A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The dangers of DRLs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old July 12th 05, 03:45 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:14:25 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:

>
>
>>>I see a lot of old people in the car. I suppose the reason is the same
>>>as for Reeves to buy it, namely fear of modern features, specifically
>>>ABS. The Sebring is one of the few midsize cars that still is available
>>>without.

>>
>>You say modern features, I say unnecessary complexity.

>
>
> And I say that keeping a car maneuverable even under heavy braking is not
> unnecessary in the least. Maybe you can come close to ABS performance in
> some emergency conditions, which would put you in the top 5% of drivers.
> Very probably you couldn't.


Depends on the car. In some vehicles, I'm CERTAIN that I could "beat"
the ABS.

>
>>I'd rather spend my $$$ on a car that had good basic systems without
>>electronic band-aids covering up its shortcomings.

>
>
> ABS is not an electronic band aid. ABS covers up a shortcoming all cars
> share, i.e. that the normal brake system is unable to cope with different
> friction at the tires during heavy breaking and with keeping the car
> maneuverable during emergency breaking.


A good car should have a base brake system arranged so that under heavy
braking on a uniform surface, the front wheels lock up slightly before
the rears, and the brake pedal should offer good feedback and easy
modulation. Given those, it's really not that difficult for a good
driver to post decent stopping distances, without loss of control.

>
> Even the best cars profit from ABS and mediocre cars even more.
>


Indeed. The ones that benefit from ABS the most are the ones using it
as an electronic band-aid.

>
>>>The employee discount is just a consolidation of the rebates they were
>>>giving before. Uppricing cars and then giving large rebates has been a
>>>way of life for quite a few car makers lately.

>>
>>That doesn't negate the fact that it seems on the face of it to be the
>>sole reason for GM's recent increase in sales.

>
>
> I think one of the reasons is that GM is way up in customer satisfaction
> and independent quality assessments. Another factor is that they are
> starting to make more interesting cars.


I don't see the interesting cars.


>
>>>Currently: Yes, which is exactly what I said. The new models that are
>>>coming out are not. See Saturn Sky, Pontiac Solstice, even the already
>>>available Goat and CTS-V. More cars are going to be switched to RWD
>>>platforms and made for driving fun again, which will improve sales
>>>numbers even more than any discount scheme could.
>>>

>>
>>We can only hope that they don't continue their longstanding tradition
>>of promising new and exciting cars and delivering the same old blah.

>
>
> Goat. C6. C6 Z06. CTS-V.


All priced outside the reach of the average person, and the C6 is
getting a lot of criticism from the 'vette fans for not being a "real
'vette" whatever that means. Personally, I think it's a step in the
right direction, but the fact remains that I very rarely if ever see any
of the vehicles you mention "in the wild" so GM is missing their target
market, whatever that may be, badly with all four of those vehicles.

> Even the Cobalt SS is a fun little critter. And


I have no data on that one.

> the lineup that already is fixed for production adds to that. Sky.
> Solstice. STS-V.


We'll see. I don't have the faith that GM won't screw them up like
they've done so many times before.

>
>>How many cars have we had high hopes for in the past only to be sadly
>>disappointed by the mediocre execution? (anyone remember the Fiero?

>
>
> ... that only suffered from GM's utter lack of experience with midship
> engine cars. Fieros still are quite capable at autocrossing.


Late ones, sure.

>
>>And to rub salt in it, they killed it off almost immediately after
>>finally turning it into an almost respectable car)

>
>
> They are aware of one fact. If the first version didn't work, kill it off
> before you suffer even more damage. Itanic (Intel Itanium) anyone?
>


Perhaps they shouldn't use their first-year customers as beta testers then?


>
>>>>I think it's reasonable to assume that a light switch would have an off
>>>>position.
>>>
>>>Assuming something when buying a big-ticket item is simply stupid.
>>>

>>
>>Omitting a universal functionality to save a few pennies is stupid. If
>>that's GM's position on light switches, one can only imagine the corners
>>they've cut elsewhere.

>
>
> An auto light switch with an off position is a contradiction in terms. The
> whole point of having an automated system is reducing the number of
> unlighted cars at night and giving a driver the opportunity to switch off
> the system increases this number. And there is no traffic safety relevant
> reason to have an off switch.


Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Or are you dismissing all the other posts in
this thread just because you disagree with them?

>
>
>>>>The fact that he didn't notice it was because it's really fairly
>>>>surprising that any mfgr. would be so stupid as to not include it.
>>>
>>>You may see it as stupid, I see it as smart. Stops total idiots from
>>>switching off their lights at night.
>>>

>>
>>Sometimes you *WANT* to.
>>A company that assumes that I'm dumb enough to turn my lights off when
>>they're actually needed is insulting to my intelligence, and by
>>extension, their entire customer base. I see GM saying "hey, all you
>>people who buy our cars, we think that you're total morons."

>
>
> No, they are merely saying 'most people are forgetful'. If your self image
> really is so weak that you are feeling like a moron just because of a
> safety feature, that's a problem between you and your shrink.
>


I don't feel like a moron at all. I just don't like being treated like
one, which is my right.

>
>>>Given the number of GM cars driven by military personnel (including
>>>cars the military owns) I rather doubt that auto headlights are a
>>>problem at a security checkpoint.
>>>

>>
>>The military owned vehicles don't have DRL's; or at least GM is willing
>>to sell them vehicles without DRLs (along with law enforcement) You and
>>I, however, can't order vehicles without them.

>
>
> You and I can disable DRLs if we so choose.


Not easily. Not by checking a box on an order form. In fact, GM DRL's
are some of the most notoriously difficult to disable. I *could* rant
about the VW I bought that had DRLs but a) they were low beam, not high
beam and b) they were easily defeated simply by pulling the headlight
switch and putting a small piece of tape over one wiring harness
connection. No MIL or other annoying negative consequences. That's the
way it *should* be.

>
>
>>>I merely pointed out that James did something stupid (and if you think
>>>only idiots do stupid things you are less sophisticated than I thought)
>>>and that like any good middle-class American he needs to find someone
>>>to blame for his mistake. And a large company like GM is always a
>>>welcome victim.
>>>

>>
>>Is it not acceptable then to criticize GM even after one has bought one
>>of their products?

>
>
> Not if the criticism is based on something he should have known before
> buying the car. If GM had hidden something (like put an off position on
> the switch that in reality only was 'auto' I would understand his anger,
> but he simply didn't a good job researching a car and GM is not to blame
> for that.
>


They're still to blame for a **** poor design.

>
>>>The differences have been big 20 years ago. Today the differences are
>>>quite small and ABS does a better job than just about any consumer
>>>grade sedan driver in every situation.
>>>

>>
>>Your definition of "quite small" is very different from mine. Even if
>>the hardware is similar, the software is radically different, and
>>deliberately so. I can tell you for a fact that the ABS on many "mass
>>market" vehicles is tuned for maximum stability at the expense of
>>ultimate stopping performance.

