The dangers of DRLs

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:27:01 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> No LLB. But the freeway is congested.

Lane switching still gets rid of a retard on your rear bumper in just
about 100% of cases.

>>>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.
>
> What capabilities are you talking about, X-Ray vision? Why cant you
> understand that DRL cars encourage people to not think about lights, and
> especially about taillights?

DRL cars encourage no one to do anything. The percentage of lightless
bozos is about the same in non-DRL-cars as it is in DRL-cars.

The capabilities I am talking about is adjusting your speed and distance
to conditions. X-Ray-Vision is exactly what you do not possess, which is
why you need to make sure you can stop withing your visible light vison
distance, if there is an unexpected obstacle in the road.

Chris

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

And if I were inexperienced with creating hyperlinks, how is that relivant
to the discussion topic?

> 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...

Well you found something that supports your view. Good for you. I told you
you would if you would just look. Now look up Perot & Prowler or 1997 HLDI
study, or the Winsonsin Route 11 highway study in 1978 (I think it's
called) and another from Washington State (I don't remember the name) for
different study results that doesn't support your view.

By the way, your hyperlink didn't work...just as I stated...and you're not
paying me to cut and paste it. So get with the program! ;-) I suppose I
could ask you about your experience creating hyperlinks that don't work (and
your knowledge about how long parameter-filled hyperlinks that often wrap
are not functional). But there wouldn't be any point to it since now you
know. Some people learn from others. Some learn the hard way. That is
just how it is.

>>> 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.

I do hate the auto headlamps and DRLs...obviously that isn't a secret. Not
sure what that has to do with Bob Lutz, corn flakes or the Aztek though...or
my personal feelings about any of those unrelated items. I know, you won't
be surprised (save you the trouble). ;-)

However, if this is somehow helpful for you, I like the Buick line very
much!

>>> 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.

Well wonder away. How do you discount the others here in this thread with
the same observations. Everybody else that has contributed all sem to
disagree with you so far. If they bother to check their spelling mistakes
more frequently then I do, then that reason is out! :-) I guess you'll
have to find another unrelated reason other than spelling mistakes to claim
they are not able to make good observations. Good luck!

>> 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.

Last I checked, the NHTSA has not made any "findings". Although, perhaps
they have. All that did exist were various studies, public comments,
testimonials, schedules on rule making, etc.

To that end, I have provided the names the titles of those studies...did
you forget? There are also several public dockets (I don't have the
numbers handy) that have recorded hundreds (maybe thousands) of testomonials
and public comments, some stating the same thing others here have
stated...most do not agree with you (some exception, but few of those).
So, now that you know how to look stuff up, keep reading a little deeper.

>>> 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.

Curious, what year GM do you have that works so much better than everyone
elses?

>
>>> 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.

I prefer not having the chime as well. But how would one know otherwise?
You yourself have stated that "most" drivers don't know if their cars have
DRLs or not...etc. And I have never seen a car where the dash lights were
visable on bright foggy/snowing days. One can't tell by looking out of the
front of the car since the DRL's reflecting back (your amber DRL type
excluded) look exactly like the headlights. The ONLY way is to glance at
the radio display occasionally (something that shouldn't be necessary, but
the design of the system makes that the only way to do it...a least for most
all cars except yours, apparently).

>>> 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.

Hmmm....snow and bright sunlight. Well, it is quite impossible to have
"bright sunlight" occur during a snow storm. So you either meant bright
sunlight on a bank of snow that had already fallen (which I agree, negative
contrast is most likely to occur and where addng lighting can actually mask
a object) OR you meant a snowstorm that is occuring during the day (for
which case a negative contrast is less likely to occur so lights-on would be
prefered...plus the law requires them then anyway). So with a impossible
statement, I answered either possible scenario of what you *might* have
intended to say. Did I not get one of them right? If I did, I think I
passed the comprehension test.

Of course, I could have made statements that your must not be too smart if
you think the sun is out during a snow storm, etc. etc. which tends to be
your way of approaching people. But you'll note, I didn't do that. I
attempted to understand a sentence the way it was written, which didn't make
complete sense since it wasn't written well (we all have times where we
don't write well...especially in interactive forums such as this...I claim
guilty myself, so I'm not disparaging you)

>>> 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.

Again with the you. Forget about you and forget about me. This isn't
about the two of us. Now that we've done that. I was asking about the
others here with the same observations as mine. So far, no one has agreed
with you (unless I missed it). So, forget about me for a second...and
answer the question as to why all of the other people here are wrong too.
And since they seem to check their spelling more than I do, you will have to
find a different reason.

>> 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).

Ah thouse assumptions. For the record. I've never met the man, never spoken
to him (except in this NG). I've only read is work (among the work of
others). And for the record our opinions haven't been blesed by the
Almighty. However, they are based on a large library of
research...especially Daniel's since that is his business.

>>>> 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.

And you have that option...as it should be. Those of us that have auto
lighting systems that don't perform the way we believe they should don't
have that same option you did. All I'm saying is that GM (like their
competitors) should provide the customer that option (like you had). If
options are good enough for you and your manual tranny (because you don't
like automatic trannys) then it's good enough for those that don't like/want
auto headlight systems.

