I need to cut down this juggernaut some, so I am only gonna comment on the
most important points.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:16:43 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

[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.

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

>>> 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_.

> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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.

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

>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.]

>> 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.
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.

[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...

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.

>> 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.

>> 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! 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

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.

>>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>>> 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'. 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.

[patronizing rant snipped]

[several clueless one-liners snipped: Uh-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.

>>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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...

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.

>> ... 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.

[tons of stupid Reeves one-liners snipped]

>>> 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.

> 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...

>> 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.

>> 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.

[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/

>> 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.

>>> 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.

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

See above.

>> 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.

>> 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.
>> 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.

>> 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.

It is irrelevant from a safety perspective. If you are only 20 feet behind
a car you should be easily able to see it even with its lights off.

>>> 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.

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.

>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

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

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

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.

> People believe that since the ABS kicked in, it somehow saved them.

I had ABS kick in in quite a number of situations. Most of them I would
have gotten through without ABS, at least with my life, in many probably
without even an accident. But I had two situations, in which ABS with a
very high probability saved my life. And I am sure that I am in a better
position to determine that than you are.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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

> 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.

What you and your kids need is some driver training.

>> 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?

>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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?

Chris