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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Do you wear glasses?

---

Um, I don't know about Portland, but currently, 8am is just half light in this part of Montana, and driving without lights on isn't legal in those conditons, because PEOPLE CAN'T SEE YOU!!!! :nonono2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongLegsInAlaska

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.

---

Heh. Heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

Try mid/late 70's and basically the whole western Yurp.



Well, I'm sure you'll save a lot of gas by driving without headlights... But I most keep my AC running and 500 Gigawatt ICE blasting crappy tunes, which naturally won't change my gas consumption in any way:p[/irony]

---

If Western Europe includes Belgium, Germany, France, Spain or Portugal ... : No.

DTL have been tested where I live and I think they're actualy a bad idea.
They're a good thing on long stretch of roads with a low traffic and if all the vehicles got their lights on. Otherwise, non lighted cars get even less noticable.
In every other circumstances it's basicaly useless and very dangerous for motorcycles, which became invisible in car's mirrors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philippeR

If Western Europe includes Belgium, Germany, France, Spain or Portugal ... : No.

---

Well, the very limited driving I've done in those countries would suggest that even though DRL ain't the law, vast majority are still using 'em.

The real reason the daytime running lights are not mandatory is the government wants a certain percentage of us dead. Plain and simple.As we cure various diseases and up the average life span we must understand that there isn't enough natural resources to support the new load. So they "governments" come up with these lame excuses why perfectly good safety devices are denied or stalled.So if we look at this more closely we will see that as the average life span goes up = the medical costs per person will go up since the bulk is paid by the goverment "medicare/medicaid" they need to keep the total counts in check .I am sure if some one wanted to dig deeper it all out there to be found.

Oh baby,im out there
The Pubes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

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

---

I have to agree. Rootskier may have outdone himself this time. I think he has been trying to come up with redonculous stuff lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

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

---

This is true. When your car is running everything really runs off the alternator. The battery is there to start the car and help when your car is at low RPMs but the alternator is powering your headlights for the most part when you are driving. Of course the lights will power off the battery for a given amount of time but they are really not designed to run that way -- much like a high power car audio system is not designed to run off the battery. You need to install a high power alternator for high power audio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

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.

---

I completley understand your point, but even now with a kid in the car, I cannot think of one time where I have had a close call and thought to myself "Gee, I really wish that person had their lights on for the safety of me and all those around us." For me it is so low on the list of dangers when driving.

I can, on the other hand, count maybe 5 times just on the way to work today where I have thought "Holy crap, I almost got in a wreck because someone was simply just not paying attention, didn't yield, was weaving and speeding in stop and go traffic, was talking on the phone drinking their coffee, was driving a jacked up pickup being an ass, or just generally being irresponsible and not knowing the rules of the road."

Maybe it is just the demographic of vehicles we have driving around out here. People driving around in their audi's during the middle of the day with headlamps and front and rear fogs blazing away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

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.

---

Don't forget that I display a level of passive-agressiveness to rival any other city in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

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.

---

JONG driver... I cut my teeth driving in Detroit and Chicago amongst other places so you can go fuck yourself.

And go ahead and keep advocating a technical safety feature while flaunting speeding. It makes your argument look real compelling.

Nothing I can do about others' idiocy, but I can mandate DRLs in all new vehicles. No harm, no foul.

There is absolutely no compelling argument AGAINST DRLs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

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.

---

OMG I agree with Jer, ya know what we really need is a war on accidents, it has gone so well with terrorism and drugs. What I don't want is another fucking law telling me what to do all the god damn time. We make comprimises on car saftey all the fucking time because some efforts would be a pain in the ass, like limiting your cars speed maximum. What is worse is how many people clamor for the government to legislate something everytime they have a fucking problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

Nothing I can do about others' idiocy, but I can mandate DRLs in all new vehicles. No harm, no foul.

There is absolutely no compelling argument AGAINST DRLs.

---

Yes, there is.
It's dangerous to motorcycles, which need to be more visible since they are much smaller and fragile than the 2.5 tons trucks you call cars. DRL had been abandoned in France on this basis alone.

Oh, and Rootkskier : 80mph ?! OMG, May I touch you ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scoober

Don't forget that I display a level of passive-agressiveness to rival any other city in the US.

---

Huh - I don't find many on the road. Just the completely clueless "I turned on my blinker I don't need to look before I change lanes" type drivers. Or the "the lights green, there's 50 cars behind me, but I'm going to stop so one car can make a left turn" "nice" drivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scoober

JONG driver... I cut my teeth driving in Detroit and Chicago amongst other places so you can go fuck yourself.

---

Try driving in Manhatten in New York. The driving in Manhatten is crazy -- it's pretty much survival of the fittest -- you have to drive crazy to deal with the cab drivers. Chicago is a cake-walk compared to New York. There might as well not be any lanes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BakerBoy

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.

---

I could care less about making DRL manditory or not, but I disagree with this assesment based on a study in the 80's by Greyhound, they found that full time light use extended the life of the headlight substainsually. The reason being is the current flowing through the filliment made it more difficult to blow the bulb on rougher streaches of road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cj001f

Huh - I don't find many on the road. Just the completely clueless "I turned on my blinker I don't need to look before I change lanes" type drivers. Or the "the lights green, there's 50 cars behind me, but I'm going to stop so one car can make a left turn" "nice" drivers.

---

Give it some time. It's a mix of the overly nice and cautious and the passive asshole. My favorite hits include:

"I see you coming down the street as I'm waiting to make a right hand turn into your lane, and by golly I'm going to turn right in front of you. I have no respect for your right of way."

Or

"I also see you in the merge lane as I'm in the stop and go right lane. No, I don't think I'll let you merge. You're not trying to sneak in the lane and merge late or anything, but I'm going to suck the bumper in front of me anyway and I'm sure the guy behind me will let you in."

And

"It is my right to cruise at 65 in the LH freeway lane! The speed limit is 60, and 70mph is too fast! The RH lane may be nearly empty, but the 2 cars in there going 60 will definitely impede my travels!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crass3000

Try driving in Manhatten in New York. The driving in Manhatten is crazy -- it's pretty much survival of the fittest -- you have to drive crazy to deal with the cab drivers. Chicago is a cake-walk compared to New York. There might as well not be any lanes.

---

I knew this would warrant a comment either about NYC or Boston. Pretty soon someone from Bangalore, India may chime in and certainly lay claim that Manhatten driving is weak sauce too.

Fuck NYC, Boston, and Bangledesh.
Come roll in Mexico City.

Chicken wire windshields, half a car, and automatic weapons bitches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scoober

Give it some time. It's a mix of the overly nice and cautious and the passive asshole. My favorite hits include:

"I see you coming down the street as I'm waiting to make a right hand turn into your lane, and by golly I'm going to turn right in front of you. I have no respect for your right of way."

Or

"I also see you in the merge lane as I'm in the stop and go right lane. No, I don't think I'll let you merge. You're not trying to sneak in the lane and merge late or anything, but I'm going to suck the bumper in front of me anyway and I'm sure the guy behind me will let you in."

And

"It is my right to cruise at 65 in the LH freeway lane! The speed limit is 60, and 70mph is too fast! The RH lane may be nearly empty, but the 2 cars in there going 60 will definitely impede my travels!"

---

Heh. I've noticed those but figured it was the California plates that provoked it :)

I'm a big fan of 4 cars, in 4 seperate lanes of the freeway, driving within 20ft of each other (i.e. impossible to safely pass) all driving within 1mph of each other.... and there's hardly anyone else on the road.

likwid wins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJMingus

likwid wins

---

I didn't know there was something to win here. What's up for grabs??? A date with Rootskier?