>
>
> The software in the average car works better than almost all drivers could
> do by themselves on the road. What I was talking about was the abdominable
> mechanical ABS Ford used in the Fiesta and Escort in Germany.
>
> ABS does a better job than all but a select few and I am sure neither you
> nor I can claim to consistently outdo ABS. In my little sportscar (not the
> Camaro) I can under good conditions because I can hear a certain sound
> shortly before the tires are at the lockup level so I can brake very close
> to locking them up. I daresay, though, that under pressure and adverse
> conditions I don't think I could do a job to match ABs. And neither could
> you.
>


Depends on the vehicle. As I stated above, some of the poorer ABS
implementations that trade ultimate stopping power for stability, I'm
CERTAIN I could beat.

>
>>>Ferrari had that when they first introduced ABS. The new models do not
>>>have an ABS off switch. Neither does Porsche or Mercedes-Benz, simply
>>>because ABS does work. It works even on the track, reducing tire wear,
>>>improving control and even making it possible to brake hard into the
>>>turn, which is a driving style that has become very fashionable.
>>>

>>
>>I don't really feel like doing the research right now, but I'm certain
>>there are current vehicles that do indeed have different,
>>driver-selectable levels of ABS/DSC intervention.

>
>
> They do, but they neither do have the off switch you postulate nor is this
> setting meant for street use.


Some of them do have an "off" position, or at least a position that
kills all but the most minimal electronic intervention, and who are you
to say what a setting is to be used for? Sure, it may be intended for
track use, but the point is, it's there if the driver wants to use it.

>
>
>>>No racer would seriously claim (like James does) that he induces a
>>>controlled skid with a 4-wheel non-ABS system.

>>
>>I must have missed whatever post prompted your comment, but inducing a
>>controlled skid in a non-ABS vehicle is really no great feat. Either
>>I'm missing some context, or your comment makes no sense.

>
>
> Then pray tell how you induce a controlled skid in a non-ABS FWD vehicle
> without using external help (i.e. parking brake). Keyword here is
> controlled. Making a car skid with only non-ABS brakes is easy.


Turn, quick jab of brakes to unsettle the chassis, then recover as
appropriate. Not saying that it's a good idea, but it's still not
difficult.

>
>
>>>No, it doesn't but that's exactly what James claims as the reason he
>>>doesn't want ABS on his car.
>>>

>>
>>See above.

>
>
> I can't wait for your explanation.


Well, now you have it.

>
>
>>>>Due to DRL's? I call bull**** until I see a cite.
>>>
>>>http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...mentofDRLs.pdf
>>>
>>>Look at page 23.
>>>

>>
>>I have absolutely no respect for NHTSA and their supposed objectivity
>>and concern for safety. Likewise for the IIHS. In my mind both are
>>corrupt, incredibly biased organizations that have their own agendas
>>that they push at great cost, both in dollars and in safety.

>
>
> ROTFL. James claims the NHTSA as _the_ source for safety info


I don't think anyone ever said NHTSA was *the* source for anything.

> and claims
> somewhere within the vaults of their document management system is the
> proof he so desperately desires. And you support him every step on the
> way.


Because it is there.

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...hTyp e=docket

found this in less than five minutes of searching, notice that the
comments are almost universally anti-DRL. So where is the overwhelming
public support for them that you claim? Seems like a lot of people hate
them enough to write to NHTSA.


>
> I suggest you find a better source instead of just complaining about mine.
>


You *HAD* a source?

>
>>>Insurance companies give a benefit where they think it will increase
>>>sales and not cost too much. Most drivers would be royally ****ed if
>>>their insurance company gave discounts for DRLs, because they don't
>>>have them.

>>
>>Most drivers do have DRLs, it seems.

>
>
> All of sudden? James claims they don't. According to him not even 10% of
> the non-GM cars have DRLs.


Enough cars on the road have them that it's a good proportion.

>
>
>>And since when were insurance companies concerned about sales?
>>I'm not aware of too many places where insurance isn't compulsory,
>>unless you're filthy stinkin' rich.

>
>
> Still there are many competitors, so the question is not, whether someone
> has insurance, but what company gets to fleece him. And companies go to
> extreme length to pull customers into their fold.


So if a common "safety" feature worked well enough that they could
afford to give a discount, they might?

>
>
>>>>>... which is fun to drive cars.
>>>>
>>>>It would be nice if they made those, yes.
>>>
>>>They are. Corvette. GTO. CTS-V.

>>
>>All overpriced for what they are.

>
>
> Bruahahahah!
>
> Show me a sports car that comes even close to the Vette within the price
> range. Even more so with the Z06 and the upcoming supercar dubbed the
> 'blue devil'.
>
> The GTO kicks the butt of every sub-40k coupe.


How many people do you know that can AFFORD a $40K new car? not many.

>
> The CTS-V offers six-speed and a 400hp V8 in a price range that has
> lackluster V6 sedans from other manufacturers.


Again, priced outside the range of the vast majority of consumers, or at
least those averse to overextending their credit.

>
> I can't wait to see what models you offer as a support for your claims.
>


I could build a car faster than any of those for half the cost.

>
>>>The readers of this small newsgroup are a very small minority and
>>>certainly not a feasible market for car makers.
>>>

>>
>>But if a company wants to build a reputation for making good cars, they
>>have to impress the car guys first.

>
>
> I wouldn't call the majority in here car guys.


What would you call them, then?

>
>
>>>And concerning my opinion, it is well founded unlike yours.

>>
>>Bull****.

>
>
> Calling it bull**** doesn't change the fact. Support your opinion with
> studies and we will see...


Already done, many times. Do your homework.

>
>
>>>I still want
>>>to see your references to sources that deem DRLs and automatic
>>>headlights dangerous.

>>
>>People more knowledgeable than I have already posted info that you have
>>refused to look at.

>
>
> I looked at all information that was directly referenced. Claiming the
> info is somewhere inside some website is _not_ info but just Bull**** (to
> borrow from your vocabulary).


Sounds to me like you're more interested in "winning" an argument than
actually educating yourself.

>
>
>>>So far I have supported my opinion by an NHTSA study.

>>
>>Oooh, I'm so impressed. You posted one link to a study funded by a
>>corrupt and deeply flawed organization.

>
>
> Then post something better.


Already done, many times.

>
>
>>>You have not. And until you do so you certainly have no basis to call
>>>my opinion wrong.

>>
>>You are wrong.

>
>
> No, you are wrong.


Ooh!

> If you were right, you would post references yourself.


Why should I? Others have already done so, IN THIS THREAD.

> Unfortunately you can't, which is why you think that simply calling me
> wrong will automatically sway people in your direction.
>


You're the only one disagreeing.

>>There's plenty of evidence out there that says so, some of it posted in
>>this thread. Some of it actually on the NHTSA web site, amusingly
>>enough (I'm thinking of the docket on DRLs and glare in particular.

>
>
> The dockets are political junk. Post a serious study insead.


