The dangers of DRLs

Around 7/6/2005 10:13 PM, CH wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:53:58 -0700, Garth Almgren wrote:
>
>>Around 7/6/2005 6:42 PM, CH wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:13:29 -0700, Garth Almgren wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 7/6/2005 1:36 PM, CH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But the braking effect is significantly different from what it would be
>>>>>if the car did not have power brakes.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, the braking effect is NOT significantly different between power
>>>>and non-power brakes.
>>>
>>>Depends on how you define 'braking effect'.
>>
>>How most reasonable people would: the effect of slowing a vehicle.
>
>
> Slowing a vehicle entails more than four strips of rubber on the road
> surface.

Did I say otherwise? No.

Nonetheless, the effect of ANY kind of brakes remains: slowing the
vehicle down.


>>Do you honestly not understand the meaning of the word "effect"?
>
>
> Yes. The effect includes the feedback necessary to adjust brake pedal
> pressure to conditions (on non-ABS cars), because this feedback directly
> influences brake distances.

While feedback may affect the driver, it has nothing to do with the
effect any kind of brakes have on vehicles.



>>>>Perhaps the required effort is different, but the effect is exactly the
>>>>same.
>>>
>>>There is more to the braking effect than g numbers.
>>
>>Now *that's* a red herring:
>
>
> You guys eat too much fish. Over time that apparently leads to seeing
> herring everywhere.

Hey, there goes another one.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

In this case, you claim A.
A is wrong, and is soundly refuted.
You introduce B to support A.
It is pointed out that B has nothing to do with A.
You introduce C to support both B and A.
It is acknowledged that C has something to do with fish, but has nothing
to do with B or A.

Rinse and repeat until someone gets sick from the fishy smell. "Ad
nauseum," I believe it is called.


>>Nobody even mentioned "G (with a capital G)
>>numbers." My reply had absolutely nothing to do with G forces.
>
>
> Whether you call it g-forces or brake distance is irrelevant, it's still
> only a part of the 'brake effect.

Yet another fishy. I didn't call it either G forces or braking distance,
both of which have nothing to do with the EFFECT any kind of brakes have
on vehicles.


> By the way: In physics the symbol for the gravitational constant
> (9.81m/s^2) is a lowercase g, not an uppercase g.

<Insert theme from Jaws>

Uh, no, it's not. The gravitational constant has always been represented
by either an uppercase G or an italicized g, depending on who you ask.
Since we're in a plaintext environment, G is the appropriate symbol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/gconst.html

I think you've hit your daily limit on red herrings, not to mention
flounders. I know I've had my fill...



--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:01:25 -0700, Garth Almgren wrote:

> Around 7/6/2005 10:13 PM, CH wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:53:58 -0700, Garth Almgren wrote:

>>>How most reasonable people would: the effect of slowing a vehicle.
>>
>> Slowing a vehicle entails more than four strips of rubber on the road
>> surface.
>
> Did I say otherwise? No.

> Nonetheless, the effect of ANY kind of brakes remains: slowing the vehicle
> down.

.... and keeping the driver up to date on the slowdown process.

>>>Do you honestly not understand the meaning of the word "effect"?
>>
>> Yes. The effect includes the feedback necessary to adjust brake pedal
>> pressure to conditions (on non-ABS cars), because this feedback directly
>> influences brake distances.
>
> While feedback may affect the driver, it has nothing to do with the effect
> any kind of brakes have on vehicles.

You would be surprised. With my little sportscar with no power brakes I
can keep the wheels at a point very close to lockup (where deceleration is
greatest) simply by using the feedback of the brake system. With power
assisted brakes on the same vehicle feedback through the power assisted
brake system is not sufficient to do that.

