The dangers of DRLs 4619

I was thinking the same thing...save some time and bandwidth. I am enjoying the discussion though.

I wanted you to see both sides...not just mine...you know, the overall picture. I felt you could give deference to balance since you had admitted that you had not seen or read of any negative aspects to DRLs. However, you only saw information on your side among documents that have both....which would seem to offer explaination why you haven't seen the negative side. I guess I was expecting too much from you.

Something about a humor module comes to mind on that one, I think. I thought you were being funny...so I was being funny back. So instead you were attempting to insult me? If so, why then take exception if I turn those "insults" you levied at me back around on you? Which is it? Humor? Or, insults? I prefer humor, personally...makes the discussion much more pleasant. And I don't mind being poked-fun at. We are human and fallable, after all, are we not?

Which are not all types of accidents thatoccur.

You were reading a pro DRL study. Try a more balanced one that provides the positives and the negatives...or one of the anti-DRL studies (although the "anti" ones are just as biased as the "pro" ones are)

I insult you? One can't be insulted unless one decides to be insulted. Surely you can rise above someone elses words. Have some fun..heh?

They are in the same place the one you found are...which, by the way, is the place I provided for you that you said I didn't provide.

And you used my referenced link to do that...the one you said I didn't provide. Do you really believe this stuff you say? Or, are you playing?

They're in the same place as the document you found. Why stop with the one document and claim to know everything there is to know from it? Does that make any sense?

Okay.

Okay

Yes, quite clear.

I believe everyone here already knew that...it's sort of obvious since their observartions to you are are also "worth zero".

Don't kid yourself, the material you provide is very inspiring? And, I see you have more to give.

Thanks for clearing that up.

No, you cleared it up. Much apreciated...really.

Well, if GM management won't at least find out the reasons and are closed to drilling down into potential ideas that might be contributing, then they're in bigger trouble than I tought.

GM needs to suceed for the sake of all of us. Your buttertion is simply perposterious. Sometimes you give things you love hell when they misbehave, if you love them (just like kids). You have to accept the fact they your kids will hate you sometimes, as with GM (do-no-wrong) lemmings such as yourself will. It comes with the territory of doing what one believes is right.

And you seem to have a lot of company....they sell very well, no doubt about it.

When in Auto, the DRLs are on (so I understand). Simple deduction since most are on the road without the DRLs on. I DO know for certain that the BMW's are that way. When in "Auto" the DRLs are on. So for every BMW you see without DRLs, the switch is in the OFF position. I trust your observation as to how many BMW's you see that have the DRLs on...it's the same number that have the switch set to "AUTO"

How so? When I don't know enough about a topic to discuss it, I confess that I need to read up on it. Did you miss those? I'm hardly "superior" to anyone here, that's for sure! As a comparison, I haven't heard you state once that you didn't have suffient knowledge on a topic to discuss it...yet you make claims about any topc that comes up anyway. Either you know everything about everything, or there is something else is going on (you fill in the blanks as to what that situation might be attributable to)

And how does one come to that conclusion? There is no correlation possible with only that limited level of information.

Then why are we you in a Newsgroup then?

Semantics, in this case. The topic takes precedence. The thing that is automatic in the discussion are the headlight control and DRLs. Those are the "something" you were referring to...no?

And I thought I helped you so much when you used my reference to get that information that you say I didn't provide. How dissapointing!

A very non-standard setup in the industry makes for a even more confused driving community.

Of cours there is. People use their cars for other purposes at times (already listed from others here). But you can ignore thaose other uses if you so choose to.

In my experience they do (if they can). But there is some exception...as always.

Generalizing people and their professions I see. This could explain why the merits of some of the valid contribution here from others are so quickly discounted by you. The value of what they will contribute is already determined before they submit it. That is remarkably clear by this one remark of yours. Quite a discusting thing to say, frankly. Poke at me all your want...I have broad shoulders and having a little fun with the discussion...but your true colors come through brightly on this one!

