On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:59:17 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

[baaah baaah baaah]

> It isn't interesting at all, really. They are references that exist on
> different sites with a different site structure. It is not possible to
> provide the direct link you want to the specific pages of the documents
> I speak of that are on the document management system.

Oh my, are you really so inexperienced referencing scientific documents?
Reference the document and add a comment that specifies the page.

> The only way to them is to do the search for them.

No. Nothing is easier than providing a link and the page number.

I will show you an example:

www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/images/AssessmentofDRLs.pdf
(page 23)

Unfortunately this document doesn't support your views at all, which is
why you didn't post it. According to this NHTSA Assessment DRLs reduced
fatal opposite-direction two-vehicle crashes by 5%, fatal two vehicle
opposite-direction crashes with motorcycle involvement by 23%.
Pedestrian/cyclist fatalities were reduced by more than 12%

No wonder you were trying so hard not to name your sources...

>> I assert that your 'observations' are very heavily biased, to the point
>> of being worthless. Your demonstrated hate of DRLs and GM products
>> makes you useless as an observer.
>
> I've owned several GM products over the years. A amazing fact for
> someone that hates them.

You won't believe it, hate develops. Maybe Bob Lutz spit in your corn
flakes. Maybe you don't like the styling of the Pontiac Aztec. There are
lots of reasons for people to change their minds. And your rant about the
Malibu you claim to have owned clearly shows your hate.

>> You on the other hand assume that everyone, who doesn't follow your
>> part of enlightment (or rather non-enlightment as you rather have
>> lightless bozos than half-lighted bozos) is stupid and needs to bow
>> down to your perceived superiority.
>
> Ah, those assumtions again! :-) I really didn't follow that one.

You should try reading comprehension 101. And while it is not the best
style to complain about simple spelling mistakes your spelling in general
is atrocious and makes one wonder, whether you have the necessary
education to understand scientific texts.

> I assure you (for the record here) that I'm not a expert, nor am I
> suiperior on this topic. I have just read quite a bit on the subject.

Apparently you failed to understand what you read, or you would have known
the NHTSA's findings on DRLs.

>> In bright daylight my headlights are off, I know that without checking.
>> When it is foggy and bright (happens, even though its very rare) I
>> switch on my headlights manually.
>
> As did I as well. Of course, if one has to do something manually much
> of the time, there is little added value (in my book) for a "auto"
> system since it's doesn't often work and manual intervention is
> necessary so often anyway.

If I had to use the manual switch much of the time I would agree with you,
but the automatic system works so well that I very rarely have to
intervene manually.

>> And in conditions, where headlights normally are warranted (overcast
>> with rain, dusk) I am able to see my instrument panel lighting (or use
>> the radio as you described).
>
> Interesting. I've never been able to tell if the dash is lit (on any
> car) under those situations. It did force me to look at the radio
> frequently to tell (which isn't really a good thing to be forced to have
> to do). I eventually just always used the switch, even if the lights
> were already on, since I discovered that often the auto system would
> turn my lights off part way to work (when it was still foggy and they
> needed to be on). Often, I didn't know how long thay had neen off (no
> chime). It sure seemed silly to have to feel like you had to always use
> the switch when there was a (supposed) auto system. But, it was what it
> was...**** poor system.

The last thing I want is a chime when the lights turn on or off. If
someone is too blind to determine whether his lights are on they should
not be driving in the first place.

>> Btw, with snow and bright sunlight using your headlighs is creating the
>> effect you were ranting about earlier, the headlighs mask the car
>> against the white snow - unlike my DRLs, which are amber and easy to
>> see in snow.
>
> Lights are required by law day or night when it is snowing.
> They aren't required if there is snow merely on the ground and is
> otherwise clear and sunny. I wasn't sure which situation yo were
> describing above. The rpoblem is in the latter situation (lights not
> required then anyway)

If you were unable to understand the statement 'snow and bright sunlight'
reading comprehension 101 is indeed warranted.

>> As I said above, your observations are tainted, so your assertion that
>> most of your GM driving coworkers have that problem is worthless
>> anyway.
>
> And the very same observations from others here in this very thread AND
> in testimonials on file at the NHTSA are also worthless?

No, they are worth quite a lot, especially for showing you have no clue
what you are talking about.

> I submit there is something to this. You may not agree. But far too
> many independent people have reported this exact situation for it to be
> just a fluke.

I am beginning to wonder whether you and DS really are independent people
or whether there is a connection (other than both of you thinking your
opinion is the holy truth).

