>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:13:59 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>> You claimed that you don't hate GM because you had a GM car sometime in
>>> the past and because your ancestors bought GM, but that has no bearing
>>> on you hating them today. That you do is more than obvious from your
>>> rants.
>>
>> And you would be wrong. Sorry. I'll buy a GM produce again in a
>> heartbeat if not for the idiotic nanny fratures they shove down your
>> throat. You draw too many incorrect conclusions.
>
> In other words, you _do_ hate GM, even if it is because you have an agenda
> concerning DRLs and auto-headlights.

The tie between the two is quite a stretch. One can clearly exist without
the other. The concept is not THAT hard to understand, is it?

> I'd really like GM to do an experiment. Make !DRL and !auto-headlights a
> $200 option.
>Wanna bet that no one is gonna buy it, not even the people,
> who rant about DRLs?

Ah those incorrect conclusions again. If I like the car, and it has auto
headlamps and DRL's, I'm not buying it. IF it doesn't have the feature, I
will buy it. Simple deducton, heh? This is really a very simple concept to
understand.

Let me see if I can help you. This can equate to a feature you may not like
on a car. Pehaps a example you might understand is the question of if you
would buy a 'Vette with a auto tranny. Maybe you would still, but I'm
betting probably not (and lets assume that for now). The result is that you
would love the "Vette" (the design, looks, etc., but hate the auto tranny it
had in it? It's the same type of thing. One item is separate from the
other.

I do know one thing. Customers don't opt for the DRLs even when it's a free
option. Just look at Ford/Dodge/Chrysler/BMW/Mercedes where the DRL option
IS free and there are very few takers of that free option. The Chryslers
and BMW's have a "off" position in addition to a "auto" position on their
switch and most people choose the "OFF" position over the "AUTO" position.
How one can tell is if one puts the switch in BMW's to "auto" is that the
DRLs come on...and few BMW's on the road have their DRLs on.

>>> and then claim all of sudden you like one specific GM product, which
>>> has both DRLs and automatic headlights just so you can
>> claim not to hate GM.

You're right on this one. I can't claim to hate the company known as GM.

>> Actually I like the GTO too (now that they added the hood scoop). Not
>> all of a sudden, I've liked Buicks for years.
>
> A few days ago you spewed hatred about GM, specifically for the auto
> headlights and DRLs.

You're right, I "spewed hatred" about the auto headlamps and the DRLs...no
hatred for anything else. Your sentence is correct after the comma.

> Both the Goat and the Buicks have both.

No kidding...really! I still like the cars very much...I just wouldn't own
one for reasons we both know. Sorry you are wrong again.

Didn't you mother play the game "....this one thing is not like the
other..." with you?

>> Now, surely you can separate a like for a product and a dislike for a
>> feature. Can't you?
>
> Yes, I can, provided I don't deem the feature dangerous.

Huh?

>>> Was that a question? Hard to tell with your grammar. In case it was
>>> one: I discount them the same way I discount yours. No references to
>>> claimed documents, hate rants and tainted observations.
>>
>> And you had reverenced documents previously? No, you hadn't.
>> So, what's good for the goose...as they say!
>
> I didn't have to, as I didn't claim support from unreferenced documents.
> If you say 'document X supports my view' like you have done countless
> times, it's your job to reference the document and the passage in it. I
> challenge you to find where I called in external help without a reference.
>
> You really need to enhance your capability to comprehend sentences beyond
> the third word.

You don't say! (3 words)

>>> So far you have claimed that the NHTSA claims DRLs worthless or even
>>> dangerous.
>>
>> No I stated that documents existed at the NHTA site that support what I
>> was stating. Naming the names of studies etc.
>
> 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.

>>> Now all of sudden they don't claim anything because your precious
>>> 'study' went out the window.
>>
>> No, I've claimed that there are elements of DRL implementation that have
>> known/documented problems. (specifically the observation by the Op of
>> this thread is one).
>
> You have claimed that the NHTSA thinks DRLs are dangerous but were unable
> to reference your source.

No, I said there were *studies* and testimonials that have shown problems
with (the current implementation of) DRL's (in addition to benefits). I
didn't use the word "dangerious", but I suppose some people could come to
the conclusion that some of the problems could be dangerious in certain
situations. Since you introduced the word "dangerious" into the discussion,
perhaps you have come to that conclusion yourself and didn't realize it?

> I showed you a study contradicting your view.
> Now all of sudden they only 'have problems', but of course again you are
> incapable of referencing your source. See a pattern?

Yes, I actually do see a pattern.

>> If you remember (and you seem to forget A LOT), I had stated in a
>> previous post that there seems to be some positive aspects to DRLs.
>
> Only after you were proven wrong. And stop your stupid accusations, they
> don't become you.

I will apologize for your misquoting me and forgeting things I've already
stated. How was that?

>> 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? 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. It's one thing
to "cherry pick" only those items that are friendly to your position. It's
quite another to seek the "full body of knowledge" to make a conclusion from
the complete picture. You may still come to the same conclusion you have
now (and that is fine), but the conclusion will have a great deal more merit
and credibility if you consider the negatives with the positives as part of
doing so. The complete study will take several days or weeks worth of
research and reading...which I know you haven't had that much time into it
at this point.

>> 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!

>> But there are other problems that have arisen since DRLs have been
>> intruduced. Some Motocycle accidents are attributed to them, some
>> accidents involving emergency vehicles and funeral processions are
>> attributed to them, etc.
>
> Attributed to them by you, as always without any corroboration and in this
> case even without any claimed observation.

Uh...Huh.

