The dangers of DRLs 4620

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:46:59 -0400, James C. Reeves

I am quite capable in providing myself with an overall picture. What helps tremendously is when someone like you finally gets his behind in gear and references the information he claims to have so I save the time to sift through mountains of total junk.

That's one of the two reasons why scientists take proper referencing of material so seriously (the other being acknowledging the referenced person-groups work).

What you are doing is not even good enough for a seventh grade essay (unless your teachers stopped demanding references, which would be quite regrettable). Slapping a phone book in front of someone and telling them that you have the one name therein that contains 2 xes but telling the guy to look for himself because 'you want him to get the whole picture' is worse than bad style.

I didn't write that they were. James, you have an uncanny capability to read the first three words of a sentence and drawing a conclusion from it. Unfortunately that's why your conclusions are wrong most of the time. I suggest in the future you read a sentence very carefully, comment it and then reread it in its entirety to make sure you have understood its contents and then adjust your comment accordingly.

No, I was reading a study that I found on a traffic site. That it has a pro-DRL slant is merely your buttumption (and that buttumption comes from it not matching your opinion).

That's why I asked you repeatedly for an URL and a page reference so I can read 'your side of the story'. Unfortunately you have not come through, whether it is because you have nothing to offer or you are just too arrogant to play by the rules.

Not at all. If an observation is well executed by someone without obvious bias, I certainly value it. Unfortunately you spend much more time flaunting your extreme bias than observing properly, so your observations indeed are worth zero.

GM management is currently celebrating record sales even though their cars still sport DRLs and automatic headlights. Apparently other factors influence people a lot more than your precious DRLs or rather absence thereof.

No, it isn't. One of the reasons GM was indeed hurting for a long time is because people like you constantly badmouth them for minor details instead of saying 'the cars are good, I just wish they would...'.

And do you really think that GM is interested in the opinion of someone, who basically says 'i am not buying GM anyway'?

Giving something hell doesn't work with kids and it doesn't work with corporate market researchers. Do you have an idea how market research works? They take all the letters they get and discard the 10% rants and the 10% raves and only read the rest in the first place. Your opinion is the first thing, that goes into the corporate wastepaper basked, and deservedly so.

If you are unable to state your opinion in a civil tone and at least roughly balanced it is worth nothing to anyone.

Wow, now I am a GM-do-no-wrong-lemming, just because I happen not to hate DRLs and auto-headlights? I can list a washboard full of things GM does wrong, but I am not going to rant about it because I appreciate my opinion being valued. When I criticize I do so in a civil tone and try to write it up in a way that it is legible to others.

Of course there is. You claim that GM loses a large percentage of buyers because of the DRLs. If it were so the Corvette wouldn't post record sales. Reality is, most people by far are indifferent about DRLs, some like them and some hate them. And unless someone is a total moron the decision, whether to buy a Corvette or not certainly is not going to hinge on DRLs.

Because I have been in Usenet since long before web based boards even came up. And because people like you amuse me, to put it bluntly.

If safety is at stake I indeed ignore people being too lazy to get their butt out of their car and idling away in the parking lot for hours.

You won't believe it but they usually know earlier than you do that they cleared you. Again, a car 'signaling' another one is misinterpreted almost always - and often enough a simple thing like this sparks road rage.

I notice the problem in both groups equally. And before you whine about me not being able to know remember I grew up in Germany where automatic is very rare.

People waste enormous amounts of gas on all kinds of useless things. It is a well known trick for econazis to claim some enormous number, which is not only intentionally doctored but also not quite as enormous when seen in relation to the total consumption.

My car gets somewhere between 20 and 30mpg depending on driving conditions. If my two 21 watt front turn signals were not constantly lit it would get somewhere between 20.001 and 30.001mpg. Yes, the number is big but only total idiots are impressed by big numbers without references.

Again: Very likely doctored. Without the actual calculation and reference numbers your large numbers are useless.

I do. Somewhere between 1 and 3 miles less to the gallon of gas.

If you want to save precious fuel I suggest you sweat instead. Both A-C and open windows decrease mileage much more significantly than two 21 Watt lightbulbs.

No, I am merely saying that they are not statistically significant. You may want to try reading and comprehending for a change.

If you seriously claim that your brightly lit fog is prevalent in most of the USA you either never left your wide place in the road or the fog is in your brain, not in the air.

They are doing it right. They prevent 95% of the 'wrong headlight setting' cases with an inexpensive and very efficient device. Building a device that can eliminate part of the rest is going to cost several times of what the simple and efficient device does. Thus it's a win-win scenario - they get most of the problem taken care of with a minimal financial effort.

I find it highly helpful when the large number of morons behind the wheel at least gets their light turned on properly at night.