>> 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...

Yikes, I had no idea I had a folllowing! I know now you're imagining
things! ;-)

> ...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?

You are probably right. Auto trannys may not shift as you would want for
your style of driving. I can understand that. They work well for
me...although I'm just as happy with a manual (I've had both). Traffic here
though makes a manual sort of pointless (hardly ever get out of 1st or 2nd
gear).

>> 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.

Apparently where you are, the sun shines during snow storms. Are you sure
the aliens are here at my location and not yours? :-)

>> 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,

This goes a long way to perhaps explaing some things. Here where I live, it
is common on many mornings to have what is called "low-lying" fog. The fog
rests at the surface of the earth for the first few feet to perhaps as much
as 50 feet up (depth). Above the low fog it is perfectly clear and sunny.
The sun actually shines through the fog quite brightly from above...yet the
site distance at the surface is still very poor and requires the use of
lights. GM's auto light control thinks it's sunny (because almost is), not
foggy. But it IS foggy. This may be a revalation in our respective
understanding.

> maybe you are just making it up
> to rant about a system you don't like.

Those assumptions again. Yes, of course. I'm making it up. I'm making it
all up. So are all of these other people...everybody you don't agree with
is making things up. You are the only one here that has a clue. Have you
ever given the thought that if everybody else has observed these exact same
things (independently from one another), that perhaps it's not the rest of
the world with the problem? The common deminator is...?

> In any case it is not the norm just
> about anywhere in the United States
> and other countries.

Those assumptions again. Low-hanging fog IS a common-occuring atmospheric
condition caused by temperature inversion. It happens in many
places...especially around bodies of water and humid climates (which is a
lot of places).

> And aside of your
> brightly lit fog and inexplicable torential rain from a sunny sky the
> system works very well.

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.

Now, another weather lesson for you. It IS possible (and common is many
areas) for the sun to be out during a torrential rain. Ever been to Florida
(or much of the south-east and south)? It happens quite frequently there.
Thunder storms can be small and localized so that the cloud does not block
the sun, but it will still put down torrents. I guarantee that most GM auto
light controls won't work reliably in this situationr (except the few models
that have the wiper activated light control)

>>> 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.

The you again. Think "general population" please. That is the context here
as far as I am concerned. What happens with the general population with
these things...not what happens with you or me.

So question: The switch position "Auto" means exactly what? Well, it
*can* mean that the lights are on....but not always does it mean that. It
*can* also mean that the lights are off, but it doesn't always mean that
either. So, the best thing it can mean is "maybe your lights are on and
maybe your lights are off". Hmmm...and you think that is actually a better
system for the average bloke out there driving around?

Now a switch that says "On" and "Off" is really simple. When in the ON
position, lights are on...every time (Imagine that?). When in the "OFF"
position, lights are off...every time (imagine that to!) Much simplier
for the average bloke to understand compared to "Auto", don't you agree?

> What I said was that most people understand that no automatic system is
> correct every time.

I don't think that is true. Even if it were, they still have to go through
extra process steps (repeatedly) to determine what is happening at any given
moment with their lights. AND since the auto system can change the status
of the lights at any time without any warning to the driver or confirmation
from the driver to proceed, a person has to "keep a eye" on what it is
doing. Heck, during some trips to the office, the lights would cycle on and
off several times in the fog...and so would the other GM vehicles around me
(their lights were doing nearly the same thing that my lightts were). What
good is a system like that? Lighs on..lights off..light on..lights off
willy-nilly without the necessary thought that is required if they are
actually needed or not? **** poor situation in my book!

> They (the auto light control) may or may not know enough to intervene,

I agree...I didn't know you did.

> but on average the system makes sure that
> even the greatest idiots get their
> headlights switched on at dusk and
> off after sunrise.

That is does do well. And that is a good point to the system. For those of
us that have never "forgotten' to use the lights (and you can tell I'm anal
on the subject I'd bet), there should be a disable option offered by GM. I
have MUCH more confidence in my personal ability to properly control the
lights than anything I've used that was (so-called) "automatic" that GM has
put in their cars.

>> 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.

You''re ignoring the others here again that have the same observations I do?
You need to stop focusing on me (and my little hole) and focus on the
subject and how pervasive the issue appears to be.

>> 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.

Common low-laying fog and common southeast sunny rain storms explained
earlier.

>>>> 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.

Sometimes yes...sometimes no. Actually the newer systems are better
(trigger faster). At one time the trigger length was longer to prevent
false cycling when prople would go under wide bridges and such. But that
specification was changed becasue of the situation I just mentioned (and yes
it is documented too). But of course, the false cycling occurs more
frequently now as a result. (a trade off in design).

Actually, I expected you to come back saying that people with manual
switches do this too! (and they do).

>
>>> 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.

I have observed the same.

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

I do know...(which should be obvious since I described that occuring with
the vehicle I owned and others I've observed). My question was if that
happened to you as well. And you replied in the affirmative. So, we're
good.

>>> 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.

But they are apparently "more stupid" when driving a car equipped with
DRL's. I really hate using generalizations like that though. There are
many well educated people (hardly "stupid" people) that are in the
population base with this problem that we're talking about here.