There are references to serious research in the comments under those
dockets. However, since they aren't easily linkable (often one .pdf
will contain many different short letters, and the ones that do
reference hard research may be buried in the middle - and may even
reference research not available on the Web, you might have to do a
little bit of legwork.)

So NHTSA is good but dockets are bad? I'll have to remember that. *snork*

>
>
>>>>Who said anything about the GTO?
>>>
>>>Reeves did. He said that he wants GM to price the Goat down to the
>>>Mustang's level.

>>
>>That would be a good marketing move on GM's part, I think.

>
>
> The Goat sells very well and is priced far below its competitors. The
> Mustang GT doesn't even come close with its lackluster modular engine.



That would explain why I see all kinds of new Mustangs and can't
remember the last time I saw a GTO in the wild - if I ever did.

>
>>Otherwise the Mustang is going to be a runaway success and the GTO is
>>going to be yet another "could have been."

>
>
> One, the Stang and the GTO are not direct competitors.


This is true, but the fact remains that when you compare the prices,
someone originally tempted to buy a GTO just might decide to buy a
Mustang instead and pocket the difference for, say, a down payment on a
small house. Add to that that the average Joe can afford a Mustang but
not a GTO... well, you do the math.

> The performance of
> the cars is not even close to comparable. Two, as long as GM sells every
> GTO they get from Australia they won't have to worry about pricing.


Where are these cars selling? Why don't I see any of them at all? It
doesn't matter how good the thing is, if they don't sell.

>
>>>If they are giving away cars I want to see where. I could use a new
>>>Duramax Diesel Silverado. Last time I looked the Silverado I want is
>>>somewhere north of $40k which is nowhere near 'given away' or 'free.
>>>
>>>GM is not giving anything away, they just price cars up and then give
>>>discounts. Apparently this works, because the less informed think they
>>>are giving something away.

>>
>>Yes, and it's fairly clear that that perception is why they're selling
>>as many vehicles as they are.

>
>
> Clever marketing.


And apparently effective.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Ads
  #282  
Old July 12th 05, 04:16 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


>> "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





  #283  
Old July 12th 05, 04:29 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
news:1121126430.16f008977b3eb8d144423625d46bf80f@t eranews...
> C.H. wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:08:20 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>C.H. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:56:36 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Nate, I had quite some respect for you until now. My opinion differs
>>>>from yours but is just as well expressed, reasoned and properly
>>>>referenced.
>>>
>>>No, it's not.

>>
>>
>> That's merely your opinion and also no reason to become as unpleasant as
>> you have been.
>>
>>
>>>It is well expressed, I'll give you that, but the other two
>>>- I don't think so.

>>
>>
>> I do, but regardless, your tone is unwarranted. If my opinion was really
>> as far off as you claim it is you would not have
>> to get nasty at every opportunity. The fact that you do points to either
>> lack of proper upbringing or lack of arguments.
>>
>> Chris

>
> Or perhaps exasperation at seeing you disagree with literally everyone
> else, presenting no logical or factual basis for your arguments? The only
> explanation I can come up with is that you've invested heavily in GM stock
> (and if I were in that position, I might be resorting to desperate
> measures myself.)
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel


Yikes, you think Chris still owns GM stock! Man, I sold all of mine 3
years ago! I'm not convinced yet that they're going to make it...but sure
hope they do! $300+ billion in debt, ~$20 billion in the bank (cash) and
bleeding at the rate of $1.1 billion a quarter. They have probably less
than 2-years to turn it around or they're done.



  #284  
Old July 12th 05, 04:33 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

James C. Reeves wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> news:1121126430.16f008977b3eb8d144423625d46bf80f@t eranews...
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:08:20 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>C.H. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:56:36 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Nate, I had quite some respect for you until now. My opinion differs
>>>>
>>>>>from yours but is just as well expressed, reasoned and properly
>>>>
>>>>>referenced.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's not.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's merely your opinion and also no reason to become as unpleasant as
>>>you have been.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is well expressed, I'll give you that, but the other two
>>>>- I don't think so.
>>>
>>>
>>>I do, but regardless, your tone is unwarranted. If my opinion was really
>>>as far off as you claim it is you would not have
>>>to get nasty at every opportunity. The fact that you do points to either
>>>lack of proper upbringing or lack of arguments.
>>>
>>>Chris

>>
>>Or perhaps exasperation at seeing you disagree with literally everyone
>>else, presenting no logical or factual basis for your arguments? The only
>>explanation I can come up with is that you've invested heavily in GM stock
>>(and if I were in that position, I might be resorting to desperate
>>measures myself.)
>>
>>nate
>>
>>--
>>replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
>>http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

>
>
> Yikes, you think Chris still owns GM stock! Man, I sold all of mine 3
> years ago! I'm not convinced yet that they're going to make it...but sure
> hope they do! $300+ billion in debt, ~$20 billion in the bank (cash) and
> bleeding at the rate of $1.1 billion a quarter. They have probably less
> than 2-years to turn it around or they're done.


Well, if they do turn around, now might not be a bad time to buy...

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #285  
Old July 12th 05, 10:00 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #286  
Old July 12th 05, 10:02 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:29:55 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

> Yikes, you think Chris still owns GM stock!


I never owned any GM stock. I own stock in a certain German car maker,
though, that does quite well lately.

But that you lost money on GM stock certainly further explains your hatred.

Chris
  #287  
Old July 12th 05, 11:07 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:45:25 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:


>> And I say that keeping a car maneuverable even under heavy braking is
>> not unnecessary in the least. Maybe you can come close to ABS
>> performance in some emergency conditions, which would put you in the top
>> 5% of drivers. Very probably you couldn't.

>
> Depends on the car. In some vehicles, I'm CERTAIN that I could "beat" the
> ABS.


In certain vehicles in a non-emergency situation with about equal friction
on all wheels in a straight line I think you may be right. Otherwise you
are very likely wrong.

>> ABS is not an electronic band aid. ABS covers up a shortcoming all cars
>> share, i.e. that the normal brake system is unable to cope with
>> different friction at the tires during heavy breaking and with keeping
>> the car maneuverable during emergency breaking.

>
> A good car should have a base brake system arranged so that under heavy
> braking on a uniform surface, the front wheels lock up slightly before the
> rears, and the brake pedal should offer good feedback and easy modulation.
> Given those, it's really not that difficult for a good driver to post
> decent stopping distances, without loss of control.


Unfortunately surfaces are rarely even or have equal friction on all
wheels, which is why in most real life situations ABS gives you a shorter
brake distance than you could get with skill.

One of the biggest reasons, why ABS doesn't reduce accidents caused by the
average driver as much as originally predicted is that many drivers still
learned to drive old-school like James Reeves. Don't brake hard, try to
maintain control first, rather run into the obstacle than off the road.
With ABS that's exactly the wrong way to do it. You can get much shorter
distances by simply hitting the brakes so hard ABS engages.

>> Even the best cars profit from ABS and mediocre cars even more.
>>

> Indeed. The ones that benefit from ABS the most are the ones using it as
> an electronic band-aid.


