The dangers of DRLs 4617

The tie between the two is quite a stretch. One can clearly exist without the other. The concept is not THAT hard to understand, is it?

Ah those incorrect conclusions again. If I like the car, and it has auto headlamps and DRL's, I'm not buying it. IF it doesn't have the feature, I will buy it. Simple deducton, heh? This is really a very simple concept to understand.

Let me see if I can help you. This can equate to a feature you may not like on a car. Pehaps a example you might understand is the question of if you would buy a 'Vette with a auto tranny. Maybe you would still, but I'm betting probably not (and lets buttume that for now). The result is that you would love the "Vette" (the design, looks, etc., but hate the auto tranny it had in it? It's the same type of thing. One item is separate from the other.

I do know one thing. Customers don't opt for the DRLs even when it's a free option. Just look at Ford-Dodge-Chrysler-BMW-Mercedes where the DRL option IS free and there are very few takers of that free option. The Chryslers and BMW's have a "off" position in addition to a "auto" position on their switch and most people choose the "OFF" position over the "AUTO" position. How one can tell is if one puts the switch in BMW's to "auto" is that the DRLs come on...and few BMW's on the road have their DRLs on.

You're right on this one. I can't claim to hate the company known as GM.

You're right, I "spewed hatred" about the auto headlamps and the DRLs...no hatred for anything else. Your sentence is correct after the comma.

No kidding...really! I still like the cars very much...I just wouldn't own one for reasons we both know. Sorry you are wrong again.

Didn't you mother play the game "....this one thing is not like the other..." with you?

Huh?

You don't say! (3 words)

Maybe you ned to look up the word "reference". Naming the source document, is a form of reference. It may not go as far as you like with the pretty links and such. But it is still a form of reference by definition.

No, I said there were *studies* and testimonials that have shown problems with (the current implementation of) DRL's (in addition to benefits). I didn't use the word "dangerious", but I suppose some people could come to the conclusion that some of the problems could be dangerious in certain situations. Since you introduced the word "dangerious" into the discussion, perhaps you have come to that conclusion yourself and didn't realize it?

Yes, I actually do see a pattern.

I will apologize for your misquoting me and forgeting things I've already stated. How was that?

You listed "all types" of accidents? Sorry, you listed a small subset of types of accidents...hardly "all types". Now find out how DRLs help (or hurt) the dozens of other accident types you didn't list. It's one thing to "cherry pick" only those items that are friendly to your position. It's quite another to seek the "full body of knowledge" to make a conclusion from the complete picture. You may still come to the same conclusion you have now (and that is fine), but the conclusion will have a great deal more merit and credibility if you consider the negatives with the positives as part of doing so. The complete study will take several days or weeks worth of research and reading...which I know you haven't had that much time into it at this point.

Uh...huh. And you know this after 1-2 days research in a body of research that would take weeks to read through. Please, give the folks here more credit than that, for pete sake!

Uh...Huh.

Uh...huh. One document out of hundreds tells the whole story. Sorry, not even close.

It would be helpful if you would read them for the 1st time...and I don't mean the one document...I'm talking about the rest of the body of information and documents.

So all those odd-funny names of studies I just made up. You're right...you caught me!

Why read mine? You already know my position...nothing new to gain there. Expand your horizons...seek new input...read the contributons from the other people you haven't heard from before. And when you do, will you completely discount their contributons out of hand too, I suppose.

There is that danger word again. The word is "issues". You seem to have come to the danger conclusion yourself.

Why would I hope (or even expect) anything one way or the other? It was competely up to you to begin your research using the links and references I provides (which is actually quite amazing that were able to use reference links that you stated I didn't even post and was subsiguently able to find information as a result..how is that possible?).

Ah, again with the names. I'm fine with what ever anyone else notices or the conclusions one might derived from this conversation...positive of me or negative. It really matters not in the slightest in the overall scheme of things. The world will go on. The day will be anew again tomorrow. People are free to conclude what they choose to.

You don't say! Well, you may be missing a nice place...open your mind to the rest it has to offer and you might see something different from the whole picture.

Me too.

Then it's shifting on way too late for my tastes if one can see the dash light up.

Oh the names again. And a new one this time....dim. Very good!

Nope, I have annual eye exams...vision is very good. Or are you a eye doctor too? Truly amazing fella, this Chis person! Multi talented and knowledgeable about everything, it seems. He can even makes vision diagnoses from afar without instruments. Cool!