>> 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.

You cant see your headlights reflecting back at you from the shiny surfaces
of the car in front of you when it's foggy/raining? I sure have no problem
seeing them. What I can't see is the instrument cluster illumination under
those conditions.

> 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.

I've never seen this theory put forth. I'm not saying it doesn't
exist...just hadn't seen it. Perhaps Daniel can comment on that. I'm not so
sure that these people are that observant. But, maybe they are.

>>> 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).

So illuminated tail lights wouldn't help? Okay

> 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).

Yes, tailgating is one cause. Visability in the fog is another...while
approaching a slower vehicle from behind. Illuminated tail lights would
help with the latter.

> 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.

Again with the me. I've never been in a pileup up or caused one. So I
guess I can wait for my regular appointment. Although, I didn't realize
that they made glasses that improved vision in fog. Anyway, back to your
topic. If one person is doing 40MPH and they come up behind another that is
doing 20MPH...illuminated tail lights in the dense fog will provide a extra
margin of time for the faster vehicle to reduce their speed to the 20MPH (or
change lanes) before hitting them.

>> 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.

Some are. Others are caused by someone going at too high a rate of speed
and overtaking someone that is going the correct speed and not being able to
stop in time before hitting them. Rear illumination helps in that
situation.

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

They why do they mostly occur in fog conditions? Especially the worst ones
that make the national news. Hmmm...it would be interesting to know if it's
typicaly a GM vehicle in the front of the pilup, wouldn't it?

>> 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.

You''re kidding..right?

> But if it were so, automatic lighting
> systems would be all the more important.

When they work...and fog conditions are a area where they fail the most.

>>> 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.

Time to do some research on the mechanics of automotive pilups, it seems.

>>> 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.

It's power steering, not automatic steering. Apples and oranges anyway.

>> 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?

You've never used braking and controled skids as a form of added directional
control? One can do some fairly amazing maneuvers usng the brakes that
cannot be accomplished with the steering wheel alone. ABS removes that
control option from the driver.

> 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 you say all of that after reading the link from the highway safety site
I sent you. Interesting. And did the benefit of ABS show up in accident
data as making a difference? No it didn't. So again all the hyperbole you
spew here has no basis in real world numbers or facts. Apparently, not only
can the best drivers control their cars adequately without ABS, but average
drivers must not have a problem doing so either. Otherwise there would be a
difference in the numbers. (did you forget what you read on the link I sent
you earlier)?

> And from everything you posted here I doubt you are even a good
> driver.

So, you don't find 35 years of driving with over 1 million miles without a
accident and one ticket (doing 67 in a 55) during that time as being very
good? Wow, you have very high standards. I must not measure up to your
stellar driving record. I'll keep working on it, I promise. So that I have
a high bar to reach, what is your driving record?

Oh those assumption things are getting to you again. (And they're so wrong
so often too!)

>> 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.

Sure, the average bloke would use that rediculous definition of
yours....NOT! I will submit to you that the average driver would define a
automatic light control system as one that controls the lights automatically
whenever and wherever lights are required (all conditions/all
situations...thus the definition of the word "automatic"). I would doubt
very much that many of those people even have a remote clue as to how the
system works, let alone understanding ambient light levels, lighting
sensors, wiper/light interfaces, etc. and how they all interact and affect
how the lights come on or go off. Many completely forget about any further
control of their lights, turning over said control to the suppsed "auto"
system (present company excluded, obviously). You are giving the average
driver far too much technical credit. So, under that definition (and
associated expectation), the automatic light control systems fails and fails
miserably.

You were joking with that definition, right? Even the GM engineers don't
understand enought to make them work reliably, and you expect the avarage
person to have a clue about the technical aspects of these things?
Bwahahahah!!! That's just too damn funny! Thanks for the chuckle!

>> 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.

Bwhahahahahahah. I couldn't resist. 100% is not even close. 70% may be
closer. I must still be "tickled" from the previous joke.

> 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.

Yes, foggy mornings (low-lying fog) are common. Torrential rains when sunny
are not too common here. That one was REM122's observation, not mine. Now
go check his spelling to make sure he knows what he's talking about. ;-)

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:13:59 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "C.H." > wrote in message
> news
>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:59:17 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>> Oh my, are you really so inexperienced referencing scientific documents?
>> Reference the document and add a comment that specifies the page.
>
> And if I were inexperienced with creating hyperlinks, how is that relivant
> to the discussion topic?

Where did I say anything about hyperlinks? I suggest you read paragraphs
before commenting on them.

> Well you found something that supports your view. Good for you. I told
> you you would if you would just look. Now look up Perot & Prowler or 1997
> HLDI study, or the Winsonsin Route 11 highway study in 1978 (I think it's
> called) and another from Washington State (I don't remember the name) for
> different study results that doesn't support your view.

Post an URL and a page number and I will look at it.

> By the way, your hyperlink didn't work...

Oh my, another poor Microsoft-junkie-clicky-clicky-critter.

I posted an URL, which _does_ work and also an exact page rant.

