The dangers of DRLs 4613

And if I were inexperienced with creating hyperlinks, how is that relivant to the discussion topic?

Well you found something that supports your view. Good for you. I told you you would if you would just look. Now look up Perot & Prowler or 1997 HLDI study, or the Winsonsin Route 11 highway study in 1978 (I think it's called) and another from Washington State (I don't remember the name) for different study results that doesn't support your view.

By the way, your hyperlink didn't work...just as I stated...and you're not paying me to cut and paste it. So get with the program! ;-) I suppose I could ask you about your experience creating hyperlinks that don't work (and your knowledge about how long parameter-filled hyperlinks that often wrap are not functional). But there wouldn't be any point to it since now you know. Some people learn from others. Some learn the hard way. That is just how it is.

I do hate the auto headlamps and DRLs...obviously that isn't a secret. Not sure what that has to do with Bob Lutz, corn flakes or the Aztek though...or my personal feelings about any of those unrelated items. I know, you won't be surprised (save you the trouble). ;-)

However, if this is somehow helpful for you, I like the Buick line very much!

Well wonder away. How do you discount the others here in this thread with the same observations. Everybody else that has contributed all sem to disagree with you so far. If they bother to check their spelling mistakes more frequently then I do, then that reason is out! :-) I guess you'll have to find another unrelated reason other than spelling mistakes to claim they are not able to make good observations. Good luck!

Last I checked, the NHTSA has not made any "findings". Although, perhaps they have. All that did exist were various studies, public comments, testimonials, schedules on rule making, etc.

To that end, I have provided the names the breastles of those studies...did you forget? There are also several public dockets (I don't have the numbers handy) that have recorded hundreds (maybe thousands) of testomonials and public comments, some stating the same thing others here have stated...most do not agree with you (some exception, but few of those). So, now that you know how to look stuff up, keep reading a little deeper.

Curious, what year GM do you have that works so much better than everyone elses?

I prefer not having the chime as well. But how would one know otherwise? You yourself have stated that "most" drivers don't know if their cars have DRLs or not...etc. And I have never seen a car where the dash lights were visable on bright foggy-snowing days. One can't tell by looking out of the front of the car since the DRL's reflecting back (your amber DRL type excluded) look exactly like the headlights. The ONLY way is to glance at the radio display occasionally (something that shouldn't be necessary, but the design of the system makes that the only way to do it...a least for most all cars except yours, apparently).

Hmmm....snow and bright sunlight. Well, it is quite impossible to have "bright sunlight" occur during a snow storm. So you either meant bright sunlight on a bank of snow that had already fallen (which I agree, negative contrast is most likely to occur and where addng lighting can actually mask a object) OR you meant a snowstorm that is occuring during the day (for which case a negative contrast is less likely to occur so lights-on would be prefered...plus the law requires them then anyway). So with a impossible statement, I answered either possible scenario of what you *might* have intended to say. Did I not get one of them right? If I did, I think I pbutted the comprehension test.

Of course, I could have made statements that your must not be too smart if you think the sun is out during a snow storm, etc. etc. which tends to be your way of approaching people. But you'll note, I didn't do that. I attempted to understand a sentence the way it was written, which didn't make complete sense since it wasn't written well (we all have times where we don't write well...especially in interactive forums such as this...I claim guilty myself, so I'm not disparaging you)

Again with the you. Forget about you and forget about me. This isn't about the two of us. Now that we've done that. I was asking about the others here with the same observations as mine. So far, no one has agreed with you (unless I missed it). So, forget about me for a second...and answer the question as to why all of the other people here are wrong too. And since they seem to check their spelling more than I do, you will have to find a different reason.

Ah thouse buttumptions. For the record. I've never met the man, never spoken to him (except in this NG). I've only read is work (among the work of others). And for the record our opinions haven't been blesed by the Almighty. However, they are based on a large library of research...especially Daniel's since that is his business.

And you have that option...as it should be. Those of us that have auto lighting systems that don't perform the way we believe they should don't have that same option you did. All I'm saying is that GM (like their compebreastors) should provide the customer that option (like you had). If options are good enough for you and your manual tranny (because you don't like automatic trannys) then it's good enough for those that don't like-want auto headlight systems.

