The dangers of DRLs 4623

Why? People can get auto headlamps and DRLs on many other brands, if they want them. So that item by itself isn't a selling point. However, if they don't want them, they have no choice but to look elsewhere.

And you would be correct. I just said let's compare and gave the numbers I knew. You offered some numbers that I basically agreed with for the automatics. We did the comparison. So we're done...aren't we?

It does increase consumption "measurably". GM petetioned the EPA in the mid 1990's to exempt DRLs when doing the EPA mileage rating tests. The rule is that all electrical systems that function as a part of the normal and typical operation of the vehicle must be functioning during EPA mileage tests. GM applied and won the exemption for DRLs. GM cars are tested with the DRLs off...even though that isn't the way they are designed. I doubt that GM would have done that if the influence of DRLs on fuel consumption was not measureable and adversely impacting the numbers (this not meeting CAFE). Basically, your buttertion is incorrect.

That's better! :-)

It's how you look at it. Let's have some fun with this. If the average car is the same as adding nearly 1-million more cars on the road. That would be the consumption of the number of cars one would expect from a small city. One can trivialize the number by breaking it down to it's smallest consbreastuent.

For example. Some people look at a cup of Starbucks coffee every day as a $3.00 a day expense. Others see that $3.00 a day invested over a lifetime as a potential million dollar decision. Guess what type of person usually retires at 50...not the one with the Starbucks philophosy. Or the bank bookkeeper years ago that skimmed all the fraction-cent interest calculations off of all the accounts and imbezzeled quite a tidy sum.

It's the little things, all taken together that add up to quite a bit.

There is resonable and inexpensive technology that will make DRLs more efficient. Implementing DRLs should not be equillivent to adding the fuel consumption of a million more cars on the road if it can be helped.

30 times is the number huh? You didn't pad that a bit, did you?

Huh, I've owned several cars with manual transmissions over the years. Shoot, I learned to drive on my dad's Volkswagen Karman-Ghia. Why would I need to learn again? But to the point. Since I needed a midsize sedan, it's really tough to find one with a manual these days (in the US). I agree that they should be available (which I've said earlier).

To make it a bit more difficult, I bet. ;-)

Well let's hope the sales pickup continues (across the board).

I would say 12000yr. is quite respectable then. Especially in this environment. I still think it's about $4-5K overpriced though. But so is the Charger SRT-8.

Right. I'm curious as to your opinion as to why, after 15 years of studying DRL's, the NHTSA as so far refused to make them mandatory? That is a unusually long time, even for the NHTSA. Hint, the answer in in the body of research documents.

Now, the lean is toward making them mandatory, if they can get work through the remainng issues with them (that you say don't exist, I know).

He didn't use the phrase 'possible to gain control'. His exact quote:

'Turn, quick jab of brakes to unsettle the chbuttis, then recover as appropriate. Not saying that it's a good idea, but it's still not difficult.'

Just make stuff up as you go, huh?

Do it doesn't. It can certaintly. But the term "likely" is quite a stretch.

It is a smaller number of the total emergency maneuvers one finds themselves needing to do...agreed Knock on wood, it has always worked. Perhaps some of that luck you mentioned..heh?

The cameras on the steering wheel and pedals (inset to the main screen to show what the driver was doing) showed otherwise. They do indeed use the brakes.

I'm not surprised you don't believe it.

Then why do the statistics show a "zero sum" advantage, if this is so?

I'm sure I did not use the words "very gingerly".

I agree that if one is inclined (by training or otherwise) to mash the brakes, ABS will help those people.

Then why hasen't it been the problem for me that you say it should be? And why do the statistics for the rest of the driving population seem to also indicate the same as my experience?

I didn't say "safer". I said it is apparently it's "good enough". The statistics indicate that neither is safer over the other since the rates of accidents are the same for both. (stated many times..you miss it?) Becides, what other explanation is there? The statistics show a zero-sum advantage. It doesn't intuitavely make sense, that is for sure. Apparently real world situations and results can defy what one would think makes sense. That probably explains why the experts have not yet been able to determine why ABS hasen't had any positive impact to accident statistics.

I see.

I apologize. It just seemed to me like you are a very competent driver. I've never been called to task for complimenting a person ot their abilities before. I'll make sure I'll never do that to you again.

In any event, why would you personally be a stastical anomoly? I know you thought the ABS saved you..and you obviously believe they did. Howeve, I bet they really didn't (if the statistics are correct). But, in reality, neither of us really know for sure since the event can't be played back exactly the same way using both scenarios. So you believe what you want, and I will believe what I want. Those reading can believe what they want. I'm fine with that.

That can certaintly be true.

And the results don't speak for themselves? The daughter has driven about 120K miles so far and my son has driven about 70K miles so far. So the basis for your conclusion that they received such bad instruction from me are based on what oter factors? (Yes I know, luck accounts for it all)

Not locking the wheels at all provides a longer opportunity for control and improves the chances of avoidance. Like I've said, sometimes I don't even touch the brakes at all. It depends on how "close" and "urgent" the situation is. Just one second of wheel lock amounts to several feet that one could be steering to avoid the obstacle. Not to mention that it provides directional control earliest in the maneuver where just a few degrees of direction change will yield the largest opportunity to "miss" the obstacle. Lock and wait later to gain the steering back and one require a more drastic change in direction.

Again with the "gingerly". where did I use that word?

Anyway, the maneuver required depends largely on the circumstances of the situation one finds themselves in. Like I said earlier, sometimes I keep off the brake completely...never touch it...just steer like hell. Other times, hard braking is required while maintaining full steering control (no wheel lock...what you call "gingerly, I suppose). Yet other times a drastic and immediate directional change is required that can only be accomplished by a quick controlled breaking maneuver to kick the back end around a bit (basically using both your steering to direct the front and brief skids to direct the back. The 1st two manuevers can be done with ABS or without. The last manuever is not possible with ABS (at least I've never been able to do it).

I agree, that is the situation for braking gingerly...which is not the type of braking I've been referring to. Unless you brake damn hard at stoplights!

Steering input is required always. You increase your chances of missing a object if you begin steering at the earliest possible time. If you brake and lock the wheels first, you've taking away your steering control at the time it will be the most effective. Why in the world would you do that?

You read the same Q&A sheet and links from it that I did. Your buttertion is patently false. Why do you state something contrary to what you've read.

I'm sure the advertisements didn't use the term "miracle brake".

What is even more interesting here in this comment is that you actualy believe you know why, even though those that study such things so far do not know. How is it that you are so good at coming to definitive conclusions when those that are more knowledgeable in the subject can't?

What numbers have declined?

Results, concentrate on results. Statistics, concentrate on statistics. All are contrary to the conclusion you just made. (Yes I know, it's all luck..even for those millions of people that are part of the statistics..which is everybody, including you)

Especially if they don't fit your world of beliefs, it seems.

And that "luck" is consistent over 89 years of driving experience? Tell me how anyone else can influence one using maneuvers to avoid a fixed object? There is only one person in control of resolving that situation...no one else.

Yes, when they don't fit your world, I suppose it is.

Do you have a reason why the highway safety people would conclude that ABS has not shown to reduce accidents? Because if they did, wouldn't they want to promote them so to influence more people to get them and thus save money in fewer claims payouts. Your statement doesn't make sense.

Uhm, my reasoning and experience supports the insurance data. What have you been reading in this thread?

Me too!!

Mom always said, have a clean pair of underwear for the doctor...I guess the coroner is close. :-)

Okay. How is that relevant though?