>>>>There is more to the braking effect than g numbers.
>>>
>>>Now *that's* a red herring:
>>
>> You guys eat too much fish. Over time that apparently leads to seeing
>> herring everywhere.
>
> Hey, there goes another one.
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html
>
> In this case, you claim A.
> A is wrong, and is soundly refuted.
> You introduce B to support A.
> It is pointed out that B has nothing to do with A. You introduce C to
> support both B and A. It is acknowledged that C has something to do with
> fish, but has nothing to do with B or A.
>
> Rinse and repeat until someone gets sick from the fishy smell. "Ad
> nauseum," I believe it is called.

Your sense of humor seems to be on vacation.

>> Whether you call it g-forces or brake distance is irrelevant, it's still
>> only a part of the 'brake effect.
>
> Yet another fishy. I didn't call it either G forces or braking distance,
> both of which have nothing to do with the EFFECT any kind of brakes have
> on vehicles.

Tell me how you are going to brake without deceleration forces (measured
in g).

>> By the way: In physics the symbol for the gravitational constant
>> (9.81m/s^2) is a lowercase g, not an uppercase g.
>
> <Insert theme from Jaws>
>
> Uh, no, it's not. The gravitational constant has always been represented
> by either an uppercase G or an italicized g, depending on who you ask.
> Since we're in a plaintext environment, G is the appropriate symbol.

Maybe that's different in the United States. I learned to use a lowercase
g in my engineering classes (in the country you Americans admire so much
for their beautifully engineered cars whereas you constantly moan and cry
about the quality of your own engineering).

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
> http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/gconst.html
>
> I think you've hit your daily limit on red herrings, not to mention
> flounders. I know I've had my fill...

And I think that you are trying to get out before you have maneuvered
yourself completely into a corner. In rad it seems to be a sure sign that
someone is near the end of his rope when he starts babbling about Herrings.

Chris

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:38:59 -0400, "JohnH" >
wrote:

>> Are you saying that having the headlights come on automatically
>> with the wipers is a good thing? It is not. It is yet another
>> dumbass 'nanny' feature that denies drivers of their full control
>> of their vehicle.
>
>You technophobes crack me up.
>
>It's not "nanny", it's the law here - headlights must be on when
>wipers operating. On my 98 Jeep, they come on with the lights when
>the lights are in "auto" mode (which I always use).
>
>It's about as "nanny" as having your brake light come on when you
>put on the brakes. But I suppose you'd prefer a switch on the dash
>to do that.

Sure! And manual spark advance, on the column. Besides, a diode
won't work too well with gas headlamps.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBQszx7AIk7T39FC4ZEQKGHgCePSPaEF5tz/EBkrR/SOO41WEHj74An3TY
kAGk/8K2eyetCLqiQkPsoSkt
=wRjB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 17:37:08 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
> wrote:

>>> It's about as "nanny" as having your brake light come on when you
>>> put on the brakes. But I suppose you'd prefer a switch on the
>>> dash to do that.
>>>
>
>The brake light system works properly 99.9% of the time. Hardly a
>comparable example to a inferior design that works properly under
>only one of many "conditions".

Don't laugh, cops, Dicks, pimps and traffickers in the big cities
often have their vehicles rigged with a switch on the dash to kill
the stoplights altogether. :-)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBQszyyAIk7T39FC4ZEQIxMgCdFNT53TFUICAcgBRIXq3kgT dd5O4AoNzm
w1/qoc+QTSC6l9XjG49vuKVN
=xMkN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Harry K wrote:
>
>
>>>CH is stepping into areas of which he obviously has no real knowledge.
>>>Power brakes do not increase the performance of the brake system, of
>>>course. They simply reduce the pedal effort (and feedback). Stopping a
>>>3,000-pound car (or a 5,000-pound car, for that matter) with a
>>>properly-designed unboosted brake system is not at all difficult for
>>>any ordinary individual in reasonably normal health.
>>
>>Yep, Power brakes weren't even standard issue until when...the 60s?,
>>70s?
>
>
> They were never mandated, but the magic date upon which they appeared on
> essentially all new cars was 1/1/76. This was when the pedal-effort
> requirements of FMVSS 105 (brake systems) were rewritten and made more
> stringent. Most automakers complied (and continue to comply) with this
> aspect of FMVSS 105 by boosting the brakes rather than by changing the
> brake friction material formulation, which would've been more expensive
> given Americans' demand for silent brakes.