And that may be true with your particular car perhaps.

Totally incorrect. They are almost always off (some exception). Others observe the same thing. But we've been down this road.

95% of people where you drive at night are without their headlights on? Yikes! I'd get the cops out to give out tickets. What a revenue opportunity for the local government!

Yes we know. And no one elses observation counts because everyone else hates GM cars. That does explain thigs away, even if it's quite irrational. I guess GM going to have a hard time selling cars if they keep doing things that make people hate them so much, huh? Probably not a good thing...ya think?

And the observation by many here of the other GM vehicles on the road? Oh that's right, their made up hatred effects their vision perception. I forgot.

So you really can't separate out the dislike of a feature that sucks from the like of the car itself. The two separate things really are one-in-the-same to you...huh?

Not if I pressed it twice, it isn't!! Unless you're a hardware technician and can diagnose keyboard errors from afar too! Will the level of your expertise and knowledge ever cease? You are one amazing person, but somehow I have a feeling you know that already.

I don't. I "spew" "hate rants" about DRLs and auto light controls, that just so happen to primarily exist on GM vehicles. If they were on Fords, I would still hate them (but not necessarily the Ford cars they were on). Is the concept of two separate subjects a little too much? If so, I will type slower, so maybe you can get it.

Nope, I still hate DRLs and auto light controls exactly as much today as I did yesterday (and the day before that, and the day before that).

Bingo! Give the man a lollipop! I didn't use the word "adore" by the way.

I didn't say it cost GM "all" customers. However, if it keeps some percentage of the customer base from buying the car that they like otherwise...that will impact sales.

There is probably some truth to that. But that hardly explains the loverall evel and debth of the slide.

Lord only knows, it's ugly as hell from my perspective. But, people seem to like the "thing" that I like to call a "breadbox". I feel like I'm back in the 1980s style again with that puppy. Now it does have great performance numbers, I will say!

It does have DRLs, if you opt for them! I think it has a auto light control system as well. It just has a "off" position for people that don't want-need to use it (as it should be). Guess which position most use. Hint: It aint "auto".

And how would one draw any conclusion from sales numbers that DRLs didn't reduce what might have been even better sales numbers had DRLs been a option? No one would can possibly know the answer without a survey of those that test frove and pbutted on the buy.

The alt.autos.gm newsgroup has frequent DRL complainers. I can't explain why the topic hasen't come up in the Corvette boards.

So DRLs cause body parts to shrink now? Now THAT would be dangerious! Even *you* should want to eradicate them in that case I bet! :-)

Whacky...another new name from you. I better start a Access database of all these really neato names you have for people.

I've seen much worse.

And you were able to do all of that by using the reference you keep saying I never supplied. Amazing!

The option comparable to their compebreastors they don't have. A half-butted option is not a complete option.

There isn't a situation traffic safety wise. I've stated lights must be on in many traffic-road-weather conditions (or are you forgetting stuff again). People DO have other situations and uses for their cars that does require lights to be out on occastion. Courtesy at camp grounds, for example and the other examples I gave. Surely you don't like to purposefully annoy people, do you? Hmmmm....

Uh...huh.

Another one for the database..."whackjob". You know it's beed 40 years since I've seen use of such a vocabulary.

You took a survey of the campers sleeping in their tents that you woke up with you headlights you couldn't turn off, I suppose?

And you know how to do private investigation as well? Truly amazing. Well search the GM newsgroup for the post and give the PI there that has a Impala with the auto headlamp problem (about a year back) this advice and see what he tells you. Maybe he'll thank you for the process improvement idea.

At 90 degrees out, not likely.

Some DRLs ARE the high beams. Impala, Monte, LeSabre, older Saturns and quite a few others. It's quite difficult flash a lamp that is already lit and one can't turn off, don't you think?

Oh..huh. Now it's 20%. I thought it was 95%. I can throw out numbers to. I haven't seen a person driving at night without their lights in a very long time. I doubt it's even 1%. But since neither one of us have any documents to back up either figure, we'll let the people that read this make up their own from their observations and then draw their own conclusions from that. Works for me. Oh wait, they all hate GM, so they don't have the powers of observation as a result. I keep forgetting about that!

No, the wrist and switch were fine. Thanks for asking.

