The dangers of DRLs

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:55:54 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Garth Almgren wrote:
>
>> Around 7/6/2005 10:13 PM, CH wrote:
>
> <another raftload of stupid ****>

I didn't think you would stoop that low, Dannyboy. Badmouthing someone to
their face is one thing, plonking them because one is too cowardly to
confront an adversary and then badmouthing them in postings from others is
something entirely different and much worse. Even among the troll
population this type of cowardice is usually a no-no...

Chris

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 06:52:50 -0700, N8N wrote:

>
>
> CH wrote:
>> That may be. Now take a 5'2 80lb woman and make her drive your Stude.
>> Chances are she is going to run into something.
>>
> Probably never happen. Smallest person likely (relatively, that is -
> still a long shot) is my mom, who's still a bit bigger than that. Since
> I've seen her occasionally wheeling around an old Farmall Cub, I think she
> could handle it.

You are missing the point. 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.

> Oddly enough, the one place that I could see the case being made for power
> brakes is exactly where you wouldn't think it desirable - in competition;

Many competition classes have power brakes, some even ABS.

Chris

CH wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:50:03 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
> >
> > "CH" > wrote in message

<snip>

> >> Again, only works if the subject is _aware_, which by far most drivers
> >> arent. Ask the average driver whether his car has DRLs. You will find
> >> most don't know.
> >
> > And a driver not knowing that their car has DRLs or not is a good thing?
>
> In a way, yes. Better than not having DRLs and not knowing that and still
> not switching on the lights in bad conditions.

But the driver without DRLs is actually more likely to realize his
error, as he won't be able to see.

>
> > So, if the driver doesn't know that the light reflecting back at them
> > from the car in front of them is coming from their DRLs instead of their
> > headlights, they'll intuitively believe that their headlights are on
> > when they're not...and that's not a good thing?!
>
> Most drivers don't even think about things like their DRLs/headlighs
> reflecting from the car in front of them as you can clearly see from the
> high rate of 'one-eyed' or 'blind' cars on the road.
>

Well, then, in that case, it should be self-evident that DRLs actually
have a negative effect on safety, not a positive one as you claim -
since they actually make clueless people less likely to use their
lights correctly.

nate

CH wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:37:24 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
> >
> > "CH" > wrote in message
> > news
> >> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:01:08 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> >>
> >> And I believe the numbers are much lower than you think. Now what? Is
> >> your opinion better, just because you become insulting instead of
> >> stating your point?
> >
> > Responses at NHTSA on the subject are 95+% in the negative. Since that is
> > a open coment docket that people of both pro and con can post comments to,
> > I have to believe (and conclude) that the numbers of people that dislike
> > these things are quite high.
>
> Only people, who have a gripe with something post that. Polls like that
> are worse than worthless, they are intentional distortion of the facts.
>
> > Not sure why that is insulting, however.
>
> Some of your other posts on the same topic were insulting and I take it
> that you think that the person, who is more insulting, wins.
>
> >> I don't think that _anyone_ would be stupid enough to buy/not buy a car
> >> just because of one rather obscure feature. As you can see with Nate,
> >> who seems to feel strongly about it and still chooses the economically
> >> better solution for himself the impact seems to be small.
> >
> > With several people here stating that being the case (that wouldn't buy a
> > car with this feature), perhaps you (and GM's management) are in denial?
>
> Several people here, who wouldn't touch cars from Detroit with a ten foot
> pole anyway and are looking for reasons to hate them. Look at Nate: 'Oh, I
> don't like DRLs and automatic headlights, but I'm still gonna get a car
> with both because its a financial advantage for me.'

You actually think I'm going to turn down a free car, insurance, and
gas - when I drive 100+ miles a day for work - because of a
philosophical difference of opinion with an auto mfgr.? I certainly
wouldn't spend my OWN money on any GM product, but taking a hit that
big to my standard of living - and believe me, it is a big one, gas and
insurance alone probably run close to $1K a month - to "prove" a point
that nobody's going to get anyway (do you think GM is going to care
that one person in a big fleet buy opted out?) is just freakin' stupid.
I try not to be that stupid.