Well now... that brings up a completely unrelated point. I have been
told by several people that their brake pedal effort went up on older
cars when fitting new brake shoes - apparently the old, asbestos linings
actually provided a higher coefficient of friction than the new,
asbestos-free ones. Whether that's true or an old wives' tale who
knows. I can say that the '55 has brand new linings on it and pedal
effort is still acceptable, whether it's more than the '62 or not (the
'62 has the original shoes still on it) I can't say as the new shoes
haven't completely worn in yet.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

CH wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:20:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > CH wrote:
>
> >> Actually, I own a vehicle without power brakes. Fortunately it only
> >> weights only about 1000lbs including the driver, so stopping it with
> >> non-power brakes is not a problem. That doesn't change the fact that
> >> stopping a 3800lb-sedan with non-power brakes requires quite a bit of
> >> physical force, force that a lot of drivers simply are not able to
> >> administer. And that you wouldn't want to administer on a regular basis.
> >>
> > Hmm, my 3200 lb. '55 Stude coupe and '62 Stude hardtop seem to stop quite
> > well without power intervention. In fact I've driven power-boosted
> > versions of both vehicles, and I prefer the non-power.
>
> That may be. Now take a 5'2 80lb woman and make her drive your Stude.
> Chances are she is going to run into something.
>
> Chris

Probably never happen. Smallest person likely (relatively, that is -
still a long shot) is my mom, who's still a bit bigger than that.
Since I've seen her occasionally wheeling around an old Farmall Cub, I
think she could handle it.

Oddly enough, the one place that I could see the case being made for
power brakes is exactly where you wouldn't think it desirable - in
competition; simply because there you're likely to be doing more
repeated max-effort stops within a short period of time and driver
fatigue may become a problem, enough to offset the advantages of the
better pedal feel of the unboosted system.

nate

"CH" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:07:34 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>>
>> "CH" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:55:21 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>> In short, we are discussing enforcement of existing vehicle lighting
>>>> laws as being a preferred solution to forcing auto systems on everybody
>>>> as a form of compliance enforcement. It's always best to train people
>>>> to do what they should do (give them a ticket and fines, driver
>>>> training, etc.) instead of training them to do the opposite of what
>>>> they should do (which it what auto control systems condition people to
>>>> do by definition)
>>>
>>> Auto control systems dont train anyone to do something they wouldn't do
>>> by themselves.
>>
>> That is a incorrect statement. Training by conditioning is a effective
>> training means and has been for decades.
>
> Conditioning can only happen if the subject is aware of the condition. By
> far the most drivers, especially the bad ones, are not even aware of DRLs,
> much less influenced by a fact they don't even think about. They get in
> their car and drive. If it gets too dark to see they turn on the light.
> Has been like that forever. The good ones turn on the light when they deem
> it necessary, DRLs or no DRLs.

Documented observations indicate that DRLs exsaserbate the problem. DRL
equipped cars are more likely to be driven without the lights in comparison
to cars without DRLs. That is not disputed among the people that are
studying this. That is simply a known documented fact. I would say that
what you seem to believe is quite contrary to what id known reality.

