"C.H." > wrote in message
news
>I need to cut down this juggernaut some, so I am only gonna comment on the
> most important points.

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

> [So far nothing but accusations and insults. Let's see...]
>
>>> Again, you did not reference the documents, which is your
>>> responsibility if you call upon them as support for your theories.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Scientific referencing is a rather easy to understand process. You
> reference the exact document and the page, maybe the paragraph if
> necessary. Just naming a document that may or may not exist in reality has
> nothign to to with referencing. If you have data, referencing it is so
> ridicuouslsy simple that you should have no problem with it. If not ...
> well, we know why you don't reference anything.

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.

> [Accusations and insults again. Oh, and a false and insincere 'apology'.
> I didn't think you would stoop that low...]

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?

>>>> However current implementations introduce safety-negative problems as
>>>> well. You have listed (and cited) the types of accidents they seem to
>>>> help with (finally).
>>>
>>> I listed all types of accidents the NHTSA listed in their most
>>> prominent study.
>>
>> You listed "all types" of accidents?
>
> Please read the complete sentence before commenting. I listed all types
> of accidents _listed_in_this_study_.

Which are not all types of accidents _that_occur_.

>> 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.
>
> If they had found significant data about DRL safety issues they would have
> listed it in the study.

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)

>>>> There are other types of accidents that increase with DRL use, the
>>>> most notable documented is the rear end collision (which also
>>>> correlates with the Op's observations).
>>>
>>> ... but is conspicuously missing from the NHTSA documents.
>>
>> 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!
>
> I don't give you any credit. The only thing you have done well so far is
> insult me for not sharing your opinion and weasel out of referencing your
> supposed sources. I give credit where due, and in your case it is not.

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?

>> Uh...huh. One document out of hundreds tells the whole story. Sorry,
>> not even close.
>
> As you are unable to list any documents that contradict the one I listed,
> apparently the discrepancies are not that big.

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.

>>>> I hope it's helpful.
>>>
>>> It definitely would be helpful for you to read the texts again.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I am not inclined to doing research to support someone else's point. You
> challenged me to find data that supports my view. I did.

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?

> I challenged you to post data that supports yours. You did not. So either
> put up or shut
> up.

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?

>>> I make claims based on reasoning and occasionally I claim a document
>>> exists and reference this document. You constantly claim documents are
>>> supporting your view but are unable to reference them.
>>
>> So all those odd/funny names of studies I just made up. You're
>> right...you caught me!
>
> You may have made some up or found the studies somewhere. Yet there is no
> indication that they contain anything that supports your point of view.
> You didn't even research far enough to find the document I referenced or
> you would have tried to spin control the situation.

Okay.

>>> Oh, that's what it's all about. The docket doesn't in any way contain
>>> scientific data, but what it _does_ contain is a mini essay from you,
>>> that you are so fearfully proud of that you have to tout it in here.
>>
>> Why read mine?
>
> Because you claimed they were there and if they existed and contained the
> data you attribute to them would be the only thing corroborating your
> theories.

Okay

>> You already know my position...nothing new to gain there.
>
> Oh yes, there is a lot to gain there. I would be pleasantly surprised, if
> you could actually produce something that contradicts the study I found.
> Unfortunately I don't think you are able to produce anything. The reasons
> are quite clear.

Yes, quite clear.

>> 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.
>
> I will take them for what they are worth, just as I take your
> uncorroborated wild theories for being worth zero.

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

>>> And I still see it in relevant conditions, i.e. if the outside light
>>> intensity is in the range where the automatic system might shift.
>>
>> Then it's shifting on way too late for my tastes if one can see the dash
>> light up.
>
> The system shifts at the proper time, i.e. at the time during twilight
> when you normally would switch on your lights. If you want headlights in
> bright daylight, which seen over all drivers, locations and vehicles is a
> rather rare occurrence, you have to switch by hand.
>
> [lots of uninspired Reeves one-liners snipped.]

