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
  #251  
Old July 11th 05, 11:09 PM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:27:36 +0000, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>
>>>>C.H. wrote:

>
>
>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:31:05 +0000, Arif Khokar wrote:
>>>
>>>>What bias would that be?

>>
>>>Anti ... DRL

>>
>>Nope:
>><http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/977b74fde6a68e1b>

>
>
> Then his rant against my claim in here that DRLs make sense is all the
> more inexplicable. Apparently his hatred is clouding his vision.
>
> Chris


Hatred? No. Dislike of **** poor implementations of a theoretically
beneficial device? Absolutely. And yes, the poor implementations of
DRLs vastly outnumber the good ones.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Ads
  #252  
Old July 11th 05, 11:24 PM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:05:27 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>
>>"C.H." > wrote in message
>>news

>
>
>>>Sebring: Geezers. Malibu: Beginner drivers.

>>
>>And your source for the demographic information? Last I read, the
>>demographics were similar for both models. But, I'll defer to your
>>source, please provide it.

>
>
> Observation. I don't have any positive or negative feelings for either
> car, so the observation should be pretty unbiased.


Hmm, most of the Sebring owners I know are young, just-out-of-college
people who picked them up cheap and used. But of course the whole idea
of relying on personal observation for demographic data is silly -
demographics can vary wildly from one area to another.

>
>
>>>>No one wins when there is a self-proclaimed big brother (GM) imposing
>>>>their will on the customer by telling them how they *must* use their
>>>>cars in a otherwise legal manner. Is GM the government now?
>>>
>>>How can GM 'impose' something on you?

>>
>>By enforcing their will on a group of people. Websters is your friend, by
>>the way.

>
>
> You mean 'forcing' not 'enforcing'. And I still don't see how they can
> force anything on you. Did the salesman force you at gunpoint to sign on
> the dotted line? Every company has the right to equip their cars the way
> they deem useful for them, just as you have the right not to buy a car
> that is not equipped the way you want it to be.
>
>
>>>Did they force you at gun point to buy their car?

>>
>>Apparently gunpoint will soon be the only way they will sell the cars,
>>if the trend continues.

>
>
> Weird, the sales numbers for GM don't seem so bad right now.


At this exact moment, no, but that's mostly due to their new "employee
discount" sales gimmick. Their numbers looked downright terrifying
prior to that.

> Quality is up
> according to a whole number of sources, and the lineup that is coming out
> now (looks quite appealing to me. And as you yourself stated so loudly,
> people don't dislike cars just because they dislike a feature.
>
> GM's past problems stem from the cars being designed by bean counters, not
> car enthusiasts. And this seems to be about to change.


I respectfully disagree, the number of obviously bean-counter-designed
cars in GM's lineup vastly outnumbers the obviously enthusiast-designed
ones.

>
>>>Or were you just too lazy to read the spec sheet and see that the car
>>>has your hated DRLs and ABS?

>>
>>I was willing to live with the ABS. Actually, ABS wasn't offered on the
>>base Malibu...so I could have gotten the Malibu without ABS. I also
>>understood that the car was equipped with DRL's. However, nowhere was
>>it explained (in the specifications or otherwise) that the driver did
>>not have any optiopn or control over them.

>
>
> Lack of research.
>
>
>>Remember, at the time I was familiar with another a cmpetitor that also
>>had DRL's, but they would configure them to your preference.

>
>
> In other words, you didn't test drive the car or were so inattentive
> during the test drive that you didn't see that the light switch has no off
> position.


I think it's reasonable to assume that a light switch would have an off
position. The fact that he didn't notice it was because it's really
fairly surprising that any mfgr. would be so stupid as to not include
it. Yes, there are very good reasons for wanting to kill all your
lights, or switch to only parking lights - as repeatedly stated in this
newsgroup. Military installation security checkpoints, restaurant
parking lots, Xmas light displays, to name the first three that come to
mind.

>
>
>>I had no reason to believe that GM wouldn't configure the DRLs to my
>>preference, since their competitors will...how would one know GM had a
>>enforcement policy.

>
>
> You had a very good reason to do your homework. If you don't it's your
> fault and yours alone.
>


GM is still taking a very consumer-unfriendly position.

>
>>>Fact is: You knew and you didn't mind the features back then.