.... and which would be even worse than they already are without ABS. It's
not as if cars were better made before ABS arrived, people just thought
that there was no way to make them better.

>> I think one of the reasons is that GM is way up in customer
>> satisfaction and independent quality assessments. Another factor is
>> that they are starting to make more interesting cars.

>
> I don't see the interesting cars.


GTO. C6. C6 Z06. CTS-V. STS. XLR. And of the cars yet to come: Solstice.
Sky. 'Blue Devil'. And others.

>>>We can only hope that they don't continue their longstanding tradition
>>>of promising new and exciting cars and delivering the same old blah.

>>
>> Goat. C6. C6 Z06. CTS-V.

>
> All priced outside the reach of the average person, and the C6 is
> getting a lot of criticism from the 'vette fans for not being a "real
> 'vette" whatever that means.


I know about a dozen Vette fans. 10 of them already have a C6 and
the others are interested. Every single one of them likes the C6 better
than they liked the C5.

What you probably are referring to is some geezers, who had a '67 and
don't see a non-popup-headlight car as 'not a Corvette'.

> Personally, I think it's a step in the right direction, but the fact
> remains that I very rarely if ever see any of the vehicles you mention
> "in the wild" so GM is missing their target market, whatever that may
> be, badly with all four of those vehicles.


I see several of them every day. And don't tell me that a Toyota Corolla
or Honda Civic is in any way interesting. Aside from the Miata the
japanese manufacturers don't have anything affordable and fun either.

>> Even the Cobalt SS is a fun little critter. And

>
> I have no data on that one.


http://www.engine-power.com/chevy/ch...ercharged.html

2.0l supercharged engine, 205hp@5600, 5-speed stick and 2800lbs curb
weight for 20 grand.

>> the lineup that already is fixed for production adds to that. Sky.
>> Solstice. STS-V.

>
> We'll see. I don't have the faith that GM won't screw them up like
> they've done so many times before.


At least they won't build one dead boring Camry after another.

>>>And to rub salt in it, they killed it off almost immediately after
>>>finally turning it into an almost respectable car)

>>
>> They are aware of one fact. If the first version didn't work, kill it
>> off before you suffer even more damage. Itanic (Intel Itanium) anyone?
>>

> Perhaps they shouldn't use their first-year customers as beta testers
> then?


I will admit that the first Fiero was a beta product. Just like the Nissan
350Z currently is. It's not that the japanese are better, just that
distant pastures always seem greener.

>>>Omitting a universal functionality to save a few pennies is stupid. If
>>>that's GM's position on light switches, one can only imagine the
>>>corners they've cut elsewhere.

>>
>> An auto light switch with an off position is a contradiction in terms.
>> The whole point of having an automated system is reducing the number of
>> unlighted cars at night and giving a driver the opportunity to switch
>> off the system increases this number. And there is no traffic safety
>> relevant reason to have an off switch.

>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Or are you dismissing all the other posts in
> this thread just because you disagree with them?


James just admitted that there is no traffic safety related reason to have
an off switch. And he was the only one claiming repeatedly that there was.

If you have a safety relevant reason to have an off switch I am interested
in hearing it. If it is only a question of convenience, safety comes far
before convenience.

>> No, they are merely saying 'most people are forgetful'. If your self
>> image really is so weak that you are feeling like a moron just because
>> of a safety feature, that's a problem between you and your shrink.
>>

> I don't feel like a moron at all. I just don't like being treated like
> one, which is my right.


Again, if you feel like you are treated like a moron just because someone
implements a safety feature, that's your problem alone. You may never run
into anything, but it is still a good idea to have a safety belt. You may
never forget your headlights but you are a rare specimen in that and it is
better to give you automatic headlights alongside with everyone else just
in case.

>> You and I can disable DRLs if we so choose.

>
> Not easily. Not by checking a box on an order form.


Which is a sound recipe against making all the morons checking said box
because they feel treated like a moron if they get DRLs and auto
headlights.

>> ABS does a better job than all but a select few and I am sure neither
>> you nor I can claim to consistently outdo ABS. In my little sportscar
>> (not the Camaro) I can under good conditions because I can hear a
>> certain sound shortly before the tires are at the lockup level so I can
>> brake very close to locking them up. I daresay, though, that under
>> pressure and adverse conditions I don't think I could do a job to match
>> ABs. And neither could you.
>>

> Depends on the vehicle. As I stated above, some of the poorer ABS
> implementations that trade ultimate stopping power for stability, I'm
> CERTAIN I could beat.


.... under optimum conditions. In real life and an emergency situation you
with almost absolute certainity would not beat it.

Btw, a German car magazine did an interesting test specifically with
people like you.

They had them try to beat the ABS on their own with a range of different
cars. As you predicted, a handful did under optimum conditions with the
worst design in the bunch. Then they tried the same thing under adverse
conditions, pressure, wet road, uneven pavement and combinations thereof.
Even the people who had been most convinced of themselves managed to
out brake even the worst ABS design under these conditions.

To be quite fair, none of the cars was a Ford with the infamous mechanical
ABS, but the result shows what I told you. You may be able to outbrake ABS
under optimum conditions, but as emergency situations never entail optimum
conditions the question whether you can do that or not is moot.

>> Then pray tell how you induce a controlled skid in a non-ABS FWD
>> vehicle without using external help (i.e. parking brake). Keyword here
>> is controlled. Making a car skid with only non-ABS brakes is easy.

>
> Turn, quick jab of brakes to unsettle the chassis, then recover as
> appropriate. Not saying that it's a good idea, but it's still not
> difficult.


That's not a controlled skid but a recipe for disaster if done in real
world conditions on the street. There is a reason why rally drivers use
the hand brake to initiate controlled drifts and not a quick jab on
non-ABS brakes to unsettle the car. The last thing you want for a
controlled drift is unsettling the chassis.

>> I can't wait for your explanation.

>
> Well, now you have it.


I was asking for a controlled drift, not random skidding.

>> and claims
>> somewhere within the vaults of their document management system is the
>> proof he so desperately desires. And you support him every step on the
>> way.

>
> Because it is there.
>
> http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...hTyp e=docket
>
> found this in less than five minutes of searching, notice that the
> comments are almost universally anti-DRL.


An amusing collection of anecdotes. I liked the one with the 70 year old
geezer who knows that the conditions in Sweden don't apply to the US
because in the US all accidents are driver related...

> So where is the overwhelming public support for them that you claim?
> Seems like a lot of people hate them enough to write to NHTSA.


How much experience with statistics do you have? Not much, apparently.
People write when they have a gripe for some reason. If something works,
they just don't write. And the number of support letters in relation to
the 200 Million drivers in the US is not exactly overwhelming in the first
place.

If you want an even borderline fair estimate of the public opinion you
need to poll in a way that doesn't predetermine the group of people that
will reply.

If you had had statistics at university level I am sure your professor
would have advised you about this trick to stuff the ballot box.

>> I suggest you find a better source instead of just complaining about
>> mine.
>>

> You *HAD* a source?


Yes.