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

>>> I would like auto headlights on other cars even if they only worked 'at
>>> night' i.e. in dusk/dawn, because that would already solve 95% of
>>> situations where headlights should be on and aren't.
>>
>> 95% of people where you drive at night are without their headlights on?
>> Yikes!
>
> James, please learn to understand at least the simplest sentences. What I
> said is that 95% of the 'headlights-off where they should be on'
> situations happen at night, not that 95% of people drive without light.

Thanks for clearing that up.

> That's something entirely different. If you are able to read simple
> english sentences beyond the fourth or fifsh word, you better start now.
> If not, please say so and we will stop this discussion.

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

> [GM hate rant disguised as 'Buick love' snipped]
>
>>> GM is hurting in certain areas, because they neglected to build
>>> excitement in their cars.
>>
>> There is probably some truth to that. But that hardly explains the
>> loverall evel and debth of the slide.
>
> And the handful of DRL haters explains it? Amusing thought...

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.

> But to be serious: GM isn't hurting even nearly as much as you would like
> to see them to because you lost a bundle on a car you were too lazy or
> stupid to research properly.

GM needs to suceed for the sake of all of us. Your assertion 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.

>>> What do you think why the Chrysler 300 sells so well?
>>
>> 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!
>
> I personally like the styling very much. One of the few cars on the road
> that don't try to look as alike as possible.

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

>>> Not because it doesn't have DRLs but because it looks cool.
>>
>> 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".
>
> Of course our James C Reeves knows exactly which light switch position
> most Chrysler 300 drivers use - not!

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"

> You know what, James? So far your claims were easily explained as the
> rants of a hater, but you seem to have a superiority complex to eclipse
> even that hatred.

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)

>>> The Vette outsells the already high expectations even though it has
>>> both DRLs and automatic headlights and no one in the Corvette boards
>>> complains about the DRLs.
>>
>> 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 passed on the buy.
>
> GM can't build enough Corvettes to satisfy demand. If a significant number
> of people wouldn't buy Corvettes because of DRLs the Corvette wouldn't
> outsell both the C5 and the DRL-less C4.

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

>> The alt.autos.gm newsgroup has frequent DRL complainers. I can't
>> explain why the topic hasen't come up in the Corvette boards.
>
> Probably because the newsgroup denizens are a dying breed. The younger
> crowd blogs and uses web message boards, because usenet and its denizens
> are about as inviting as the mouth of a shark with three rows of teeth on
> both jaws. Face it, people like stern, you, chemistyboy and others, who
> just are interested in finding someone to badmouth are not exactly the
> best athmosphere to make newbies want to stay.

Then why are we you in a Newsgroup then?

>>> Face it, a whacky vocal minority, who wants to eradicate DRLs and auto
>>> headlights because they think a certain body part is going to shrink
>>> because the car does something on its own, doesn't influence GM's or
>>> Toyota's revenue significantly.
>>
>> 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! :-)
>
> Again you have a problem with reading. What I wrote was that your
> demancipation because of the car doing something by itself causes body
> parts to shrink.

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?

>>> I got quite a good picture, obviously a better one than you do, because
>>> unlike you I was able to support my views with a major NHTSA study,
>>> whereas you still only referenced some political babble.
>>
>> And you were able to do all of that by using the reference you keep
>> saying I never supplied. Amazing!
>
> No, I was able to do that despite your not providing any reference.

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!

>>> Yes, which is why the auto-headlight system gives you the option 'auto'
>>> or 'on'. As the system practically never switches the lights on when
>>> they should not be on, the 'off' option is not necessary.
>>
>> The option comparable to their competitors they don't have. A
>> half-assed option is not a complete option.
>
> The option does exactly what it is supposed to do, give you a way of
> switching on the lights in situations that require headlights during
> bright lighting conditions. As the opposite does not happen (at least not
> in a traffic safety relevant context) an off position is not necessary and
> would destroy the beneficial effect the auto headlights have, because
> the bozos would switch the lights off and still forget to switch on the
> lights at night.