In early 1990's the NHTSA agreed to GM's petition to allow voluntary DRLs
for study with the intent of making a "final rule" either making them a
requirement OR not requiring them at all within ~5-years. While some
benefits of DRLs have been documented since then, there are also
safety-negative issues that have also been documented (The Perot & Prowler
study being the most recent full study on file). Nearly 15 years have
passed since and the NHTSA is still struggling with how to implement DRLs
(or if they can be) while reducing the negative aspets of them since the
negative tradeoffs basically balance out the positive aspects. Insurance
loss data from the insurance loss data institite also indicates that there
is no overall benefit of DRL equipped cars...they simply have the same level
of "loss" as a group compared to their non-DEl equipped cars. The reason
may not actually be the concept of DRL's itself, but way they were
implemented (yet to be determined, however). Some accident types are
actually higher with DRL equipped cars (rear end accidents in particular).
Others types are lower. But, it's a wash...at least so far.

>
>> IF something happens automatically (or one assumes it does), one
>> "conditionally" is trained to ignore that which is already being done
>> for them.
>
> Again, only works if the subject is _aware_, which by far most drivers
> arent. Ask the average driver whether his car has DRLs. You will find most
> don't know.

And a driver not knowing that their car has DRLs or not is a good thing?
So, if the driver doesn't know that the light reflecting back at them from
the car in front of them is coming from their DRLs instead of their
headlights, they'll intuitively believe that their headlights are on when
they're not...and that's not a good thing?! This makes the very point as to
why this phenomonem is so well documented. You've just described so well
why it is so! In fact, better than I have, actually. Thanks for making the
point!

>
>> That is just a well known thing that happens to normal
>> ordanary human beings under those sutuations. A auto light system is a
>> textbook example of a conditional training device. There are a small
>> percentage of people that are not trained/trainable (I would say
>> *untrainied* in this case) that way. Perhaps you are one of them...and
>> so am I actually.
>
> Wow, backslapping
>
>>> The people you are complaining about would drive around in rain and fog
>>> with their lights turned off just as they do in their DRL equipped
>>> cars. Stupid is stupid, regardless of DRLs.
>>
>> Some would, that is true. Others wouldn't. There are documented cases
>> on file at the NHTSA that dispells your statement.
>
> Again your mysterious statements. Either quote them or don't try to FUD
> your readers with them.

I've provided referrences open to public access, which is far more than you
have provided. All of your assertions are from your feelings and opinions.
Mine are from sources available to anyone. You are hardly are in a position
to ask for more from me when what I have provided as reference sources is
far more than you've provided.

>
>> DRL equipped cars are less likely to have their main lights on in
>> situations of rain/fog/snow compared with non-DRL equipped cars. It is
>> just a documented fact.
>
> From my experience: No. If you disagree on the base of NHTSA findings,
> post the numbers. Should be easy to do if it's really on file.

I don't agree or disagree with what is on file with the NHTSA. I only state
what is on file.

>
>> It's all on fiile at the NHTSA. Even most of the experts in the field
>> don't disagree with that (not sure why you do).
>
> I disagree, because I don't see your alleged 'facts' on the street and you
> are unable to provide evidence.

And you have provided such evidence from your perspective? You've not even
provided a reference. At least provide counter referrence. Unlike you, I
have no problem following the reference to see for myself.

Another source are the many thousands of internet traffic cameras. Find a
city where it's foggy or raining and watch for yourself.

>
>> Add in the auto system that only works reliably at night or when it's
>> fairly dark, and that makes the situation even worse than before from
>> the conditional training aspect of the driver.
>
> Maybe your '95 Cavalier is defective. My automatic lights work remarkably
> well, i.e. even switch on when dark rainclouds or fog diminishes light
> intensity.

Sometimes they do...that is true. Sometimes they don't. Therefore,
reliability that control will be proper is very poor.

The vehicle I had was a 2003 GM product. I doubt that a 95 Cavalier model
even had auto light control, actually. Curious why the reference
specifically to a Cavalier of that year?


>
>> Of course, perhaps you have another explanation as to why more GM cars
>> have lights off in these weather conditions compared to vehicles made by
>> other manufacturers?
>
> You _claim_ a difference, but are unable to provide evidence.