>> All of sudden? James claims they don't. According to him not even 10%
>> of the non-GM cars have DRLs.

>
> Enough cars on the road have them that it's a good proportion.


I leave that to you and James to duke out. If you are right you are
shooting a big hole in his case, if he is right the opposite is true.

>> Still there are many competitors, so the question is not, whether
>> someone has insurance, but what company gets to fleece him. And
>> companies go to extreme length to pull customers into their fold.

>
> So if a common "safety" feature worked well enough that they could
> afford to give a discount, they might?


If they determine that it would be in their financial interest to do so:
Yes.

>> Show me a sports car that comes even close to the Vette within the
>> price range. Even more so with the Z06 and the upcoming supercar dubbed
>> the 'blue devil'.
>>
>> The GTO kicks the butt of every sub-40k coupe.

>
> How many people do you know that can AFFORD a $40K new car? not many.


The Goat is $30k, not 40k. MSRP is 32295 and with the GM employee
discount you can get it for under 30k. Again: You said it is
overpriced. So show me a comparable car that is cheaper.

>> The CTS-V offers six-speed and a 400hp V8 in a price range that has
>> lackluster V6 sedans from other manufacturers.

>
> Again, priced outside the range of the vast majority of consumers, or at
> least those averse to overextending their credit.


And sells like hotcakes.

FYI: Overpriced doesn't mean 'more expensive than Nate Nagel can afford'
or even 'more expensive than most drivers can afford' but 'more expensive
than the competition, which is not the case for any of the cars I
mentioned.

>> I can't wait to see what models you offer as a support for your claims.
>>

> I could build a car faster than any of those for half the cost.


Not a new car. We are not talking a hacked together Fox-Body here.

>> I wouldn't call the majority in here car guys.

>
> What would you call them, then?


Usenetties with some car inclination.

To be fair, I deem a few people in here real car guys, C.R. for example.
Most are not.

>> Calling it bull**** doesn't change the fact. Support your opinion with
>> studies and we will see...

>
> Already done, many times. Do your homework.


You posted a few amusing anecdotes and a lonely reference to some
political bull**** which you promptly proceeded to try to convert into a
statistic improperly. Thanks, Nate, if I really want a doctored statistic
I will doctor it myself.

>> I looked at all information that was directly referenced. Claiming the
>> info is somewhere inside some website is _not_ info but just Bull****
>> (to borrow from your vocabulary).

>
> Sounds to me like you're more interested in "winning" an argument than
> actually educating yourself.


No, it merely sounds like I don't have the time to sift through tons of
flotsam and jetsam just to search for info you critters claim you already
have and just don't want to reference for some weird reason.

If the info was there as plain as you guys claim you would have referenced
it long ago. And no, I don't mean that amusing collection of anecdotes you
call dockets.

>>>Oooh, I'm so impressed. You posted one link to a study funded by a
>>>corrupt and deeply flawed organization.

>>
>> Then post something better.

>
> Already done, many times.


Someone needs to tell you that your repetition of a claim doesn't make it
true.

>> If you were right, you would post references yourself.

>
> Why should I? Others have already done so, IN THIS THREAD.


No, they haven't. They merely have claimed some info and totally failed to
reference it properly.

>> Unfortunately you can't, which is why you think that simply calling me
>> wrong will automatically sway people in your direction.
>>

> You're the only one disagreeing.


The only one in this extremely limited group. Look at James. He is barely
able to understand and write English. I do a much better job and I am not
a native speaker. What he thinks to have read in documents somewhere deep
inside NHTSA doesn't have any bearing on what really is in there.

You drive old cars with a passion and hate GM. You try to compare a
clunker with a souped up engine with a new Corvette. Your bias is obvious
from everything you write.

Do I have to continue?

>> The dockets are political junk. Post a serious study insead.

>
> There are references to serious research in the comments under those
> dockets. However, since they aren't easily linkable (often one .pdf
> will contain many different short letters, and the ones that do
> reference hard research may be buried in the middle - and may even
> reference research not available on the Web, you might have to do a
> little bit of legwork.)


I don't have the time to sift through all the inane comments to possibly
find one jewel. And referencing a pdf file is so easy even a total moron
can do it: Post the URL and add the pdf page number.

> So NHTSA is good but dockets are bad? I'll have to remember that.
> *snork*


Neither is really good, but the NHTSA at least has some hard numbers
and not only amusing anecdotes. What a pity the numbers don't support your
view or you would be all over the NHTSA.

>> The Goat sells very well and is priced far below its competitors. The
>> Mustang GT doesn't even come close with its lackluster modular engine.

>
> That would explain why I see all kinds of new Mustangs and can't
> remember the last time I saw a GTO in the wild - if I ever did.


The Stang is cheap. The V6 Stang is even cheaper. Any secretary that wants
a spiffy looking car can buy one and drive it without undue stress on her
delicate psyche. The Goat is a totally different animal and mostly targets
the enthusiast market. You of all people should understand the difference
between a slightly spiffed up everyday car and a car for someone, who
loves driving.

>>>Otherwise the Mustang is going to be a runaway success and the GTO is
>>>going to be yet another "could have been."

>>
>> One, the Stang and the GTO are not direct competitors.

>
> This is true, but the fact remains that when you compare the prices,
> someone originally tempted to buy a GTO just might decide to buy a
> Mustang instead and pocket the difference for, say, a down payment on a
> small house.


You don't get much house for 5k, at least not around here. And I truly
pity the enthusiast, who chooses a Stang over a GTO just because of the
bit of money he saves.

> Add to that that the average Joe can afford a Mustang but not a GTO...
> well, you do the math.


Weird reasoning. If someone really can afford a Mustang GT he can afford
the GTO. May take a tad more effort but if money is so tight he should buy
neither.

> Where are these cars selling? Why don't I see any of them at all? It
> doesn't matter how good the thing is, if they don't sell.


Around here they sell well. And as GM sells as many as they get the
pricing seems to be correct.

>>>Yes, and it's fairly clear that that perception is why they're selling
>>>as many vehicles as they are.

>>
>> Clever marketing.

>
> And apparently effective.


What's wrong with that?

Chris
  #288  
Old July 12th 05, 11:44 AM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:45:25 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > C.H. wrote:

>
> >> And I say that keeping a car maneuverable even under heavy braking is
> >> not unnecessary in the least. Maybe you can come close to ABS
> >> performance in some emergency conditions, which would put you in the top
> >> 5% of drivers. Very probably you couldn't.

> >
> > Depends on the car. In some vehicles, I'm CERTAIN that I could "beat" the
> > ABS.

>
> In certain vehicles in a non-emergency situation with about equal friction
> on all wheels in a straight line I think you may be right. Otherwise you
> are very likely wrong.


No, ESPECIALLY when there's unequal friction.

>
> >> ABS is not an electronic band aid. ABS covers up a shortcoming all cars
> >> share, i.e. that the normal brake system is unable to cope with
> >> different friction at the tires during heavy breaking and with keeping
> >> the car maneuverable during emergency breaking.