I buttume he makes a living at it. If so, then he must be doing the job. I'm not sure how not being able to do a headlight modification (and asking for help with the problem in a newsgroup) has anything at all to do with the qualifications of being a a PI. Now, perhaps if he was a auto mechanic, I might agree with you.

Not sure how easy it is either. I went to several mechanics...none would touch disabling the DRL-Auto lights on the Malibu. I got a electrical schematic, found the DRL resistor and disconnected it (a plug conector). It worked, but it set a code in the BCM (Check Vehicle Soon). That didn't work. Puled the DRL fuse..same result. So one has to build a feedback circuit so that the proper resistance is sen by the BCM to trick it into thinking that the DRLs are on. Probably more than most people can do.

I didn't use the word "warn". I used the word "signal" to communicate. (Like signaling a rig that he is clear to move over into your lane in front of you)

I think we cleared this up earlier.

I don't know the statistics if people with manual transmissions are more likely to do the downshift, compared to those driving automatics. The expected human behavior in that situation would indicate that the automatic system (transmission in this case) would train people to not think about downshifting when necessary since doing shifts is not part of the routine of operatng the vehicle (out of sight, out of mind, as it's often said).

Pull up the GE lighting catalog and look up the wattage of the common automotive lamps used as DRLs. Lamps used for that purpose are rated between 23 watts each to 55 watts each. Multiplied times two and it's 46-110 watts per vehicle. The "losses" of electrical generation are automotove engineering standards used for load calculations....that can't be disputed (although I see you just did). Not sure why you don't believe them....well maybe we actually do.

And you *could* be right about that. I only knew the fuel and emissions numbers for DRL's. Since you made the claim that automatic transmissions waste fuel, I buttumed you knew what the numbers were. (silly me) Now, I don't know where the air conditioner reference fit in...last I read on that topic was that typically highway wind drag from open windows created a similar level of drain on horsepower as a running a A-C compressor (depending on the vehicle).

Oh please, please give me more material!

Un..Huh. ;-)

Did it mention rear end collisions? If it didn't then it is missing accident types since those have a statistical increase with DRL-equipped cars.

I see. Those people's thoughts don't count...is what you're saying? Interesting.

Okay...we will just disagree about the weather. Not a problem.

Either do it right, or don't do it. If doing it right is cost prohibitive, then don't do it at all. There is nothing worse than a half-butted implementation.

Who told you that happened?! I'm so embarbutted now that everybody knows I have shrinking body parts from my DVD player and microwave oven. Heck, I though I was just getting old. Now to stop using those devices...maybe things will grow back! :-)

Like you and probably everyone else, I have many things that do things for me without issue. I write code and scripts that automates tasks for myself and others, create systems reports, etc. when that is helpful. But I'm not interested in something "automated" if I am forced to have to intervene on it's behalf so frequently. whan that is the case, then the system is a useless pointless contraption of no redeeming value...so fire the nanny in that case.

Another fact I didn't know. Were do you get all these wonderful statistics?

And new material was provided for each one. Wonderfully amusing... I must say. Keep 'em coming!

It's really quite simple to tell if the lights are on or not...don't you think? Making a claim that anyone is unable to make that determination, especially when they are making a conserted effort to do so is just a little far-fetched for anyone to take seriously. Especially when so many others have had the same observations. Oh, that's right, you have explanations for all of them as well, I forgot. Surely you can see the silliness in the way it's all "explained away".

Why would I "hate" GM for my bad purchasing decision? In a way I'm glad the experience gave me some insight as to some of the gimmecky stupidy GM puts into their cars these days...right down to the auto volume-speed sensing radio. What a silly piece of work that is! Oh wait, I'm not observant enough to have noticed that my radio volume changed with changing vehicle speed, I forgot about your observation about my lack of observation. Although, fortunately, one could disable that radio volume gimick very easily.

Hmm...interesting. That is a higher number than I would have expected.

That is obvious. And you don't believe any of the others making the same observations. I think we all see that pattern, yes.

