The dangers of DRLs

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, James C. Reeves wrote (about CH):

> > Hey, do you work for GM by any chance?

> I was beginning to wonder the same thing

The symptoms are all there...pervasive, willful cluelessness combined with
cocksure smugness and ignorant delusions of rectitude, coupled with a
consistent pattern of changing the subject whenever a question arises that
might tend to call his "knowledge" into doubt.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Arif Khokar wrote:

> > I'll tell ya - if the wife is gonna make me drive a minivan, at least
> > let me opt out of the damn auto tranny. Especially if it's a DC
> > product.
>
> If you're referring to new model minivans, then you only can get an
> auto.

....in North America.

Elsewhere in the world, you can get your new Chrysler Voyager with a stick
shift (and a CRD engine).

CH wrote:

>
>
> Considering the total engineering disaster that is the Nissan 350Z (google
> for alignment- and tire problems...) I am glad I don't own a Nissan.
>

Are you the same guy who thought that the Camaro was a great car? So
Nissans suck, but the POS boy racers GM puts out are great?

C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:23:07 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > CH wrote:
> >> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:50:03 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> >>
> >> > And a driver not knowing that their car has DRLs or not is a good
> >> > thing?
> >>
> >> In a way, yes. Better than not having DRLs and not knowing that and
> >> still not switching on the lights in bad conditions.
> >
> > But the driver without DRLs is actually more likely to realize his error,
> > as he won't be able to see.
>
> We are talking about rain and fog, where the light does not serve vision
> but visibility. And as long as they see they won't worry about switching
> on their lights.

Which is true for all drivers, whether they have DRLs or not.

>
> >> Most drivers don't even think about things like their DRLs/headlighs
> >> reflecting from the car in front of them as you can clearly see from
> >> the high rate of 'one-eyed' or 'blind' cars on the road.
> >>
> > Well, then, in that case, it should be self-evident that DRLs actually
> > have a negative effect on safety, not a positive one as you claim -
> > since they actually make clueless people less likely to use their lights
> > correctly.
>
> No, it's self evident that the DRLs don't influence their behavior, but
> make their cars at least visible from the more dangerous side and thus
> have a beneficial effect on safety.
>
> Chris

How do you figure that any side is "more dangerous" than any other? I
don't particularly want to run into any of them.

nate

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> > > I'll tell ya - if the wife is gonna make me drive a minivan, at least
> > > let me opt out of the damn auto tranny. Especially if it's a DC
> > > product.
> >
> > If you're referring to new model minivans, then you only can get an
> > auto.
>
> ...in North America.


Yup, that's where I live and drive. I suppose someone out there could
do a conversion, but that sounds, uh, expensive.

> Elsewhere in the world, you can get your new Chrysler Voyager with a stick
> shift (and a CRD engine).

But brain-dead Americans need their slushboxes. Sheesh.

E.P.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:15:52 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "C.H." > wrote in message
> news
>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:27:02 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>> That you are incapable of referencing relevant information fortunately
>> is not my problem. You don't pay me to search 'studies' for you, so I
>> don't see why I should.
>
> Perhaps debating with knowledge beyond your own experience on the subject
> would be a good reason? Just a suggestion. You just might find subject
> matter contained there that supports some of your points, if you would
> bother to take the time to look for it.

I don't mind looking at evidence you present. I do mind hunting for _your_
evidence myself. Even more so as due to your refusal to present it the
likelyhood of it being there at all is about zero.

>> Btw, I hear SCO has an opening for a chief obfuscator and imaginary
>> stolen Linux code specialist, you would fit in splendidly with SCO's 'we
>> know there must be some stolen code in Linux, we just can't find it.',
>> James 'I know there must be some DRL studies on www.nhtsa.gov' Reeves.
>
> Having witnessed your qualifications, I thought you already won that job!
> :-) Why bother to compete with the master and loose! ;-)

I never claimed I had evidence that I don't have, thus I would be
unsuitable for this job, unlike you, who constantly blathers about
supposedly existing evidence he can't present.

What is so hard of just referencing one of the supposed studies in here?

>> The docket management system of the DOT? Interesting but not relevant
>> to the discussion. If you seriously see DRL data on this page, you need
>> new glasses and a lesson in reading comprehension.
>
> Uh....documents are maintained on the "document management system".

You need reading glasses. dms.dot.gov leads to the "Docket Management
System" (cut and pasted from dms.dot.gov).