> >
> > A good car should have a base brake system arranged so that under heavy
> > braking on a uniform surface, the front wheels lock up slightly before the
> > rears, and the brake pedal should offer good feedback and easy modulation.
> > Given those, it's really not that difficult for a good driver to post
> > decent stopping distances, without loss of control.

>
> Unfortunately surfaces are rarely even or have equal friction on all
> wheels, which is why in most real life situations ABS gives you a shorter
> brake distance than you could get with skill.


Depends on the ABS system. Quite a few of them make tradeoffs that I
personally don't like (stopping distance for stability.)

>
> One of the biggest reasons, why ABS doesn't reduce accidents caused by the
> average driver as much as originally predicted is that many drivers still
> learned to drive old-school like James Reeves. Don't brake hard, try to
> maintain control first, rather run into the obstacle than off the road.
> With ABS that's exactly the wrong way to do it. You can get much shorter
> distances by simply hitting the brakes so hard ABS engages.


Unless the ABS is fighting you.

>
> >> Even the best cars profit from ABS and mediocre cars even more.
> >>

> > Indeed. The ones that benefit from ABS the most are the ones using it as
> > an electronic band-aid.

>
> ... and which would be even worse than they already are without ABS. It's
> not as if cars were better made before ABS arrived, people just thought
> that there was no way to make them better.


Some of them were, and people who cared demanded them.

>
> >> I think one of the reasons is that GM is way up in customer
> >> satisfaction and independent quality assessments. Another factor is
> >> that they are starting to make more interesting cars.

> >
> > I don't see the interesting cars.

>
> GTO. C6. C6 Z06. CTS-V. STS. XLR. And of the cars yet to come: Solstice.
> Sky. 'Blue Devil'. And others.
>
> >>>We can only hope that they don't continue their longstanding tradition
> >>>of promising new and exciting cars and delivering the same old blah.
> >>
> >> Goat. C6. C6 Z06. CTS-V.

> >
> > All priced outside the reach of the average person, and the C6 is
> > getting a lot of criticism from the 'vette fans for not being a "real
> > 'vette" whatever that means.

>
> I know about a dozen Vette fans. 10 of them already have a C6 and
> the others are interested. Every single one of them likes the C6 better
> than they liked the C5.
>
> What you probably are referring to is some geezers, who had a '67 and
> don't see a non-popup-headlight car as 'not a Corvette'.


No, actually, lots of C3, C4, C5 owners on various NG's and fora. I'm
about the only person who ends up defending the design of the C6 in
various discussions, because I do like it even if it is a niche market
car. My own opinion of the C6 was "first effort at a real sports car
since the C2" which got me ALL sorts of howls of protest from the
'vette lovers.

>
> > Personally, I think it's a step in the right direction, but the fact
> > remains that I very rarely if ever see any of the vehicles you mention
> > "in the wild" so GM is missing their target market, whatever that may
> > be, badly with all four of those vehicles.

>
> I see several of them every day.


You must live in a special area then. I can't remember ever seeing
one.

> And don't tell me that a Toyota Corolla
> or Honda Civic is in any way interesting. Aside from the Miata the
> japanese manufacturers don't have anything affordable and fun either.
>


For a slightly expanded definition of "affordable" there's the G35 and
S2000...

> >> Even the Cobalt SS is a fun little critter. And

> >
> > I have no data on that one.

>
> http://www.engine-power.com/chevy/ch...ercharged.html
>
> 2.0l supercharged engine, 205hp@5600, 5-speed stick and 2800lbs curb
> weight for 20 grand.
>
> >> the lineup that already is fixed for production adds to that. Sky.
> >> Solstice. STS-V.

> >
> > We'll see. I don't have the faith that GM won't screw them up like
> > they've done so many times before.

>
> At least they won't build one dead boring Camry after another.


I'd rather have a Camry than most GM products, frankly. Yes, it's
boring, but it's at least not offensive.

>
> >>>And to rub salt in it, they killed it off almost immediately after
> >>>finally turning it into an almost respectable car)
> >>
> >> They are aware of one fact. If the first version didn't work, kill it
> >> off before you suffer even more damage. Itanic (Intel Itanium) anyone?
> >>

> > Perhaps they shouldn't use their first-year customers as beta testers
> > then?

>
> I will admit that the first Fiero was a beta product. Just like the Nissan
> 350Z currently is. It's not that the japanese are better, just that
> distant pastures always seem greener.


Difference is that even if what you say is true, the Japanese have a
history of solving problems and getting things right eventually. GM
really doesn't.

>
> >>>Omitting a universal functionality to save a few pennies is stupid. If
> >>>that's GM's position on light switches, one can only imagine the
> >>>corners they've cut elsewhere.
> >>
> >> An auto light switch with an off position is a contradiction in terms.
> >> The whole point of having an automated system is reducing the number of
> >> unlighted cars at night and giving a driver the opportunity to switch
> >> off the system increases this number. And there is no traffic safety
> >> relevant reason to have an off switch.

> >
> > Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Or are you dismissing all the other posts in
> > this thread just because you disagree with them?

>
> James just admitted that there is no traffic safety related reason to have
> an off switch. And he was the only one claiming repeatedly that there was.
>
> If you have a safety relevant reason to have an off switch I am interested
> in hearing it. If it is only a question of convenience, safety comes far
> before convenience.


Already mentioned several previously in this thread. (gee, that sounds
familiar. I might have responded similarly to any number of things
that you've asked for.)

>
> >> No, they are merely saying 'most people are forgetful'. If your self
> >> image really is so weak that you are feeling like a moron just because
> >> of a safety feature, that's a problem between you and your shrink.
> >>

> > I don't feel like a moron at all. I just don't like being treated like
> > one, which is my right.

>
> Again, if you feel like you are treated like a moron just because someone
> implements a safety feature, that's your problem alone. You may never run
> into anything, but it is still a good idea to have a safety belt.


But I don't particularly want a car with those execrable automatic
belts (that your beloved NHTSA forced on us)

> You may
> never forget your headlights but you are a rare specimen in that and it is
> better to give you automatic headlights alongside with everyone else just
> in case.
>


Yes, mom. Guess what, most people stopped letting other people take
care of them whenever they graduated from school and moved out.

> >> You and I can disable DRLs if we so choose.

> >
> > Not easily. Not by checking a box on an order form.

>
> Which is a sound recipe against making all the morons checking said box
> because they feel treated like a moron if they get DRLs and auto
> headlights.
>


Who elected you grand high arbiter of what's good for me? I ought to
be able to do whatever the heck I want so long as it doesn't hurt
anyone else, up to and including smoking crack in an alley.

> >> ABS does a better job than all but a select few and I am sure neither
> >> you nor I can claim to consistently outdo ABS. In my little sportscar
> >> (not the Camaro) I can under good conditions because I can hear a
> >> certain sound shortly before the tires are at the lockup level so I can
> >> brake very close to locking them up. I daresay, though, that under
> >> pressure and adverse conditions I don't think I could do a job to match
> >> ABs. And neither could you.
> >>

> > Depends on the vehicle. As I stated above, some of the poorer ABS
> > implementations that trade ultimate stopping power for stability, I'm
> > CERTAIN I could beat.