>> There are other clases as well that seem to be negatively impacted with
>> DRLs in the environment compared to before they were. You cited a few
>> specific types of situations where safety gains have been identified.
>
> If safety problems had been identified the referenced document would have
> clearly stated them. I also checked the numbers and aside from funeral
> processions (which are so rare and accidents involving them even more rare
> that they are without any statistical significance) did not find any
> indication that the numbers of any accident type was negatively influenced
> by DRLs.

Uh...huh. One document out of hundreds tells the whole story. Sorry, not
even close.

>> That is only part of the story. To draw conclusions, it's best to have
>> the rest of the picture. So, keep reading and you will get that
>> *complete* picture (positives and negatives). Remember, you said you
>> were unaware of any negative aspects of DRL's. There are hundreds of
>> documents at the site I provided that can give you that insight you
>> indicated that you lacked.
>
> I have the insight _you_ lack. You are incapable of comprehending
> scientific texts, claim total nonsense that is supposedly in them and
> turns out to be missing after all, post wild speculations without any
> supporting evidence and when you are proven wrong you jump to another
> angle of attack and start the 'game' anew. People like you work for the
> National Enquirer and the Weekly World News.
>
>> 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 have shown a document supporting my view (even though I did not
>>> constantly claim that the document exists).
>>
>> True, you kept making claims without citing any document...
>
> 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!

>> Then you didn't look very hard. Visit Docket 17243 & 4124. And
>> please..while you're in those dockets, please add your minority view to
>> them so that there is at least some balance to your postion there!
>
> 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? You already know my position...nothing new to gain there.
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.

> Now get your ego under control and post reference to the scientific data,
> that you claim to have concerning the dangers of DRLs.

There is that danger word again. The word is "issues". You seem to have
come to the danger conclusion yourself.

>> If it hadn't been for me egging you on, you wouldn't have finally found
>> your document.
>
> You didn't egg me on, you were desperately hoping I wouldn't call your
> bluff.

Why would I hope (or even expect) anything one way or the other? It was
competely up to you to begin your research using the links and references I
provides (which is actually quite amazing that were able to use reference
links that you stated I didn't even post and was subsiguently able to find
information as a result..how is that possible?).

>> So, what's the beef?
>
> The beef is that you are too uneducated or too stupid to reference your
> claimed evidence. And spare me your patronizing. You screwed up and you
> know it, even though you still desperately hope others don't notice.

Ah, again with the names. I'm fine with what ever anyone else notices or
the conclusions one might derived from this conversation...positive of me or
negative. It really matters not in the slightest in the overall scheme of
things. The world will go on. The day will be anew again tomorrow. People
are free to conclude what they choose to.

>> If you visit, you may indeed fine it a "hellhole". However, I fail to
>> understand how you come to the conclusion you come to without forst
>> having visited and seen everyting else it has to offer.
>
> Thanks, not interested. Closed-minded people like you and brightly lit
> ground fog depress me.

You don't say! Well, you may be missing a nice place...open your mind to
the rest it has to offer and you might see something different from the
whole picture.

>>> They would notice that the instrument panel lighting turns off, for
>>> example. Of course that requires a minimum of attention, which explains
>>> why you have problems with it.
>>
>> Explained in a earlier post where instrument panel lighting is too dim
>> to see on many vehicles in those lighting conditions. But you again
>> missed it.
>
> The instrument panel lighting in just about any car is adjustable. I have
> mine on pretty low intensity because I like it that way.

Me too.

> 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.

> If you don't either your
> instrument panel lights are too dim or you are.

Oh the names again. And a new one this time....dim. Very good!

>>> Bright enough to obscure the dash lights and snowing at the same time
>>> is very rare in my experience and I love snow sports. I snowboard, ride
>>> snowmobiles and I have logged enough miles in wintery conditions to
>>> know that if it is bright enough that the dash light gets obscured the
>>> visibility almost invariably is good enough that the headlights are not
>>> needed.
>>
>> Not here, apparently.
>
> That's not a problem of the dashboard lights but of their intensity
> setting and your vision.

Nope, I have annual eye exams...vision is very good. Or are you a eye
doctor too? Truly amazing fella, this Chis person! Multi talented and
knowledgeable about everything, it seems. He can even makes vision
diagnoses from afar without instruments. Cool!

>>> I have no idea what 'most all cars' are, but in all the DRL/auto
>>> headlight cars I have driven to date I was able to see the dash
>>> lighting when lights were warranted. Maybe your eyes are bad, maybe you
>>> are just too unobservant to safely drive a car, in any case you are a
>>> hazard for others.
>>
>> My eyes were fine at my last eye exam. Perhaps, I have my dash lights
>> dimmed down more than you do to reduce night driving glare?
>
> Mine are dimmed down pretty far. And still I can see the lighting when I
> need it.

And that may be true with your particular car perhaps.

>>> You were the one, who repeatedly claimed that bright sunlight makes
>>> impossible for you to see the dash light needed because of the
>>> snowfall.
>>
>> I used "bright daytime snowstorm", not "bright sunlit snowstorm".
>
> In bright daytime snowstorms the light is almost always not sufficient to
> trigger the auto headlights to off.

Totally incorrect. They are almost always off (some exception). Others
observe the same thing. But we've been down this road.

>>> Thanks for admitting that one of your claimed 'auto headlight doesn't
>>> work' situations is just nonsense.
>>
>> I've not said they didn't work correctly at night. That's the only time
>> you can be assured that they work properly. The other times they are
>> required, it's a crap shoot.
>
> 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! I'd get the cops out to give out tickets. What a revenue
opportunity for the local government!

> But from my experience even heavy rain/overcast with fog/daytime snowfall
> usually
> triggers the system.