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

>>> Not necessary. Tell me a situation, where the system switches the light
>>> on and it should be off (traffic safety wise not you not waking up your
>>> SO).
>>
>> There isn't a situation traffic safety wise.
>
> Bingo. Thus no off switch is necessary.

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.

>>> I never had a problem with that, neither as the one in the tent nor as
>>> the one driving.
>>
>> 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?
>
> No, but I do camp quite a lot and have friends who camp too. None of them
> has a problem with a car going by with their lights on, especially
> considering that most drivers of non-auto headlight cars don't switch off
> their lights anyway.

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

>>> Switch off the engine when you dont want lights. Prolonged idling is
>>> very bad for the environment.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I guess you can imagine how much I care about what someone who shoots
> pictures to help in a dirty divorce fight thinks.

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!

> If he doesnt like auto headlights, the modification takes half an hour of
> research and half an hour to implement. If he is too stupid to use it, he
> should not be a PI in the first place.

I assume 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.

>>>> want to signal other drivers
>>>
>>> That's what flashing high beams is for.
>>
>> 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?
>
> Of course you can turn the high beams off: Turn on the lights. Btw, did
> you know that flashing the lights is misinterpreted in almost all cases
> and discouraged? If you need to warn someone from impending danger, honk.
> That's what the horn is for.

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)

>>> If someone provides an off switch the system loses its usefulness,
>>> because specifically the stupidest 20%, who are likely to drive around
>>> without lights at night, are also the control freaks, who have to have
>>> their lights off until _they_tell_their_car_to_switch_them_on_.
>>
>> Oh..huh. Now it's 20%. I thought it was 95%.
>
> You thought wrong, because you again were unable to read.

I think we cleared this up earlier.

>>> Every automatic driver has to downshift manually on downgrades (or
>>> stupidly ride his brakes).
>>
>> "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.
>
> Apparently quite a few judging by the smell at the bottom of many grades.

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).

>>>> Maybe not optimally, but far better and reliably than any auto light
>>>> system does.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, automatic transmissions waste millions of gallons of
>>> fuel every year, because they rarely shift right. The automatic
>>> headlight system works in almost all situations, even if you don't want
>>> to see it. Plus it provides an override for the rare cases (except for
>>> your hellhole of course) where it doesn't.
>>
>> 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.
>
> What a nonsense. I saw the calculation a while ago and they postulated 100
> Watts of electricity for every car plus umpteen 'losses'.

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.

> In reality it will be a fraction of that and only a tiny fraction of the
> gas that is
> wasted by automatic transmissions and air conditions set too low.

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 assumed 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).

> [patronizing rant snipped]

Oh please, please give me more material!

> [several clueless one-liners snipped: Uh-huh!]

Un..Huh. ;-)

>>>> DRL's in their curent implementation have little benefit *overall*
>>>> (when factoring in the negative along with the positive you found).
>>>
>>> The 'positive' was a reduction in fatalities in all listed accident
>>> types and no increase in any accident type.
>>
>> The subset of accident type you cited are hardly "all" accident types.
>> They are the types most benefited by DRLs.
>
> All the accident types that showed significant change in the study.

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.

>>>> And I've said repeatedly that is what I did...use the "on" position,
>>>> even when my lights were already on. Most other people apparently
>>>> don't do that though...they just let their lights cycle on and off
>>>> during foggy commutes. Again enough with the ME. This isn't a
>>>> personal thing (even though you seem to keep trying to make it that).
>>>
>>> It certainly is a personal thing with you as the system works well for
>>> most people in most locations.
>>
>> 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.
>
> People only complain if they don't like something. If you want to get a
> realistic number you need to take a few thousand random people and ask
> them whether they like DRLs or no DRLs. Unfortunately for you I am quite
> familiar with the tricks used to fudge numbers in statistics.
> Counting only people, who complain is one of the oldest and most
> transparent ones. If it were a few hundred thousand I would see a certain
> point, but the handful of people in the dockets simply has no significance
> whatsoever.

