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
  #191  
Old July 9th 05, 04:53 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:41:45 -0700, Bernard Farquart wrote:

>
> "C.H." > wrote in message
> news


>> And my opinion remains that you would see that subject much different if
>> you were my former flight instructor, who is 5' and maybe 90 lbs. My
>> opinon also remains that you should not assume everyone is talking out
>> of a certain backside orifice just because you use that orifice for
>> talking.
>>

> I am talking out of said orifice why?


I didn't say you are. And neither am I. That you still accuse me of it
makes it likely that you are, though, as people tend to accuse others of
their own bad habits.

> Just because some midget in the 5th percentile of adult body mass can
> not do something easily does not mean very much to the rest of us.


And still people like power brakes and power steering. Why? Because it
reduces fatigue, makes cars with wide tires easier to park and to slow
down and overall improves driving enjoyment. Even extreme sportscars
(Ferrari, Porsche, Koenigsegg, ...) have power brakes and ABS despite the
trade-off in pedal feel. For good reason.

> I am sure your "former flight instructor" would have a hard time riding
> an adult's bicycle, but that does not make the bicycle a faulty design.


I didn't say the car design was faulty, just inapropriate for today's
traffic volume and broad car buyer base. I would appreciate it if you
would stop with your 'interpretations' of my postings.

Chris
Ads
  #192  
Old July 9th 05, 04:58 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:33:59 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:28:05 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>>
>>>Clueless people driving a DRL equipped car are a danger because they're
>>>not visibile from behind in fog or rain.

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

>
> You are very good at unrealistic theory.


Driving within the envelope of conditions is not unrealistic theory.
Driving outside of the envelope is stupidity.

> Imagine torrential rain on the interstate.


I have been in torrential rain quite a few times. My headlights turned on
no problem.

> It is bright but visibility is poor, so automatic lights dont kick in.


Torrential rain almost always coincides with heavy clouds and a
significant reduction in light intensity.

> You cant go too slow, because you'll be tailgated by the retard behind
> you.


Then get off the freeway and wait until conditions improve. Driving faster
than visibility allows is stupid. Usually changing lanes to the right
is sufficient to get rid of the retard, though. Could it be that you are a
LLB?

> Imagine coming upon a slow granny running only DRLs, no taillights.
> You may end up hitting her.


To fast for conditions. That's what you are and that's what the police
report will say. You simply drive beyond your own capabilities.

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

>
> Nonsense.


No. Just the simple truth.

Chris
  #193  
Old July 9th 05, 04:59 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:15:52 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:27:02 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>> That you are incapable of referencing relevant information fortunately
>>> is not my problem. You don't pay me to search 'studies' for you, so I
>>> don't see why I should.

>>
>> Perhaps debating with knowledge beyond your own experience on the subject
>> would be a good reason? Just a suggestion. You just might find subject
>> matter contained there that supports some of your points, if you would
>> bother to take the time to look for it.

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


Okay. Assume what you wish.

>
>>> Btw, I hear SCO has an opening for a chief obfuscator and imaginary
>>> stolen Linux code specialist, you would fit in splendidly with SCO's 'we
>>> know there must be some stolen code in Linux, we just can't find it.',
>>> James 'I know there must be some DRL studies on www.nhtsa.gov' Reeves.

>>
>> Having witnessed your qualifications, I thought you already won that job!
>> :-) Why bother to compete with the master and loose! ;-)

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


Lazy is as lazy does. I guess you're right. You're not qualified after
all. :-)

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


Several reasons. One, because it's unnecessary. Two, the site dosn't work
that way, there isn't a link to a specific page in a study..the material is
all over the place and is accessible by search.

Also, do you really believe that the NHTSA has been studying these issues
for nearly 15 years and there is "zero" documented on it? And, do you also
believe that if these things were as great as you think, they wouldn't have
made the final rule to require them 10 years ago? Just think for 3-seconds
man! They are still working through many negative issues.

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

>>
>> Uh....documents are maintained on the "document management system".

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


You win the prize. You are correct. Ding..ding..ding! By golly, it IS a
document management system! imagine that! And guess what? The documents I
refer to are in the document management system. Gee wiz! That actually
does maks sense, doesn't it? Indexed documents to be stored in a document
management system? Imagine that! One can learn something new every day.
Congrats!