>>
>>Your assumptions are really quite wrong nearly all of the time. It's
>>quite amazing.

>
>
> If you really didn't know a feature you feel strongly about, you are at
> fault.
>


Are you quite finished telling James what an idiot he is yet?

>
>>>Now you bought a car that doesn't have them and all of sudden you hate
>>>them, because you can't admit that you purchased the wrong car without
>>>researching it properly.

>>
>>I see you have it all figured out. Yes I bought the Malibu knowing the
>>features. The features didn't work as advertised (the common websters
>>definition of automatic, not your skewed made up to make it fit version
>>of the meaning of the word).

>
>
> Webster: "having a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism". They do.
> Thus the lights _are_ automatic. Btw, I want to see your "Eebster"
> definition...
>
>
>>I do have a problem being sold something that doesn't work as
>>advertised (and causes problems, I discoverd to boot).

>
>
> And I have a problem with people, who are too lazy or too stupid to
> research a car properly before buying it and afterwards howling and
> whining that it doesn't do exactly what they want.
>


as above, you done yet?

>
>>I supose it did cause a "crusade" of sorts on my part. Since GM
>>wouldn't work with me, I canned the Malibu at a $6K loss to get the
>>Sebring that I knew could be configured the way I wanted it.

>
>
> ROTFL! Nice of you to finally admit that you 1)bought a car without any
> research worth mentioning, 2) hate GM (because you took a hit when you
> ditched the car you bought without proper research) and 3) are on a
> crusade because you are ****ed about yourself and need someone else to
> blame.
>
> GM is not at fault here. The cars work as advertised and there is any
> number of sources telling you exactly what the car does and doesn't do.
> You are alone to blame for lack of research and buying a car without even
> properly test driving it.
>


Blah, blah, blah...

>
>>So you couldn't be more wrong...yet again.

>
>
> On the contrary. I was right about you all along.
>
>
>
>>>Their foreign competitors are much more expensive. And Chrysler was too
>>>cheap to even fit ABS on the LXi.

>>
>>Wrong (yet again), ABS was a option available on both the LXi and the
>>LX.

>
>
> Yes, an option for quite some money. Oh my, did you really think they left
> ABS out because it is dangerous? They left it out because it costs money.
> And if a customer still wants it, they have to pay, which increases
> revenue.
>
>
>>>Funny: Their higher models all have ABS stock, which clearly shows the
>>>reason they don't provide is not to give the customer a choice but to
>>>save a few dollars and make even more dollars by selling ABS as an
>>>optional feature.

>>
>>You're just so good at figuring things out, aren't you. Perhaps that
>>particular customer base that buys high end cars had a high request for
>>ABS? But, I don't know why (and neither do you).

>
>
> Ferrari has ABS stock on all models. Porsche has ABS stock on all models.
> Ferrari even fitted it on their formula one racers until it got outlawed.
> Mercedes, BMW, all mitsize to luxury cars from Japan and the US. Everyone
> has ABS except for a bunch of cheapo base models for clueless penny
> pinchers.


The ABS fitted to high end sports cars and F1 racers is very different
from the ABS fitted to consumer-grade sedans, and often has
driver-selectable programs ranging from "normal" to "don't intervene
until you detect that I'm about to commit vehicular suicide" and
sometimes even "off."

>
> Btw, I am still waiting for your explanation, how you induce a controlled
> skid on your FWD box without ABS.


Huh? Surely there's a typo in that sentence 'cause it doesn't make sense.

>
>
>>>>they're free for the asking (last I checked). Less than 5% of Ford and
>>>>Chrysler cars on the road have them.
>>>
>>>Before you start claiming further numbers I suggest you back these up.

>>
>>Do YOU see many Fords and Chryslers on the road with DRL's. Okay, I'll
>>double it and let's say it's 10% (which it's not). Still that's 90%
>>that have chosen *not* to have DRLs.

>
>
> No, they just have *not chosen* to have DRLs, mostly because many people
> are indifferent about the subject and just don't check boxes they don't
> understand.
>
>
>>That's a potentially HUGE customer base that GM is simply writing off.

>
>
> No, that's merely a huge customer base that doesn't care one way or
> another.
>
>
>>And for what?