I read a lot.

Not if the brain is befuddled with either bias or alcohol or a combination thereof.

Why would you rant about GM the way you do if you didn't hate them?

Guess what? Doesn't surprise me. You are so befuddled by your brightly lit fog that you don't even take other situations in consideration.

No, you said 'heavily populated' which clearly refers to population density.

You really have a hard time reading, don't you? I said they come on just as instantly when the engine is started at a thime when their trigger condition is met. Thus your observation can not entail either newer or older GM cars entering the highway without their lights on at night unless on a specific car the lighting circuitry is defective.

The system always worked like this. The delay loop does not apply when the car is started at a time when the trigger condition is met.

I don't believe anything I know to be untrue.

I apologize. Here my English is to blame. In Germany these lengthy white tubes are called 'Neonroehren' (neon tubes), so I accidentally subsbreastuted the german for the american term.

Safety comes first.

I thought you did because you loftily (and quite wrongly) declared the GTO as a failure.

He described how to lose and regain control, not how to induce and sustain a controlled skid. Even Nate acknowledged that 'it is possible to regain control after this maneuver' which clearly confirms that even Nate sees the maneuver as a loss of control instead of a controlled skid.

I did not ask you to repeat it but to describe a procedure that works - if you have one. As you don't the point is cleared up.

Dangerous nonsense snipped.

Not another way but one way. Your method does NOT induce a controlled skid. The other way is the parking brake.

Why should I trust a self proclaimed maniac, who tries dangerous stunts in totally unsuitable vehicles?

No. The naked and ugly truth.

You seem not to have enough experience with ABS, seeing that you only recount the old fairy tales about ABS.

Rear wheel ABS doesn't count. And apparently you never really drove the ABS cars to the limit or you wouldn't tell the nonsense you are telling.

ABS fairy tales and bragging about control loss snipped

OMG. The perfect vehicles. The Dakota has no ABS effect worth mentioning. The Caravan is among the worst handling cars in the Chrysler lineup, further hampered by a high center of gravity and rather horrible brakes.

Face it, both these jalopies don't give you any idea what ABS is really like. And concerning the Malibu, you hated it and sold it off as fast as possible. No believable testbed either.

I had ABS kick in on a dry freeway the other day, because some idiot changed into the second from right lane at less than 20mph. If you really have one million miles and claim you have almost no situations, where hard braking is required, you are lying with either the former or the latter.

Unfortunately you have shown that your buttertions about car handling and braking are so far off the mark that your opinion in this matter carries zero weight.

No, I merely am able quite well to judge my own driving. You on the other hand judge my driving by two situations you don't even know just from a handful of typed words. Either you are suffering from a superiority complex in its final stage or you are a very stupid person. Of course I will not exclude the possibility that both is the case.

If a driving instructor teaches you not to hit the brakes hard in an emergency, run - not walk - to another driving school. Btw, how do you know what your kids' driving instructors taught? You claimed so far that you taught them yourself.

And again J.C. Reeves manages to botch reading a paragraph in spectacular style.

In a straight line and under good conditions (like your study would have showed) there is only limited ABS activity and the tradeoff between the times the brake is released and the better braking near the lockup limit as opposed to locked up normal tires is minimal. The more ABS has to work the longer the brake distance gets. Of course the brake distance for the normal system grows even longer, simply because in a limited grip situation you can't even go close to the limit of the brake without losing control (as you have admitted yourself), so the ABS actually has an advantage in these situations, even brake distance wise. Only as opposed to a straight line brake maneuver it loses brake distance.

As long as you are braking in a straight line: Yes. In a curve: Try to make the stretch you are braking on as straight as possible and still hit the brakes hard. If you get too close to the outer limit of the curve, release and steer toward the center of the curve. Repeat. Sound complicated? Yes, it is. Still the only way to get brake distances in curves that even come close to ABS.

Only on ice and snow or severely different-friction pavement soft braking is required with non-ABS cars. Of course the brake distances are horrible unless you want to risk losing control but that's the price you pay for your arrogance.

An uncontrolled poo is what you will likely do in your last seconds when you realize that ABS would have saved your butt.

I suggest using a reflective glbutt device to find out.

Of course. You just have to have the balls to release in time to steer around the obstacle. If you just brake gently you are going to run into the obstacle simply because your brake distances get much too ling.

I need a truthful answer, which so far you have not given me.

Unlike you I have at least some experience with trailering, which makes it quite likely that you would not have been able to countersteer several times and scrub enough speed to not only prevent rolling the truck but also keeping the damage to a dent in the rear bumper (jackknifed).

And I'll go with a likely chance that you would not be sitting there any more.

Tanks for at least admitting you have no idea what you are talking about. That's a first for you.

Chris