Yes we know. And no one elses observation counts because everyone else
hates GM cars. That does explain thigs away, even if it's quite irrational.
I guess GM going to have a hard time selling cars if they keep doing things
that make people hate them so much, huh? Probably not a good thing...ya
think?

> And as I have driven a whole bunch of different
> auto-headlight models I know that the system works quite well in a wide
> range of GM vehicles. Why yours didn't work (assuming it didn't) is
> between you and your mechanic, resp. GM.

And the observation by many here of the other GM vehicles on the road? Oh
that's right, their made up hatred effects their vision perception. I
forgot.

>>>> So, forget about me for a second...and answer the question as to why
>>>> all of the other people here are wrong too.
>>>
>>> Because they have the same agenda you do.
>>
>> Another assumption. Amazing how you read things that just aren't
>> there...and then actually believe it!
>
> I only read things that are there, unlike you, who often misses things
> that are there and invents things.

So you really can't separate out the dislike of a feature that sucks from
the like of the car itself. The two separate things really are
one-in-the-same to you...huh?

>>> It is cool nowadays to hate GM
>>
>> I don't think it's cool at all!!
>
> Your exclamation mark key is broken.

Not if I pressed it twice, it isn't!! Unless you're a hardware technician
and can diagnose keyboard errors from afar too! Will the level of your
expertise and knowledge ever cease? You are one amazing person, but somehow
I have a feeling you know that already.

>> I'm ****ed about it.
>
> Then why do you spew hate rants about GM?

I don't. I "spew" "hate rants" about DRLs and auto light controls, that
just so happen to primarily exist on GM vehicles. If they were on Fords, I
would still hate them (but not necessarily the Ford cars they were on). Is
the concept of two separate subjects a little too much? If so, I will type
slower, so maybe you can get it.

> It's funny to see how you have
> toned down your hate though since I pointed it out.

Nope, I still hate DRLs and auto light controls exactly as much today as I
did yesterday (and the day before that, and the day before that).

>> But what ****es me off more is when GM does stuff to deserve it. I
>> want to see Toyota and those other Jap cars wipe GM's butt again. But
>> that will never happen IF GM purposefully aleniates the very customer
>> base they need to get back on top of things.
>
> Farther up in this posting you adore Buick and the Goat and say it is ok
> to adore them even though you don't like a certain feature.

Bingo! Give the man a lollipop! I didn't use the word "adore" by the way.

> Here all of sudden this one feature supposedly costs GM
> all customers. Make up your mind.

I didn't say it cost GM "all" customers. However, if it keeps some
percentage of the customer base from buying the car that they like
otherwise...that will impact sales.

>> You see, when Toyota implemented mandatory DRLs on their 1999 and 2000
>> models, the customer complaints came in (as it did at GM a few years
>> earlier). Toyota quickly switched their position in 2001 and offered
>> DRLs as options. GM should have as well if they want to sell cars and
>> have customers. So who is eating GM's lunch righ now...Toyota is.
>> Duh...I wonder why!
>
> 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.

> 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!

> 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".

> 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.

The alt.autos.gm newsgroup has frequent DRL complainers. I can't explain
why the topic hasen't come up in the Corvette boards.

> 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! :-)

Whacky...another new name from you. I better start a Access database of all
these really neato names you have for people.

>>> and everything they do. Plus some of them (specifically one DS) still
>>> bear a grudge (you should have seen the email DS sent me a few years
>>> ago...).
>>
>> Daniel does seem to carry grudges about certain things from
>> time-to-time.
>
> That's the understatement of the year.

I've seen much worse.

>>> His business is selling lamps. I have searched for the research you
>>> claim he did for the NHTSA and came up empty (what surprise!). I don't
>>> go to the lamp store around the corner to learn the virtues of 220V
>>> electrical systems and I don't deem a lamp salesman more trustworthy
>>> than the NHTSA - the NHTSA, that clearly says 'DRLs reduce fatalities'
>>> contrary to your claims that it finds DRLs unsafe.
>>
>> Then you have more reading to do to get the complete picture. You only
>> have a little piece of information and then using that to make
>> broad/sweeping conclusions (what a surprise).
>
> 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!

>>>> And you have that option...as it should be.
>>>
>>> In case of ATs, that very often guess wrong, one certainly should have
>>> the option.
>>
>> Then we agree options are good things.
>
> 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.

> With the AT on the other hand oftentimes the system should upshift and
> doesn't and there is no way to force it. It also should downshift in some
> situations and doesn't react immediately to the lever being moved.
>
>>> And in your car you also have the option, that's what the light switch
>>> is for.
>>
>> Then tell us how to switch the lights off.
>
> 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. I've stated lights must be on
in many traffic/road/weather conditions (or are you forgetting stuff again).
People DO have other situations and uses for their cars that does require
lights to be out on occastion. Courtesy at camp grounds, for example and
the other examples I gave. Surely you don't like to purposefully annoy
people, do you? Hmmmm....

>> If there were a real switch, that option would exist. It doesn't.
>
> There is a very real switch, that switches between 'auto' and 'on'.
>
>>> That the automatic system switches on headlights when it shouldn't
>>> almost never happens,
>>
>> Wooded tree canopy, underpasses, etc. are examples where almost never
>> are not a good words to use there...I see that happen every day.
>
> Weird, that this problem only seems to exist for people, who don't have
> auto-headlights. My lights come on in longer tunnels (>5s) and they
> should.
> They come on in dense forest, and they should. Otherwise they stay
> off.

Uh...huh.

