year and add 8 billion pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere.

---

I have to admit that's news to me and I've been a gearhead of sorts for 40-some years. The alternator is turning and producing ~14.5V regardless of electrical use; it's not like an AC compressor that causes noticeable drag when it's activated. It produces the same 14.5V output any time the engine is turning. And no, I have never noticed any engine on any car I have ever owned running slower when the headlights were turned on. I will take it on faith for now but I'll want to do some more research 'cause that wikipedia link doesn't say jack about why an alternator would have more drag when more electrical was being used - it just states it as fact.

So yeah, it does seem unlikely to me somehow. It sounds like I am probably uninformed.

Its all a conspiracy by the headlight bulb manufacturers. The bulbs burn out far, far faster, thus requiring everybody to purchase more bulbs. Much like the underwear gnomes.

+1 for DJMingus. Alternator drag due to additional current required by headlights is poppycock.

Forizzle. I leave for a few hours and return to find my thread has LongLegsInAlaska. Why don't you post a picture of your headlights, you salty whore?

HOLY FUCKING SHIT.


This might be the dumbest fucking TGR thread of all time.

Drag from the alternator? are you fucking retarded? How do your lights stay on when the engine isn't running? Moron.

Wow. You guys have surpassed a new level of dumbfuckdom.

Idiot if you don't drive a visible car? How about a motorcycle? :rolleyes:

Yall need to get out more.

Jesus Christ. :nonono2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rontele

...I know some countries, like Canukistan, require you to drive with your lights on during the day...

---

Maybe in Canukistan, but not here in Canada. No such law.

And of course it would be up to individual provinces to pass such legislation anyways, not the federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

---

So you agree with me, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

So you agree with me, then?

---

Do I think people should have their lights on for visibility when necessary? YES

Do I think if you don't even have the common sense to turn on your lights manually when visibility is important, should you be behind the wheel? NO

Do I think laws for morons to protect them from the laws of Darwin are a good idea? NO

Do I want more laws, rules and regulations in my life? NO

Do I think your life is probably pretty pathetic as demonstrated by posting this thread? YES

One good reason fucknut. Its called freedom, which you obviously know nothing about.
http://filebox.vt.edu/users/dwatson/...20x%20502).gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rooster

One good reason fucknut. Its called freedom, which you obviously know nothing about.
http://filebox.vt.edu/users/dwatson/...20x%20502).gif

---

Meh. I like the painted queer better.

Damn. like a lightning bolt from God. Jer appears. Painted Queer... found.
http://www.ggbaloo.net/Gay%20Pride%2...e%2003_080.JPG

i like your style rooster, those heels go great with your outfit!

better hope you arent turning jer on with pics like that....

oh and while you guys mandate DRL's to be standard equipment on all new vehicles, could you also switch to using the metric system? Try to keep up eh?

Thanks Ugly Money, you have posted the most uninformed thing about cars I have ever seen on the web. I spose you saves many gallons of fuel a year by not turning on the headlights of your corn truck.

I think that most people on the road aren't considerate, with turning their headlights on in the evening/morning when the sun is at their back, because you can't see shit when you're driving in the sun or the twilight hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldo

Maybe in Canukistan, but not here in Canada. No such law.

And of course it would be up to individual provinces to pass such legislation anyways, not the federal government.

---

What? The feds have mandated DRLs since 1991 for all newly manufactured cars, and any imported car. The individual provinces pass laws dictating the rules of the road, and "headlights on" laws are in there. Ontario for example mandates headlights on from a half hour before sunset until a half hour after sunrise and during periods of rain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

FUCKING RETARDED. A two lane mountain road at 8 am, yeah buddy, I realize you can see, but NO ONE CAN SEE YOU.

Why the fuck do cars even go into gear without the headlights going on?

---

How was it a dangerous situation?

If he was passing someone and was in your lane heading toward you, fine, he's in the wrong. Other situations I can think of put the onus on you (now the general you) to operate your vehicle safely.

1. He is in your lane, you are behind him. Are you traveling so fast that you run up on his ass because you didn't see him without his lights on?

2. You are passing someone and go into his lane as he is oncoming. Your call and your responsibility to make sure the coast is clear when passing someone in low visibility conditions.

It is the decision of the driver whether he wants to put his lights on as conditions warrant, and it is the responsibility for every driver to make sure the coast is clear. Not sure if someone is coming because you can't see? Don't pass, drive a little more conservatively, whatever. Your friendly Starbuck's hottie will be there waiting for you even if you are 5min behind schedule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scoober

It is the decision of the driver whether he wants to put his lights on as conditions warrant, and it is the responsibility for every driver to make sure the coast is clear...

