The dangers of DRLs 4615

And you would be wrong. Sorry. I'll buy a GM produce again in a heartbeat if not for the idiotic nanny fratures they shove down your throat. You draw too many incorrect conclusions.

That is correct, I have been "ranting" about the DRLs and auto headlamps specifically...not GM generally (or overall).

claim not to hate GM.

Actually I like the GTO too (now that they added the hoos scoop). Not all of a sudden, I've liked Buicks for years.

Now, surely you can separate a like for a product and a dislike for a feature. Can't you? Although this certaintly explains how you incorrectly correlate hatred of a idiotic feature for hatred for the entire company. And explains a lot of things actually. But the correlation is a VERY large stretch.

And you had reverenced documents previously? No, you hadn't. So, what's good for the goose...as they say!

I'm fine with others coming to their own conclusions on that one.

No I stated that documents existed at the NHTA site that support what I was stating. Naming the names of studies etc.

No, I've claimed that there are elements of DRL implementation that have known-documented problems. (specifically the observation by the Op of this thread is one). If you remember (and you seem to forget A LOT), I had stated in a previous post that there seems to be some positive aspects to DRLs. However current implementations introduce safety-negative problems as well. You have listed (and cited) the types of accidents they seem to help with (finally). There are other types of accidents that increase with DRL use, the most notable documented is the rear end collision (which also correlates with the Op's observations). But there are other problems that have arisen since DRLs have been intruduced. Some Motocycle accidents are attributed to them, some accidents involving emergency vehicles and ceremony processions are attributed to them, etc. There are other clases as well that seem to be negatively impacted with DRLs in the environment compared to before they were. You cited a few specific types of situations where safety gains have been identified. That is only part of the story. To draw conclusions, it's best to have the rest of the picture. So, keep reading and you will get that *complete* picture (positives and negatives). Remember, you said you were unaware of any negative aspects of DRL's. There are hundreds of documents at the site I provided that can give you that insight you indicated that you lacked. I hope it's helpful.

True, you kept making claims without citing any document...the same thing you acuse other of. No arguement here.

I have already referenced some. Antiono Perot & Stephen Prowler. HLDI (Ironically they dismiss their own 1997 study now), Koornstra, Wisconsin's Highway 12 Study, etc.

I am certain that you don't care.

Then you didn't look very hard. Visit Docket 17243 & 4124. And please..while you're in those dockets, please add your minority view to them so that there is at least some balance to your postion there!

If it hadn't been for me egging you on, you wouldn't have finally found your document. So, what's the beef? You did good! Finally you presented something to back up what you said. Bravo, I say! :-)

If you visit, you may indeed fine it a "hellhole". However, I fail to understand how you come to the conclusion you come to without forst having visited and seen everyting else it has to offer.

Explained in a earlier post where instrument panel lighting is too dim to see on many vehicles in those lighting conditions. But you again missed it.

Not here, apparently.

Sure they do. I can see them reflecting on the shiny paint or chrome sufaces of the vehicle in front very easily, especially at stoplights, heavy traffic and such. Of course I could use your tactic and say you must not be very observent. ;-) But perhaps you are not in stop-and-go traffic very often or behind people at stoplights very much. Remember also you have turn-signal based DRL's, they probably don't create the same "headlamp-on" reflection signature that a headlamp based DRL does.

I will agree with that, generally. The reflection is mostly on the vehicle in front of you. Even from some distance, you can see the "spots" from the DRL reflecting bacl. That may be less obvious with the turn signal type you have.

My eyes were fine at my last eye exam. Perhaps, I have my dash lights dimmed down more than you do to reduce night driving glare?

I used "bright daytime snowstorm", not "bright sunlit snowstorm".

I've not said they didn't work correctly at night. That's the only time you can be buttured that they work properly. The other times they are required, it's a crap shoot.

I'm so enbarrased. Quick, everybody, check out the previous post in your news reader to better understand my superiority. :-)

I see.

Yes, there is a lot more material on the site. You are correct.

Another buttumption. Amazing how you read things that just aren't there...and then actually believe it!

I don't think it's cool at all!! I'm peeed about it. But what peees me off more is when GM does stuff to deserve it. I want to see Toyota and those other Jap cars wipe GM's butt again. But that will never happen IF GM purposefully aleniates the very customer base they need to get back on top of things.

You see, when Toyota implemented mandatory DRLs on their 1999 and 2000 models, the customer complaints came in (as it did at GM a few years earlier). Toyota quickly switched their position in 2001 and offered DRLs as options. GM should have as well if they want to sell cars and have customers. So who is eating GM's lunch righ now...Toyota is. Duh...I wonder why!