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

>>> Where did I say the system has a fog detector? It works within its
>>> parameter set (and fog happens to often be so dense that the system
>>> still gets triggered. And the areas, where low lying ground fog in
>>> combination with bright sunlight is prevalent over a significant part
>>> of the day over a large part of the year are small and far between, so
>>> the system doesn't provide for them.
>>
>> Well, it should. It happens frequently (even thoug your vast weather
>> knowledge says differently).
>
> Frequently at your precise location means one, two daylight hours a day.
> In most other places it doesn't happen at all or only a few days a year.
> Not significant.

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

>>> Are you familiar with the system of diminished returns? No, of course
>>> you are not. It says that for the first large change of something a
>>> relatively small trigger is necessary. But as you are nearing the
>>> limits of the system larger and larger stimuli are necessary to realize
>>> smaller and smaller gains. A system that makes sure that people have
>>> their light on at night is useful and relatively simple and cheap.
>>
>> And it's cheapness shows itself off brilliantly.
>
> No, its usefulness shows itself off brilliantly. I never see GM cars with
> auto headlights driving around without light at night. OTOH I see quite a
> few non-auto-headlight cars that do. Only a total moron would build
> endlessly complicated sensors into a car to achieve a small gain over
> this.

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-assed
implementation.

>>> You know what? I agree with you. Unfortunately it is not going to
>>> happen. Ever. So the next best thing is an automated nanny that does
>>> work well, like automatic lighting.
>>
>> Well, let the nanny system take care of you then. No matter to me.
>
> IOW your body part _does_ shrink when you have a machine do things for
> you. Beware of the DVD player and the microwave oven...

Who told you that happened?! I'm so embarassed 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! :-)

> For me the system is as much of a nanny as my alarm clock or my cellphone,
> IOW not at all. Only people with a weak self image and nothing to say in
> life have a problem with a machine doing a menial job for them.

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.

>>> ... often enough to justify an automatic system that reliably prevents
>>> driving at night without lights.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Why should I give all the bozos ten thousand opportunities to kill
> someone? I assume you are familiar with the fact that only about one in
> 5000-10000 transgressions results in a ticket. Actually some
> transgressions are more likely to result in an accident than in a ticket.

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

> [tons of stupid Reeves one-liners snipped]

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

>>>> The opposite is actually the case. Remember the office parking lot
>>>> count I mentioned earlier?
>>>
>>> Your office doesn't by any chance make alcoholic drinks?
>>
>> Well, since they were coming to work, perhaps they put a little Kahula
>> in the morning coffee at home...
>
> I didn't mean them but you and your powers of observation.

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".

>> but what is odd is that it was only the people that drove the GM
>> vehicles.
>
> Doesn't surprise me at all with your $6000 GM problem. A little hatred
> goes a long way...

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.

>>> I did a count on a short drive last night. Nine cars without headlights
>>> after dark within 3 miles. None of the nine was a GM-product. Pretty
>>> average for the area I'd say.
>>
>> Interesting. How dark was it during those observations...curious.
>
> Dark, i.e. after the end of evening civil twilight, as my pilot ground
> school so aptly phrased it.

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

>>> If the conditions were really bright but foggy I suspect the latter,
>>> but as your observations are tainted anyway, the question is moot.
>>
>> 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 assure you,
>> the results are as stated.
>
> That you did it purposefully indeed came to mind. And I don't believe you
> any more than the first time you stated this.

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

> [insults snipped]
>
>>> I have to disappoint you. New York City is neither in the South nor in
>>> the Southeast.
>>
>> 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.
>
> It also is larger by a rather large factor. The population density in the
> USA is highest in New York City, thus your assertion that the most heavily
> populated area is covered by daily morning fog is simply wrong/

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

>>> The 'other cars' were not GM models with automatic headlights, as when
>>> starting the engine at night, even in a 'brightly lit' area the lights
>>> are coming on instantly. With all GM models with auto-headlights. The
>>> delay only applies when starting the engine during daylight and then
>>> proceeding into a dimly lit area.
>>
>> Reading more into the text then is there again huh. The other cars were
>> GM's as well, just older ones.
>
> I drove an older GM model with automatic headlights. The lights come on
> instantly when started under low-light conditions just like they do with
> mine and the current models. What you saw were either GM models without
> auto headlights or one of your frequent hallucinations.