>
> ... under optimum conditions. In real life and an emergency situation you
> with almost absolute certainity would not beat it.


Bull****.

>
> Btw, a German car magazine did an interesting test specifically with
> people like you.
>
> They had them try to beat the ABS on their own with a range of different
> cars. As you predicted, a handful did under optimum conditions with the
> worst design in the bunch. Then they tried the same thing under adverse
> conditions, pressure, wet road, uneven pavement and combinations thereof.
> Even the people who had been most convinced of themselves managed to
> out brake even the worst ABS design under these conditions.
>
> To be quite fair, none of the cars was a Ford with the infamous mechanical
> ABS, but the result shows what I told you. You may be able to outbrake ABS
> under optimum conditions, but as emergency situations never entail optimum
> conditions the question whether you can do that or not is moot.


Did they do any tests with truck-based SUVs with non-advantageous scrub
radii? it's fairly common, or at least was a couple years ago, to
dump pressure to the high-mu wheels rather than to allow the vehicle to
rotate, requiring steering input to correct. It's cake easy for a
reasonably aware driver to beat such systems.

>
> >> Then pray tell how you induce a controlled skid in a non-ABS FWD
> >> vehicle without using external help (i.e. parking brake). Keyword here
> >> is controlled. Making a car skid with only non-ABS brakes is easy.

> >
> > Turn, quick jab of brakes to unsettle the chassis, then recover as
> > appropriate. Not saying that it's a good idea, but it's still not
> > difficult.

>
> That's not a controlled skid but a recipe for disaster if done in real
> world conditions on the street. There is a reason why rally drivers use
> the hand brake to initiate controlled drifts and not a quick jab on
> non-ABS brakes to unsettle the car. The last thing you want for a
> controlled drift is unsettling the chassis.
>
> >> I can't wait for your explanation.

> >
> > Well, now you have it.

>
> I was asking for a controlled drift, not random skidding.
>


Just because you can't recover from a brake-induced skid doesn't mean
that nobody can.

> >> and claims
> >> somewhere within the vaults of their document management system is the
> >> proof he so desperately desires. And you support him every step on the
> >> way.

> >
> > Because it is there.
> >
> > http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...hTyp e=docket
> >
> > found this in less than five minutes of searching, notice that the
> > comments are almost universally anti-DRL.

>
> An amusing collection of anecdotes. I liked the one with the 70 year old
> geezer who knows that the conditions in Sweden don't apply to the US
> because in the US all accidents are driver related...
>
> > So where is the overwhelming public support for them that you claim?
> > Seems like a lot of people hate them enough to write to NHTSA.

>
> How much experience with statistics do you have? Not much, apparently.
> People write when they have a gripe for some reason. If something works,
> they just don't write. And the number of support letters in relation to
> the 200 Million drivers in the US is not exactly overwhelming in the first
> place.
>
> If you want an even borderline fair estimate of the public opinion you
> need to poll in a way that doesn't predetermine the group of people that
> will reply.
>
> If you had had statistics at university level I am sure your professor
> would have advised you about this trick to stuff the ballot box.
>


I see that you missed the point, which was that interspersed among all
the usual "I don't like DRL's, they are bad" letters there were several
letters from people who had the qualifications to comment
appropriately, all anti-DRL, and several citing research.

> >> I suggest you find a better source instead of just complaining about
> >> mine.
> >>

> > You *HAD* a source?

>
> Yes.
>


One link to one study.

> >> All of sudden? James claims they don't. According to him not even 10%
> >> of the non-GM cars have DRLs.

> >
> > Enough cars on the road have them that it's a good proportion.

>
> I leave that to you and James to duke out. If you are right you are
> shooting a big hole in his case, if he is right the opposite is true.
>
> >> Still there are many competitors, so the question is not, whether
> >> someone has insurance, but what company gets to fleece him. And
> >> companies go to extreme length to pull customers into their fold.

> >
> > So if a common "safety" feature worked well enough that they could
> > afford to give a discount, they might?

>
> If they determine that it would be in their financial interest to do so:
> Yes.
>


So why don't they?

> >> Show me a sports car that comes even close to the Vette within the
> >> price range. Even more so with the Z06 and the upcoming supercar dubbed
> >> the 'blue devil'.
> >>
> >> The GTO kicks the butt of every sub-40k coupe.

> >
> > How many people do you know that can AFFORD a $40K new car? not many.

>
> The Goat is $30k, not 40k. MSRP is 32295 and with the GM employee
> discount you can get it for under 30k. Again: You said it is
> overpriced. So show me a comparable car that is cheaper.


For that money, you can get a couple-year-old Porsche. No comparison.

>
> >> The CTS-V offers six-speed and a 400hp V8 in a price range that has
> >> lackluster V6 sedans from other manufacturers.

> >
> > Again, priced outside the range of the vast majority of consumers, or at
> > least those averse to overextending their credit.

>
> And sells like hotcakes.


I can't remember ever seeing one. Actually new Caddys seem to be
decidedly unpopular; their crased, angular styling really stands out in
traffic and yet they are rare as hen's teeth. Now SUV's... those are
selling. Sadly.

>
> FYI: Overpriced doesn't mean 'more expensive than Nate Nagel can afford'
> or even 'more expensive than most drivers can afford' but 'more expensive
> than the competition, which is not the case for any of the cars I
> mentioned.


There really is not competition; they're an answer to a question nobody
asked. Most people looking for 400HP+ cars really don't care for back
seats etc.

>
> >> I can't wait to see what models you offer as a support for your claims.
> >>

> > I could build a car faster than any of those for half the cost.

>
> Not a new car. We are not talking a hacked together Fox-Body here.


Never said anything about a Fox body. But actually it would be pretty
neat to build a hot rod Fairmont, just to build the ugliest "hot" car
possible, no?

>
> >> I wouldn't call the majority in here car guys.

> >
> > What would you call them, then?

>
> Usenetties with some car inclination.
>
> To be fair, I deem a few people in here real car guys, C.R. for example.
> Most are not.
>
> >> Calling it bull**** doesn't change the fact. Support your opinion with
> >> studies and we will see...

> >
> > Already done, many times. Do your homework.

>
> You posted a few amusing anecdotes and a lonely reference to some
> political bull**** which you promptly proceeded to try to convert into a
> statistic improperly. Thanks, Nate, if I really want a doctored statistic
> I will doctor it myself.


I am referring to the references posted not only by myself but by
others as well.

>
> >> I looked at all information that was directly referenced. Claiming the
> >> info is somewhere inside some website is _not_ info but just Bull****
> >> (to borrow from your vocabulary).

> >
> > Sounds to me like you're more interested in "winning" an argument than
> > actually educating yourself.