>>> BINGO! You are correct, of course. The problem is that calling it
>>> automatic is incorrect because of that.
>>
>> Why is that? About 100% of all automatic systems don't provide for
>> every eventuality. A lift won't stop just because you are running
>> towards it without human interaction. A coke machine has jams. ...
>
> I've never seen the word automatic on a Coke machine or a lift. ;-)
> Apples and oranges anyway. Automatic transmissions are reliable..

.... and often enough don't do what the driver wants, which is why my car
has a 6-speed manual transmission.

> they shift when required/appropriate 99.9% of the time and I've been
> lucky to never have had a transmission failure (even on my
> Chrysler/Dodge products).

I think even the hardcore pro-Reeves people in here will disagree about
your '99.9% appropriate shifts'. I find that automatic transmissions
rarely shift when I want them to (upshifting too late under light load,
not downshifting quickly enough for passing, manual interaction necessary
for downhill driving etc.). It surprises me that a control freak like you
would leave the shifting to such an imperfect automatic system. Or are you
going to tell me that your driving is so bad that you don't even notice
when the automatic doesn't shift at the right time?

> Something that fails that much is not automatic. (Heck, I would call it
> defective engineering, in all honesty).

Almost everywhere in the US the system works. Maybe your local aliens use
a fog machine and searchlights to create your brightly lit fog or you
mistake spray from sprinklers for torrential rain.

> We simply shouldn't put up with that high of a failure rate of ANY
> system, especially one that is so closely tied to safety and requires
> manual intevention is such a high frequency!

The failure rate for me is <<1%. I am more than willing to put up with it
and manually intervene in the rare case it doesn't switch when I want it
to.

>> What nonsense. Automatic means that they switch on and off when the
>> automatic system deems it necessary - and in almost all cases it is
>> right about whether it is necessary or not.
>
> That is simply incorrect.

No, that's simply correct. Maybe your daily brightly lit fog is a freak
weather phenomenon (I have been through a whole lot of fog, but brightly
lit fog is _very_ rare in my experience, maybe you are just making it up
to rant about a system you don't like. In any case it is not the norm just
about anywhere in the United States and other countries. And aside of your
brightly lit fog and inexplicable torential rain from a sunny sky the
system works very well.

>> which is understood by almost all people.
>
> Wrong again. Using your own statements that most people don't control
> their lights, then by adding another decision point (did my auto system
> work this time or not) makes them smarter in that regard all of a
> sudden? I don't think so. What it does do is add complexity and
> confusion where a "on-off" switch is much simplier AND a system
> professing to be "automatic" causes many people to become 100% reliant
> on a 70% relable system. As you sem to agree, people don't pay enough
> attention...and this is one more thing on the list to pay attention to.
> Bad news in my book..

If you are confused by a simple automatic system and a switch that says
'auto' and 'on' you are not mentally fit to drive a car.

What I said was that most people understand that no automatic system is
correct every time. They may or may not know enough to intervene, but on
average the system makes sure that even the greatest idiots get their
headlights switched on at dusk and off after sunrise.

> However, you are right about one thing. I do hate features with a high
> failure rate. Features that don't work properly, even 10% of the time
> are useless (and dangerious). And auto light systems fail at a higher
> rate than 10%.

Only in your little hole in the wall.

> A majority of people that have then don't realize the high failure
> rate, unfortunately.

A majority of people don't have your high failure rate. Your desperate
attempt to spread brightly lit fog and torrential rain from a sunny sky
over the US doesn't change that.

>>> At dark of night, it's a wash.
>>
>> Not at all. You should see, how many people around here forget to
>> switch on their lights at night because the street lighting is quite
>> bright in most areas.
>
> And you should see how many people here pull out in front of you on the
> highway without tail lights because the gas station canopy was so bright
> that the auto light system failed to turn the lights on until after they
> entered the highway.

You are making that up. Even the bright lights around town here are not
bright enough to trigger the sensors in the cars, and even if it did, in
the 5 seconds it takes from pulling away from the gas pump under the
brightly lit canopy to the time you enter the highway are sufficient to
make the automatic system switch.

>> When it is overcast and gloomy/rainy my headlights switch on during the
>> day too. Often before most other drivers have theirs on.
>
> Yours may. Some implementations seem to function better han others. But
> most don't...especially the further south one happens to be (higher sun
> angle). Question, if that sensative, they must cycle the lights on when
> entering the tree canopy of a wooded area as well (which I wouldn't
> particularly like).

What you are missing is even basic understanding of the logarhitmic nature
of light intensity. The light under a medium-density tree canopy is still
several times as intense as the seemingly bright lighting in a gas station
at night. My lights work remarkably well in that respect. They do indeed
come on when I drive into dense forest, but that does make sense,
especially when coming from bright sunlight.