Yes I have provided the reference. Did you forget...? It was the Op of
this thread made the original claim, not me. I only referenced the same
claim that myself and many others have made in the GM and other car
newsgroups over the years. Seems there are a lot of observant people that
have come to the same conclusion as those that have sumbitted comment to the
NHTSA on this topic.

>
>>> No, I am not. I merely have a different opinion. And I did not complain
>>> about Daniel having a different opinion, just for behaving like a three
>>> year old.
>>
>> That discussion thread was not about a opinion, it was about lighting
>> laws that existed before auto light controls did.
>
> The discussion thread was about the mysterious dangers of DRLs. And still
> is.

The main topic yes. The sub topic/discussion thread we were on was a
divergent discussion about lighting laws specifically...I guess you missed
it

>> Your contributions to
>> that side-thread was indeed obtuse since you made a really rediculous
>> statement that auto light laws didn't exist before there was auto
>> controls. (Something already understood and actually Danial already
>> said).
>
> Maybe you are in danial about red-iculous statements...

It's right here in this thread...you said something that had already been
said (or implied). Either you were being intentionally obtuse OR you are
very slow to comprehend (one ot the other). I would think the former would
actually be the better conclusion...so Daniel was actually being nice to you
from that perspective. :-)

>
>>> I was not being wilfully obtuse and I am certainly not trying to
>>> frustrate you (you seem to do fine on your own), but I happen to have a
>>> different opinion, which you two don't like and use as an excuse to
>>> blow off steam/frustration from work/whatever.
>>>
>>>> Congratulations, it worked...and now you're surprised?
>>>
>>> I am not in the least surprised, that you are defending Daniel's
>>> childish behavior.
>>
>> The behavior was admittedly a bit over the top...but it's Daniel, after
>> all.
>> :-) But his point was correct.
>
> His point was making a fool of himself.

How so? You were the one that repeated that which was the obvious to the
rest of us...and calling Daniel on the carpet over making a statement that
auto light laws exist (which he already made obvious he was talking about
general lighting laws, not automatic lighting laws). You really are that
slow...huh?

> He has a lot to contribute and
> ruins it totally because he is unable to control
> himself. What a pity.
>

Well, one can overlook ones faults once they're understood. Daniels
contributions are well worth it, despite it all. And if you take the
content of the statements, it's usually pretty close to the mark, even if
the delivery is a bit much. :-

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> I have been told by several people that their brake pedal effort went up
> on older cars when fitting new brake shoes

Absolutely yes. Had it happen lots of times, especially with the
"lifetime" pads and shoes so readily available through consumer parts
channels. The way they're made to last a "lifetime" is to make them
extremely hard. Buying the value-line pads or shoes often returns pedal
effort to design range. Friction material characteristics are very
critical to pedal effort and feel. Remember the "Velvetouch Metallik"
shoes that were a popular means of shoring up underspecced brake systems
decades ago? They required high pedal effort when cold, but really grabbed
the drums with a death grip when hot.

It can be difficult to spec the right friction material for an older car
-- you just have to do asbestos you can.

-DS (har har har)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Garth Almgren wrote:

> Around 7/6/2005 10:13 PM, CH wrote:

<another raftload of stupid ****>

> I think you've hit your daily limit on red herrings, not to mention
> flounders. I know I've had my fill...

Oog. And waffles.

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:50:03 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "CH" > wrote in message
> news

>> Conditioning can only happen if the subject is aware of the condition.
>> By far the most drivers, especially the bad ones, are not even aware of
>> DRLs, much less influenced by a fact they don't even think about. They
>> get in their car and drive. If it gets too dark to see they turn on the
>> light. Has been like that forever. The good ones turn on the light when
>> they deem it necessary, DRLs or no DRLs.
>
> Documented observations indicate that DRLs exsaserbate the problem.

Documented by whom? When? Where? URL?

> DRL equipped cars are more likely to be driven without the lights in
> comparison to cars without DRLs. That is not disputed among the people
> that are studying this.

Then it will be easy for you to post references.