Daniel does seem to carry grudges about certain things from time-to-time. But I've not found it to influence relaying information that is known to be independently generated. Perhaps he will be quicker in relaying the inependent subject matter in those cases where it isn't very flattering. BUt if the content is correct, it is correct.

If it infuences the content itself (false content), I would agree. If the content is true, then it's irrelivant what the feelings are..the facts are what they are...no feelings to it.

Then you have more reading to do to get the complete picture. You only have a little piece of information and then using that to make broad-sweeping conclusions (what a surprise).

Then we agree options are good things.

Then tell us how to switch the lights off. If there were a real switch, that option would exist. It doesn't.

Wooded tree canopy, underpbuttes, etc. are examples where almost never are not a good words to use there...I see that happen every day.

Then why does every other manufacture provide one? Apparently everyone else thinks otherwise. Plus, if you're a camper, a private investigator, waiting outside a restaurant shining lights on people inside, a astrology club member, want to visit you local night holiday display when they ask for lights out, want to signal other drivers or simply want to avoid distrubing your sleeping family when pulling into the driveway late...some people need a OFF switch sometimes.

Yes, and I already said that I would manualy position my switch to "on" when leaving for work on a foggy morning *even when* my lights were already on so that they would not switch themselves off by themselves during the trip as they often did. All of which is damn silly to have to do with a auto system. I already understand this...again! The average driver apparently doesn't.

Well, I'd better start a official club then. ;-) I'll set up a PayPal account so I can collect membership fees!

New names I hadn't sen before. "Wannabe" and "ratty". You like giving people and objects interesting names, I take it.

Exaggeration noted (on both our parts) ;-) Auto trannys really do work fine for the average person. Maybe not optimally, but far better and reliably than any auto light system does.

Looks like a misunderstanding of terminology. I had stated "a bright daytime snow storm" (no mention of "sunlight" at all). But no problem.

Hope you never move to Florida, the southeast or the south then. You'll be wearing out that override switch to compensate for the failures of the auto system quite often there. It might even make you start to wonder "just what is the point of this blasted auto thing that doesn't work?" :-)

Hmmm...last I checked, a LOT of people lived in these areas too!

Is name calling a dirty trick? Nope, no name calling from me.

I claim auto headlamps don't work as most people expect and buttume they do. Dangerious? Well, I would go so far as to say that the create a situation where lights aren't on when they should be. I don't know how dangerious that is, but it could sure get one a ticket. I don't remember using the word dangerious in this thread. If I did, I misspoke.

DRL's in their curent implementation have little benefit *overall* (when factoring in the negative along with the positive you found). Like the ABS insurance data, the insurance data is similar with DRL. Little to know difference in loss charistics between DRL equipped vehicles and non DRL equipped vehicles. Keep reading...you'll find balanced information.

Another name. "Hellhole". And that conclusion was derived from...?

These incorrect conclusions again...is there no end to them?

And I've said repeatedly that is what I did...use the "on" position, even when my lights were already on. Most other people apparently don't do that though...they just let their lights cycle on and off during foggy commutes. Again enough with the ME. This isn't a personal thing (even though you seem to keep trying to make it that). Clearly I understand that I had to use the ON position far too often (as I have said many times I would do) for any system to claim to be "automatic".

Those incorrect conclusions again.

I wrote "many places". You then reply "some places". Interesting translation. By the way, low laying fog occurs in valleys too. IF the system works as you say it does, lights would go on when driving through low valley areas and go of when at the tops of hills (and out of the fog). In areas of the country where one drives up and down hills all the time, that would sure be annoying as the lights keep cycling. Yes I know, just hit the ON switch...which means the Auto system is of little value then.

Not that I've said anything about the moon previously, but that is possible. If you've never seen the moon out in the middle of the day, you must not be observent enough to drive. Makes one wonder if you are observant enough to speak to this topic...you just don't know your lights can cycle off in the fog because you haven't observed it happening when it has. (Oops, I'm starting to sound like you do...Yikes!) :-)

Utterly amazing..I have to say. I gues REM223 was all wet with his observation then (pun intended).

Actually, light conditions can be different with sudden storms compared to prolonged rain events you say you have. Sudden storms can have a small "storm cloud" surrounded by a clear sky, which allows in quite a bit of light (sometimes direct sun during the rain storm). Although, that is probably not very common in Michigan. A prolonged rain event tyically has cloud cover from horizon to horizon, blocking more light. The auto light system seems to work more reliably with prolonged rain events, but still not close to 100% of the time. It almost never worked with the "sudden downpour" scenario.