>
> Better luck with your FUD strategy next time.


No luck. That is where they are.

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

>>
>> I am a "reader" too (your term).

>
> Not when you make claims (like the one of documents being 'somewhere
> inside the DOT or NHTSA website').
>
>> Since I'm not the Op making the claim, I only contributing to the
>> discussion, just like you are.

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


Okay

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

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


I believe I have provided the leads anyone (well except you apparently) can
use. You are unable to follow them apparently, so be it.

>
> [if you want an ABS thread, open one]
>
> But it's highly interesting that you were able to post a link there right
> way, whereas you are still incapable of presenting a link to your
> 'studies'.


It isn't interesting at all, really. They are references that exist on
different sites with a different site structure. It is not possible to
provide the direct link you want to the specific pages of the documents I
speak of that are on the document management system. The only way to them
is to do the search for them. If you had really tried, you would have known
that instead of making such incorrect assumptions.

>
>>> Unlike you I am quite capable of determining whether my lights _are_ on
>>> and _should_be_ on, so I don't pull into parking lots on foggy mornings
>>> with my lights off.

>>
>> I obviously understand like you do. So your words "unlike you" is
>> missplaced.

>
> Then why do you assert that drivers of DRL equipped cars (of which I am
> one) are incable of telling whether their lights are on?


Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone (you and me and may others clearly
understand that manual intervention is often required). We're speaking of
percentages within the general population here. This isn't about you or me.

> The drivers you are ranting about would not turn on their lights in
> morning fog with or
> without DRLs.


To a degree that is true. But it has been documented that the situation
occurs more frequently with DRL equipped vehicles. Even the "experts"
understand this and don't dispute it (and are working to try and resolve
it). Do you have another explanation as to why this is so? Oh that's right,
you don't believe it is so. Good thing you're not in charge or the problem
would never be solved.

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

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


I believe I have clearly demonstrated otherwise here. But, I'm fine with
people making their own judgements...including you.

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

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


Thanks for the clarification. I can't disagree with that statement.

>
>>> Maybe your bozo coworkers just need some driving lessons?

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

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


I've owned several GM products over the years. A amazing fact for someone
that hates them. Again a incorrect assumption on your part. You need to
stop making stuff up.

You are correct about one thing. I DO dislike GM trying (and failing) to
over-engineer something where the technology isn't baked yet (and then
forcing a failed system on those of us that don't want it against our
will...or forcing us to have no choice but to buy their competitors
product..which makes me sick to see them loosing business for something this
simple). I would prefer GM do the right thing by the customer so they can
sell their cars to them again. The USA needs a strong GM.

> I don't mind driving non-DRL or DRL cars, non-auto headlight cars and
> auto-headlight cars, non-GM cars and GM cars. Thus I am relatively
> unbiased on this subject.


Okay, understood. I don't remember claiming that you were biased, but I may
have inadvertently made that implication...given your tendencacy to make
assumptions that are not always correct.

> My current car has DRLs and auto headlights and
> both work well for me, but if someone has a car
> without that doesn't make
> him worth less in my book.


A good thing.

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


Ah, those assumtions again! :-) I really didn't follow that one. I assure
you (for the record here) that I'm not a expert, nor am I suiperior on this
topic. I have just read quite a bit on the subject. I will state that for
the record. I merely come with some insight that I have come across that
people can use (or not) or believe (or not). And provided a way for anyone
that want's to to research and come to their own informed conclusion (same
conclusion as me, or not)

>>> It is not very difficult to see, whether the lights are on or not,
>>> neither on non-automatic-headlight cars nor on automatic-headlight
>>> cars. (Hint: The instrument panel lighting is only on when the
>>> headlights are on)

>>
>> I've never owned a car with instrument panel lighting that was bright
>> enough to tell if illuminated or not in bright daytime fog/snow weather
>> conditions. However, one can tell if their radio display has dimmed
>> (assuming one hasen't turned them to the full bright detent or looks at
>> the radio display frequently). For many cars, there is no sure-fire
>> internal visual aid to know lighting status during daylight
>> hours...typically dash lights are simply too dim to see in those
>> conditions. IF your car turns on it's lights and you can immediately
>> see that your dash has lit up as a result, it's waiting WAY too long to
>> turn the lights on.