>>> which is why the light switch doesn't need an 'off' position.
>>
>> Then why does every other manufacture provide one?
>
> Because there are always some vocal whackjobs, who threaten not to buy the
> precious car if they don't get 'full control'.

Another one for the database..."whackjob". You know it's beed 40 years
since I've seen use of such a vocabulary.

>> Apparently everyone else thinks otherwise. Plus, if you're a camper,
>
> 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?

> a private investigator,
>
> 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.

>> waiting outside a restaurant shining lights on people inside,
>
> Switch off the engine.

At 90 degrees out, not likely.

>> a astrology club member,
>
> That at least explains where you get your 'info' from...
>
> But be assured that the tarot cards and the tea leaves don't care whether
> you have your car lights on or not.
>
>> 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?

>> or simply want to avoid distrubing your sleeping family when pulling
>> into the driveway late...some people need a OFF switch sometimes.
>
> 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%. I can throw out numbers to.
I haven't seen a person driving at night without their lights in a very long
time. I doubt it's even 1%. But since neither one of us have any documents
to back up either figure, we'll let the people that read this make up their
own from their observations and then draw their own conclusions from that.
Works for me. Oh wait, they all hate GM, so they don't have the powers of
observation as a result. I keep forgetting about that!

>>> It has an 'on' position though, which enables you to switch on the
>>> headlights in your claimed brightly lit fog or your torrential rain
>>> from sunny skies.
>>
>> Yes, and I already said that I would manualy position my switch to "on"
>> when leaving for work on a foggy morning *even when* my lights were
>> already on so that they would not switch themselves off by themselves
>> during the trip as they often did.
>
> And did you overwork your wrist switching the light on manually? Did your
> light switch break because of all the usage?

No, the wrist and switch were fine. Thanks for asking.

>> All of which is damn silly to have to do with a auto system.
>
> 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. But in the mountains of
western Maryland and Pennsylvania where I drive occasionally, I don't see
that many brake lights when following cars on down hill grades. So I think
most people must be downshifting to hold back "run-away" speed. But
honestly, I don't know one way or the other. Sounds like you have the
answer though! Wouldn't this be a possible issue regardless of what type
of transmission one has? At least with the auto transmission, it does
handle the downshift when in cruise control (at least Chrysler's does).

>> I already understand this...again! The average driver apparently
>> doesn't.

> The average driver wouldn't use headlights in these situations without the
> automatic system either. But at least the DRLs provide some visibility and
> the automatic system at least prevents that the bozo drives around without
> light at night.

Uh...huh.

>>>> Yikes, I had no idea I had a folllowing! I know now you're imagining
>>>> things! ;-)
>>>
>>> You have that wannabe-chemist with his ratty old Audi...
>>
>> Well, I'd better start a official club then. ;-) I'll set up a PayPal
>> account so I can collect membership fees!
>
> I doubt paypal ships fallen-off Audi parts.

I wouldn't be so sure. :-)

>> New names I hadn't sen before. "Wannabe" and "ratty". You like giving
>> people and objects interesting names, I take it.
>
> If you have never seen 'wannabe' your hellhole must be even more remote
> than I thought.

I've seen it before, it was just new from you. And there was some new ones
from you in this post...my database is getting full!

>>> They shift wrong for just about any style of driving. Some people
>>> notice that, others don't. Your claim, that it shifts right in 999 of
>>> 1000 situations is preposterous either way.
>>
>> Exaggeration noted (on both our parts) ;-) Auto trannys really do work
>> fine for the average person.
>
> Like the Jetta in front of me that stunk to high heaven at the bottom of a
> 10 mile grade because he was to stupid to downshift...

You know as well as I do that drivers of both auto and manual trannys don't
always downshift when going down a steep grade. The situation isn't just
with automatics. He'll learn when he has to do a brake job ever 10K miles.

>> 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. And those numbers are within the lower 48 states alone. Add in
the rest off the world and...well you get the point. There is a fuel and
envirnment cost to implementing DRLs So, what is your point, exactly. If
you're worried about fuel consumption and air quality in regards to why auto
trannys are not a good thing, then (using that arguement) DRLs are far from
being a good thing either!

Now of course, if you had continued your research instead of stopping at the
first "yippie, I found what I wanted" document, you would have found this
information as well and would not have posted this reference to fuel
consumption that just backfired on you.

Makes one wonder what other important information about DRLs you missed in
your research, doesn't it?

>>> You were the one who claimed snow and bright sunlight as a situation,
>>> where he can't see the dashboard lighting. I merely stated that this
>>> situation practically never happens. Please don't try to pin your
>>> mistakes on me.
>>
>> Looks like a misunderstanding of terminology. I had stated "a bright
>> daytime snow storm" (no mention of "sunlight" at all). But no problem.
>
> No change here. Heavy overcast (which almost always is associated with a
> snowstorm and the light absorption effect of the snow itself usually drops
> light intensity deep into 'auto-on' territory.

Uh...huh.

>>> Again, that may or may not be true for your area but it is a very rare
>>> phenomenon.
>>
>> Hope you never move to Florida, the southeast or the south then. You'll
>> be wearing out that override switch to compensate for the failures of
>> the auto system quite often there. It might even make you start to
>> wonder "just what is the point of this blasted auto thing that doesn't
>> work?"
>> :-)
>
> Even if it was, the majority of Americans and the majority of the area of
> the USA are not within your supposed freak-weather zone. In other words,
> the system works just about everywhere, except of a few hours on a few
> days in a few areas.

Uh..huh.

>> I claim auto headlamps don't work as most people expect and assume they
>> do. Dangerious? Well, I would go so far as to say that the create a
>> situation where lights aren't on when they should be. I don't know how
>> dangerious that is, but it could sure get one a ticket. I don't
>> remember using the word dangerious in this thread. If I did, I
>> misspoke.
>
> Sure...
>
>> 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.