So far you are the only one here that believes that. Invitation to others to join Chris' position in this debate is officially extended. Yes I know, everybody hates GM (utter nonsense).

They'd better damn well get philosophical about the system in order for them to have even a remote chance at a clue to when it isn't working (or understand the many circumstances when it likely will fail)!

Yes that can happen, no question. Even without orange streetlights. Give them tickets and driver training. I'd rather knowledgeable drivers than a "automated nanny" (that doesn't work well) watching over them.

So what? Becides, since one has to manually turn the lights on with auto systems so often anyway, there is little difference between the two in this case.

Yes, that can and does happen.

Personally I see far more numbers of GM vehicles without lights in fog-snow than I do other brand vehicles without lights at night. That gives the potential for incorrect use score advantage to the manual system over the auto system.

Perhapes I've forgotten when I've forgotten. Honestly, I don't remember a single time. Remember, I'm damn anal about the subject! :-) I go through a mental checklist routine before pulling off...lights happen to be on my mental list.

You just can't resist getting off topic and making things personal, can you? You live labels and names, I can tell. :-) Well, I'm so embarbutted and ashamed now that you feel that way about me and others here know you do too.

The opposite is actually the case. Remember the office parking lot count I mentioned earlier? I didn't give you the results, only the summary. Here they are (roughly): 70-75% (depending on the day) of non GMs had lights on in the fog-rain while only 20%-30% of the GM vehicles did. Again, score advantage goes to the manual system for correct light usage. Although I suppose my hate for GM you au have might have made be put the tick marks in the wrong columns...but I'm quite certain that that isn't the case.

Now the interesting question I would love to have a answer to. Of the 20%-30% of the GM's that had their lights on, how many were on because the auto system turned them on and how many were on because the driver manually turned them on. We will never know. But it matters not, the GM's as a group failed to have the lights on in numbers compared to the rest of the cars. That tells me that there is something very VERY wrong with what GM is doing with the lighting control design AND the human interface thereof.

Just have to go there, don't you. Surely you are able to stay with the topic...no?

Funny also how you would rely on the auto system if you say that you have more confidence in your ability over said system. How is that possible you would put control on a system that you have less confidence in than your own abilities? Doesn't make sense.

Well, one can always find a way to bury one's head in the sand, I suppose. Reality is still there all around though.

You were reading references to studies. Keep reading. The 1997 HLDI study showed a 8% increase in accidents. The fact is that yes DRLs (current implementation) has benefits. It also has some fairly significant problems too. What is hoped is that a better DRL implementation comes out to reduce or mitigate the identified problem areas. Now, perhaps they've made some progress there lately.

BTW: the last I checked, there wasn't any data available yet on the potential that introducing turn signal based DRLs into the driving environment might create signaling ambiguity. I believe you mentioned that those are the types of DRLs you have. No one (no, not even you) knows if that is a problem or not. It may not be..or it may be. Yet GM introduced them without understanding that. Glad you appreciate them experimenting on you that way. Personally, implementing something without knowing what the adverse implications may be is, frankly, very irresponsible. In fairness to GM, Toyota has some turn signal implementations as well (albeit at least they're owner optional)

First, mornings are a time where traffic is heavy with commuters. Second, mornings are the time this atmospheric condition most often occurs Third, That area is the most heavily populated area of the country Fourth, is is far from "rare"...unless comparing to night.

Interestng too that would consider the south and southeast a "small part" of the US.

I didn't say my car had the problem...the lights came on fairly quickly (about 5-6 seconds after sensing darkness). What I said was that problem had been observed to occur with other cars pulling out from well lit gas stations.

Not mine. I had to take it out of Park AND pop the emergency brake (both conditions in addition to the ignition) for the lights to come on. But, essentially the same since you have a manual transmission.

Not always. Sometimes mine didn't come on until 5-6- seconds after I pull out from under the canopy...which was sufficient before entering the freeway. Perhaps the position I parked at the pumps in relation to one of the light fixtures? Don't know.

Right. You buttuming what I know. Remember, you buttumptions are wrong quite frequently. Here is what I know. I can observe that I need to pop by e-brake and put the tranny out of Park for the lights to come on, but (according to you) I can't observe that the lights didn't always come on under a gas station canopy. Does your buttertion really make sense that I can observe one condition and not observe the other? Of course not.

Traffic here is bad...often one gets stuck under overpbuttes waiting for traffic to move...all the GM's under there light up like Christmas trees until 20 seconds or so elapses after coming back out into the clear. One can only shake ones head over the stupidity of it all.

Yes, that is a benefit. Agreed.

Addressed earlier. No hatred...would love to get the GTO...relive my youth, actually. It won't happen unless GM gives me control (total control) of my lights though...and maybe knocks the price down closer to the Mustang.