But how come you all of sudden don't know what the automatic headlights do
when driving unter a tree canopy?

>> The typical driver of a 'manually controlled' car switches on their
>> lights when a significant number of oncoming cars have their lights on
>> (i.e. all the smart drivers have switched their lights on). Same for
>> the typical driver of a DRL/auto-headlight car.
>
> No huge arguement with that statement. A caveat, however. There is
> something that causes people that drive DRL equipped cars not to switch
> on their lights as often as (or when) they should.

That something is called stupidity and is just as prevalent in drivers of
non-DRL cars.

> One theory is that the reflection of the DRL's illuminating the road
> and objects in front of them cause the visual que that registers (in
> their minds) that their lights are on (when they are not)...probably
> normal lack of proper attentiveness that we both agree can be a problem
> with the average driver (driving both types of cars).

Your theory doesn't hold up. In your brightly lit fog and torrential rain
from a sunny sky the reflection of the headlights on the pavement are
not visible.

What really triggers the stupid people to switch on their lights is a
sufficient number of lighted cars (IOW the ones with smart people or an
automatic system on board) having their headlights on _and_ it being
already so dark that the fact that the cars have their headlights on
registeres in their numbskulls.

>> Your closing on traffic going the other way is not dangerous unless you
>> are driving too fast for conditions. The oncoming traffic is a
>> different matter, as you cannot control their speed. Thus seeing an
>> oncoming car may be essential for your safety whereas a car going in
>> your direction is easily visible in time unless you are driving too
>> fast.
>
> Incorrect. The largest and most damaging type of accident that have
> ever occured is the pileup.

Pileup is the one classic driver error accident. Taillights don't help
there (they rather hurt because they take away from the signal effect of
the brakelights).

Pile-ups happen when a large number of people are tailgating (i.e.
following each other at significantly less than the recommended 2 second
distance). If you are seriously saying that you can't see a car in
your headlights, that is less than 2 seconds in front of you, you need to
stop driving NOW and visit an ophtalmologist to determine the reason for
your blindness.

> Pileup accidents involve vehicles that are going in the same direction
> under poor sight conditions.

No, they involve people going in the same direction at too high a rate of
speed for conditions and too little distance to the cars in front of them.

Visibility very rarely is a factor in pileups, improper speed and distance
always are.

> Often these pileups involve many hundreds
> of vehicles and many hundreds of injuries and fatalities. Rear lighting
> is at least as important as frontal lighting...perhaps more so.

Nonsense. Keeping proper distance and adjusting speed to conditions
prevents pileups, not lighting. But if it were so, automatic lighting
systems would be all the more important.

>> Only if you are too stupid to adjust your speed to conditions. What do
>> you to, for instance, if an unlighted obstacle is in your path?
>
> And the afore mentioned pilups are vivid reminders that that is exactly
> what happens with real people on real roads driving real cars...they
> often DO drive too fast for conditions...so rear illumination is at
> least as important as frontal illumination.

Nonsense. Pileups happen when people are following too close and are
unable to stop in time when they see the brakelights of the cars in front
of them.

>> It is impossible to take all responsibility for a driver. Some systems
>> support him (power steering, power brakes, ABS, DRLs, and so on). None
>> of these systems is 100% perfect. Your assertion that DRLs or auto
>> headlights need to be 100% perfect to be useful is simply nonsense.
>
> I have not had a power steering system fail in years...but I would call
> it "automatic".

Accidents, where the driver turns too hard due to power steering with
insufficient road contact are quite frequent.

> I have had ABS systems get in the way of my wanting full control of
> braking during a emergency maneuver a time or two (which is why I no
> longer will buy a car with ABS), but I would not call it a failure, it
> did it's job as designed...

And what would you have done differently if you had had full control?
Braking in a way that outperforms ABS' stopping distance and at the same
time keeps the car maneuverable is very difficult even for the best
drivers. And from everything you posted here I doubt you are even a good
driver.

> However, I HAVE had auto lighting control systems fail to function when
> required on a significant number of occasions...

The system still did what it was supposed to do, i.e. turn on or off the
lights at a specific light intensity. In the rare case you need the lights
to be on even though the light intensity is greater than the trigger value
manual interaction is easy.

> and have personally observed the same failure on other GM vehicles
> (almost daily). It is not something we should put up with,
> frankly...and we should tell GM so!

Nonsense. In just about 100% of conditions the system works reliable.
Maybe you live in a bright fog hole, where it torrential rains from a
sunny sky daily but reality shows that the system usually works better
than the average human driver does under the same conditions.

Chris