The dangers of DRLs 4616

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:19:55 -0400, James C. Reeves

In other words, you do hate GM, even if it is because you have an agenda concerning DRLs and auto-headlights.

I'd really like GM to do an experiment. Make !DRL and !auto-headlights a $200 option. Wanna bet that no one is gonna buy it, not even the people, who rant about DRLs?

A few days ago you spewed hatred about GM, specifically for the auto headlights and DRLs. Both the Goat and the Buicks have both.

Yes, I can, provided I don't deem the feature dangerous.

I didn't have to, as I didn't claim support from unreferenced documents. If you say 'document X supports my view' like you have done countless times, it's your job to reference the document and the pbuttage in it. I challenge you to find where I called in external help without a reference.

You really need to enhance your capability to comprehend sentences beyond the third word.

Again, you did not reference the documents, which is your responsibility if you call upon them as support for your theories.

You have claimed that the NHTSA thinks DRLs are dangerous but were unable to reference your source. I showed you a study contradicting your view. Now all of sudden they only 'have problems', but of course again you are incapable of referencing your source. See a pattern?

Only after you were proven wrong. And stop your stupid accusations, they don't become you.

I listed all types of accidents the NHTSA listed in their most prominent study.

... but is conspicuously missing from the NHTSA documents.

Attributed to them by you, as always without any corroboration and in this case even without any claimed observation.

If safety problems had been identified the referenced document would have clearly stated them. I also checked the numbers and aside from ceremony processions (which are so rare and accidents involving them even more rare that they are without any statistical significance) did not find any indication that the numbers of any accident type was negatively influenced by DRLs.

I have the insight you lack. You are incapable of comprehending scientific texts, claim total nonsense that is supposedly in them and turns out to be missing after all, post wild speculations without any supporting evidence and when you are proven wrong you jump to another angle of attack and start the 'game' anew. People like you work for the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News.

It definitely would be helpful for you to read the texts again.

I make claims based on reasoning and occasionally I claim a document exists and reference this document. You constantly claim documents are supporting your view but are unable to reference them.

If you are not able to see the difference I suggest reading comprehension 101.

Then post URLs and page numbers. I sifted through the documents for you and provided a strong corroboration for my point of view. Now it's your turn, and I am not going to sift through the info again just because you are too uneducated or not intelligent enough to provide simple references to the documents together with page numbers of the pbuttages supporting your claims.

Oh, that's what it's all about. The docket doesn't in any way contain scientific data, but what it does contain is a mini essay from you, that you are so fearfully proud of that you have to tout it in here.

Now get your ego under control and post reference to the scientific data, that you claim to have concerning the dangers of DRLs.

You didn't egg me on, you were desperately hoping I wouldn't call your bluff.

The beef is that you are too uneducated or too stupid to reference your claimed evidence. And spare me your patronizing. You screwed up and you know it, even though you still desperately hope others don't notice.

Thanks, not interested. Closed-minded people like you and brightly lit ground fog depress me.

The instrument panel lighting in just about any car is adjustable. I have mine on pretty low intensity because I like it that way. And I still see it in relevant conditions, i.e. if the outside light intensity is in the range where the automatic system might shift. If you don't either your instrument panel lights are too dim or you are.

That's not a problem of the dashboard lights but of their intensity setting and your vision.

Mine are dimmed down pretty far. And still I can see the lighting when I need it.

In bright daytime snowstorms the light is almost always not sufficient to trigger the auto headlights to off.

I would like auto headlights on other cars even if they only worked 'at night' i.e. in dusk-dawn, because that would already solve 95% of situations where headlights should be on and aren't. But from my experience even heavy rain-overcast with fog-daytime snowfall usually triggers the system. And as I have driven a whole bunch of different auto-headlight models I know that the system works quite well in a wide range of GM vehicles. Why yours didn't work (buttuming it didn't) is between you and your mechanic, resp. GM.

I only read things that are there, unlike you, who often misses things that are there and invents things.