"Always" is not a good word to use. For example, Chrysler's auto trannys (since at least 1997) will automatically downshift on downhills *when in cruise control* and the down hill "run-away" speed increases a few miles per hour over the cruise's set point. However, when driving without cruise control, one has to manually downshift...that is true. I don't have statistics on how many people don't downshift. But in the mountains of western Maryland and Pennsylvania where I drive occasionally, I don't see that many brake lights when following cars on down hill grades. So I think most people must be downshifting to hold back "run-away" speed. But honestly, I don't know one way or the other. Sounds like you have the answer though! Wouldn't this be a possible issue regardless of what type of transmission one has? At least with the auto transmission, it does handle the downshift when in cruise control (at least Chrysler's does).

Uh...huh.

I wouldn't be so sure. :-)

I've seen it before, it was just new from you. And there was some new ones from you in this post...my database is getting full!

You know as well as I do that drivers of both auto and manual trannys don't always downshift when going down a steep grade. The situation isn't just with automatics. He'll learn when he has to do a brake job ever 10K miles.

Lets compare the two in that regard then.

How many mllions of gallons of fuel do auto trannys waste a year? We already know that DRLs, if implemented fully, will consume 450,000,000 to 550,000,000 gallons of gasoline annually and add 8 to 10 billion pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as pollution to generate the power DRLs require. And those numbers are within the lower 48 states alone. Add in the rest off the world and...well you get the point. There is a fuel and envirnment cost to implementing DRLs So, what is your point, exactly. If you're worried about fuel consumption and air quality in regards to why auto trannys are not a good thing, then (using that arguement) DRLs are far from being a good thing either!

Now of course, if you had continued your research instead of stopping at the first "yippie, I found what I wanted" document, you would have found this information as well and would not have posted this reference to fuel consumption that just backfired on you.

Makes one wonder what other important information about DRLs you missed in your research, doesn't it?

Uh...huh.

Uh..huh.

The subset of accident type you cited are hardly "all" accident types. They are the types most benefited by DRLs.

Yes, if the numbers weren't offset elsewhere, it would be quite amazing indeed!

Uh...huh.

One makes such grand buttumptions on so little overall information.

That isn't what people here and in the public comments on the dockets have observed. I guess all those hundreds of people all hate GM, so their skills of observation are skewed. Right! I don't think so.

Medical diagnosis now. Truly remarkable. Is there anything you don't know?

Not if it fails frequently on many of the requirements for proper control where manual intervention is often required. A system like that is virtualy useless, at least to the person that doesn't need it anyway.

I appreciate that.

Well, it should. It happens frequently (even thoug your vast weather knowledge says differently). According to 223REM, his observation has also been made in Georgia. So, we now have Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, The Carolinas, Georgia and Florida where this is observed quite often. Yep, that sounds like a small area of the country to me! And I bet that isn't all the places this happens.

And it's cheapness shows itself off brilliantly.

Yes, I agree. Still no excuse for installing a half-baked system that doesn't work properly and billing it as something that does work properly.

Yes, right, it's rare. Sure it is.

That's right. The radio (and odo) is how you can tell. Said that many times already. So, your point is?

That was truly pathetic. Surely you can do beter than that? Oh that's right...humor sensor problem.

223REM made his observation during a rain storm...thus you basically have been claiming he is all wet (as the old saying goes). Seemed funny at the time.

Completely wrong. In this case, they never trigger, the sun is usually still out full tilt during this type of rain storm.

223REM did. His original observation was in Michigan. Did you forget?

Yes, weird.

You've replied to other people on side-threads on this topic since then. Did you forget?

Yes, rare. Right.

Yes, frequently, sure it does.

Yes, reliable, sure it is. Would bet tickets would do more than you think. And it would train people to do the right thing, vs a nanny system that de-train (if that was a word) people from doing the right thing.

Well, let the nanny system take care of you then. No matter to me.

But it is not needed for everybody. Make a two tickets rule. Two tickets and then make it a requirement for that individual too convert to a auto system before they can drive at night again. Let everyone else be that doesn't really need-want it.

Yes, your conclusions to mask reality duly noted.

It really is a simple enumeration. Colums and tick marks. Hardly a chance for significant error in the data.

Sort of a silly question, don't you think. I'll rephraise and type slower this time. I don't remember forgetting to turn on my lights before...I'm reasonably certain that I'd remember something like that since I'd would have been quite startled by it).

I guess lady luck, the fairy godmother and so on theory again, huh?

Of course. How is that related to a start up procedure though?

