The dangers of DRLs 4611

Okay. buttume what you wish.

Lazy is as lazy does. I guess you're right. You're not qualified after all. :-)

Several reasons. One, because it's unnecessary. Two, the site dosn't work that way, there isn't a link to a specific page in a study..the material is all over the place and is accessible by search.

Also, do you really believe that the NHTSA has been studying these issues for nearly 15 years and there is "zero" documented on it? And, do you also believe that if these things were as great as you think, they wouldn't have made the final rule to require them 10 years ago? Just think for 3-seconds man! They are still working through many negative issues.

You win the prize. You are correct. Ding..ding..ding! By golly, it IS a document management system! imagine that! And guess what? The documents I refer to are in the document management system. Gee wiz! That actually does maks sense, doesn't it? Indexed documents to be stored in a document management system? Imagine that! One can learn something new every day. Congrats!

No luck. That is where they are.

Okay

I believe I have provided the leads anyone (well except you apparently) can use. You are unable to follow them apparently, so be it.

It isn't interesting at all, really. They are references that exist on different sites with a different site structure. It is not possible to provide the direct link you want to the specific pages of the documents I speak of that are on the document management system. The only way to them is to do the search for them. If you had really tried, you would have known that instead of making such incorrect buttumptions.

Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone (you and me and may others clearly understand that manual intervention is often required). We're speaking of percentages within the general population here. This isn't about you or me.

To a degree that is true. But it has been documented that the situation occurs more frequently with DRL equipped vehicles. Even the "experts" understand this and don't dispute it (and are working to try and resolve it). Do you have another explanation as to why this is so? Oh that's right, you don't believe it is so. Good thing you're not in charge or the problem would never be solved.

I believe I have clearly demonstrated otherwise here. But, I'm fine with people making their own judgements...including you.

Thanks for the clarification. I can't disagree with that statement.

I've owned several GM products over the years. A amazing fact for someone that hates them. Again a incorrect buttumption on your part. You need to stop making stuff up.

You are correct about one thing. I DO dislike GM trying (and failing) to over-engineer something where the technology isn't baked yet (and then forcing a failed system on those of us that don't want it against our will...or forcing us to have no choice but to buy their compebreastors product..which makes me sick to see them loosing business for something this simple). I would prefer GM do the right thing by the customer so they can sell their cars to them again. The USA needs a strong GM.

Okay, understood. I don't remember claiming that you were biased, but I may have inadvertently made that implication...given your tendencacy to make buttumptions that are not always correct.

A good thing.

Ah, those buttumtions again! :-) I really didn't follow that one. I butture you (for the record here) that I'm not a expert, nor am I suiperior on this topic. I have just read quite a bit on the subject. I will state that for the record. I merely come with some insight that I have come across that people can use (or not) or believe (or not). And provided a way for anyone that want's to to research and come to their own informed conclusion (same conclusion as me, or not)

As did I as well. Of course, if one has to do something manually much of the time, there is little added value (in my book) for a "auto" system since it's doesn't often work and manual intervention is necessary so often anyway. Of course the bigger problem is those people that wind up putting 100% of their faith in the system that is only works 70% of the time..and there are quite a few of those people, apparently.

Interesting. I've never been able to tell if the dash is lit (on any car) under those situations. It did force me to look at the radio frequently to tell (which isn't really a good thing to be forced to have to do). I eventually just always used the switch, even if the lights were already on, since I discovered that often the auto system would turn my lights off part way to work (when it was still foggy and they needed to be on). Often, I didn't know how long thay had neen off (no chime). It sure seemed silly to have to feel like you had to always use the switch when there was a (supposed) auto system. But, it was what it was...pee poor system.

Lights are required by law day or night when it is snowing. They aren't required if there is snow merely on the ground and is otherwise clear and sunny. I wasn't sure which situation yo were describing above. The rpoblem is in the latter situation (lights not required then anyway)

No, it was a specific defect you were speaking to. In that context, there certaintly are a very large number of GM vehicles with defective auto light control systems then.

And the very same observations from others here in this very thread AND in testimonials on file at the NHTSA are also worthless? I submit there is something to this. You may not agree. But far too many independent people have reported this exact situation for it to be just a fluke.

I've never seen the word automatic on a Coke machine or a lift. ;-) Apples and oranges anyway. Automatic transmissions are reliable..they shift when required-appropriate 99.9% of the time and I've been lucky to never have had a transmission failure (even on my Chrysler-Dodge products). Automatic clothes washers, same thing. Clothes come out of the machine washed and wrung out 99.9% of the time. Automatic dishwashers, same thing. Very reliable. One can count on them. Automatic lighting systems fail 30% of the time (at least where I live where the weather conditions they can handle are frequent). Something that fails that much is not automatic. (Heck, I would call it defective engineering, in all honesty). We simply shouldn't put up with that high of a failure rate of ANY system, especially one that is so closely tied to safety and requires manual intevention is such a high frequency!