>
> In bright daylight my headlights are off, I know that without checking.
> When it is foggy and bright (happens, even though its very rare) I switch
> on my headlights manually.


As did I as well. Of course, if one has to do something manually much of
the time, there is little added value (in my book) for a "auto" system since
it's doesn't often work and manual intervention is necessary so often
anyway. Of course the bigger problem is those people that wind up putting
100% of their faith in the system that is only works 70% of the time..and
there are quite a few of those people, apparently.

> And in conditions, where headlights normally
> are warranted (overcast with rain, dusk) I am able
> to see my instrument panel lighting (or use the radio
> as you described).


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

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


Lights are required by law day or night when it is snowing. They aren't
required if there is snow merely on the ground and is otherwise clear and
sunny. I wasn't sure which situation yo were describing above. The rpoblem
is in the latter situation (lights not required then anyway)

>>> Most GM cars don't need their light control systems serviced.

>>
>> You are the one that suggested that, given what I and others posting
>> here have observed with a fair number of GM vehicles, that the auto
>> system needed to be serviced. Now you are saying the opposite (again)?

>
> I merely suggested that if one of them has a defective GM car they need
> their car serviced, just as you would service a defective Honda or
> Chrysler.


No, it was a specific defect you were speaking to. In that context, there
certaintly are a very large number of GM vehicles with defective auto light
control systems then.

> As I said above, your observations are tainted,
> so your assertion that most of your GM driving
> coworkers have that problem is worthless anyway.


And the very same observations from others here in this very thread AND in
testimonials on file at the NHTSA are also worthless? I submit there is
something to this. You may not agree. But far too many independent people
have reported this exact situation for it to be just a fluke.

>>> The system doesn't provide for every eventuality

>>
>> BINGO! You are correct, of course. The problem is that calling it
>> automatic is incorrect because of that.

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


I've never seen the word automatic on a Coke machine or a lift. ;-) Apples
and oranges anyway. Automatic transmissions are reliable..they shift when
required/appropriate 99.9% of the time and I've been lucky to never have had
a transmission failure (even on my Chrysler/Dodge products). Automatic
clothes washers, same thing. Clothes come out of the machine washed and
wrung out 99.9% of the time. Automatic dishwashers, same thing. Very
reliable. One can count on them. Automatic lighting systems fail 30% of
the time (at least where I live where the weather conditions they can handle
are frequent). Something that fails that much is not automatic. (Heck, I
would call it defective engineering, in all honesty). We simply shouldn't
put up with that high of a failure rate of ANY system, especially one that
is so closely tied to safety and requires manual intevention is such a high
frequency!

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

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


That is simply incorrect.

> In some rare conditions the system needs intervention,


Not rare at all. It occurs on many mornings especially.

> which is understood by almost all people.


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

> Your problem is not the name of the system or that intervention
> is sometimes necessary, but the fact that you need arguments
> to support your hate of GM in general and a few of their
> features in particular.


I don't need arguements. They've all been made already...long ago.

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

Not sure where the hate GM stuff in general is coming from. You're making
incorrect assumptions. I've personally owned GM products and come from a
very long line of GM buyers in the family (Parents, grand parents on both
sides and great grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.)

>>> but is quite a bit more reliable than the average driver.

>>
>> At dusk/dawn/twilight, I would tend to agree with you.

>
> As most problems with headlight use/non-use are at dusk/dawn/twilight this
> is sufficient to make the system useful.
>
>> At dark of night, it's a wash.

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


And you should see how many people here pull out in front of you on the
highway without tail lights because the gas station canopy was so bright
that the auto light system failed to turn the lights on until after they
entered the highway. Sure, that's a real good thing!

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

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


Yours may. Some implementations seem to function better han others. But
most don't...especially the further south one happens to be (higher sun
angle). Question, if that sensative, they must cycle the lights on when
entering the tree canopy of a wooded area as well (which I wouldn't
particularly like).