Your exclamation mark key is broken.

Then why do you spew hate rants about GM? It's funny to see how you have toned down your hate though since I pointed it out.

Farther up in this posting you adore Buick and the Goat and say it is ok to adore them even though you don't like a certain feature. Here all of sudden this one feature supposedly costs GM all customers. Make up your mind.

GM is hurting in certain areas, because they neglected to build excitement in their cars. What do you think why the Chrysler 300 sells so well? Not because it doesn't have DRLs but because it looks cool. The Vette outsells the already high expectations even though it has both DRLs and automatic headlights and no one in the Corvette boards complains about the DRLs.

Face it, a whacky vocal minority, who wants to eradicate DRLs and auto headlights because they think a certain body part is going to shrink because the car does something on its own, doesn't influence GM's or Toyota's revenue significantly.

That's the understatement of the year.

Seeing how you lack any independently generated information that doesn't surprise me in the least.

I got quite a good picture, obviously a better one than you do, because unlike you I was able to support my views with a major NHTSA study, whereas you still only referenced some political babble.

Yes, which is why the auto-headlight system gives you the option 'auto' or 'on'. As the system practically never switches the lights on when they should not be on, the 'off' option is not necessary.

With the AT on the other hand oftentimes the system should upshift and doesn't and there is no way to force it. It also should downshift in some situations and doesn't react immediately to the lever being moved.

Not necessary. Tell me a situation, where the system switches the light on and it should be off (traffic safety wise not you not waking up your SO).

There is a very real switch, that switches between 'auto' and 'on'.

Weird, that this problem only seems to exist for people, who don't have should. They come on in dense forest, and they should. Otherwise they stay off.

Because there are always some vocal whackjobs, who threaten not to buy the precious car if they don't get 'full control'.

I never had a problem with that, neither as the one in the tent nor as the one driving.

Switch off the engine when you dont want lights. Prolonged idling is very bad for the environment.

Switch off the engine.

That at least explains where you get your 'info' from...

But be buttured that the tarot cards and the tea leaves don't care whether you have your car lights on or not.

That's what flashing high beams is for.

If someone provides an off switch the system loses its usefulness, because specifically the stupidest 20%, who are likely to drive around without lights at night, are also the control freaks, who have to have their lights off until theytelltheircartoswitchthemon.

And did you overwork your wrist switching the light on manually? Did your light switch break because of all the usage?

Every automatic driver has to downshift manually on downgrades (or stupidly ride his brakes).

The average driver wouldn't use headlights in these situations without the automatic system either. But at least the DRLs provide some visibility and the automatic system at least prevents that the bozo drives around without light at night.

I doubt paypal ships fallen-off Audi parts.

If you have never seen 'wannabe' your hellhole must be even more remote than I thought.

Like the Jetta in front of me that stunk to high heaven at the bottom of a 10 mile grade because he was to stupid to downshift...

On the contrary, automatic transmissions waste millions of gallons of fuel every year, because they rarely shift right. The automatic headlight system works in almost all situations, even if you don't want to see it. Plus it provides an override for the rare cases (except for your hellhole of course) where it doesn't.

No change here. Heavy overcast (which almost always is buttociated with a snowstorm and the light absorption effect of the snow itself usually drops light intensity deep into 'auto-on' territory.

Even if it was, the majority of Americans and the majority of the area of the USA are not within your supposed freak-weather zone. In other words, the system works just about everywhere, except of a few hours on a few days in a few areas.

Sure...

The 'positive' was a reduction in baneities in all listed accident types and no increase in any accident type. In my book that is quite some benefit. Show me any other measure that has caused a reduction of baneities of 20+% of any specific accident type.

I already have balanced information, unlike you, who merely has claims about supposed locations of possible studies that maybe have paragraphs of information supporting your claim.

A place that has brightly lit ground fog most of the time and closed minded people like you sounds like a hellhole to me.

