The dangers of DRLs 4637

C.H.

You say modern features, I say unnecessary complexity.

I'd rather spend my $$$ on a car that had good basic systems without electronic band-aids covering up its shortcomings.

That doesn't negate the fact that it seems on the face of it to be the sole reason for GM's recent increase in sales.

We can only hope that they don't continue their longstanding tradition of promising new and exciting cars and delivering the same old blah. How many cars have we had high hopes for in the past only to be sadly disappointed by the mediocre end? (anyone remember the Fiero? And to rub salt in it, they end it off almost immediately after finally turning it into an almost respectable car)

Omitting a universal functionality to save a few pennies is stupid. If that's GM's position on light switches, one can only imagine the corners they've cut elsewhere.

Sometimes you *WANT* to. A company that buttumes that I'm dumb enough to turn my lights off when they're actually needed is insulting to my intelligence, and by extension, their entire customer base. I see GM saying "hey, all you people who buy our cars, we think that you're total morons."

Bzzt. try again (see below.)

The military owned vehicles don't have DRL's; or at least GM is willing to sell them vehicles without DRLs (along with law enforcement) You and I, however, can't order vehicles without them.

Believe me, unless things change, I will always shop elsewhere first.

Is it not acceptable then to criticize GM even after one has bought one of their products? Or is it a sign of weakness to have bought something and then admit that it is flawed?

Indeed.

Your definition of "quite small" is very different from mine. Even if the hardware is similar, the software is radically different, and deliberately so. I can tell you for a fact that the ABS on many "mbutt market" vehicles is tuned for maximum stability at the expense of ultimate stopping performance.

I don't really feel like doing the research right now, but I'm certain there are current vehicles that do indeed have different, driver-selectable levels of ABS-DSC intervention.

I must have missed whatever post prompted your comment, but inducing a controlled skid in a non-ABS vehicle is really no great feat. Either I'm missing some context, or your comment makes no sense.

See above.

I have absolutely no respect for NHTSA and their supposed objectivity and concern for safety. Likewise for the IIHS. In my mind both are corrupt, incredibly biased organizations that have their own agendas that they push at great cost, both in dollars and in safety.

Most drivers do have DRLs, it seems. And since when were insurance companies concerned about sales? I'm not aware of too many places where insurance isn't compulsory, unless you're filthy stinkin' rich.

All overpriced for what they are.

We'll see...

As it is, they keep churning out plastic-clad Pontiacs and trying to pretend they're "exciting" with a straight corporate face. As usual, the public is not fooled.

But if a company wants to build a reputation for making good cars, they have to impress the car guys first.

Bullpoo.

People more knowledgeable than I have already posted info that you have refused to look at.

Oooh, I'm so impressed. You posted one link to a study funded by a corrupt and deeply flawed organization.

You are wrong. There's plenty of evidence out there that says so, some of it posted in this thread. Some of it actually on the NHTSA web site, amusingly enough (I'm thinking of the docket on DRLs and glare in particular. Now that's not a condemnation of the concept of DRLs, true, but it does condemn the vast majority of implementations on the road today - allowed by NHTSA even though a study of the history of the regulations will show that THEY KNEW BETTER from the beginning.)

That would be a good marketing move on GM's part, I think. Otherwise the Mustang is going to be a runaway success and the GTO is going to be yet another "could have been."

Yes, and it's fairly clear that that perception is why they're selling as many vehicles as they are.

nate

-- replace "fly" with "com" to reply.