> That is simply a known documented fact.

No, it is merely claimed by you so far.

> I would say that what you seem to believe is quite contrary to what id
> known reality.

I hate to burst your bubble, but reality is neither defined nor ruled by
you. You claim 'this is fact' and 'that is fact' and are unable to post
even a reference.

> In early 1990's the NHTSA agreed to GM's petition to allow voluntary
> DRLs for study with the intent of making a "final rule" either making
> them a requirement OR not requiring them at all within ~5-years. While
> some benefits of DRLs have been documented since then, there are also
> safety-negative issues that have also been documented (The Perot &
> Prowler study being the most recent full study on file).
> Nearly 15 years have passed since and the NHTSA is still struggling
> with how to implement DRLs (or if they can be) while reducing the
> negative aspets of them since the negative tradeoffs basically balance
> out the positive aspects.
> Insurance loss data from the insurance loss data institite also
> indicates that there is no overall benefit of DRL equipped cars...they
> simply have the same level of "loss" as a group compared to their
> non-DEl equipped cars. The reason may not actually be the concept of
> DRL's itself, but way they were implemented (yet to be determined,
> however). Some accident types are actually higher with DRL equipped
> cars (rear end accidents in particular). Others types are lower. But,
> it's a wash...at least so far.

Where are the impartial direct references for all that? Your
interpretations have proven wildly wrong in the past, so Id like to read
up on all your so called material myself. If the stuff exists you surely
can post links.

>> Again, only works if the subject is _aware_, which by far most drivers
>> arent. Ask the average driver whether his car has DRLs. You will find
>> most don't know.
>
> And a driver not knowing that their car has DRLs or not is a good thing?

In a way, yes. Better than not having DRLs and not knowing that and still
not switching on the lights in bad conditions.

> So, if the driver doesn't know that the light reflecting back at them
> from the car in front of them is coming from their DRLs instead of their
> headlights, they'll intuitively believe that their headlights are on
> when they're not...and that's not a good thing?!

Most drivers don't even think about things like their DRLs/headlighs
reflecting from the car in front of them as you can clearly see from the
high rate of 'one-eyed' or 'blind' cars on the road.

> This makes the very point as to why this phenomonem is so well
> documented. You've just described so well why it is so! In fact,
> better than I have, actually. Thanks for making the point!

I didn't make your point, you just drew a wrong conclusion.

>>> Some would, that is true. Others wouldn't. There are documented
>>> cases on file at the NHTSA that dispells your statement.
>>
>> Again your mysterious statements. Either quote them or don't try to FUD
>> your readers with them.
>
> I've provided referrences open to public access, which is far more than
> you have provided.

No, you have provided references to a random website, which may or may not
contain the info you claim it contains. No point in telling without
lengthy research. Unfortunately you are not paying me for this research so
I suggest you do it yourself if you want to make a point.

> All of your assertions are from your feelings and opinions. Mine are
> from sources available to anyone. You are hardly are in a position to
> ask for more from me when what I have provided as reference sources is
> far more than you've provided.

Your assertions are from thin air, otherwise you would have posted direct
links to your 'sources' long ago.

>>> DRL equipped cars are less likely to have their main lights on in
>>> situations of rain/fog/snow compared with non-DRL equipped cars. It
>>> is just a documented fact.
>>
>> From my experience: No. If you disagree on the base of NHTSA findings,
>> post the numbers. Should be easy to do if it's really on file.
>
> I don't agree or disagree with what is on file with the NHTSA. I only
> state what is on file.

No, you claim that these things are on file but at the same time are
unable to provide a reference to them. IOW, you either just _think_ they
are on file or you are outright lying.

>>> It's all on fiile at the NHTSA. Even most of the experts in the field
>>> don't disagree with that (not sure why you do).
>>
>> I disagree, because I don't see your alleged 'facts' on the street and
>> you are unable to provide evidence.
>
> And you have provided such evidence from your perspective? You've not
> even provided a reference.