[hyperlink babble snipped]

>> 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.
>
> I do hate the auto headlamps and DRLs...obviously that isn't a secret.
> Not sure what that has to do with Bob Lutz, corn flakes or the Aztek
> though...or my personal feelings about any of those unrelated items. I
> know, you won't be surprised (save you the trouble). ;-)

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.

> However, if this is somehow helpful for you, I like the Buick line very
> much!

ROTFL, you rant about GM because of automatic headlights and DRLs 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 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.
>
> Well wonder away. How do you discount the others here in this thread
> with the same observations.

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.

> Everybody else that has contributed all sem to disagree with you so
> far. If they bother to check their spelling mistakes more frequently
> then I do, then that reason is out! :-)

Apparently your reading is even worse than I thought. I didn't discount
your _observations_ because of your spelling but your _claims_that_certain
documents_exist_. You are not even able to comprehend simple everyday
text, so what makes you think you are able to comprehend much
harder-to-read scientific studies?

>>> 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.
>
> Last I checked, the NHTSA has not made any "findings". Although,
> perhaps they have. All that did exist were various studies, public
> comments, testimonials, schedules on rule making, etc.

So far you have claimed that the NHTSA claims DRLs worthless or even
dangerous. Now all of sudden they don't claim anything because your
precious 'study' went out the window.

> To that end, I have provided the names the titles of those
> studies...did you forget? There are also several public dockets (I
> don't have the numbers handy) that have recorded hundreds (maybe
> thousands) of testomonials and public comments, some stating the same
> thing others here have stated... most do not agree with you (some
> exception, but few of those). So, now that you know how to look stuff
> up, keep reading a little deeper.

I have shown a document supporting my view (even though I did not
constantly claim that the document exists). Now it's your turn. Either
reference your 'material' or stop making unfounded claims. Btw, who cares
whether 'some' of the thousands of comments that supposedly are there,
support your view? You will people supporting just about any opinion
somewhere if you dig long enough. If the vast majority would support your
view it would be different, but even you don't go so far to claim that a
majority supports you.

Put up or shut up.

>> 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.
>
> Curious, what year GM do you have that works so much better than
> everyone elses?

Around here the system works, and everywhere else I went (and I have been
travelling a lot) it works too. Admittedly I probably haven't been in your
little hellhole and don't really desire to go there either, but with your
extreme bias it is practically certain that they work well where you live,
too.

>> 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.
>
> I prefer not having the chime as well. But how would one know
> otherwise?

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.

> You yourself have stated that "most" drivers don't know if their cars
> have DRLs or not...etc. And I have never seen a car where the dash
> lights were visable on bright foggy/snowing days.

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.

> One can't tell by looking out of the front of the car since the DRL's
> reflecting back (your amber DRL type excluded) look exactly like the
> headlights.

A second ago it was bright and snowy/foggy, so there is no way the DRLs
are reflecting back. If it is dark enough that the DRLs would be visible
on the road surface the automatic system already has switched on the
headlights.

> The ONLY way is to glance at the radio display occasionally
> (something that shouldn't be necessary, but the design of the system
> makes that the only way to do it...a least for most all cars except
> yours, apparently).

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.

>> If you were unable to understand the statement 'snow and bright
>> sunlight' reading comprehension 101 is indeed warranted.
>
> Hmmm....snow and bright sunlight. Well, it is quite impossible to have
> "bright sunlight" occur during a snow storm.

You were the one, who repeatedly claimed that bright sunlight makes
impossible for you to see the dash light needed because of the snowfall.
Thanks for admitting that one of your claimed 'auto headlight doesn't
work' situations is just nonsense.

[Rest of your superiority rant snipped to spare you the embarrassment]

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

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

> Again with the you. Forget about you and forget about me. This isn't
> about the two of us. Now that we've done that. I was asking about the
> others here with the same observations as mine. So far, no one has
> agree with you (unless I missed it).

Except for the NHTSA study I quoted and very likely much more material
inside the NHTSA website, which explains your refusal to reference the
material you claim to have.

> 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. It is cool nowadays to hate GM
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...).
Not a good base for a discussion.

>> 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).
>
> Ah thouse assumptions. For the record. I've never met the man, never
> spoken to him (except in this NG). I've only read is work (among the
> work of others). And for the record our opinions haven't been blesed by
> the Almighty. However, they are based on a large library of
> research...especially Daniel's since that is his business.

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.

>>> 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.
>
> And you have that option...as it should be.

In case of ATs, that very often guess wrong, one certainly should have the
option. And in your car you also have the option, that's what the light
switch is for. That the automatic system switches on headlights when it
shouldn't almost never happens, which is why the light switch doesn't need
an 'off' position. 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.

>>> 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...
>
> 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...

> You are probably right. Auto trannys may not shift as you would want
> for your style of driving. I can understand that. They work well for
> me...although I'm just as happy with a manual (I've had both). Traffic
> here though makes a manual sort of pointless (hardly ever get out of 1st
> or 2nd gear).

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.

>> 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.
>
> Apparently where you are, the sun shines during snow storms. Are you
> sure the aliens are here at my location and not yours? :-)

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.