Better luck with your FUD strategy next time.

>> If they do they will arrive in places that have nothing to do with
>> DRLs. Of course they could start digging but the probability that they
>> do is just about zero, simply because it is the job of the claimant to
>> provide proper references, not the job of the reader.
>
> I am a "reader" too (your term).

Not when you make claims (like the one of documents being 'somewhere
inside the DOT or NHTSA website').

> Since I'm not the Op making the claim, I only contributing to the
> discussion, just like you are.

No, you are making claims, that you cannot support.

> My experience and external knowledge just happen to support the Op's
> initial comment...yours doesn't. That's fine. Perhaps we need 223rem
> to pony up! ;-)

What we need is you to pony up. You made several claims to the existence
of documents, but you are unable to produce them and thus try to
obfuscate your inability. It's exactly like the SCO case, where SCO
claims code was stolen but is unable to actually present it in court.

[if you want an ABS thread, open one]

But it's highly interesting that you were able to post a link there right
way, whereas you are still incapable of presenting a link to your 'studies'.

>> Unlike you I am quite capable of determining whether my lights _are_ on
>> and _should_be_ on, so I don't pull into parking lots on foggy mornings
>> with my lights off.
>
> I obviously understand like you do. So your words "unlike you" is
> missplaced.

Then why do you assert that drivers of DRL equipped cars (of which I am
one) are incable of telling whether their lights are on? The drivers you
are ranting about would not turn on their lights in morning fog with or
without DRLs.

> My ability to tell what vehicle lights were doing is exactly how I
> discovered that auto systems were not reliable under daytime fog/snow
> conditions in particular. Or did you miss the fact that that is how I
> understood what was happening.

I have grave doubts that you are understanding what is happening at all.

> By the way, *you* are the one that claimed "most" people didn't know if
> their car was equipped with DRL's, or if their lights were on or not
> etc. Not me. Now you claim the opposite?

No, I merely claim that the observant ones know, DRLs or no DRLs, whereas
the non-observant ones don't know, DRLs or no DRLs.

>> Maybe your bozo coworkers just need some driving lessons?
>
> I agree with you, to a point. However, apparently bozos primarily buy
> GM vehicles. People driving other brand vehicles pulling into the
> parking lot typically had their lights on (all of them, not just DRLs)
> on foggy mornings (some exception, of course). I submit that the people
> are not the problem (unless you believe that more bozos buy GM brand
> vehicles than other brands...which I don't believe). I submit then that
> it's the lighting control implementation that GM uses that is the core
> problem...it is the only common demonitator here. You disagree...fine
> with me.

I assert that your 'observations' are very heavily biased, to the point of
being worthless. Your demonstrated hate of DRLs and GM products makes you
useless as an observer.

I don't mind driving non-DRL or DRL cars, non-auto headlight cars and
auto-headlight cars, non-GM cars and GM cars. Thus I am relatively
unbiased on this subject. My current car has DRLs and auto headlights and
both work well for me, but if someone has a car without that doesn't make
him worth less in my book. You on the other hand assume that everyone, who
doesn't follow your part of enlightment (or rather non-enlightment as you
rather have lightless bozos than half-lighted bozos) is stupid and needs
to bow down to your perceived superiority.

>> It is not very difficult to see, whether the lights are on or not,
>> neither on non-automatic-headlight cars nor on automatic-headlight
>> cars. (Hint: The instrument panel lighting is only on when the
>> headlights are on)
>
> I've never owned a car with instrument panel lighting that was bright
> enough to tell if illuminated or not in bright daytime fog/snow weather
> conditions. However, one can tell if their radio display has dimmed
> (assuming one hasen't turned them to the full bright detent or looks at
> the radio display frequently). For many cars, there is no sure-fire
> internal visual aid to know lighting status during daylight
> hours...typically dash lights are simply too dim to see in those
> conditions. IF your car turns on it's lights and you can immediately
> see that your dash has lit up as a result, it's waiting WAY too long to
> turn the lights on.

In bright daylight my headlights are off, I know that without checking.
When it is foggy and bright (happens, even though its very rare) I switch
on my headlights manually. And in conditions, where headlights normally
are warranted (overcast with rain, dusk) I am able to see my instrument
panel lighting (or use the radio as you described).

Btw, with snow and bright sunlight using your headlighs is creating the
effect you were ranting about earlier, the headlighs mask the car against
the white snow - unlike my DRLs, which are amber and easy to see in snow.

