fuzzymoomoo Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Gotta love government bureaucracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) Gotta love government bureaucracy The auto manufactures have been pushing for the US to just adopt the ROW standards for vehicle lighting as it is cheaper for them in the development phase. The Trucking Industry is fighting the changes, and have been very successful at it. Edited October 25, 2017 by jasonj80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 The auto manufactures have been pushing for the US to just adopt the ROW standards for vehicle lighting as it is cheaper for them in the development phase. The Trucking Industry is fighting the changes, and have been very successful at it. Why is the trucking industry so against it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Why is the trucking industry so against it? Has to deal with amount of side lighting on the trailers for side visibility, for both running and turn signals as well as amber rear turn signals on the trailers. One study pegged the cost at about $120 / Trailer that included the electronic modules to ensure compatibility with older style cabs. I think the big sticking point is plus ongoing maintenance of the lights and that they can be ticketed if they are out, would seem that would be less of an issue now that LEDs are pretty much standard now. This battle has been going on for a while, they were on track to pass it in 2008-2010 time frame but the industry said it could ill afford the costs at that time. So it got delayed, and delayed and delayed. Unless there is a huge public outcry from the safety standpoint it isn't going to change. I also don't see anything passing that the rest of the world uses in this political environment either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 I dont know why they would tie the truck/trailer standards into passenger cars. That makes no sense. I also dont buy that they cant afford less than the cost of one tire to retrofit the trailers. They pay their lobbyists more than that to avoid the costs. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) I dont know why they would tie the truck/trailer standards into passenger cars. That makes no sense. I also dont buy that they cant afford less than the cost of one tire to retrofit the trailers. They pay their lobbyists more than that to avoid the costs. All falls under motor vehicle code. It's the reason the Raptor has clearance light across the front of it. Easy win for the lobbyist to keep their job and add to the total we saved the company in new regulations. "We prevented this new regulation that could cost you $700,000 plus on going maintenance, tickets, and trucks sideline for safety reasons" They then arrive at the $700,000 number as the company would have to replace all 2500 of their trailers in a year, make up a few lost loads because of safety checks stops, and a few tickets for light failures. We prevented this other regulation that could cost you $900,000, etc. So at the end of the year they go we saved you $2.8million dollars per year on new regulations cost. Makes the $500,000 they spend on that lobby group seem worth it on paper, and in the summary of services rendered for the year there really isn't a fine detailed breakdown of those costs of regulations saved. Edited October 25, 2017 by jasonj80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 But the regs should not be retroactive. Cars built last year dont have to meet next years safery regs, so the same should work across the board for lighting regs. But yeah lobbyists exist just to make themselves money. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 But the regs should not be retroactive. Cars built last year dont have to meet next years safery regs, so the same should work across the board for lighting regs. But yeah lobbyists exist just to make themselves money. They wouldn't be, but if you had a new cab with old trailer or old cab with a new trailer there are adapters that would be needed cost $$$ so they fight. Change is bad, Change is always bad..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 They wouldn't be, but if you had a new cab with old trailer or old cab with a new trailer there are adapters that would be needed cost $$$ so they fight. Change is bad, Change is always bad..... Do you know what regs are different that would require a new adapter? I mean, are there new lights in addition to stop, turn, backup, and running lights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Fuck the public Profits are more important 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Do you know what regs are different that would require a new adapter? I mean, are there new lights in addition to stop, turn, backup, and running lights? Additional side marker running and turn signals and separate amber turn signals for the rear. The modules are needed for an old cab with a new trailer so the amber rear turn signals don't turn on for running lights like you see now on some trailers with them now. Older trucks not having enough power to run the additional lights (which if LED would be less than the incandescent power load) and such. None of it is based in fact it is just to delay something that would cost them money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 None of it is based in fact it is just to delay something that would cost them money. Just as I suspected... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Gotta love government bureaucracy Tell me about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 I really wouldn't call this government bureaucracy. That wanting to do an Environmental Assessment on property that is trying to be developed; saying you need exactly how the project will be built to show the impact of the road and runoff of the project. Then going to the other government agency and having them say they won't review the plans as presented as you don't have Environmental sign off. One leads to changes in the other!!! This is just legally buying votes to the determent of the American Public that causes people to die. Which I guess is kind a the first one too, as you just end up calling an elected official who has been given a campaign contribution who fixes the issue.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 This is just legally buying votes to the determent of the American Public that causes people to die. Which I guess is kind a the first one too, as you just end up calling an elected official who has been given a campaign contribution who fixes the issue.... I've been saying this for a few years now. The will of the people is gone now thanks to lobbyists. Unfortunately there's nothing that will be done about it because most in congress and the senate are spineless and it's a constitutionally protected right anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Buy one of these. I missed mine off my 2009. Silly of Ford to drop it. https://www.amazon.com/Gentex-Frameless-Auto-Dimming-Homelink-50-genk80a/dp/B00PXGZESO My Bronco has auto-dimming rear view... absolutely ridiculous that Fords today don't have such an old, but amazing piece of technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 It's ironic... the people gave government power to protect them and make things better. Now the government denies us the most basic and simple of safety improvements to our public roads.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 My Bronco has auto-dimming rear view... absolutely ridiculous that Fords today don't have such an old, but amazing piece of technology. They still offer it...but not cheaper cars. I have it on my '13 SHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 They still offer it...but not cheaper cars. I have it on my '13 SHO. cant get it on a Fusion but you can on a Mustang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Fusion has auto dimming mirrors in some weird Configurations, Opt in SE and Std in Titanium/Platinum, but N/A in Sport.... Outside drivers side is included if you get BLIS. Looking at the Fusion its a no wonder they don't sell as well as the Camry or Accord, the order guide is a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Fusion has auto dimming mirrors in some weird Configurations, Opt in SE and Std in Titanium/Platinum, but N/A in Sport.... Outside drivers side is included if you get BLIS. Looking at the Fusion its a no wonder they don't sell as well as the Camry or Accord, the order guide is a mess. the only order guides that arent a mess is the new EcoSport and to a slightly lesser extent the new Expedition. Hopefully that means Ford is fixing their nonsensical packaging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Fusion has auto dimming mirrors in some weird Configurations, Opt in SE and Std in Titanium/Platinum, but N/A in Sport.... Outside drivers side is included if you get BLIS. Looking at the Fusion its a no wonder they don't sell as well as the Camry or Accord, the order guide is a mess. Remember the edge sport in 2011+ you could not get HID headlamps. Most fusion sports 2010-2012 didnt have EATC. Its weird how these things are packaged. The sport Trac adrenaline you couldnt get rear parking aid. Doesnt make sense that the most expensive model has less available equipment like that. The focus in 2012 had available rains sensing wipers and active park assist. Now that and numerous things are gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Remember the edge sport in 2011+ you could not get HID headlamps. Most fusion sports 2010-2012 didnt have EATC. Its weird how these things are packaged. The sport Trac adrenaline you couldnt get rear parking aid. Doesnt make sense that the most expensive model has less available equipment like that. The focus in 2012 had available rains sensing wipers and active park assist. Now that and numerous things are gone. I remember the Explorer Sport ('13-'15) you couldn't get the HID headlights either that the Limited model had (now LEDs are standard across the board). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 I remember the Explorer Sport ('13-'15) you couldn't get the HID headlights either that the Limited model had (now LEDs are standard across the board). Because in the Ford world you will go get a Lincoln to get that feature. Or that is what some guy who hates cars thinks as his sits in his cube with a slide rule as that was the way it has always been from then he started working at Ford in 1972. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Because in the Ford world you will go get a Lincoln to get that feature. Or that is what some guy who hates cars thinks as his sits in his cube with a slide rule as that was the way it has always been from then he started working at Ford in 1972. Yep. Because at that time the Lincoln version had the same drivetrain so they needed something to differentiate them. With most Lincolns now getting upgraded drivetrains and more differentiation that shouldn't happen as often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.