Yikes, I had no idea I had a folllowing! I know now you're imagining things! ;-)

You are probably right. Auto trannys may not shift as you would want for your style of driving. I can understand that. They work well for me...although I'm just as happy with a manual (I've had both). Traffic here though makes a manual sort of pointless (hardly ever get out of 1st or 2nd gear).

Apparently where you are, the sun shines during snow storms. Are you sure the aliens are here at my location and not yours? :-)

This goes a long way to perhaps explaing some things. Here where I live, it is common on many mornings to have what is called "low-lying" fog. The fog rests at the surface of the earth for the first few feet to perhaps as much as 50 feet up (depth). Above the low fog it is perfectly clear and sunny. The sun actually shines through the fog quite brightly from above...yet the site distance at the surface is still very poor and requires the use of lights. GM's auto light control thinks it's sunny (because almost is), not foggy. But it IS foggy. This may be a revalation in our respective understanding.

Those buttumptions again. Yes, of course. I'm making it up. I'm making it all up. So are all of these other people...everybody you don't agree with is making things up. You are the only one here that has a clue. Have you ever given the thought that if everybody else has observed these exact same things (independently from one another), that perhaps it's not the rest of the world with the problem? The common deminator is...?

Those buttumptions again. Low-hanging fog IS a common-occuring atmospheric condition caused by temperature inversion. It happens in many places...especially around bodies of water and humid climates (which is a lot of places).

It was the Op of this thread that posted the observation that mostly GM vehicles only (compared to others) were driving with their lights off during a torrential rain in northern Michigan. I only added that we have seen smilar situations ocurr here in Maryland as well. I don't remember him saying that the sun was out during the rain storm though.

Now, another weather lesson for you. It IS possible (and common is many areas) for the sun to be out during a torrential rain. Ever been to Florida (or much of the south-east and south)? It happens quite frequently there. Thunder storms can be small and localized so that the cloud does not block the sun, but it will still put down torrents. I guarantee that most GM auto light controls won't work reliably in this situationr (except the few models that have the wiper activated light control)

The you again. Think "general population" please. That is the context here as far as I am concerned. What happens with the general population with these things...not what happens with you or me.

So question: The switch position "Auto" means exactly what? Well, it *can* mean that the lights are on....but not always does it mean that. It *can* also mean that the lights are off, but it doesn't always mean that either. So, the best thing it can mean is "maybe your lights are on and maybe your lights are off". Hmmm...and you think that is actually a better system for the average bloke out there driving around?

Now a switch that says "On" and "Off" is really simple. When in the ON position, lights are on...every time (Imagine that?). When in the "OFF" position, lights are off...every time (imagine that to!) Much simplier for the average bloke to understand compared to "Auto", don't you agree?

I don't think that is true. Even if it were, they still have to go through extra process steps (repeatedly) to determine what is happening at any given moment with their lights. AND since the auto system can change the status of the lights at any time without any warning to the driver or confirmation from the driver to proceed, a person has to "keep a eye" on what it is doing. Heck, during some trips to the office, the lights would cycle on and off several times in the fog...and so would the other GM vehicles around me (their lights were doing nearly the same thing that my lightts were). What good is a system like that? Lighs on..lights off..light on..lights off willy-nilly without the necessary thought that is required if they are actually needed or not? pee poor situation in my book!

I agree...I didn't know you did.

That is does do well. And that is a good point to the system. For those of us that have never "forgotten' to use the lights (and you can tell I'm anal on the subject I'd bet), there should be a disable option offered by GM. I have MUCH more confidence in my personal ability to properly control the lights than anything I've used that was (so-called) "automatic" that GM has put in their cars.

You''re ignoring the others here again that have the same observations I do? You need to stop focusing on me (and my little hole) and focus on the subject and how pervasive the issue appears to be.

Common low-laying fog and common southeast sunny rain storms explained earlier.

Sometimes yes...sometimes no. Actually the newer systems are better (trigger faster). At one time the trigger length was longer to prevent false cycling when prople would go under wide bridges and such. But that specification was changed becasue of the situation I just mentioned (and yes it is documented too). But of course, the false cycling occurs more frequently now as a result. (a trade off in design).