>> Most GM cars don't need their light control systems serviced.
>
> You are the one that suggested that, given what I and others posting
> here have observed with a fair number of GM vehicles, that the auto
> system needed to be serviced. Now you are saying the opposite (again)?

I merely suggested that if one of them has a defective GM car they need
their car serviced, just as you would service a defective Honda or
Chrysler. As I said above, your observations are tainted, so your
assertion that most of your GM driving coworkers have that problem is
worthless anyway.

>> The system doesn't provide for every eventuality
>
> BINGO! You are correct, of course. The problem is that calling it
> automatic is incorrect because of that.

Why is that? About 100% of all automatic systems don't provide for every
eventuality. A lift won't stop just because you are running towards it
without human interaction. A coke machine has jams. ...

> A better name might be "twilight control" or something more realistic
> to it's capabilities and technical limitations. The word "automatic"
> implies the wrong thing to the people that own the car....it implies
> that it's a totally hands-off system..never needing manual intervention,
> which is quite far from the truth.

What nonsense. Automatic means that they switch on and off when the
automatic system deems it necessary - and in almost all cases it is right
about whether it is necessary or not. In some rare conditions the system
needs intervention, which is understood by almost all people. Your problem
is not the name of the system or that intervention is sometimes necessary
but the fact that you need arguments to support your hate of GM in general
and a few of their features in particular.

>> but is quite a bit more reliable than the average driver.
>
> At dusk/dawn/twilight, I would tend to agree with you.

As most problems with headlight use/non-use are at dusk/dawn/twilight this
is sufficient to make the system useful.

> At dark of night, it's a wash.

Not at all. You should see, how many people around here forget to switch
on their lights at night because the street lighting is quite bright in
most areas.

> During the atmospheric conditions that limit visability during bright
> daytime situations, I disagree very strongly...

When it is overcast and gloomy/rainy my headlights switch on during the
day too. Often before most other drivers have theirs on.

> it is far less reliable than the typical driver is (at least the
> drivers that drive a car with totally manual controls so that they are
> used to being in complete charge of the lights).

The typical driver of a 'manually controlled' car switches on their lights
when a significant number of oncoming cars have their lights on (i.e. all
the smart drivers have switched their lights on). Same for the typical
driver of a DRL/auto-headlight car.

>> I prefer a few bozos without taillights in fog to the same bozos
>> without DRLs _and_ taillights in fog.
>
> I don't see much difference between the two.

I do. Oncoming traffic is 'closing on you' much faster than you are
closing on traffic going the same way, giving you more time to see a car
headed in your direction than one going the other way.

> Both are dangerious stuations.

Your closing on traffic going the other way is not dangerous unless you
are driving too fast for conditions. The oncoming traffic is a different
matter, as you cannot control their speed. Thus seeing an oncoming car may
be essential for your safety whereas a car going in your direction is
easily visible in time unless you are driving too fast.

> However, when DRL/Auto equipped cars are more likely to have the tail
> lights off, I believe that increases risk unnecessarily.

Only if you are too stupid to adjust your speed to conditions. What do you
to, for instance, if an unlighted obstacle is in your path?

The reason, why oncoming cars have to be visible earlier than cars going
the same direction is because _they_ may be too fast for conditions.

> (the HLDI data and insurance loss data shows higher rear-end colisions
> with DRL equipped cars demonstrating that added risk is real).

I am sure you are going to ignore my request for a reference again...

> Fortunately there are a people working on fixing issues like that
> (supposedly). The fix will likely require a different DRL design and
> implelentation AND very different auto headlamp control technology (that
> actually works properly...IF that is even possible)

It is impossible to take all responsibility for a driver. Some systems
support him (power steering, power brakes, ABS, DRLs, and so on). None of
these systems is 100% perfect. Your assertion that DRLs or auto headlights
need to be 100% perfect to be useful is simply nonsense.

>> [Daniel Stern adoration snipped]
>>
>> If DS has a gripe with me he should gather his courage and confront me
>> instead of sending his sidekick to defend him.
>>
> I believe he did address you directly.

Then why your unfocused adoration of him in this thread?

> I sure don't defend the outburst, and have stated as such here (did you
> miss that too?!). Daniel does know his stuff however. No one can take
> that away.

I know quite a few people, who are good in their field and utterly fail to
make this knowledge work for them because they have anger and arrogance
issues. DS is one of them. If I want to know about lighting I go elsewhere
because with the other guys I don't have to sort through their personality
problems before accessing the info.