>> 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,
>
> This goes a long way to perhaps explaing some things. Here where I
> live, it is common on many mornings to have what is called "low-lying"
> fog. The fog rests at the surface of the earth for the first few feet
> to perhaps as much as 50 feet up (depth). Above the low fog it is
> perfectly clear and sunny.

Again, that may or may not be true for your area but it is a very rare
phenomenon.

> The sun actually shines through the fog quite brightly from above...yet
> the site distance at the surface is still very poor and requires the use
> of lights. GM's auto light control thinks it's sunny (because almost
> is), not foggy. But it IS foggy. This may be a revalation in our
> respective understanding.

I understand you very well. Somehow you feel the need to prove at any cost
that DRLs and auto-headlights are dangerous and you don't care to use
every dirty trick in the book to support your whacky ideas.

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. 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.

>> maybe you are just making it up to rant about a system you don't like.
>
> Those assumptions again. Yes, of course. I'm making it up. I'm making
> it all up.

Even if you didn't mean it, this is very likely the truth.

>> In any case it is not the norm just about anywhere in the United
>> States and other countries.
>
> Those assumptions again. Low-hanging fog IS a common-occuring
> atmospheric condition caused by temperature inversion. It happens in
> many places...especially around bodies of water and humid climates
> (which is a lot of places).

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.

>> And aside of your brightly lit fog and inexplicable torential rain
>> from a sunny sky the system works very well.
>
> 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...

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.

[superiority babble snipped]

>> 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.
>
> The you again. Think "general population" please. That is the context
> here as far as I am concerned. What happens with the general population
> with these things...not what happens with you or me.

The general population has less problems with a switch that says 'on' and
'auto' than with a switch, that says 'on', 'auto' and 'off'.

> So question: The switch position "Auto" means exactly what? Well, it
> *can* mean that the lights are on....but not always does it mean that.

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.

> It *can* also mean that the lights are off, but it doesn't always mean
> that either. So, the best thing it can mean is "maybe your lights are
> on and maybe your lights are off". Hmmm...and you think that is
> actually a better system for the average bloke out there driving around?

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.

> Now a switch that says "On" and "Off" is really simple.

.... 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.

> When in the ON position, lights are on...every time (Imagine that?).

.... even when they should be off, because the driver just forgot to turn
them off and the dashboard lights were obscured because of the glare ...

> 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.

> 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.

> That is does do well. And that is a good point to the system. For
> those of us that have never "forgotten' to use the lights

I don't think there is a driver out there, who has never forgotten the
headlights in any situation, including you.

> (and you can tell I'm anal on the subject I'd bet),

The term 'anal' indeed came to mind, just not in reference on the subject.

> 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.

> I have MUCH more confidence in my personal ability to properly control
> the lights than anything I've used that was (so-called) "automatic" that
> GM has put in their cars.

In my ability? Yes. In yours? Maybe, though I have my doubts. In the
ability of the average Joe? Never in a thousand years.

>>> 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.
>
> You''re ignoring the others here again that have the same observations I
> do?

I am not ignoring anything, I just have a pretty good idea why they have
the agenda they have and why their observations are just as tainted and
useless as yours are.

> You need to stop focusing on me (and my little hole) and focus on
> the subject and how pervasive the issue appears to be.

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.

>> 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.
>
> Common low-laying fog and common southeast sunny rain storms explained
> earlier.

And still rare weather phenomena, limited to a small part of the US and a
small part of the day.

>> 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.
>
> Sometimes yes...sometimes no. Actually the newer systems are better
> (trigger faster).

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.

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,
which is the case even under a seemingly brightly lit gas station canopy.
Thus your gas station scenario is simply nonsense. But of course, having
had a GM car, you knew that.

> At one time the trigger length was longer to prevent false cycling when
> prople would go under wide bridges and such. But that specification was
> changed becasue of the situation I just mentioned (and yes it is
> documented too). But of course, the false cycling occurs more
> frequently now as a result. (a trade off in design).

I very rarely have false cycling. For a bridge a 2-3s delay is sufficient,
even no delay at all would work, as underneath most bridges the light
intensity still is much higher than even on a well lit street at night.

> Actually, I expected you to come back saying that people with manual
> switches do this too! (and they do).

Indeed you are right. I see cars without headlights several times a night.
The drivers are fooled by the comparative brightness of the streetlights
and simply forget to turn on their lights. A dangerous situation,
especially when the same drivers try to turn onto a non-lit sidestreet.
All these situations would be prevented with automatic headlights.

>> But how come you all of sudden don't know what the automatic headlights
>> do when driving unter a tree canopy?
>
> I do know...(which should be obvious since I described that occuring
> with the vehicle I owned and others I've observed). My question was if
> that happened to you as well. And you replied in the affirmative. So,
> we're good.

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

>> 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.
>
> You cant see your headlights reflecting back at you from the shiny
> surfaces of the car in front of you when it's foggy/raining?

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.

> I sure have no problem seeing them. What I can't see is the instrument
> cluster illumination under those conditions.

What a pity. Maybe you need reading glasses...

>> 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).
>
> So illuminated tail lights wouldn't help? Okay

Not really.

>> 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).
>
> Yes, tailgating is one cause. Visability in the fog is another...while
> approaching a slower vehicle from behind. Illuminated tail lights would
> help with the latter.