---

Of course you understand that one of those conditions is others' ability to see YOU, thus ensuring the coast is clear. You live in a rainy place, Scoober. Ever get surprised by a gray car in the mist with their fucking lights off? I have, and I get pissed at the selfish motherfucker for not simply turning on the goddamn headlights, especially when my kids are in my car.

It's not like we're asking for a lot here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

Ever get surprised by a gray car in the mist with their fucking lights off?

---

He drives in Seattle Tipp.

He's going 10 under the speed limit at all times, braking 1/4 mile before any intersection, and slowing to 15mph or a dead stop if there's less than 2' clearance on either side of his vehicle.

The act of not turning on your lights in any kind of marginal visibility or low light condition is indicative of a greater general negligence on the driver's part. I don't think anyone who fails to flip on their lights at dusk refuses to do so on purpose...they're just too stupid to perceive the situation outside their drivers' seat. I can prob drive just fine at with .15 BAC but it's generally accepted by our society as a criminally negligent, and something that should be legislated.

Like others have already said, the resistance of an alternator is constant throughout the rpm range. The voltage regulator, which is a completely separate part, limits the amount of voltage that gets transferred to your battery. In fact, it's actually possible to hook up too much shit to your car and kill your battery even with the alternator running and voltage regulator wide open.

There are only two belt driven engine accessories which have the capability to instantly create more drag on the engine: the A/C compressor and a mechanical fan clutch. When either engages, it will produce the "instant" drag you describe. An alternator will never...I repeat...NEVER do that.

If you don't believe me, then tear an alternator apart and tell me where this magical clutch device exists inside. I wish you luck with that.

Secondly, and most importantly, daytime running lights DO work. Highway 152 from Gilroy to I-5 in California used to be known as blood alley. At one time, it had the highest number of deaths of any highway in the United States. Do you know what initially cut that death toll drastically? Mandatory daytime headlights. Signs were posted at both ends of the road requiring the use of headlights during the daytime, and the CHP enforced it religiously. It showed immediate, significant results.

Also, you're lying if you tell me that you can't see an oncoming car quicker and at a further distance when it's coming at you with it's headlights on. Or else, you're one blind motherfucker and shouldn't be driving anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scoober

How was it a dangerous situation?

---

Stay the fuck out of Montana, then. The speedlimit is 70, which means we go 80. If some asshat grandma is going 60, she is going to be passed. If you are driving a grey Geo Metro with your lights off, you are going to fucking DIE when the rancher in the King Cab Ford 85000000 makes his move.

Don't be a fucking retard, turn your lights on, JONG driver.

I love how the same guy advocating the safety of daytime running lights is the same one spewing about speeding as a lifestyle. Maybe you should ride the bus.

They let me off the short bus years ago. I still wear a helmet, though.


edit: If everyone drove in a full face helmet, would the mortality rates in vehicular accidents significantly decrease? I don't know, but I am going to look into a 5 point harness.

Yes, I can think of one case in which added electrical usage does not increase load on the alternator. Some outboards boat engines use the block as a heat sink and the alternator runs full time all the time. They can get a way with that since they are water cooled with unlimited cool water. In that case you all are right, but not with cars.

More tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uglymoney

Yes, I can think of one case in which added electrical usage does not increase load on the alternator. Some outboards boat engines use the block as a heat sink and the alternator runs full time all the time. They can get a way with that since they are water cooled from a lack with unlimited cool water./ In that case you all are right, but not with cars.

More tomorrow.

---

What in the hell are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uglymoney

Yes, I can think of one case in which added electrical usage does not increase load on the alternator. Some outboards boat engines use the block as a heat sink and the alternator runs full time all the time. They can get a way with that since they are water cooled with unlimited cool water. In that case you all are right, but not with cars.

More tomorrow.

---

You've become the 0BernhardFranz of automotive threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

What in the hell are you talking about?

---

I have no idea. I've changed out quite a few alternators in my lifetime and even ripped a few apart. I also know the basics of electrical motor/generator design. And nothing I've seen or know supports anything he's saying. In fact, everything I know says ugly is an ignorant, thickheaded douchenozzle. No offense man, but you need to do some more research on this and then come back and apologize. My first suggestion would be to go down to your nearest alternator repair shop. If they don't laugh at you, they'll at least set you straight.