>
>
> For safety. Fatal accidents down 5-20%


Due to DRL's? I call bull**** until I see a cite. Even most insurance
companies admit that there's no benefit to DRL's, or at least don't give
a discount for DRL's which is pretty much the same thing.

>
>
>>>[anti-GM-rant snipped]

>>
>>Uhm, GM would be helped if they gave the customer base what they want.

>
>
> ... which is fun to drive cars.


It would be nice if they made those, yes.

> No one cares about DRLs except for a few
> 'back to the 50s' crusaders.
>


And most of the readers of this newsgroup, and most people who take an
active interest in road safety. Yourself included, apparently.
Granted, you're wrong, but you apparently have a strong opinion on the
subject.

>
>>Hopefully they're listening and actualy do it. Maybe sales will go up
>>again without having to practically give them away.

>
>
> Yesterday you were howling about the GTO not being as cheap as the Vette,
> today they are giving them away. You are really an amusing in-duh-viduum,
> James.
>
> Chris


Who said anything about the GTO? His statement was that GM was
practically giving away cars *in general,* which may or may not be true
(I'm not privy to their cost-per-unit compared to their current pricing)
but it's an undeniable fact that they're relying on discounts and sales
gimmicks to move the metal, which is not a viable long term business
strategy.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #253  
Old July 12th 05, 12:49 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:01:18 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:45:09 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>>
>> the more in combination with automatic headlights.
>>

> Wrong. Period, end of story. The reasons have been discussed to the
> point of bleeding fingertips. Just like the indisputable fact that turn
> signal DRLs are a nasty hack and should never have been allowed.


If the reasons have been discussed it won't be a problem for you to name
them. And no, your desire to drive too fast under low visiblity conditions
doesn't count.

Chris
  #254  
Old July 12th 05, 12:54 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:02:40 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:37:55 -0700, fbloogyudsr wrote:
>>
>> Don't ask me why any specific law is in effect, you wouldn't like my
>> answer. Rear fog lights are mandatory but one of the most hated (by
>> almost all drivers) additions to the StVZO
>> (Strassenverkehrs-Zulassungsordnung). They do increase visibility of a
>> single car to a degree and at the same time make people overestimate
>> visibility. The original implementation made people confuse rear
>> foglights with brake lights, which is why only one rear foglight is
>> legal. Most German drivers I know doubt that there has any human-factors
>> engineering and science involved in making them mandatory). And most of
>> them, given a vote in the case, would vote for abolishment of said rear
>> foglights.

>
> CH attempts to second guess the German authorities! Priceless!


Do you really think all laws in the United States make sense? Until a few
years ago the law even mandated Sealed Beam headlights, which are among
the worst headlights in the world. They mandate huge airbags, that have
been shown to be less than ideal for a belted in driver. They have useless
speed limits in most places.

If you really try to claim something is good because it is mandatory under
the law you need a reality check.

> BTW, they're used in other countries besides Germany - are they ALL wrong
> then?


IMO: yes. And in the opinions of most other drivers too.

Chris
  #255  
Old July 12th 05, 12:54 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:01:18 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:45:09 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>>>
>>>the more in combination with automatic headlights.
>>>

>>
>>Wrong. Period, end of story. The reasons have been discussed to the
>>point of bleeding fingertips. Just like the indisputable fact that turn
>>signal DRLs are a nasty hack and should never have been allowed.

>
>
> If the reasons have been discussed it won't be a problem for you to name
> them. And no, your desire to drive too fast under low visiblity conditions
> doesn't count.
>
> Chris



Already done, by me and others. Some of them in this thread, so I don't
feel the need to retype them because you're unable to use a newsreader.
Thanks for the baseless insult too, that's really improving my opinion
of you.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #256  
Old July 12th 05, 12:56 AM
fbloogyudsr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C.H." > wrote
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:01:18 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> C.H. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:45:09 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>>>
>>> the more in combination with automatic headlights.
>>>

>> Wrong. Period, end of story. The reasons have been discussed to the
>> point of bleeding fingertips. Just like the indisputable fact that turn
>> signal DRLs are a nasty hack and should never have been allowed.

>
> If the reasons have been discussed it won't be a problem for you to name
> them. And no, your desire to drive too fast under low visiblity conditions
> doesn't count.