Did I say density? No I didn't. I said total population of the (defined) area. The area encompbutted indeed has more population (the overal number of people) than New York City...even more than the entire state of New York.

And if you remember, the delay was longer on those older models compared to today's implementation. But this was already explained, you just forgot,

And yet another medical diagnosis too. You must make big bucks if you can make medical diagnoses sight unseen via a Internet Newsgroup. Good for you!

I agree with that, with the auto system used today. I have been agreeing with you on that.

You just don't believe it...true or not matters not I guess. We get the picture now.

Uhm, you said "Neon", not "Fluorescent". Neon is a cold-cathode lighting technology that is very flexible in form, size and function that makes them most suitable for signs and the outline of buildings and canopies. It's light output is typically rather low, however, so they are less suitable for general illumination (although sometimes used in special circumstances). Fluoresent is a warm cathode technology with various fixed size lamps...good for general lighting.

Yes, gas stations can have either Fluorescent (or metal halide) lamps for general lighting. Here most are the Metal Halide type lamps, which have a light source that is a very small form factor compared to fluorescents. I've never seen a gas station that used neon for general lighting.

You're right, there is no "traffic related reason". However, there are other reason and purposes for which people need to use their cars. You and GM may ignore that reality, if you all so choose. No problem.

Nate named a really important one. Dipping lights when entering military instalations. With today's environment, it's more important than ever for the MP's to be able to see into the interior of approaching cars as early as possible....especially on "open bases" where the cars aren't required to stop for a entrance check (Like Ft. Meade in Maryland). Glare from headlights are a hindrance there. That's why the signs at the MP station "Please turn off you headlights when entering" are there. Yes, I know, that situation is rare...yada, yada, yada.

That is better. Good for them. I'm not aware of any hidden stash. Did you think I did for some reason?

Very true.

Nate described a procedure quite well in a different thread. Why repeat it? It's very easy to kick the back end around just a tad when one needs to. The front loaded brakes buttist in that maneuver if one snaps the steering wheel correctly to momentarily destabalize and regain.

To be honest, after all these years, it's down to a reaction when ever the situation arises. I've been through a few tight spots with the Dodge Caravan where my intuitive reaction is counter to what the ABS will allow me to do...so it's almost gotten me into trouble a couple times. But with the Sebring, the car responds relatively well to braking control without the interference that I find happens with the Caravan's ABS.

This boils down really to preference and driving style. We simply have diferent preferences and driving styles. One is not better than the other, just different. Yours favors ABS. Mine doesn't (although I can tolerate ABS).

I was agreeing that powerful cars allow the accellerator option as another way to induce a controlled skid. Although one needs to be a bit more careful not to "over-spin" the drive wheels so they don't stop spinning soon enough (and then loose control of the skid). I've not mastered the accellearator option (even in my old 1967 GTO with the 411 rear where it was quite easy to initiate)...I do better with the brake option for controlled skidding purposes.

Initiating a skid is very easy to do when one doesn't have ABS....you'll just have to trust me on that one. Oh wait, you don't! So why ask in the first place? I guess you'll just try it yourself some time and let us know how it goes.

Pure speculation on your part. The numbers indiate that the type of control advantage that ABS does provide does not appear to be needed very often in the real world. People apparently have suffucient abilities that are *good enough* to deal with a majoriy of the situations they encounter.

I would imagine most of us do.

I would expect so.

You are not correct about not having experience with ABS (what a surprise). I've had three cars in the 35 years that had ABS (well the truck only had rear-wheel ABS)

Who said it did?

Yes it does. I never said it didn't But apparently most drivers are managing said control *well enough* for situations they find themselves in without ABS, given the real world numbers. Of course you have those rediculious theories why ABS has not shown any benefit in the real world (but even among police fleet vehicles?).