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

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


No huge arguement with that statement. A caveat, however. There is
something that causes people that drive DRL equipped cars not to switch on
their lights as often as (or when) they should. One theory is that the
reflection of the DRL's illuminating the road and objects in front of them
cause the visual que that registers (in their minds) that their lights are
on (when they are not)...probably normal lack of proper attentiveness that
we both agree can be a problem with the average driver (driving both types
of cars). Another theory is that some believe that DRLs are sufficient for
longer into dusk, so they make a conscience decision to wait longer before
switching on the regular lights. It's just more pervasive of a problem with
DRL equipped vehicles vs. non-DRL equippped vehicles (for what ever reason).
The Safety people at the NHTSA and in the industry wouldn't be working on
the issue if the issue didn't exist.

>
>>> I prefer a few bozos without taillights in fog to the same bozos
>>> without DRLs _and_ taillights in fog.

>>
>> I don't see much difference between the two.

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

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


Incorrect. The largest and most damaging type of accident that have ever
occured is the pileup. Pileup accidents involve vehicles that are going in
the same direction under poor sight conditions. Often these pileups involve
many hundreds of vehicles and many hundreds of injuries and fatalities.
Rear lighting is at least as important as frontal lighting...perhaps more
so.

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

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


And the afore mentioned pilups are vivid reminders that that is exactly what
happens with real people on real roads driving real cars...they often DO
drive too fast for conditions...so rear illumination is at least as
important as frontal illumination. A lighting control design/system that
creates a situation where rear illumination is less likely to happen is not
a good thing.

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


See above.

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

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


It's on file on the same document management system I already provided a
link to. Since that reference doesn't qualify as a reference to you way of
thinking, I guess your assertion is correct. For anyone else interested,
have at it.

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

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


I have not had a power steering system fail in years...but I would call it
"automatic". I have never had a brake system fail (power or
otherwise)...knock on wood....but I would call that automatic either. I
have had ABS systems get in the way of my wanting full control of braking
during a emergency maneuver a time or two (which is why I no longer will buy
a car with ABS), but I would not call it a failure, it did it's job as
designed...and I supose it's a automatic system. But, even there, I have
never had a ABS system fail to do what it proports to do. However, I HAVE
had auto lighting control systems fail to function when required on a
significant number of occasions...and have personally observed the same
failure on other GM vehicles (almost daily). It is not something we should
put up with, frankly...and we should tell GM so!

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

>> I believe he did address you directly.

>
> Then why your unfocused adoration of him in this thread?


You keep bringing him up. Just forget it, will ya! He hurt your widdle
feelings...get over it!

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

>
> I know quite a few people, who are good in their field and utterly fail to
> make this knowledge work for them because they have anger and arrogance
> issues.


There are many mirrors there where you are, I take it. :-) Just
kidding...just kidding!

> DS is one of them. If I want to know about lighting I go elsewhere
> because with the other guys I don't have to sort through their personality
> problems before accessing the info.


And if I were you, I would do the same. No arguement from me on that one.
DS would probably be fine with that decision, if I were a betting person.

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

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


His credentials are sufficient since that is his business. I'm sure you
would take exception to those that question your credibility relating to
your area of discipline or field of study. Having respect for the
credentials of others is a two way street. By the way, where did you get
your degree in vehicle lighting design and study? ;-)

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


So you didn't know that Daniel's expertise is sought by many. He has been
solicited and supplied research and written white papers for the NHTSA and
others on the topic of vehicle lighting use, design, etc. His knowledge
goes far beyond "light bulbs". He deserves a degree of deference and
respect on this topic. He knows what he is talking about. You can
certainly take issue with his attitude. You (or I) can't take issue with
his knowledge on the topic (they are different things and you would do well
to separate the emotional from the information). So, loose the hurt
feelings because he insulted you (put it aside) and learn from the knowledge
he imparts. Daniel has come after me on a few occasions...so I certainly
understand. But I'm not going to cut my nose off in spite of my face
because of it! He has good knowledge.



  #194  
Old July 9th 05, 05:16 AM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:

> And concerning the boy racers, around here most Camaro and Trans Am
> drivers are in their thirties and forties and usually drive rather
> responsibly,


Here the Camaros and Mustangs and TransAms are the popular with the
young rednecks who like them because they're cheap and have a lot
of power--go fast in a straight line, but are not capable of much
else.

> whereas the 350Z seems to be en vogue among the 'graduated
> ricers' who want to rice out a nicer car than the fartpipe and parkbench
> equipped POS Civics and Integras they had before.


Exactly how are the 350Zs riced? There is no need to 'rice' a 350Z.