We already have - my mention of Daniel's previous postings. You said
you don't want to bother googling them, so you lose.

Floyd

  #257  
Old July 12th 05, 12:56 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:37:55 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>
>> Now a nice piece of homework for you: Explain why all northern european
>> countries have mandatory DRLs with all your 'human-factors engineering'
>> and science involved? They have a lot of fog, so DRLs should be
>> dangerous according to you. Explain.
>>

> The drivers in Northern Europe are much more competent on averge than the
> drivers in North America.


From what I heard of Sweden and Norway I would not claim that their
drivers are more competent than the ones in the US. German drivers are to
a degree are, though I would not say 'much', but Germany does not have
DRLs, but a lot of people, who forget to turn on their lights not only in
fog or rain.

> And they'd never forget to turn on their tail lights in low visibility
> conditions.


And this assertion is based on what?

Chris
  #258  
Old July 12th 05, 12:57 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:02:40 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:37:55 -0700, fbloogyudsr wrote:
>>>
>>>Don't ask me why any specific law is in effect, you wouldn't like my
>>>answer. Rear fog lights are mandatory but one of the most hated (by
>>>almost all drivers) additions to the StVZO
>>>(Strassenverkehrs-Zulassungsordnung). They do increase visibility of a
>>>single car to a degree and at the same time make people overestimate
>>>visibility. The original implementation made people confuse rear
>>>foglights with brake lights, which is why only one rear foglight is
>>>legal. Most German drivers I know doubt that there has any human-factors
>>>engineering and science involved in making them mandatory). And most of
>>>them, given a vote in the case, would vote for abolishment of said rear
>>>foglights.

>>
>>CH attempts to second guess the German authorities! Priceless!

>
>
> Do you really think all laws in the United States make sense? Until a few
> years ago the law even mandated Sealed Beam headlights, which are among
> the worst headlights in the world. They mandate huge airbags, that have
> been shown to be less than ideal for a belted in driver. They have useless
> speed limits in most places.
>
> If you really try to claim something is good because it is mandatory under
> the law you need a reality check.
>


There's a BIG difference between the (often stupid) regulations in place
in the US, and the ECE regulations which are used in Europe and
influence other regs elsewhere throughout the world. I don't pretend to
be a complete expert on everything automotive, but I can say that in the
vast majority of cases where there's a significant difference between US
and ECE regs the ECE ones usually make more sense and work out better in
real life. (headlights are but one, ahem, glaring example of same.)

>
>>BTW, they're used in other countries besides Germany - are they ALL wrong
>>then?

>
>
> IMO: yes. And in the opinions of most other drivers too.


Chris against the world. Good luck with that.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #259  
Old July 12th 05, 12:58 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:08:20 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:56:36 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>
>> Nate, I had quite some respect for you until now. My opinion differs
>> from yours but is just as well expressed, reasoned and properly
>> referenced.

>
> No, it's not.


That's merely your opinion and also no reason to become as unpleasant as
you have been.

> It is well expressed, I'll give you that, but the other two
> - I don't think so.


I do, but regardless, your tone is unwarranted.

If my opinion was really as far off as you claim it is you would not have
to get nasty at every opportunity. The fact that you do points to either
lack of proper upbringing or lack of arguments.

Chris
  #260  
Old July 12th 05, 12:58 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Nate Nagel wrote:
> C.H. wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:01:18 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
> >
> >
> >>C.H. wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:45:09 +0000, 223rem wrote:
> >>>
> >>>the more in combination with automatic headlights.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Wrong. Period, end of story. The reasons have been discussed to the
> >>point of bleeding fingertips. Just like the indisputable fact that turn
> >>signal DRLs are a nasty hack and should never have been allowed.

> >
> >
> > If the reasons have been discussed it won't be a problem for you to name
> > them. And no, your desire to drive too fast under low visiblity conditions
> > doesn't count.
> >
> > Chris

>
>
> Already done, by me and others. Some of them in this thread, so I don't
> feel the need to retype them because you're unable to use a newsreader.
> Thanks for the baseless insult too, that's really improving my opinion
> of you.
>


Come on, Nate - this is what he has always done. He can't carry on a
civil conversation with anyone. As soon as you dent his fragile ego,
he goes and pulls the same sort of crap. Like clockwork.

E.P.

 




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 05:06 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.