Actually, I expected you to come back saying that people with manual switches do this too! (and they do).

I have observed the same.

I do know...(which should be obvious since I described that occuring with the vehicle I owned and others I've observed). My question was if that happened to you as well. And you replied in the affirmative. So, we're good.

But they are apparently "more stupid" when driving a car equipped with DRL's. I really hate using generalizations like that though. There are many well educated people (hardly "stupid" people) that are in the population base with this problem that we're talking about here.

You cant see your headlights reflecting back at you from the shiny surfaces of the car in front of you when it's foggy-raining? I sure have no problem seeing them. What I can't see is the instrument cluster illumination under those conditions.

I've never seen this theory put forth. I'm not saying it doesn't exist...just hadn't seen it. Perhaps Daniel can comment on that. I'm not so sure that these people are that observant. But, maybe they are.

So illuminated tail lights wouldn't help? Okay

Yes, tailgating is one cause. Visability in the fog is another...while approaching a slower vehicle from behind. Illuminated tail lights would help with the latter.

Again with the me. I've never been in a pileup up or caused one. So I guess I can wait for my regular appointment. Although, I didn't realize that they made glbuttes that improved vision in fog. Anyway, back to your topic. If one person is doing 40MPH and they come up behind another that is doing 20MPH...illuminated tail lights in the dense fog will provide a extra margin of time for the faster vehicle to reduce their speed to the 20MPH (or change lanes) before hitting them.

Some are. Others are caused by someone going at too high a rate of speed and overtaking someone that is going the correct speed and not being able to stop in time before hitting them. Rear illumination helps in that situation.

They why do they mostly occur in fog conditions? Especially the worst ones that make the national news. Hmmm...it would be interesting to know if it's typicaly a GM vehicle in the front of the pilup, wouldn't it?

You''re kidding..right?

When they work...and fog conditions are a area where they fail the most.

Time to do some research on the mechanics of automotive pilups, it seems.

It's power steering, not automatic steering. Apples and oranges anyway.

You've never used braking and controled skids as a form of added directional control? One can do some fairly amazing maneuvers usng the brakes that cannot be accomplished with the steering wheel alone. ABS removes that control option from the driver.

And you say all of that after reading the link from the highway safety site I sent you. Interesting. And did the benefit of ABS show up in accident data as making a difference? No it didn't. So again all the hyperbole you spew here has no basis in real world numbers or facts. Apparently, not only can the best drivers control their cars adequately without ABS, but average drivers must not have a problem doing so either. Otherwise there would be a difference in the numbers. (did you forget what you read on the link I sent you earlier)?

So, you don't find 35 years of driving with over 1 million miles without a accident and one ticket (doing 67 in a 55) during that time as being very good? Wow, you have very high standards. I must not measure up to your stellar driving record. I'll keep working on it, I promise. So that I have a high bar to reach, what is your driving record?

Oh those buttumption things are getting to you again. (And they're so wrong so often too!)

Sure, the average bloke would use that rediculous definition of yours....NOT! I will submit to you that the average driver would define a automatic light control system as one that controls the lights automatically whenever and wherever lights are required (all conditions-all situations...thus the definition of the word "automatic"). I would doubt very much that many of those people even have a remote clue as to how the system works, let alone understanding ambient light levels, lighting sensors, wiper-light interfaces, etc. and how they all interact and affect how the lights come on or go off. Many completely forget about any further control of their lights, turning over said control to the suppsed "auto" system (present company excluded, obviously). You are giving the average driver far too much technical credit. So, under that definition (and buttociated expectation), the automatic light control systems fails and fails miserably.

You were joking with that definition, right? Even the GM engineers don't understand enought to make them work reliably, and you expect the avarage person to have a clue about the technical aspects of these things? Bwahahahah!!! That's just too damn funny! Thanks for the chuckle!

Bwhahahahahahah. I couldn't resist. 100% is not even close. 70% may be closer. I must still be "tickled" from the previous joke.

Yes, foggy mornings (low-lying fog) are common. Torrential rains when sunny are not too common here. That one was REM122's observation, not mine. Now go check his spelling to make sure he knows what he's talking about. ;-)