> And unless you are completely stupid you select cars according to the very
> same principles I use.


LOL. Of course.

> Maybe the 350Z is
> actually for you (i.e. you don't mind buying performance tires with every
> oil change


Where do you get this ****? Do you make it up?
  #195  
Old July 9th 05, 05:34 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 04:16:19 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>> And concerning the boy racers, around here most Camaro and Trans Am
>> drivers are in their thirties and forties and usually drive rather
>> responsibly,

>
> Here the Camaros and Mustangs and TransAms are the popular with the young
> rednecks who like them because they're cheap and have a lot of power--go
> fast in a straight line, but are not capable of much else.


You would be surprised, what the Camaro can do on the track, especially
with proper suspension tuning. It's definitely not the best handling car
in the world, but it handles much better than most of the 'I drove a
clapped-out 67 when I was young and it handled like ****, so Camaros don't
handle' crowd.

>> whereas the 350Z seems to be en vogue among the 'graduated ricers' who
>> want to rice out a nicer car than the fartpipe and parkbench equipped
>> POS Civics and Integras they had before.

>
> Exactly how are the 350Zs riced? There is no need to 'rice' a 350Z.


Then I must be imagining the park-bench spoilers, Nitto and Altered
Perceptionz stickers and preposterous ground effects that are fashionable
on the 350Z around here.

>> And unless you are completely stupid you select cars according to the
>> very same principles I use.

>
> LOL. Of course.
>
>> Maybe the 350Z is actually for you (i.e. you don't mind buying
>> performance tires with every oil change

>
> Where do you get this ****? Do you make it up?


No. The tire problem is well known and well documented (33000 hits for
'350Z tire problems'.

One of them is he

http://maintenance.autoblog.com/entry/8388518073116152/

Another one:

http://www.nissantireproblems.com/

You might want to try googling something before you go through the roof,
it's easier on the roof and doesn't make you look like an idiot when it
turns out you were wrong.

Chris
  #196  
Old July 9th 05, 06:11 AM
Bernard Farquart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C.H." > wrote in message
news
>>>

>> I am talking out of said orifice why?

>
> I didn't say you are.


Quote "My opinon also remains that you should not assume everyone
is talking out of a certain backside orifice just because you use that
orifice for
talking."

>> I am sure your "former flight instructor" would have a hard time riding
>> an adult's bicycle, but that does not make the bicycle a faulty design.

>
> I didn't say the car design was faulty, just inapropriate for today's
> traffic volume and broad car buyer base. I would appreciate it if you
> would stop with your 'interpretations' of my postings.


Quote " Yes, your car is ok for you. It would not be ok
for a person, who doesn't have the strength to consistently operate the
non-power-assisted brakes in real life conditions. Unfortunately quite a
number of licensed drivers falls into this category so the car makers need
to offer cars that these people can drive."




Hmmm, looks like you forget what you say, then say you didn't
mean anything like that.

I suppose we are done here.

Bernard




  #197  
Old July 9th 05, 06:36 AM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



223rem wrote:
> C.H. wrote:
>
> > And concerning the boy racers, around here most Camaro and Trans Am
> > drivers are in their thirties and forties and usually drive rather
> > responsibly,

>
> Here the Camaros and Mustangs and TransAms are the popular with the
> young rednecks who like them because they're cheap and have a lot
> of power--go fast in a straight line, but are not capable of much
> else.
>
> > whereas the 350Z seems to be en vogue among the 'graduated
> > ricers' who want to rice out a nicer car than the fartpipe and parkbench
> > equipped POS Civics and Integras they had before.

>
> Exactly how are the 350Zs riced? There is no need to 'rice' a 350Z.
>


Same way that Civics are riced - ugly rims, fartpipe exhausts, and
tacky body mods. Don't see as many 350Z's done up like that but there
are a good number floating around here. Need has nothing to do with it
and bad taste apparently knows no boundaries.

nate

  #198  
Old July 9th 05, 06:55 AM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 06:02:10 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > C.H. wrote:

>
> >> If you thought it was a safety hazard of the magnitude DS and JR
> >> postulate, you would.
> >>

> > I think they are both safety hazards, as I've repeatedly stated in this
> > group before. It must be nice to be independently wealthy to the point
> > that one could do as you suggest.