>
> No, it merely sounds like I don't have the time to sift through tons of
> flotsam and jetsam just to search for info you critters claim you already
> have and just don't want to reference for some weird reason.
>
> If the info was there as plain as you guys claim you would have referenced
> it long ago. And no, I don't mean that amusing collection of anecdotes you
> call dockets.
>
> >>>Oooh, I'm so impressed. You posted one link to a study funded by a
> >>>corrupt and deeply flawed organization.
> >>
> >> Then post something better.

> >
> > Already done, many times.

>
> Someone needs to tell you that your repetition of a claim doesn't make it
> true.


And that right there, folks, is why this discussion is pointless.
That's all you've offered to bolster your position, so then why is it
valid?

>
> >> If you were right, you would post references yourself.

> >
> > Why should I? Others have already done so, IN THIS THREAD.

>
> No, they haven't. They merely have claimed some info and totally failed to
> reference it properly.
>


Um-hm. Probably because their references didn't support your agenda.

> >> Unfortunately you can't, which is why you think that simply calling me
> >> wrong will automatically sway people in your direction.
> >>

> > You're the only one disagreeing.

>
> The only one in this extremely limited group. Look at James. He is barely
> able to understand and write English. I do a much better job and I am not
> a native speaker. What he thinks to have read in documents somewhere deep
> inside NHTSA doesn't have any bearing on what really is in there.


right.

>
> You drive old cars with a passion and hate GM. You try to compare a
> clunker with a souped up engine with a new Corvette. Your bias is obvious
> from everything you write.
>


Clunker? LOL. I like old cars because I have an appreciation for good
design, for a machine that is fundamentally good without relying on
electronic band-aids to make it all work together. If someone made a
modern iteration of the old Porsche 944 (preferably with a little more
power this time though) I would be sorely tempted to drop large wads of
cash. As it is, there's very few new cars that make me want them as
seriously as the best designs do from years past.

> Do I have to continue?
>
> >> The dockets are political junk. Post a serious study insead.

> >
> > There are references to serious research in the comments under those
> > dockets. However, since they aren't easily linkable (often one .pdf
> > will contain many different short letters, and the ones that do
> > reference hard research may be buried in the middle - and may even
> > reference research not available on the Web, you might have to do a
> > little bit of legwork.)

>
> I don't have the time to sift through all the inane comments to possibly
> find one jewel. And referencing a pdf file is so easy even a total moron
> can do it: Post the URL and add the pdf page number.
>


What makes you think that anyone else has more free time than you do?
You're the one making the comments that DRLs, auto. headlights et. al.
are good ideas, against popular opinion and consensus.

> > So NHTSA is good but dockets are bad? I'll have to remember that.
> > *snork*

>
> Neither is really good, but the NHTSA at least has some hard numbers
> and not only amusing anecdotes. What a pity the numbers don't support your
> view or you would be all over the NHTSA.


Already been posted. One of the studies referenced showed an 8%
increase in incidents with DRLs. But of course you probably have all
sorts of reasons why the Holy NHTSA numbers are better.

>
> >> The Goat sells very well and is priced far below its competitors. The
> >> Mustang GT doesn't even come close with its lackluster modular engine.

> >
> > That would explain why I see all kinds of new Mustangs and can't
> > remember the last time I saw a GTO in the wild - if I ever did.

>
> The Stang is cheap. The V6 Stang is even cheaper. Any secretary that wants
> a spiffy looking car can buy one and drive it without undue stress on her
> delicate psyche. The Goat is a totally different animal and mostly targets
> the enthusiast market. You of all people should understand the difference
> between a slightly spiffed up everyday car and a car for someone, who
> loves driving.


Actually both are spiffed up everyday cars. The GTO is based on a
generic Australian sedan platform (not that that's bad, the original
was based on a generic American sedan platform.)

>
> >>>Otherwise the Mustang is going to be a runaway success and the GTO is
> >>>going to be yet another "could have been."
> >>
> >> One, the Stang and the GTO are not direct competitors.

> >
> > This is true, but the fact remains that when you compare the prices,
> > someone originally tempted to buy a GTO just might decide to buy a
> > Mustang instead and pocket the difference for, say, a down payment on a
> > small house.

>
> You don't get much house for 5k, at least not around here. And I truly
> pity the enthusiast, who chooses a Stang over a GTO just because of the
> bit of money he saves.


Difference is more like $10K, really, and when that's on the order of
1/3 the price of the car in question, that's a lot of scratch.

>
> > Add to that that the average Joe can afford a Mustang but not a GTO...
> > well, you do the math.

>
> Weird reasoning. If someone really can afford a Mustang GT he can afford
> the GTO. May take a tad more effort but if money is so tight he should buy
> neither.


Most people don't make in a year what the GTO costs. You know that,
right?

>
> > Where are these cars selling? Why don't I see any of them at all? It
> > doesn't matter how good the thing is, if they don't sell.

>
> Around here they sell well. And as GM sells as many as they get the
> pricing seems to be correct.


You realize that even if what you say is true, that GM is only shooting
itself in the foot? And basically admitting that their overseas
products are better than what they design here?

>
> >>>Yes, and it's fairly clear that that perception is why they're selling
> >>>as many vehicles as they are.
> >>
> >> Clever marketing.

> >
> > And apparently effective.

>
> What's wrong with that?


Nothing, but it's not a viable long-term plan.

nate

  #289  
Old July 12th 05, 06:25 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



C.H. wrote:
>
> 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.
>



LOL. That's rich, coming from the likes of you. Get thrashed in an
argument, pretend to killfile someone because you can't handle the
truth that just about everyone in r.a.d. is smarter than you, then
whine about badmouthing? You have done nothing *but* badmouthing in
this thread.

I will repeat to James, Nate and others: Christian Huebner has done
this on plenty of previous occasions, and it's only when you get down
to showing how is logic is faulty that he capitulates. Otherwise, he
just keeps on blabbing his same, old tired crap. Never argue with an
idiot - they drag you down to their level, then beat you with
experience.

Hell, a couple of years ago, he had this *exact same* argument with
Dan. And got flogged exactly the same way.

Chris - quit pretending your opinion is valued. There isn't a single
person in r.a.d. that respects much of anything about you. Oh, if you
couldn't tell - that just from reading their posts. I figure if
everyone just replies to your inane blather with "STFU, idiot", pretty
soon you'll get a clue. Well, most folks would get a clue - you might
be entirely clueproof.

E.P.

  #290  
Old July 12th 05, 10:28 PM
fbloogyudsr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C.H." > wrote
> 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.


AFAIK, you have never given us any scientific reference, only your
opinions. You lose.

Floyd

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Enable Caravan Daytime Running Lights (DRL's) Option ls_dot1 Chrysler 11 May 26th 05 01:49 AM
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 Pete Technology 41 May 24th 05 04:19 AM
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 Daniel J. Stern Driving 3 May 24th 05 04:19 AM
Why no rear lights with DRLs? Don Stauffer Technology 26 April 26th 05 04:16 AM
Chevy Tahoe DRls? BE Driving 0 March 28th 05 03:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.