> In my book that is quite some
> benefit. Show me any other measure that has caused a reduction of
> fatalities of 20+% of any specific accident type.

Yes, if the numbers weren't offset elsewhere, it would be quite amazing
indeed!

>> Like the ABS insurance data, the insurance data is similar with DRL.
>> Little to know difference in loss charistics between DRL equipped
>> vehicles and non DRL equipped vehicles. Keep reading...you'll find
>> balanced information.
>
> I already have balanced information, unlike you, who merely has claims
> about supposed locations of possible studies that maybe have paragraphs of
> information supporting your claim.

Uh...huh.

>>> Maybe you really have lived in your foggy hellhole all life. I doubt it
>>> but it certainly is possible. In this case be advised that there is a
>>> world beyond the horizon seen from your place. If not you know as well
>>> as I do that your brightly lit fog is a very rare phenomenon.
>>
>> Another name. "Hellhole". And that conclusion was derived from...?
>
> A place that has brightly lit ground fog most of the time and closed
> minded people like you sounds like a hellhole to me.

One makes such grand assumptions on so little overall information.

>>> And if you find a phenomenon like that nothing is easier than just
>>> turning the switch and turning on the headlights manually. That's what
>>> your 'choice' of manual override is for.
>>
>> 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.

> And I am sure your light-switch-wrist was
> covered under health insurance...

Medical diagnosis now. Truly remarkable. Is there anything you don't know?

>> Clearly I understand that I had to use the ON position far too often
>> (as I have said many times I would do) for any system to claim to be
>> "automatic".
>
> The definition of automatic is that the system does operations by itself
> based on a parameter set. The automatic headlight system does that, so it
> is an automatic system. There is no automatic system in the world, that
> does, what it's human 'master' wants it to do instead of what its
> parameter set tells it to do. If you were an engineer or even moderately
> tech savvy you would know that.

Not if it fails frequently on many of the requirements for proper control
where manual intervention is often required. A system like that is virtualy
useless, at least to the person that doesn't need it anyway.

>>> I said 'the norm', not 'occurring in some places'. And again for these
>>> rarely occurring conditions, the override switch is to the left of your
>>> wheel.
>>
>> I wrote "many places". You then reply "some places". Interesting
>> translation.
>
> I tried to decrease the embarrassment factor for you a little bit.

I appreciate that.

>> By the way, low laying fog occurs in valleys too.
>> IF the system works as you say it does, lights would go on when driving
>> through low valley areas and go of when at the tops of hills (and out of
>> the fog).
>
> 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). According to 223REM, his observation has also
been made in Georgia. So, we now have Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, The Carolinas, Georgia and Florida where
this is observed quite often. Yep, that sounds like a small area of the
country to me! And I bet that isn't all the places this happens.

> 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.

> A system that has a rain sensor in addition to that to make sure the
> lights are on in torrential rain is more complicated and less useful,
> because torrential rain with sunshine is rare in relation to nighttime.

> A fog sensor in addition to that to make sure the light goes on in fog
> beyond a certain density is even more complicated by a large factor,

Yes, I agree. Still no excuse for installing a half-baked system that
doesn't work properly and billing it as something that does work properly.

> even more expensive and given the fact that brightly lit fog
> is quite rare is simply not feasible.

Yes, right, it's rare. Sure it is.

>> In areas of the country where one drives up and down hills all the time,
>> that would sure be annoying as the lights keep cycling. Yes I know,
>> just hit the ON switch...which means the Auto system is of little value
>> then.

> I thought you don't even notice when your lights go on and off
> (-> you
> cant see your dashboard lights and have to stare at the radio to notice at
> all)?

That's right. The radio (and odo) is how you can tell. Said that many
times already. So, your point is?

>>>> It was the Op of this thread that posted the observation that mostly
>>>> GM vehicles only (compared to others) were driving with their lights
>>>> off during a torrential rain in northern Michigan. I only added that
>>>> we have seen smilar situations ocurr here in Maryland as well. I
>>>> don't remember him saying that the sun was out during the rain storm
>>>> though.
>>>
>>> Sure, and the moon was shining brightly at the same time...
>>
>> Not that I've said anything about the moon previously, but that is
>> possible. If you've never seen the moon out in the middle of the day,
>> you must not be observent enough to drive.
>
> I have observed the moon in the middle of the day, but so far it never has
> influenced my decision of whether to switch on my headlights or not nor
> has it triggered my automatic system. I also avoid looking at the moon
> while driving because distractions are bad for safety. If you are staring
> at the moon during daytime, of course, that explains why you are having
> problems seeing your dashboard lights.

That was truly pathetic. Surely you can do beter than that? Oh that's
right...humor sensor problem.

>>> I have been through many rainstorms (around here we have a lengthy
>>> rainy season) and my headlights almost always turn on automatically as
>>> the first few other other cars turn theirs on.
>>
>> Utterly amazing..I have to say. I gues REM223 was all wet with his
>> observation then (pun intended).
>
> What did the quoted sentence have to dow ith rem223 or the moisture level
> of his clothing?

223REM made his observation during a rain storm...thus you basically have
been claiming he is all wet (as the old saying goes). Seemed funny at the
time.

>> Actually, light conditions can be different with sudden storms compared
>> to prolonged rain events you say you have. Sudden storms can have a
>> small "storm cloud" surrounded by a clear sky,
>
> When the storm cloud is overhead the light intensity still goes down far
> enough to trigger the headlights.