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.

Taillights help very little in fog. Proper speed and distance help a lot.

>> 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.
>
> Again with the me. I've never been in a pileup up or caused one.

Then why are you whining?

> So I guess I can wait for my regular appointment. Although, I didn't
> realize that they made glasses that improved vision in fog.

Actually they do. Orangeish/yellowish lenses improve visibility in fog. I
know that quite well from snowboarding. If the weather is bad and
visibility is low I wear Oakleys with a bright orange lens and it indeed
improves contrast very significantly. Much more than a dim taillight on
your average car.

> Anyway, back to your topic. If one person is doing 40MPH and they come
> up behind another that is doing 20MPH...illuminated tail lights in the
> dense fog will provide a extra margin of time for the faster vehicle to
> reduce their speed to the 20MPH (or change lanes) before hitting them.

If you need the added visibility you are too fast for conditions. And
given the fact that taillights are quite ineffective in fog, you don't
even have this added visibility in real life conditions.

What you see, are brakelights, which usually are lit when the car in front
of you is slowing down significantly.

>> 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.
>
> Some are. Others are caused by someone going at too high a rate of
> speed and overtaking someone that is going the correct speed and not
> being able to stop in time before hitting them.

Please reread my paragraph, specifically 'too high a rate of speed for
conditions'.

> Rear illumination helps in that situation.

No. Adjusting speed to conditions helps.

Also pileups practically never occur on two-lane roads, where overtaking
is a problem. Pileups of the size you claim almost exclusively happen on
freeways, with dozens or even hundreds of bzos thinking they are safe
because everyone is moving in the same direction and thus going too fast
for conditions and not keeping the proper distance./

>> Visibility very rarely is a factor in pileups, improper speed and
>> distance always are.
>
> They why do they mostly occur in fog conditions?

Improper speed and distance.

> Especially the worst ones that make the national news. Hmmm...it would
> be interesting to know if it's typicaly a GM vehicle in the front of the
> pilup, wouldn't it?

Did I mention improper speed and distance?

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.

>>> 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.
>
> You''re kidding..right?

No. And it is kinda frightening that people like you, who have no idea
that it is _their_ responsibility to adjust their speed and distance to
conditions, which include visibility, made it through the driving test.

>> 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.
>
> Time to do some research on the mechanics of automotive pilups, it
> seems.

Indeed you doing some research in that area would help your understanding
of pileups tremendously.

Most drivers know that their speed has to be adjusted to conditions, even
though the brainwashing 'if I drive the speed limit I am safe' has reached
some specimens, you being one of them.

>>> 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?
>
> You've never used braking and controled skids as a form of added
> directional control?

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).

> One can do some fairly amazing maneuvers usng the brakes that cannot be accomplished with the steering wheel alone. ABS
> removes that control option from the driver.

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

>> 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 you say all of that after reading the link from the highway safety
> site I sent you. Interesting. And did the benefit of ABS show up in
> accident data as making a difference? No it didn't.

.... because some bozos thinking ABS makes them invincible and causing huge
damages and dead bodies ruin the statistic. Fortunately for the rest of us
ABS works and works well.

>> And from everything you posted here I doubt you are even a good driver.
>
> So, you don't find 35 years of driving with over 1 million miles without
> a accident and one ticket (doing 67 in a 55) during that time as being
> very good?

No. Enough people make it that far with luck. Unfortunately luck tends to
run out one day.

> Wow, you have very high standards. I must not measure up to
> your stellar driving record. I'll keep working on it, I promise. So
> that I have a high bar to reach, what is your driving record?

I know several drivers, who have had wrecks before and who I still rather
would have in the left seat than a whole bunch of 'I have never had an
accident in 35 years' grandpas, who in reality bumble along with their
guardian angel holding on to their headrest for dear life.

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.

Fortunately I have learned a lot from my experiences and don't blather
about 'oh, if the guy in front of me had his taillights on I would have
seen him'.

>> 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.
>
> Sure, the average bloke would use that rediculous definition of
> yours....NOT!

The definition is not ridiculous but simply true. Thats what automatic
systems do: Take external parameters to influence the system in a certain
predetermined way.

> I would doubt very much that many of those people even have a remote
> clue as to how the system works, let alone understanding ambient light
> levels, lighting sensors, wiper/light interfaces, etc. and how they all
> interact and affect how the lights come on or go off.

For these people, who coincidentally also are too stupid to turn on their
lights at the proper time an automatic system is all the more important.

> Many completely forget about any further control of their lights,
> turning over said control to the suppsed "auto" system (present company
> excluded, obviously).

Better forget about the control of the lights and just miss one in a few
hundred or thousand situations than drive around with the wrong setting
half of the time.

> You are giving the average driver far too much technical credit.

No, I am not giving him any technical credit...

> So, under that definition (and associated expectation), the automatic
> light control systems fails and fails miserably.

.... which is why your assumption that the system fails is wrong. You take
your rare fog situation and weigh it against hundreds of thousands of
people, who drive around with their lights off in town at night and think
you come out on top. Fortunately you are wrong.