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


You're just being delibnerately argumentative. First, most of the
safety issues can be easily overcome by simply running low beam
headlights 24/7 (although that doesn't get rid of the problem that the
headlights are impossible to turn off completely, I probably won't be
visiting guarded gov't facilities anymore) and secondly, if your
suggestions were as easy to implement as you seem to imply, don't you
think I would have done so already?

nate

  #199  
Old July 9th 05, 07:12 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

[baaah baaah baaah]

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


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

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


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

I will show you an example:

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

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

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

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

>
> I've owned several GM products over the years. A amazing fact for
> someone that hates them.


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

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

>
> Ah, those assumtions again! :-) I really didn't follow that one.


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

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


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

>> In bright daylight my headlights are off, I know that without checking.
>> When it is foggy and bright (happens, even though its very rare) I
>> switch on my headlights manually.

>
> As did I as well. Of course, if one has to do something manually much
> of the time, there is little added value (in my book) for a "auto"
> system since it's doesn't often work and manual intervention is
> necessary so often anyway.


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

>> And in conditions, where headlights normally are warranted (overcast
>> with rain, dusk) I am able to see my instrument panel lighting (or use
>> the radio as you described).

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


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

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

>
> Lights are required by law day or night when it is snowing.
> They aren't required if there is snow merely on the ground and is
> otherwise clear and sunny. I wasn't sure which situation yo were
> describing above. The rpoblem is in the latter situation (lights not
> required then anyway)


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

>> As I said above, your observations are tainted, so your assertion that
>> most of your GM driving coworkers have that problem is worthless
>> anyway.

>
> And the very same observations from others here in this very thread AND
> in testimonials on file at the NHTSA are also worthless?


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

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


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

>>> BINGO! You are correct, of course. The problem is that calling it
>>> automatic is incorrect because of that.

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

>
> I've never seen the word automatic on a Coke machine or a lift. ;-)
> Apples and oranges anyway. Automatic transmissions are reliable..


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

>
> That is simply incorrect.


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

>> which is understood by almost all people.

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


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

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

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


Only in your little hole in the wall.

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


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

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

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

>
> And you should see how many people here pull out in front of you on the
> highway without tail lights because the gas station canopy was so bright
> that the auto light system failed to turn the lights on until after they
> entered the highway.


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

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

>
> Yours may. Some implementations seem to function better han others. But
> most don't...especially the further south one happens to be (higher sun
> angle). Question, if that sensative, they must cycle the lights on when
> entering the tree canopy of a wooded area as well (which I wouldn't
> particularly like).


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

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

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

>
> No huge arguement with that statement. A caveat, however. There is
> something that causes people that drive DRL equipped cars not to switch
> on their lights as often as (or when) they should.


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

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


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

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

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

>
> Incorrect. The largest and most damaging type of accident that have
> ever occured is the pileup.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

>
> And the afore mentioned pilups are vivid reminders that that is exactly
> what happens with real people on real roads driving real cars...they
> often DO drive too fast for conditions...so rear illumination is at
> least as important as frontal illumination.


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

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

>
> I have not had a power steering system fail in years...but I would call
> it "automatic".


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Chris
  #200  
Old July 9th 05, 07:21 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:11:16 -0700, Bernard Farquart wrote:

>
> "C.H." > wrote in message
> news >
>>> I am talking out of said orifice why?

>>
>> I didn't say you are.

>
> Quote "My opinon also remains that you should not assume everyone is
> talking out of a certain backside orifice just because you use that
> orifice for talking."


This sentence supports my statement. I merely asserted that the likelyhood
that you are experienced in talking out of said orifice is quite high
because you assume that others do.

>> I didn't say the car design was faulty, just inapropriate for today's
>> traffic volume and broad car buyer base. I would appreciate it if you
>> would stop with your 'interpretations' of my postings.

>
> Quote " Yes, your car is ok for you. It would not be ok for a person, who
> doesn't have the strength to consistently operate the non-power-assisted
> brakes in real life conditions. Unfortunately quite a number of licensed
> drivers falls into this category so the car makers need to offer cars that
> these people can drive."


> Hmmm, looks like you forget what you say, then say you didn't mean
> anything like that.


If you see a contradiction here you really need reading glasses.

> I suppose we are done here.


Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Chris
 




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 10:16 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.