Completely wrong. In this case, they never trigger, the sun is usually
still out full tilt during this type of rain storm.

>> Although, that is probably not very common in Michigan.
>
> And who said anything about Michigan?

223REM did. His original observation was in Michigan. Did you forget?

>> A prolonged rain event tyically has cloud cover from horizon to
>> horizon, blocking more light. The auto light system seems to work more
>> reliably with prolonged rain events, but still not close to 100% of the
>> time. It almost never worked with the "sudden downpour" scenario.
>
> Weird, mine does.

Yes, weird.

>>> It means that aside from rare brightly lit foggy conditions the car is
>>> going to do a very good job to determine, whether the lights should be
>>> on or off. A much better job than the average driving bozo.
>>
>> So far you are the only one here that believes that. Invitation to
>> others to join Chris' position in this debate is officially extended.
>> Yes I know, everybody hates GM (utter nonsense).
>
> Your position has not been supported since DS jumped ship either. So ...

You've replied to other people on side-threads on this topic since then.
Did you forget?

>>> Yes, it is. Because the average bloke doesn't become philosophical
>>> about a system, that almost always guesses right and in addition to
>>> that leaves you a way to override it when you really need to.
>>
>> They'd better damn well get philosophical about the system in order for
>> them to have even a remote chance at a clue to when it isn't working (or
>> understand the many circumstances when it likely will fail)!
>
> Brightly lit fog is a rare condition, so is torrential rain from a tiny
> storm cloud. Of course, if someone has fog in his brain, whether induced
> by substances or simple personal density that may change their
> perception...

Yes, rare. Right.

>>> ... and leads to cars driving around in town at night without
>>> headlights, because it simply didn't occur to the driver, that the
>>> orange streetlights are no replacement for daylight.
>>
>> Yes that can happen, no question. Even without orange streetlights.
>
> It can happen and it does happen very frequently unlike your brightly lit
> fog.

Yes, frequently, sure it does.

>> Give them tickets and driver training.
>
> Ticketing neither increases safety nor compliance with the law. And driver
> training would be nice but is not going to happen anytime soon. Automatic
> headlights on the other hand are here and reliably eliminate the situation
> of cars driving around without headlights at night.

Yes, reliable, sure it is. Would bet tickets would do more than you think.
And it would train people to do the right thing, vs a nanny system that
de-train (if that was a word) people from doing the right thing.

>> I'd rather knowledgeable drivers than a "automated nanny" (that doesn't
>> work well) watching over them.
>
> 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.

>>>> When in the "OFF" position, lights are off...every time (imagine
>>>> that to!)
>>>
>>> ... even when they should be on because the driver simply forgot to
>>> turn them on or doesn't know that they should be on in the given
>>> situation.
>>
>> Yes, that can and does happen.
>
> ... 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.

>>>> Much simplier for the average bloke to understand compared to "Auto",
>>>> don't you agree?
>>>
>>> No, just much more potential to have them on or off at the wrong time.
>>
>> Personally I see far more numbers of GM vehicles without lights in
>> fog/snow than I do other brand vehicles without lights at night.
>
> An observation, that only exists in your fantasy because you needed
> something to justify your hatred for DRLs and automatic headlights.

Yes, your conclusions to mask reality duly noted.

>> That gives the potential for incorrect use score advantage to the
>> manual system over the auto system.
>
> GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out.

It really is a simple enumeration. Colums and tick marks. Hardly a chance
for significant error in the data.

>>> I don't think there is a driver out there, who has never forgotten the
>>> headlights in any situation, including you.
>>
>> Perhapes I've forgotten when I've forgotten.
>
> Then why did you claim you haven't?

Sort of a silly question, don't you think. I'll rephraise and type slower
this time. I don't remember forgetting to turn on my lights before...I'm
reasonably certain that I'd remember something like that since I'd would
have been quite startled by it).

>> Honestly, I don't remember a single time.
>
> ... which only shows that you lack the focus necessary for both driving a
> motor vehicle and for the observations you claim to have made.

I guess lady luck, the fairy godmother and so on theory again, huh?

>> I go through a mental checklist routine before
>> pulling off...lights happen to be on my mental list.
>
> And you never got into a situation where you had to switch on or off your
> lights during a drive? ROTFL.

Of course. How is that related to a start up procedure though?

>>>> there should be a disable option offered by GM.
>>>
>>> I disagree. If all cars had automatic headlights the number of
>>> headlights being off when they should be on and vice versa would
>>> drastically drop.
>>
>> 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...but what is odd is that it was only the people
that drove the GM vehicles. Yikes, that means that the annoyance of the
damn auto light system is creating alcoholics out of them! :-)

>> I didn't give you the results, only the summary. Here they are
>> (roughly): 70-75% (depending on the day) of non GMs had lights on in
>> the fog/rain while only 20%-30% of the GM vehicles did.
>
> 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.

>> Now the interesting question I would love to have a answer to. Of the
>> 20%-30% of the GM's that had their lights on, how many were on because
>> the auto system turned them on and how many were on because the driver
>> manually turned them on.
>
> 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.

>> Funny also how you would rely on the auto system if you say that you
>> have more confidence in your ability over said system. How is that
>> possible you would put control on a system that you have less confidence
>> in than your own abilities? Doesn't make sense.
>
> I also have confidence in my ability to build a TV set if I choose so. I
> still buy one in the store because I appreciate the comfort of not having
> to solder it together myself. The automatic system works almost always. I
> override it when necessary (rarely). End of story.

I was just curious. I didn't realize that manually controlling the lights
was similar to the the level of effort to build a TV set. I guess if I had
that much trouble with light control, I'd opt for the easy way out too.