Neither have you.

> At least provide counter referrence.

I will go looking for counter-reference when (read: if) you ever provide
a direct reference to the documents you claim to have seen and thus must
be able to easily locate.

> Unlike you, I have no problem following the reference to see for myself.

If you had no problem you would have triumphantly posted your findings
long ago.

> Another source are the many thousands of internet traffic cameras. Find
> a city where it's foggy or raining and watch for yourself.

I did. Proves my point.

>> Maybe your '95 Cavalier is defective. My automatic lights work
>> remarkably well, i.e. even switch on when dark rainclouds or fog
>> diminishes light intensity.
>
> Sometimes they do...that is true. Sometimes they don't. Therefore,
> reliability that control will be proper is very poor.

Again, you may want to upgrade to a more modern car.

> The vehicle I had was a 2003 GM product. I doubt that a 95 Cavalier
> model even had auto light control, actually. Curious why the reference
> specifically to a Cavalier of that year?

I was just making fun of you. You need to have your humor module
recalibrated.

Btw, if your 2003 GM product doesn't have reliable auto-headlights, I
suggest you inform your nearest stealer and have the sensor fixed under
warranty. My 2000 GM product has remarkably realiable auto headlights.

>>> Of course, perhaps you have another explanation as to why more GM cars
>>> have lights off in these weather conditions compared to vehicles made
>>> by other manufacturers?
>>
>> You _claim_ a difference, but are unable to provide evidence.
>
> Yes I have provided the reference.

No, you haven't. A reference is a direct pointer to a document you are
either quoting or taking info from, not the URL of some random website.

>>> That discussion thread was not about a opinion, it was about lighting
>>> laws that existed before auto light controls did.
>>
>> The discussion thread was about the mysterious dangers of DRLs. And
>> still is.
>
> The main topic yes. The sub topic/discussion thread we were on was a
> divergent discussion about lighting laws specifically...I guess you
> missed it

If you start a sub-topic, change the topic of the postings. I asserted
that you were still talking about the topic the thread is about.

>>> Your contributions to
>>> that side-thread was indeed obtuse since you made a really rediculous
>>> statement that auto light laws didn't exist before there was auto
>>> controls. (Something already understood and actually Danial already
>>> said).
>>
>> Maybe you are in danial about red-iculous statements...
>
> It's right here in this thread...you said something that had already
> been said (or implied). Either you were being intentionally obtuse OR
> you are very slow to comprehend (one ot the other). I would think the
> former would actually be the better conclusion...so Daniel was actually
> being nice to you from that perspective. :-)

Your humor module is definitely defective. Your nearest stealer will sell
you a new one.

>>> The behavior was admittedly a bit over the top...but it's Daniel,
>>> after all.
>>> :-) But his point was correct.
>>
>> His point was making a fool of himself.
>
> How so?

By starting ridiculous rants every time I said something that didn't match
his opinion - an opinion beatified by his supersized ego.

> You were the one that repeated that which was the obvious to
> the rest of us...and calling Daniel on the carpet over making a
> statement that auto light laws exist (which he already made obvious he
> was talking about general lighting laws, not automatic lighting laws).
> You really are that slow...huh?

If you read the posting again you will find that the last sentence of the
second to last paragraph was about auto lighting and the next paragraph
referenced that and claimed legislation exists.

>> He has a lot to contribute and ruins it totally because he is unable to
>> control himself. What a pity.
>>
> Well, one can overlook ones faults once they're understood.

Why would I overlook being insulted constantly by someone, whose
super-sized ego cannot tolerate different opinions?

> Daniels contributions are well worth it, despite it all. And if you
> take the content of the statements, it's usually pretty close to the
> mark, even if the delivery is a bit much. :-

Not really. Daniel thinks his opinion is god's holy truth. It isn't and
his constant anger management issues don't make it the truth either.

Chris