So, I should stop 500 feet back from others waiting at stop lights and leave 500 feet distance when in 5MPH traffic jambs? I butture you, you would be the one to honk at anyone that does that! I bet you might even feel good about calling them one of your names that make them cry.

I would say yes if I couldn't read the dials and display...the display is perfectly clear. Reading glbuttes don't help with illumination. Oh wait, I need the yellow tinted ones...I forgot.

Those would be better, but even the dim red running lights show through fog better than nothing. The seem to help quite a bit from my experience.

Yes true, but the subject is lights.

Because it isn't about me. Think "big picture".

Well, live and learn. Had a pair of "Blue-Ray" (I think there were called) sunglbuttes a while back. Never wore then in the fog though...guess I should have!

Of course, but then you increase the risk of getting rear ended by the person coming up behind at too high a rate of speed, but that's another topic. :-)

Not sure that is true, but I honestly don't know. Do you have a source for that?

Yes, no doubt all true.

Even dim red running lights add some margin that helps some. Proper speed and distance, yes (but the topic is lighting, so a side item).

Yes, but I'm still going to do some reading on this out of curiosity. I would imagine that the mechanics have other items that contribute to these situations in addition to failure to keep proper speed and distance. It would be interesting to see how often there was a mechanical problem, or a medical issue, or whatever else as a percentage of causes.

As the old saying goes..every little bit helps. Even if standard red running lights only adds 20' of margin, that is 20' more distance to react. That can make a difference in some percentage (albeit perhaps small percentage) of cases. Surely you're not advocating leaving them off?

Incorect conclusions again. (and from what basis the Lord only knows!). Where do you come up with this unrelated stuff. Let's see...30 years driving, a million miles or so, many of those miles in fog, no accidents. Remember?! Perhaps then that I more than likley do drive at proper speed for conditions, ya think?

Lighting...remember the subject is lighting.

That is what I said...I need to do some research on it...I agree. Since you seem to be so well read on the topic of causes and effects of pilup accidents, any good sources you can refer?

You just have to keep going there with the incorrect personal stuff. I'm curious as to what the point is in doing that? Although "specimen" is a new name you have for me. Can I get a clean test tube please?

FWD does take away a direction control option, no question. I prefer to use the standard brake over the emergency brake for braking control. Some cars have a foot activated emergency brake which is more difficult to use for the purpose that your hand brake can be used.

But it really matters not, the data shows they're practically useless (for everybody, apaprenty) , so why have them.

You just said that you use the hand brake and-or accellerator when added directional control was required. Same thing with a standard (non-ABS) brake. Did that help?

So you've figured out the why that the experts on the subject have yet to figure out? Damn, you're good! Although, I keep coming back to so many instances of buttumptions and conclusions from you about me that I know to be dead wrong. So, I think I'll wait until the real reason is found by the real experts on the subject. Now if you have data that supports this rather wild idea, please submit it to the NHTSA so that something can be done about it.

Right, the "luck" theory. Dug deep in the barrel for that one...eh?

Oh, the guardian angel theory now? Wow, I had no idea I had two things going in my favor!

You do have a lot of interisting theories and conclusions as to why things are so, I will say! And I buttume you actually believe it too.

I guess my guardian angel must like me more than your guardian angel likes you. What did you do to pee her off? ;-)

Actually, I don't count rear ends, that wasn't your fault.

I believe REM223 made a observarion during a rain storm where lights are required by law and most had their lights on but the GM vehicles. I don't remember him saying he didn't see anybody.

You are right...it is true that is how they work. I guess it is how they work that is ridiculous.

Yes, which leaves out several requirements ("parameters, in your words") necessary for them to be truly "automatic" by common Webster definition of the word (not your definition).

No because with a manual systems they are used to having to turn on their lights every time they're needed. A majority of people do fairly well with that...some don't. A manual system is consistent in it's application and is intuitive to use. Once you give people a automatic system (so called) many forget about their light control responsibility completely (which is far worse). Present company excluded, of course.

Which is what the auto system does, causes people to drive without lights when required (more than half the time...70% to 80%, aparently) ...note number is from the earlier office observation numbers.

No women drivers where you live? Oh, that's right, a another attempt to make it personal. You're typical MO vs. focusing on the bigger picture. Noted.

As you care to believe. No problem. Thankfully, there are people working to try and improve on on this non existent problem you say doesn't exist. All I can say is thank God we don't have a ostrich in charge of this!

Oh boy.

Yes, totally. I guess my luck has run out...or I peeed off my guardian angel (I wonder which one) ;-)