>>> The issue seems so pervasive that the NHTSA stated in a recent study
>>> that between 5% and 25% of fatalities, depending on accident type, are
>>> prevented by DRLs.
>>
>> You were reading references to studies. Keep reading.
>
> I am more than willing to once you reference them properly.

You mean the references I provided that you already used to get the
information you found? Those references?

>> The 1997 HLDI study showed a 8% increase in accidents.
>
> Then it's fortunate that the newer studies show a decrease. And btw,
> throwing around acronyms is _NOT_ referencing.

I spelled it out once. It's common to use a acronym for a subsiquent
folow-on reference. However, since you forgot it's the Highway Loss Data
Institute (HLDI), that is the name. It is interesting that that
organization recently stopped referencing their own 1997 study.

>> The fact is that yes DRLs (current implementation) has benefits. It
>> also has some fairly significant problems too. What is hoped is
>> that a better DRL implementation comes out to reduce or mitigate the
>> identified problem areas. Now, perhaps they've made some progress there
>> lately.
>
>> BTW: the last I checked, there wasn't any data available yet on the
>> potential that introducing turn signal based DRLs into the driving
>> environment might create signaling ambiguity.
>
> I know that some people with short attention spans and the trigger happy
> driving style of a ricer in a 1992 Honda Civic have a problem because they
> see a flash and turn in front of the oncoming traffic because they think
> the other car will also turn, but any halfway intelligent person does
> _not_ rely on one flash of a turn signal. The more so as in the last few
> years misuse of turn signals has far eclipsed their proper use.

Amazing, you should work for the NHTSA. You figure out things so
quickly...much faster than any of the professionals that are working on this
subject do!

>> I believe you mentioned that those are the types of DRLs you have.
>
> Yes, they are.
>
>> No one (no, not even you) knows if that is a problem or not.
>
> I know it is not a problem for me. F- and Y-Bodies (Camaro/Firebird and
> Corvette) both with amber DRLs are quite abundant around here and I never
> had a problem determining whether they are signaling or not. Other drivers
> don't seem to have a problem with my car either.

And that may be the case...that it isn't a problem. If so, the type of
light they produce is far more preferable to the headlamp and hi-beam
versions.

>>> And still rare weather phenomena, limited to a small part of the US and
>>> a small part of the day.
>>
>> First, mornings are a time where traffic is heavy with commuters.
>> Second, mornings are the time this atmospheric condition most often
>> occurs Third, That area is the most heavily populated area of the
>> country
>
> 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.

>> Fourth, is is far from "rare"...unless comparing to night.
>
> Areas with frequent brightly lit ground fog are very small in relation to
> the area of the US.
>> Interestng too that would consider the south and southeast a "small
>> part" of the US.
>
> If you are seriously trying to tell me that the south and souteast are
> covered with brightly lit fog every day I should probably hook you up with
> Judy Diarrhea, s/he makes about as much sense.

Who said "every day"? Not I. I said "frequently".

>>> I thought your car was newer than mine? So if it triggered even faster
>>> than mine you surely never had that problem, that I don't even have.
>>
>> I didn't say my car had the problem...the lights came on fairly quickly
>> (about 5-6 seconds after sensing darkness). What I said was that
>> problem had been observed to occur with other cars pulling out from well
>> lit gas stations.
>
> 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.

>>> Btw, on my car (and all other GM cars with automatic headlights) the
>>> headlights turn on immediately when the driver starts the engine and
>>> the sensor doesn't get enough light to make driving without lights
>>> feasible,
>>
>> 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?

> Your explanation still doesn't hold up.

How so?

>>> which is the case even under a seemingly brightly lit gas station
>>> canopy.
>>
>> Not always. Sometimes mine didn't come on until 5-6- seconds after I
>> pull out from under the canopy...
>
> Which supports my assertion that your system simply was defective.

Yes, I agree, it was defective. Just like the other GM cars on the road
with me doing virtually the same thing. I sure hope the line wasn't too
long at the light sensor repair bay at the dealership. I bet they ran out
of replacement sensors too. Thay may have had to add a second or third bay
to accommodate all those defective sensors.

>> which was sufficient before entering the freeway. Perhaps the position
>> I parked at the pumps in relation to one of the light fixtures? Don't
>> know.
>
> 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.

> 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.

>>>> But they are apparently "more stupid" when driving a car equipped with
>>>> DRL's.
>>>
>>> No, they just seem more stupid to you because of your hatred.
>>
>> Addressed earlier. No hatred...would love to get the GTO...
>
> Hatred (for GM) and envy (for a specific car you like). A truly unique
> combination...

Yes. It's just like forbidden love, isn't it? Where is Willaim Shakesphere
when you need a good play written of a modern tragedy anyway?

>> It won't happen unless GM gives me control (total control) of my lights
>> though...and maybe knocks the price down closer to the Mustang.
>
> 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?

>>> If your headlighs are clearly visible in the car in front of you in
>>> torrential rain or brightly lit fog, you are following too close,
>>> considering near-flooded or slick streets.
>>
>> So, I should stop 500 feet back from others waiting at stop lights and
>> leave 500 feet distance when in 5MPH traffic jambs? I assure you, you
>> would be the one to honk at anyone that does that! I bet you might even
>> feel good about calling them one of your names that make them cry.
>
> In a traffic jam or stop-and-go the question of whether the headlights are
> on or not is truly irrelevant.

Huh? The law says they're required at night, so mine will be on.

> If you are only 5 feet from the car in
> front of you, you should be able to see it regardless of whether its
> lights are on, even at night.