It certainly is a personal thing with you as the system works well for most people in most locations. And I am sure your light-switch-wrist was covered under health insurance...

The definition of automatic is that the system does operations by itself based on a parameter set. The automatic headlight system does that, so it is an automatic system. There is no automatic system in the world, that does, what it's human 'master' wants it to do instead of what its parameter set tells it to do. If you were an engineer or even moderately tech savvy you would know that.

I tried to decrease the embarrbuttment factor for you a little bit.

Where did I say the system has a fog detector? It works within its parameter set (and fog happens to often be so dense that the system still gets triggered. And the areas, where low lying ground fog in combination with bright sunlight is prevalent over a significant part of the day over a large part of the year are small and far between, so the system doesn't provide for them.

Are you familiar with the system of diminished returns? No, of course you are not. It says that for the first large change of something a relatively small trigger is necessary. But as you are nearing the limits of the system larger and larger stimuli are necessary to realize smaller and smaller gains. A system that makes sure that people have their light on at night is useful and relatively simple and cheap.

A system that has a rain sensor in addition to that to make sure the lights are on in torrential rain is more complicated and less useful, because torrential rain with sunshine is rare in relation to nighttime.

A fog sensor in addition to that to make sure the light goes on in fog beyond a certain density is even more complicated by a large factor, even more expensive and given the fact that brightly lit fog is quite rare is simply not feasible.

cant see your dashboard lights and have to stare at the radio to notice at all)?

I have observed the moon in the middle of the day, but so far it never has influenced my decision of whether to switch on my headlights or not nor has it triggered my automatic system. I also avoid looking at the moon while driving because distractions are bad for safety. If you are staring at the moon during daytime, of course, that explains why you are having problems seeing your dashboard lights.

What did the quoted sentence have to dow ith rem223 or the moisture level of his clothing?

When the storm cloud is overhead the light intensity still goes down far enough to trigger the headlights.

And who said anything about Michigan?

Weird, mine does.

Your position has not been supported since DS jumped ship either. So ...

Brightly lit fog is a rare condition, so is torrential rain from a tiny storm cloud. Of course, if someone has fog in his brain, whether induced by substances or simple personal density that may change their perception...

It can happen and it does happen very frequently unlike your brightly lit fog.

Ticketing neither increases safety nor compliance with the law. And driver training would be nice but is not going to happen anytime soon. Automatic headlights on the other hand are here and reliably eliminate the situation of cars driving around without headlights at night.

You know what? I agree with you. Unfortunately it is not going to happen. Ever. So the next best thing is an automated nanny that does work well, like automatic lighting.

... often enough to justify an automatic system that reliably prevents driving at night without lights.

An observation, that only exists in your fantasy because you needed something to justify your hatred for DRLs and automatic headlights.

GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out.

Then why did you claim you haven't?

... which only shows that you lack the focus necessary for both driving a motor vehicle and for the observations you claim to have made.

And you never got into a situation where you had to switch on or off your lights during a drive? ROTFL.

Your office doesn't by any chance make alcoholic drinks?

I did a count on a short drive last night. Nine cars without headlights after dark within 3 miles. None of the nine was a GM-product. Pretty average for the area I'd say.

If the conditions were really bright but foggy I suspect the latter, but as your observations are tainted anyway, the question is moot.

I also have confidence in my ability to build a TV set if I choose so. I still buy one in the store because I appreciate the comfort of not having to solder it together myself. The automatic system works almost always. I override it when necessary (rarely). End of story.

I am more than willing to once you reference them properly.

Then it's fortunate that the newer studies show a decrease. And btw, throwing around acronyms is NOT referencing.

I know that some people with short attention spans and the trigger happy driving style of a ricer in a 1992 Honda Civic have a problem because they see a flash and turn in front of the oncoming traffic because they think the other car will also turn, but any halfway intelligent person does not rely on one flash of a turn signal. The more so as in the last few years misuse of turn signals has far eclipsed their proper use.

Yes, they are.