> His credibility on the topic surpasses either of us, that's for sure!

His credibility is about as low as yours, because he didn't post
references to info he claims to have either.

If I want to know what bulbs go into my car's headlights I might use his
'knowledge' if I didn't already know. For DRL and auto-headlight info his
bias makes his knowledge useless.

Chris

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:27:09 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
> tems serviced under warranty...yes?
>>
>> Most GM cars don't need their light control systems serviced. The system
>> doesn't provide for every eventuality but is quite a bit more reliable
>> than the average driver).
>
> Nonsense. The average driver forgets to turn on his tail lights in DRL
> equipped cars in low visibility conditions during the day.

The average driver forgets to turn on his head- and taillights in non-DRL
equipped cars in low visibility conditions during the day.

>> I prefer a few bozos without taillights in fog to the same bozos without
>> DRLs _and_ taillights in fog.
>
> DRLs and no taillights in fog is a much more frequent combo than
> completely dark vehicles.
>
> Hey, do you work for GM by any chance?

No. And I like both GM and non-GM cars, even cars with and without DRLs
and with and without auto headlights. No bias there, sorry.

Chris

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:34:35 -0700, N8N wrote:

>
>
> C.H. wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:23:07 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>
>> > But the driver without DRLs is actually more likely to realize his
>> > error, as he won't be able to see.
>>
>> We are talking about rain and fog, where the light does not serve vision
>> but visibility. And as long as they see they won't worry about switching
>> on their lights.
>
> Which is true for all drivers, whether they have DRLs or not.

Thanks for making my point, Nate. The difference is that in DRL equipped
cars you at least see the headlights (i.e. oncoming traffic) early,
whereas you are responsible to adjust your speed to seeing the traffic
going your way in time anyway. If you guys really have to rely on the
car's taillights to tell whether there is an obstacle or not, you are much
too fast for conditions.

>> No, it's self evident that the DRLs don't influence their behavior, but
>> make their cars at least visible from the more dangerous side and thus
>> have a beneficial effect on safety.
>>
> How do you figure that any side is "more dangerous" than any other? I
> don't particularly want to run into any of them.

1) Closing speed is much higher in oncoming traffic (v_x + v_y instead of
v_x - v_y).

2) You have no influence on the speed of the oncoming car, whereas you
have total control on adjusting your speed to conditions in the proper way
(i.e. being able to stop if an unlighted obstacle is in your path), be it
a branch, a person or a car without taillights on.

Chris

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:28:05 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:30:38 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>
>>>You actually think I'm going to turn down a free car, insurance, and gas
>>>- when I drive 100+ miles a day for work - because of a philosophical
>>>difference of opinion with an auto mfgr.?
>>
>> If you thought it was a safety hazard of the magnitude DS and JR
>> postulate, you would.
>
> You make no sense.

> Clueless people driving a DRL equipped car are a danger because they're
> not visibile from behind in fog or rain.

If your speed is adjusted to conditions you will not have any problem
stopping even behind a stopped car with no taillights (not even taking
into account that a stopped car usually has its brakelights on because
otherwise it will roll forward due to the AT). According to every state's
vehicle code you have to adjust your speed so you can stop safely if an
unlighted obstacle is in your lane. A car moving in the same direction as
you are at a slower speed thus is not a problem unless you are speeding
(i.e. driving too fast for conditions).

> That doesnt mean that a DRL equipped car cannot be driven with the all
> the proper lights on in such conditions.

Nate _claims_ that DRLs are dangerous. If his claim was true and he still
drives a car equipped with the 'dangerous' DRLs he is either stupid (which
I don't believe from what he posts here) or he doesn't really believe in
what he says.

> So why would Nate turn down a GM car again?

Because if he is smart he won't drive a car he deems dangerous.

Chris

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 06:02:10 -0700, N8N wrote:

>
>
> C.H. wrote:

>> If you thought it was a safety hazard of the magnitude DS and JR
>> postulate, you would.
>>
> I think they are both safety hazards, as I've repeatedly stated in this
> group before. It must be nice to be independently wealthy to the point
> that one could do as you suggest.

You can do a great many things. Find another job that doesn't require you
to travel great distances in a dangerous DRL-automobile. Find another job,
that will give you a non-DRL company car. Buy a beater and bill the
company (I have never heard of a company that won't let you use your car
and bill them for mileage). Might actually make you a few bucks.

Chris