That is simply incorrect.

Not rare at all. It occurs on many mornings especially.

Wrong again. Using your own statements that most people don't control their lights, then by adding another decision point (did my auto system work this time or not) makes them smarter in that regard all of a sudden? I don't think so. What it does do is add complexity and confusion where a "on-off" switch is much simplier AND a system professing to be "automatic" causes many people to become 100% reliant on a 70% relable system. As you sem to agree, people don't pay enough attention...and this is one more thing on the list to pay attention to. Bad news in my book..

I don't need arguements. They've all been made already...long ago.

However, you are right about one thing. I do hate features with a high failure rate. Features that don't work properly, even 10% of the time are useless (and dangerious). And auto light systems fail at a higher rate than 10%. A majority of people that have then don't realize the high failure rate, unfortunately.

Not sure where the hate GM stuff in general is coming from. You're making incorrect buttumptions. I've personally owned GM products and come from a very long line of GM buyers in the family (Parents, grand parents on both sides and great grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.)

And you should see how many people here pull out in front of you on the highway without tail lights because the gas station canopy was so bright that the auto light system failed to turn the lights on until after they entered the highway. Sure, that's a real good thing!

Yours may. Some implementations seem to function better han others. But most don't...especially the further south one happens to be (higher sun angle). Question, if that sensative, they must cycle the lights on when entering the tree canopy of a wooded area as well (which I wouldn't particularly like).

No huge arguement with that statement. A caveat, however. There is something that causes people that drive DRL equipped cars not to switch on their lights as often as (or when) they should. One theory is that the reflection of the DRL's illuminating the road and objects in front of them cause the visual que that registers (in their minds) that their lights are on (when they are not)...probably normal lack of proper attentiveness that we both agree can be a problem with the average driver (driving both types of cars). Another theory is that some believe that DRLs are sufficient for longer into dusk, so they make a conscience decision to wait longer before switching on the regular lights. It's just more pervasive of a problem with DRL equipped vehicles vs. non-DRL equippped vehicles (for what ever reason). The Safety people at the NHTSA and in the industry wouldn't be working on the issue if the issue didn't exist.

Incorrect. The largest and most damaging type of accident that have ever occured is the pileup. Pileup accidents involve vehicles that are going in the same direction under poor sight conditions. Often these pileups involve many hundreds of vehicles and many hundreds of injuries and baneities. Rear lighting is at least as important as frontal lighting...perhaps more so.

And the afore mentioned pilups are vivid reminders that that is exactly what happens with real people on real roads driving real cars...they often DO drive too fast for conditions...so rear illumination is at least as important as frontal illumination. A lighting control design-system that creates a situation where rear illumination is less likely to happen is not a good thing.

See above.

It's on file on the same document management system I already provided a link to. Since that reference doesn't qualify as a reference to you way of thinking, I guess your buttertion is correct. For anyone else interested, have at it.

I have not had a power steering system fail in years...but I would call it "automatic". I have never had a brake system fail (power or otherwise)...knock on wood....but I would call that automatic either. I have had ABS systems get in the way of my wanting full control of braking during a emergency maneuver a time or two (which is why I no longer will buy a car with ABS), but I would not call it a failure, it did it's job as designed...and I supose it's a automatic system. But, even there, I have never had a ABS system fail to do what it proports to do. However, I HAVE had auto lighting control systems fail to function when required on a significant number of occasions...and have personally observed the same failure on other GM vehicles (almost daily). It is not something we should put up with, frankly...and we should tell GM so!

You keep bringing him up. Just forget it, will ya! He hurt your widdle feelings...get over it!

There are many mirrors there where you are, I take it. :-) Just kidding...just kidding!

And if I were you, I would do the same. No arguement from me on that one. DS would probably be fine with that decision, if I were a betting person.

His credentials are sufficient since that is his business. I'm sure you would take exception to those that question your credibility relating to your area of discipline or field of study. Having respect for the credentials of others is a two way street. By the way, where did you get your degree in vehicle lighting design and study? ;-)

So you didn't know that Daniel's expertise is sought by many. He has been solicited and supplied research and written white papers for the NHTSA and others on the topic of vehicle lighting use, design, etc. His knowledge goes far beyond "light bulbs". He deserves a degree of deference and respect on this topic. He knows what he is talking about. You can certainly take issue with his atbreastude. You (or I) can't take issue with his knowledge on the topic (they are different things and you would do well to separate the emotional from the information). So, loose the hurt feelings because he insulted you (put it aside) and learn from the knowledge he imparts. Daniel has come after me on a few occasions...so I certainly understand. But I'm not going to cut my nose off in spite of my face because of it! He has good knowledge.