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,
apparently. <sigh>

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!

>>>> Not mine. I had to take it out of Park AND pop the emergency brake
>>>> (both conditions in addition to the ignition) for the lights to come
>>>> on.
>>>
>>> Both of which you always do when pulling out of a gas station.
>>
>> Of course orone won't be leaving, will they? The point is?
>
> The point is that the likelyhood of a car with auto headlights leaving a
> gas station at night without lights is just about zero. The only exception
> is a defective system.

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

>>> Your explanation still doesn't hold up.
>>
>> How so?
>
> See above.

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

>>> The neon lights of a gas station only produce a tiny fraction of the
>>> light output of sunlight. The human eye adjusts and thinks 'bright',
>>> the sensor doesn't care though and switches on the lights.
>>
>> Metal Halide lamps I believe you mean. Hardly close to full sunlight,
>> agree.
>
> No, I mean fluorescent lights, which are prevalent in gas stations
> throughout the west.

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.

>>> Of course your reasoning supports my claim that automatic headlights
>>> are important, because these are exactly the situations that lead to
>>> non-auto-headlight cars driving around without lights at night.
>>
>> And I've stated I agreed that is one of the benefits.
>
> And as you already stated there is no traffic safety related reason to
> have an off switch you conceded your other major point.

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.

>>> The Goat has 100hp more than a Mustang GT, doesn't suffer from the
>>> wretched reliability problems of the modular motor and is the more
>>> sophisticated car to boot. Also since the '05 model year they sell
>>> quite well. Why should they knock down the price?
>>
>> Last I looked they had only sold about 5,000 of them. What are the
>> sales numbers now?
>
> Jan-June 6907. In other words they sold all the GTOs they got. If you know
> of a hidden stash Id appreciate the info, some people I know are looking
> for one.

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

>> Follow the law then, they are required to be on in those conditions.
>
> And mine are. But I don't see it as a catastrophy if someone else's
> aren't.
>
>> What does one do about compliance with lighting laws...lights are
>> required in those cases.
>
> No one stops you from switching on your lights in these cases.

Very true.

>>> To induce a controlled skid the standard brake, being heavily front
>>> biased, is mostly useless. Pray tell me how you induce a controlled
>>> skid in your FWD car with only the standard brake.
>>
>> Rear drive helps, but it's doable with FWD.
>
> I asked you twice already to describe the procedure. You can't, which
> shows that once again you only invented something to support your thesis.

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 assist 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).

>>>> Some cars have a foot activated emergency brake which is more
>>>> difficult to use for the purpose that your hand brake can be used.
>>>
>>> These cars are not suitable for controlled skids (except for some more
>>> powerful Mercedes-Benz cars that are able to induce a controlled skid
>>> via accelarator.
>>
>> I agree.
>
> All of sudden? Above you claimed that inducing a controlled skid with only
> regular brakes and FWD _is_ possible.

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.

>>>> But it really matters not, the data shows they're practically useless
>>>> (for everybody, apaprenty) , so why have them.
>>>
>>> ABS is far from useless for me. If you think accident avoidance
>>> culminates in closing your eyes, hammering the brake and praying you
>>> may think differently.
>>
>> 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.
>
> If they had time to avoid the situation without ABS usually was not that
> close. Few people have the balls to get off the brake to steer around an
> obstacle in a non-ABS car.

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.

>>> ABS has saved my life twice in very difficult conditions and I would
>>> not want to drive without it.
>>
>> 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?
>
> I have ample experience with both non-ABS and ABS cars.

I would imagine most of us do.