Well, since they were coming to work, perhaps they put a little Kahula in the morning coffee at home...but what is odd is that it was only the people that drove the GM vehicles. Yikes, that means that the annoyance of the damn auto light system is creating alcoholics out of them! :-)

Interesting. How dark was it during those observations...curious.

Tainted..how? It's a very simple observation with tick marks on columns that have type and status columns. It would be very hard to screw up (taint) the results, unless done purposefully. I butture you, the results are as stated.

I was just curious. I didn't realize that manually controlling the lights was similar to the the level of effort to build a TV set. I guess if I had that much trouble with light control, I'd opt for the easy way out too.

You mean the references I provided that you already used to get the information you found? Those references?

I spelled it out once. It's common to use a acronym for a subsiquent folow-on reference. However, since you forgot it's the Highway Loss Data Insbreastute (HLDI), that is the name. It is interesting that that organization recently stopped referencing their own 1997 study.

Amazing, you should work for the NHTSA. You figure out things so quickly...much faster than any of the professionals that are working on this subject do!

And that may be the case...that it isn't a problem. If so, the type of light they produce is far more preferable to the headlamp and hi-beam versions.

Check the population map. The area from Virginia on around through Florida and to Texas , I believe totals more in population than New York state alone does. If not, it's close.

Who said "every day"? Not I. I said "frequently".

Reading more into the text then is there again huh. The other cars were GM's as well, just older ones.

Of course orone won't be leaving, will they? The point is?

How so?

Yes, I agree, it was defective. Just like the other GM cars on the road with me doing virtually the same thing. I sure hope the line wasn't too long at the light sensor repair bay at the dealership. I bet they ran out of replacement sensors too. Thay may have had to add a second or third bay to accommodate all those defective sensors.

Metal Halide lamps I believe you mean. Hardly close to full sunlight, agree.

And I've stated I agreed that is one of the benefits.

Yes. It's just like forbidden love, isn't it? Where is Willaim Shakesphere when you need a good play written of a modern tragedy anyway?

Last I looked they had only sold about 5,000 of them. What are the sales numbers now?

Huh? The law says they're required at night, so mine will be on.

I'm simply answering the question of how one typically can see the reflection of the DRLs in the car in front of them. Nothing more than that. Surely you aren't advocating no lights at night simpley because one is in a traffic jamb?

Follow the law then, they are required to be on in those conditions.

So far it has worked.

How so? I don't drive any faster since many of the GM cars don't have their lights on. ;-)

Interesting.

Interesting.

What does one do about compliance with lighting laws...lights are required in those cases.

Well, then they will be out of compliance with lighting laws in that case.

Rear drive helps, but it's doable with FWD.

I agree.

Why hammer the brake and closes their eyes. I've been in cars with many people that had to react to avoid a accident, and have never personally witnessed that behavior.

Interesting story. At the office, the road leading in is on a hill. Winter can be a problem with snow ice and such. Many people have come in and claimed how the ABS saved them. They would have never made it down the hill if it were not for the ABS. I say, I made it down just fine. I don't have ABS. Half the cars out there don't. Whay did you need them to save you?

People believe that since the ABS kicked in, it somehow saved them. Hogwash. Had they had regular brakes, they would have felt the a skid coming on and pumped or adjusted the pedal pressure intuitively to compensate to resolve it. It's pretty clear that most people have better control of braking than thought.

As far as the ABS "tests" everybody did to prove their effectiveness, they would test on a wet curve and mash the brakes hard to show the difference in control between the two. Well, as it so happens, very few people mash the brakes like that. They actually do well at avoiding skids with proper brake control. Unfortunately, ABS actually trains people to do the wrong thing and mash the brakes (which is a very bad training situation as far as I'm concerned). I made sure my kids learned how to drive on standard brakes and manual light controls so that would never be trainied to be dumb about either of those things. Thay would know how to use standard brakes and would think about their lights "every time".

By the way, so far both kids have the same luck as I do (since I'm sure you're going to say I trained them wrong by depriving them of ABS and auto light control)

I'm unable to put a ABS equipped car into a controlled skid very easily. The Malibu had a foot e-brake, BTW. So yes, the option for that manuever was removed because of the ABS for the Malibu (and the Caravan I still own with ABS and a foot brake).

The interface is fused...it won't come out! :-)

100% sure, are you? Well did anyone else make it through that area without incident? If so, it's likely less than 100% sure the same fate would have visited me in that situation. However, as slick as it sounds, it's certaintly is a high probablilty, I would agree.

Uh...huh.