I'm simply answering the question of how one typically can see the
reflection of the DRLs in the car in front of them. Nothing more than that.
Surely you aren't advocating no lights at night simpley because one is in a
traffic jamb?

>>> For someone, who claims experience in fog you have remarkably little
>>> knowledge about the minimal visibility of regular taillights in foggy
>>> conditions. This is why in Europe cars have rear foglights, that are as
>>> bright as brakelights.
>>>
>> Those would be better, but even the dim red running lights show through
>> fog better than nothing. The seem to help quite a bit from my
>> experience.
>
> From my experience they don't. Now what?

Follow the law then, they are required to be on in those conditions.

>>> No. Adjusting speed to conditions helps.
>>
>> Of course, but then you increase the risk of getting rear ended by the
>> person coming up behind at too high a rate of speed, but that's another
>> topic. :-)
>
> As you have your lights on because you are such a good driver and your
> lights make you oh so visible in fog, that shouldn't be a problem.

So far it has worked.

>>> Also pileups practically never occur on two-lane roads, where
>>> overtaking is a problem.
>>
>> Not sure that is true, but I honestly don't know. Do you have a source
>> for that?
>
> Read the newspapers.
>>>> They why do they mostly occur in fog conditions?
>>>
>>> Improper speed and distance.
>>
>> Even dim red running lights add some margin that helps some.
>
> No. I usually am able to make out the shape of the car before seeing
> its taillights, especially in brightly lit fog.
>
>> Proper speed and distance, yes (but the topic is lighting, so a side
>> item).
>
> The topic doesn't change the fact that improper speed and distance are
> always factors in multi vehicle accidents, whereas lighting practically
> never is.
>
>>> Did I mention improper speed and distance?
>>
>> Yes, but I'm still going to do some reading on this out of curiosity. I
>> would imagine that the mechanics have other items that contribute to
>> these situations in addition to failure to keep proper speed and
>> distance. It would be interesting to see how often there was a
>> mechanical problem, or a medical issue, or whatever else as a percentage
>> of causes.
>
> A single or two-vehicle accident can have many causes. A multi vehicle
> accident only has speed and distance, regardless of what caused the one
> accident that started the chain reaction. In other words, if you crash
> into an accident site it is your fault for improper speed and/or distance.
> Come to think of it, your reliance on taillights may contribute to your
> higher risk of getting into one of these.

How so? I don't drive any faster since many of the GM cars don't have their
lights on. ;-)

>>> In fog taillights are next to useless, the only thing that helps is a
>>> rear foglight because it penetrates the fog much farther than standard
>>> taillights.
>>
>> As the old saying goes..every little bit helps.
>
> On the contrary. If the lighting really made cars more visible (and rear
> fog lights indeed do) it would make the drivers think that visibility is
> better than it actually is and make them drive faster than conditions
> allow. That phenomenon has indeed been observed in Europe, which is why
> the rear fog lights are not everyone's darling.

Interesting.

>> Even if standard red running lights only adds 20' of margin, that is
>> 20' more distance to react.
>
> No, that's just an excuse to drive 5% faster. In reality it really doesn't
> matter, because in your brightly lit fog the taillights are next to
> invisible.

Interesting.

What does one do about compliance with lighting laws...lights are required
in those cases.

>> That can make a difference in some percentage (albeit perhaps small
>> percentage) of cases. Surely you're not advocating leaving them off?
>
> I am advocating driving at a speed and distance that makes it unnecessary
> for the guy in front of you to have them on.

Well, then they will be out of compliance with lighting laws in that case.

>>> Sure I have. ABS has never been a problem. How do you think you can
>>> trigger a controlled skid without ABS where you can't trigger it with
>>> ABS? A controlled is properly triggered by either the handbrake or the
>>> right pedal (not in your FWD boat of course).
>>
>> FWD does take away a direction control option, no question. I prefer to
>> use the standard brake over the emergency brake for braking control.
>
> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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?

People believe that since the ABS kicked in, it somehow saved them.
Hogwash. Had they had regular brakes, they would have felt the a skid
coming on and pumped or adjusted the pedal pressure intuitively to
compensate to resolve it. It's pretty clear that most people have better
control of braking than thought.

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. They actually do well at avoiding skids with proper brake
control. 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). 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. Thay would know how to use standard brakes and
would think about their lights "every time".

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 just said that you use the hand brake and/or accellerator when added
>> directional control was required. Same thing with a standard (non-ABS)
>> brake. Did that help?
>
> 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).

>> You do have a lot of interisting theories and conclusions as to why
>> things are so, I will say! And I assume you actually believe it too.
>
> 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! :-)

>>> Let me see. Bumped into a parked car at age 18 with a new driver's
>>> license. Was rear ended at a dead stop by some bozo somewhere north of
>>> San Francisco. Lowsided my bike on an almost dried coolant spill,
>>> probably from some oblivious '35 years without accident' gramps. And
>>> was blown off the freeway on black ice in 50mph gusty crosswind with
>>> truck and trailer.
>>
>> I guess my guardian angel must like me more than your guardian angel
>> likes you. What did you do to **** her off? ;-)
>
>> Actually, I don't count rear ends, that wasn't your fault.
>
> 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? 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.

>>> Thats what automatic systems do: Take external parameters to influence
>>> the system in a certain predetermined way.
>>
>> Yes, which leaves out several requirements ("parameters, in your words")
>> necessary for them to be truly "automatic" by common Webster definition
>> of the word (not your definition).
>
> Webster's definition is 'having a self-acting or self-regulating
> mechanism', which amounts to the same as my definition. And by both
> definitions automatic headlights are automatic.

Uh...huh.

>
> Chris