I know it is not a problem for me. F- and Y-Bodies (Camaro-Firebird and Corvette) both with amber DRLs are quite abundant around here and I never had a problem determining whether they are signaling or not. Other drivers don't seem to have a problem with my car either.

I have to disappoint you. New York City is neither in the South nor in the Southeast.

Areas with frequent brightly lit ground fog are very small in relation to the area of the US.

If you are seriously trying to tell me that the south and souteast are covered with brightly lit fog every day I should probably hook you up with Judy Diarrhea, s-he makes about as much sense.

The 'other cars' were not GM models with automatic headlights, as when starting the engine at night, even in a 'brightly lit' area the lights are coming on instantly. With all GM models with auto-headlights. The delay only applies when starting the engine during daylight and then proceeding into a dimly lit area.

Both of which you always do when pulling out of a gas station.

Your explanation still doesn't hold up.

Which supports my buttertion that your system simply was defective.

The neon lights of a gas station only produce a tiny fraction of the light output of sunlight. The human eye adjusts and thinks 'bright', the sensor doesn't care though and switches on the lights.

Of course your reasoning supports my claim that automatic headlights are important, because these are exactly the situations that lead to non-auto-headlight cars driving around without lights at night.

Hatred (for GM) and envy (for a specific car you like). A truly unique combination...

The Goat has 100hp more than a Mustang GT, doesn't suffer from the wretched reliability problems of the modular motor and is the more sophisticated car to boot. Also since the '05 model year they sell quite well. Why should they knock down the price?

In a traffic jam or stop-and-go the question of whether the headlights are on or not is truly irrelevant. If you are only 5 feet from the car in front of you, you should be able to see it regardless of whether its lights are on, even at night.

From my experience they don't. Now what?

As you have your lights on because you are such a good driver and your lights make you oh so visible in fog, that shouldn't be a problem.

Read the newspapers.

No. I usually am able to make out the shape of the car before seeing its taillights, especially in brightly lit fog.

The topic doesn't change the fact that improper speed and distance are always factors in multi vehicle accidents, whereas lighting practically never is.

A single or two-vehicle accident can have many causes. A multi vehicle accident only has speed and distance, regardless of what caused the one accident that started the chain reaction. In other words, if you crash into an accident site it is your fault for improper speed and-or distance. Come to think of it, your reliance on taillights may contribute to your higher risk of getting into one of these.

On the contrary. If the lighting really made cars more visible (and rear fog lights indeed do) it would make the drivers think that visibility is better than it actually is and make them drive faster than conditions allow. That phenomenon has indeed been observed in Europe, which is why the rear fog lights are not everyone's darling.

No, that's just an excuse to drive 5% faster. In reality it really doesn't matter, because in your brightly lit fog the taillights are next to invisible.

I am advocating driving at a speed and distance that makes it unnecessary for the guy in front of you to have them on.

To induce a controlled skid the standard brake, being heavily front biased, is mostly useless. Pray tell me how you induce a controlled skid in your FWD car with only the standard brake.

These cars are not suitable for controlled skids (except for some more powerful Mercedes-Benz cars that are able to induce a controlled skid via accelarator.

ABS is far from useless for me. If you think accident avoidance culminates in closing your eyes, hammering the brake and praying you may think differently. ABS has saved my life twice in very difficult conditions and I would not want to drive without it.

Now at least your sentence makes sense. My answer: You claimed that ABS removes this option from the driver, which simply is untrue.

Your humor module is defective. I told you a while ago that it needs to be exchanged.

Neither was the spill on the bike. And the cop, who came to my rescue when I was blown off the road, fell flat on his butt when he got out of his Bronco, it was that slick. I am 100% sure that you would have gotten in an accident in the same situation too, which is one of the reason why I keep referencing your luck, or let's say lack of experience driving in really adverse conditions.

Webster's definition is 'having a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism', which amounts to the same as my definition. And by both definitions automatic headlights are automatic.

Chris