I wish that things were such that it weren't considered gauche to
provide foreign cars for employees' company cars, but that's not how
things are... Wouldn't I love to have, say, a G35 sedan instead of a
freakin' Impala (or let's be honest, even a Camry or Accord,) but I
don't think it's in the cards.

nate

C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:55:54 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Garth Almgren wrote:
> >
> >> Around 7/6/2005 10:13 PM, CH wrote:
> >
> > <another raftload of stupid ****>
>
> I didn't think you would stoop that low, Dannyboy. Badmouthing someone to
> their face is one thing, plonking them because one is too cowardly to
> confront an adversary and then badmouthing them in postings from others is
> something entirely different and much worse.

Bwahaha!

Hoist by your own petard - you did *exactly that same thing*, within
the last two months.

Right here in this newsgroup. And I can provide linked proof.

LOL.

E.P.

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:23:07 -0700, N8N wrote:

>
>
> CH wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:50:03 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>> > And a driver not knowing that their car has DRLs or not is a good
>> > thing?
>>
>> In a way, yes. Better than not having DRLs and not knowing that and
>> still not switching on the lights in bad conditions.
>
> But the driver without DRLs is actually more likely to realize his error,
> as he won't be able to see.

We are talking about rain and fog, where the light does not serve vision
but visibility. And as long as they see they won't worry about switching
on their lights.

>> Most drivers don't even think about things like their DRLs/headlighs
>> reflecting from the car in front of them as you can clearly see from
>> the high rate of 'one-eyed' or 'blind' cars on the road.
>>
> Well, then, in that case, it should be self-evident that DRLs actually
> have a negative effect on safety, not a positive one as you claim -
> since they actually make clueless people less likely to use their lights
> correctly.

No, it's self evident that the DRLs don't influence their behavior, but
make their cars at least visible from the more dangerous side and thus
have a beneficial effect on safety.

Chris

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:30:38 -0700, N8N wrote:

> CH wrote:

>> Several people here, who wouldn't touch cars from Detroit with a ten
>> foot pole anyway and are looking for reasons to hate them. Look at Nate:
>> 'Oh, I don't like DRLs and automatic headlights, but I'm still gonna get
>> a car with both because its a financial advantage for me.'
>
> You actually think I'm going to turn down a free car, insurance, and gas -
> when I drive 100+ miles a day for work - because of a philosophical
> difference of opinion with an auto mfgr.?

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

Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 06:52:50 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > CH wrote:
> >> That may be. Now take a 5'2 80lb woman and make her drive your Stude.
> >> Chances are she is going to run into something.
> >>
> > Probably never happen. Smallest person likely (relatively, that is -
> > still a long shot) is my mom, who's still a bit bigger than that. Since
> > I've seen her occasionally wheeling around an old Farmall Cub, I think she
> > could handle it.
>
> You are missing the point. 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.
>
> > Oddly enough, the one place that I could see the case being made for power
> > brakes is exactly where you wouldn't think it desirable - in competition;
>
> Many competition classes have power brakes, some even ABS.
>
> Chris

Get off it already! Non-power brakes do not take that much effort to
operate. Jeez, cars (and trucks) went for 40 years before power breaks
even became available, more like 80 before they became de facto
standard on most cars. I suppose you also have the false belief that
it takes weight lifter strength to operate non-power steering.

Harry K

wrote:
> C.H. wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:55:54 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Garth Almgren wrote:
> > >
> > >> Around 7/6/2005 10:13 PM, CH wrote:
> > >
> > > <another raftload of stupid ****>
> >
> > I didn't think you would stoop that low, Dannyboy. Badmouthing someone to
> > their face is one thing, plonking them because one is too cowardly to
> > confront an adversary and then badmouthing them in postings from others is
> > something entirely different and much worse.
>
> Bwahaha!
>
> Hoist by your own petard - you did *exactly that same thing*, within
> the last two months.
>
> Right here in this newsgroup. And I can provide linked proof.
>
> LOL.
>
> E.P.

Odd, I was just thinking about KF'ing him myself in my last reply.
Comes a time when idiots need to be put back in the cupboard.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
>
> Odd, I was just thinking about KF'ing him myself in my last reply.
> Comes a time when idiots need to be put back in the cupboard.
>

Well, his ignorance and his lack of logic can be amusing. If he acted
anything like this IRL, he'd get his teeth knocked in on a regular
basis.

But hey - that's what usenet is all about - hiding behind the safety of
that warm monitor.

Killfiling CT and Judy/Millie/POA/LBMHBF can help to cut way back on
the noise in r.a.d.

Chris Huebner is hardly worth the effort.

E.P.