> You were joking with that definition, right? Even the GM engineers
> don't understand enought to make them work reliably, and you expect the
> avarage person to have a clue about the technical aspects of these
> things? Bwahahahah!!! That's just too damn funny! Thanks for the
> chuckle!

As they do work reliably except in extremely few situations the only
thing that is funny here is how much your hatred is clouding your
observation and deduction capabilities.

>> 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.
>
> Yes, foggy mornings (low-lying fog) are common. Torrential rains when
> sunny are not too common here. That one was REM122's observation, not
> mine. Now go check his spelling to make sure he knows what he's talking
> about. ;-)

There is no REM122 here, just a rem223. Again your powers of observation
totally fail you.

Chris

C.H. wrote:

> like auto headlights,
> that make sure that even the bozos switch on their headlights at the
> proper time, but he who relies on them is going to get hurt or worse.

Visibility cannot be reliably predicted from the intensity
of ambient lighting. That's why automatic headlights are useless
in foggy but bright conditions.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 04:30:49 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>> like auto headlights,
>> that make sure that even the bozos switch on their headlights at the
>> proper time, but he who relies on them is going to get hurt or worse.
>
> Visibility cannot be reliably predicted from the intensity of ambient
> lighting.

It is not the job of automatic headlights to determine visibility, but to
determine the necessity of headlights under normal conditions. A job they
do _very_ well.

> That's why automatic headlights are useless in foggy but bright
> conditions.

No one claimed the system is foolproof. Fortunately foggy but bright
conditions are very rare compared to day-night changes, so the automatic
headlights are useful in a great many situations and can be overriden for
the handful of situations outside their operational parameters.

Chris

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 04:30:49 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>> C.H. wrote:
>>
>>> like auto headlights,
>>> that make sure that even the bozos switch on their headlights at the
>>> proper time, but he who relies on them is going to get hurt or worse.
>>
>> Visibility cannot be reliably predicted from the intensity of ambient
>> lighting.
>
> It is not the job of automatic headlights to determine visibility, but to
> determine the necessity of headlights under normal conditions. A job they
> do _very_ well.

Then they are't automatic headlamps, they're twilight sentinels.

>> That's why automatic headlights are useless in foggy but bright
>> conditions.
>
> No one claimed the system is foolproof. Fortunately foggy but bright
> conditions are very rare compared to day-night changes, so the automatic
> headlights are useful in a great many situations and can be overriden for
> the handful of situations outside their operational parameters.
>

From the web site for the 2003 Malibu listing all it's safety features, back
when I was researching a car purchase.

"And the Malibu is equipped with automatic headlights
so you don't need to worry about turning on your
headlamps."

At the time I thought that was a good thing. I quickly discovered that the
statement is not correct.

Do, GM's has made said claim in their marketing materials. They may still
be, for that matter. Interesting thing though. The Owners manual for the
Malibu does state that the driver shouldn't rely on the automatic headlamps
and should switch the lights on manually when ever that is required. Too
bad that reality of the system isn't mentioned in the marketing materials.

Nate, what does the Impala manual say about them?

> Chris

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:36:21 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

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

>> It is not the job of automatic headlights to determine visibility, but
>> to determine the necessity of headlights under normal conditions. A job
>> they do _very_ well.
>
> Then they are't automatic headlamps, they're twilight sentinels.

Automatic says that they go on and off by themselves within certain
parameters. Thus they are automatic headlamps.

> From the web site for the 2003 Malibu listing all it's safety features,
> back when I was researching a car purchase.
>
> "And the Malibu is equipped with automatic headlights
> so you don't need to worry about turning on your headlamps."
>
> At the time I thought that was a good thing. I quickly discovered that
> the statement is not correct.

The statement is correct for most people in almost all situations. Face
it, your 'brightly lit fog' occurs maybe a couple of hours a day even in
your neck of the woods, and only in a few small area (compared to the
total area cars travel on. Darkness occurs everywhere in the world, on
average 12 hours a day. I deem it much more useful that people have their
headlights on at dark than either creating an endlessly complicated fog
sensor system or let them botch it by themselves.

Chris

> The statement is correct for most people in almost all situations.

'Almost all' doesnt cut it.

> Face it, your 'brightly lit fog' occurs maybe a couple of hours a day even in
> your neck of the woods, and only in a few small area (compared to the
> total area cars travel on.

Not so. The GM automatic head/tail lights fail to come on in torrential rain
in summer, in daytime, when visibility is almost zero.
Saw that myself last week in Michigan, and on my trip to Georgia last month.

C.H. wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 06:21:01 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> The difference is that in DRL equipped cars you at least see the
> >> headlights (i.e. oncoming traffic) early, whereas you are responsible to
> >> adjust your speed to seeing the traffic going your way in time anyway.
> >> If you guys really have to rely on the car's taillights to tell whether
> >> there is an obstacle or not, you are much too fast for conditions.
> >
> > I don't "rely" on taillights, but surely even you have to admit that
> > they're nice to have?
>
> I surely admit that they are nice to have, but I much prefer DRLs to no
> light at all.

Why? There's absolutely no logical basis for that conclusion.

> And there is no evidence either in the meager

Meager?

> sources posted
> nor in real life that people without DRLs are more diligent in terms of
> switching on their lights in bad weather.