Here is is the issue. There is more than the criteria you stated in the *overall* requirement of controlling a vehicle. There are situations where inducing a controlled skid is preferred over not allowing a skid. Non ABS allows for both options (but does not handle your criteria as well, admittedly). ABS removes one option. I simply choose to have both options at teh cost of less benefit of having ABS. For what ever reason, I've managed to be able to control skids on snow-ice etc. without loosing control of the vehicle. Ironically, I rarely "pump" (as I was taught) but control brake pressure. I can "feel" what the tires are doing and adjust pressure accordingly to keep them from locking. Has has not a problem so far. And, apparently that is also the casefor most other...based on the statistics.

It's interesting when your buttumptions are so wrong so often, yet you still seem to continue to make them. Some people eventually learn that when one doesn't possess all of the information required to formulate a conclusion, a conclusion made cannot be correct. But not you....they just keep on coming.

1989 Dodge Dakota. Owned it 14 years, ~180K miles. (rear ABS only) 1997 Dodge Caravan. Currently own almost 11 years. 2003 Chevy Malibu. Owned 9 months

The odd thing is, the ABS almost never kick in for me...even on snow and icy streets.

One think I am certain of, you know how to drive well. I'm sure you would have made it through.

For some strange reason, I don't believe you. I think you would have been fine.

I'm sure that you think you are in the better position. That was already clear to most of us here, I am sure of that. And you claim that I have the superiority complex? Hmmm....

Well, the driving schools were still teaching the same braking technique to my kids in the 1990's...so it's been taught long after the 1950's and 1960's.

Yes the dark ages of the 1990's (and maybe still taught today)

You have a reference for that? Several years ago I read a study that compared braking distance for the two systems. There wasn't much difference, from my recallection. Gravel-snow was worse stopping distance with ABS, rain-dry was better (from what I remember). But the difference was not significant in any of the cases. Perhaps there are some improvements from systems made back then (probably 5-6 years ago).

So, it's best to mash the brakes on a non-ABS vehicle and and lock up the front wheels so one can't control the car. The danger also existes of a uncontrolled shid as well. You are seriously joking, right?

I suppose it would. Who would that be?

Sure...lock up the wheels so you don't have steering control. Good idea! NOT!

Please share some with us. This intro sounds WAY to interesting to not have more of the details!

Well, let's see. The "old ways" is working for the kids so far. One for 10 years, the other for 4-5. Even through their "new driver" phase. So luck comes in threes, does it? I know you have a explanation that has something to do with lady luck, a guardian angel or a fairy godmother to explain the results.

Yep, that's it. I learned from my father...73 years old now..accident free for the last 40 years (last accident in 1965 in his Volkswagen Karmann-Ghia).

Yep, it's all luck...every bit of it. You have explanations for everything you can't understand or won't acept, don't you?

Under what basis do you draw that conclusion? Oh wait, you draw conclusion without basis, I forgot? Well, I would say that deductions and conclusions from actual results that have been ontained over a total 89 years of combined driving between all the people I mentiond really do escape you, don't they?

You are the one that apparently needs training (from two of us) in how to make a non ABS vehicle skid. You've been driving ABS vehicles too long, you've forgotten how nice it feels to be free from artificial control. Oops, there I go, making rash judgements about another without sufficient basis to make such a conclusion. You must be rubbing off on me. :-)

You already asked that question, from two of us. Do you really need the answer a third time?

I have one...I'll try it. I think there might be a vacuum tube or two in there as well.

I almost missed a new name "acidic oldtimer". Precious.

I'm certain that my chance of wrecking was about the same as yours was (lebutt than 100% chance). Claiming that you're "100% sure" *I* would have wrecked as well is a stretch. Nothing is 100% sure. I'll go with a "likely chance" given the situation you describe, especially with the crosswind.

I have driven trucks quite a bit. I have rarely pulled a trailer though...and never a trailer on ice with a crosswind. As I said, there is a high likelihood that I would have met the same fate that you did with those conditions. But 100% likelihood? There would be some statistical chance that some other person could have made it through, even if you didn't (as hard as that is for you to believe, apparently). Oops, those unsubstantiated conclusions again...must stop doing that or people will start calling me "Chris".