I was told that running low tire pressures on the road increased my traction and decreased the amount of damage to the road surface.

I also run paint thinner in my washer reservoir, because it cuts through the bug guts.

And I use studs year around because they grip on rough roads better.

Rootskier: Whoopee, a 70 mph limit. Montana had no speed limit for a year too, how'd that work out? Oh wait, you probably lived in Minnesota then.

DRL's are stupid. But then, so are people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BakerBoy

Rootskier: Whoopee, a 70 mph limit. Montana had no speed limit for a year too, how'd that work out? Oh wait, you probably lived in Minnesota then.

---

Wow, apparantly some people here are paying attention! It's been about 10 years though since I called MN home. Still hate the fudgePackers though. Anyways, the limit on the interstates in 75, the road I am talking about recently went from 65 to 70, despite the fact that it is heavily trafficked and narrow.





Here is the cut and paste about Montana, from Wikipedia:

From December 1995 through December 1998, Montana had only a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit on rural roads, meaning that speeds that were not reasonable and prudent were illegal and ticketable. From December 1998 through June 1999 (6 months), Montana had no rural highway speed limit whatsoever. However, a law prohibiting reckless driving, applicable to extreme speeds but less stringent than the previous "reasonable and prudent" standard, still applied.

Reasonable and prudent era

In the years before 1974's 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit, and for three years after the 1995 65 mph repeal, Montana had a non-numeric "reasonable and prudent" speed limit during the daytime on most rural roads. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Section 61-8-303 said "A person . . . shall drive the vehicle . . . at a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation . . . so as not to unduly or unreasonably endanger the life, limb, property, or other rights of a person entitled to the use of the street or highway."
Typical speed limit sign that one would see at the Montana state line from December 1995 to June 1999.
Typical speed limit sign that one would see at the Montana state line from December 1995 to June 1999.

Montana law also specified a few numeric limits: a night speed limit, usually 55 or 65 mph (90–105 km/h), depending on road type; 25 mph (40 km/h) in urban districts and 35 mph (60 km/h) in construction zones.

The phrase "reasonable and prudent" is found in the language of most state speed laws. This allows prosecution under non-ideal conditions such as rain or snow when the posted speed limit would be imprudently fast.

No speed limit

On March 10, 1996 [39], a Montana Patrolman issued a speed ticket to a driver traveling at 85 mph (140 km/h) on a stretch of State Highway 200. The 50 year-old male driver (Rudy Stanko) was operating a 1996 Camaro with less than 10,000 miles (16,000 km) on the odometer. Although the officer gave no opinion as to what would have been a reasonable speed, the driver was convicted. The driver appealed all the way to the Montana Supreme Court. The Court reversed the conviction in case No. 97-486 on December 23, 1998; it held that a law requiring drivers to drive at a non-numerical "reasonable and proper" speed "is so vague that it violates the Due Process Clause ... of the Montana Constitution".

75 mph speed limit

Due to this reversal, Montana scrambled to vote in a numerical limit as it technically had no speed limit whatsoever in the meantime. In June 1999, a new Montana speed limit law went into effect. The law's practical effect was to require posted limits on all roads and disallow any speed limit higher than 75 mph (120 km/h).

Montana law still contains a section that says "a person shall operate a vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a reduced rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of traffic, visibility, weather, and roadway conditions." However, this is a standard clause that appears in other state traffic codes and has the practical effect of requiring a speed lower than the posted limit where a lower speed is necessary to maintain a reasonable and prudent road manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

Wow, apparantly some people here are paying attention! It's been about 10 years though since I called MN home. Still hate the fudgePackers though. Anyways, the limit on the interstates in 75, the road I am talking about recently went from 65 to 70, despite the fact that it is heavily trafficked and narrow.

---

I certainly wasn't paying attention, merely making a broad generalization that an exceedingly large majority of people in Montana with crappy attitudes hail from Minnesota. More specifically St. Paul/Minneapolis, and even more specific, 3/4's of the douchebags that lived on 10th floor North Hedges with me in '98, happened to be from Eden Prairie. Then again, one of my best friends is from St. Paul. Anyhow.

C'mon, doesn't anyone ever play chicken with dark colored cars driving without their lights on in the rain?

You start to pass the car ahead of you knowing full well you can't do it. For a few seconds though, the on-coming, lights-off gray colored car realizes there is a head-on collision in store for them. You pretend to angrily flash your lights at them when you finally "see" them and then dodge back in your own lane. Then you angrily flip them off when they pass you. Good times.