Common sense, personal observations AND formal studies should all
disabuse you of that notion, should you be bothered to heed them.

>
> >> > How do you figure that any side is "more dangerous" than any other? I
> >> > don't particularly want to run into any of them.
> >>
> >> 1) Closing speed is much higher in oncoming traffic (v_x + v_y instead
> >> of v_x - v_y).
> >
> > Yeah, and you're also much less likely to be in the path of oncoming
> > traffic. So what?
>
> On the contrary. Fatal accidents where one car hits another one from
> behind on a two-lane highway, are rare. Fatal head-on collisions are much
> more common.

Who said anything about fatal? I don't want to hit anything (or be hit
by anything) at all. And if I have a harder time seeing another
vehicle, or another vehicle has a harder time seeing me due to improper
light use, everyone's safety is decreased.

>
> >> 2) You have no influence on the speed of the oncoming car, whereas you
> >> have total control on adjusting your speed to conditions in the proper
> >> way (i.e. being able to stop if an unlighted obstacle is in your path),
> >> be it a branch, a person or a car without taillights on.
> >>
> > yeah, whatever. If that were the solution to all problems there
> > wouldn't be an issue driving around with no lights on at all.
>
> Adjusting speed and distance to conditions _is_ the solution and from you
> I definitely expected that you are capable of driving within your envelope.

True, but not running your lights makes you that much harder to see.
Surely even someone as dense as your illogical self can see that's a
Bad Thing.

>
> Taillights are a safety feature, which is why I like auto headlights,
> that make sure that even the bozos switch on their headlights at the
> proper time, but he who relies on them is going to get hurt or worse.

Warning! Warning! Logical inconsistency! If you say taillights are a
safety feature, why do you like auto headlights? You make no sense at
all!

>
> And the rare
^^^^

Not hardly.

> situation, where auto-headlights don't switch where they
> should are much outweighed by the frequent situation where they switch on
> the lights where the bozo wouldn't.

Auto headlights suck and you know it. I see people driving ALL THE
TIME without their lights on when they should have them on; yes,
including in cars with your beloved auto headlights. Your beloved DRLs
have a lot to do with that, as well.

But then again, aren't you the idiot that was arguing that turn signal
DRL's were a safety feature? I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the
latest idiocy to ooze out of your keyboard. Do us all a favor and
stick to subjects you know something about, or in other words just STFU
completely. I don't get it; you come across as a reasonably literate
human being, but you're so consistently wrong on so many subjects. How
do you do it?

nate

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:23:23 -0700, N8N wrote:

>
>
> C.H. wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 06:21:01 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>
>> > I don't "rely" on taillights, but surely even you have to admit that
>> > they're nice to have?
>>
>> I surely admit that they are nice to have, but I much prefer DRLs to no
>> light at all.
>
> Why? There's absolutely no logical basis for that conclusion.

Because DRLs at least provide visibility from the direction of highest
closing speed. No lights provide no visibility at all.

>> And there is no evidence either in the meager
>
> Meager?

Yes.

>> sources posted
>> nor in real life that people without DRLs are more diligent in terms of
>> switching on their lights in bad weather.
>
> Common sense, personal observations AND formal studies should all disabuse
> you of that notion, should you be bothered to heed them.

Then post a reference to the formal studies. Common sense and personal
observation show me that the bozos dont use their lights properly, DRLs or
no DRLs and the intelligent people use their lights properly in either
case.

>> On the contrary. Fatal accidents where one car hits another one from
>> behind on a two-lane highway, are rare. Fatal head-on collisions are
>> much more common.
>
> Who said anything about fatal? I don't want to hit anything (or be hit
> by anything) at all.

I am most concerned about fatalities. And with seeing idiots like the
truck on CA152 Scott mentioned in that other posting in time to make an
evasive maneuver or at least scrub off enough speed to survive.

> And if I have a harder time seeing another vehicle, or another vehicle
> has a harder time seeing me due to improper light use, everyone's safety
> is decreased.

You have an easier time, not a harder time, because at least from one
direction visibility is improved. From the other direction the light in
front of the car still very likely will be visible. So visibility overall
increases over no lights at all.

>> Adjusting speed and distance to conditions _is_ the solution and from
>> you I definitely expected that you are capable of driving within your
>> envelope.
>
> True, but not running your lights makes you that much harder to see.
> Surely even someone as dense as your illogical self can see that's a Bad
> Thing.

When arguments dry up you start insulting. Nothing new.

Not running your lights makes you indeed harder to see, which is why it is
still better to have DRLs than no lights at all.

>> Taillights are a safety feature, which is why I like auto headlights,
>> that make sure that even the bozos switch on their headlights at the
>> proper time, but he who relies on them is going to get hurt or worse.
>
> Warning! Warning! Logical inconsistency! If you say taillights are a
> safety feature, why do you like auto headlights? You make no sense at
> all!

I like auto headlights because they make a lot of people drive around with
lights where they otherwise wouldn't. The system works so well that the
benefits have filtered through even to the NHTSA.


[this is where N8N lost it]

Nate, I know you can't control your anger very well, so I will leave you
to yourself until you have regained your composure.

Chris