> I know in what
> situations ABS helps and in what situations it just does the same job an
> ordinary brake would do.

I would expect so.

> You on the other hand are one of the oldtimers
> who think that just because they have little to no experience with ABS and
> because they have driven 'X miles without an accident' think it doesn't
> help.

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)

> In normal driving conditions ABS doesn't even regulate brake pressure.

Who said it did?

> When it does (iow when you are in a situation that needs braking so hard
> that your wheels would skid without ABS) ABS keeps the car 1) controllable
> and 2) in a straight (or curved if the driver so desires) line if the road
> surface provides different friction values to different wheels.

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.

> Chances are you never even got to test the difference between ABS and
> non-ABS in the short time you had your ABS equipped GM car. Which is a
> pity, because it would have enlightened you.

It's interesting when your assumptions 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

>> People believe that since the ABS kicked in, it somehow saved them.
>
> I had ABS kick in in quite a number of situations.

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

> Most of them I would have gotten through
> without ABS, at least with my life, in many probably
> without even an accident.

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

> But I had two situations, in which ABS with a
> very high probability saved my life.

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

> And I am sure that I am in a better
> position to determine that than you are.

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....

>> 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.
>
> Which is a pity because a lot of people run into things they would be able
> to safely stop in front of if they had mashed their brakes. The nonsense
> that oldtimer driving instructors taught in the 50s and 60s about gently
> braking shortening brake distances is just hogwash, as you would say.

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.

>> They actually do well at avoiding skids with proper brake control.
>
> If you want short brake distances 'proper brake control' is exactly what
> you don't want, neither in an ABS nor in a non-ABS car. You really must
> have learned driving in the dark ages where driving instructors only had
> their own experiences to draw from.

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

> In a non-ABS car you admittedly have to give up quite some brake distance
> in order to maintain directional control in cases where you have to brake
> in a curve or on road surface with different friction coefficients left
> and right, but that has nothing to do with optimal braking but just with
> compensating for the serious disadvantages of non-ABS brake systems.

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).

>> 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).
>
> No, that's exactly the right training for emergency situations. Both in
> ABS and non-ABS cars.

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 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.
>
> I pity your kids. Learning how to drive from a dad who doesn't drive very
> well in the first place can be a truly fatal experience.

I suppose it would. Who would that be?

> I am glad I actually had my mandatory driver training (25 hours) with a
> professional
> and very experienced driving instructor (I am German, remember?), who
> taught us the correct procedures (hit the brakes hard if you have an
> emergency stop to do, even pre-ABS)

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

> and told us all the anecdotes about the 'old methods'.

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.

>> 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)
>
> You indeed are a lucky family.

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?

> What you and your kids need is some driver training.

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. :-)

>>> Now at least your sentence makes sense. My answer: You claimed that ABS
>>> removes this option from the driver, which simply is untrue.
>>
>> 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).
>
> And how do you do it on your non-ABS FWD Chrysler?

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

>>> Your humor module is defective. I told you a while ago that it needs to
>>> be exchanged.
>>
>> The interface is fused...it won't come out! :-)
>
> That's not uncommon with acidic oldtimers like you. A 50 Watt soldering
> iron does the trick though.

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.

>>> Neither was the spill on the bike. And the cop, who came to my rescue
>>> when I was blown off the road, fell flat on his ass when he got out of
>>> his Bronco, it was that slick. I am 100% sure that you would have
>>> gotten in an accident in the same situation too, which is one of the
>>> reason why I keep referencing your luck, or let's say lack of
>>> experience driving in really adverse conditions.
>>
>> 100% sure, are you? Well did anyone else make it through that area
>> without incident?
>
> Even many of the locals wrecked in the same place with trucks and
> trailers. The area is treacherous especially for people with little
> trailering experience.

I'm certain that my chance of wrecking was about the same as yours was
(leass 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.

>> 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.
>
> How much experience do you have with a fullsize truck and a 20' enclosed
> trailer high-wind conditions on black ice?
>

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".