The dangers of DRLs

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:14:25 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>
>
>>>I see a lot of old people in the car. I suppose the reason is the same
>>>as for Reeves to buy it, namely fear of modern features, specifically
>>>ABS. The Sebring is one of the few midsize cars that still is available
>>>without.
>>
>>You say modern features, I say unnecessary complexity.
>
>
> And I say that keeping a car maneuverable even under heavy braking is not
> unnecessary in the least. Maybe you can come close to ABS performance in
> some emergency conditions, which would put you in the top 5% of drivers.
> Very probably you couldn't.

Depends on the car. In some vehicles, I'm CERTAIN that I could "beat"
the ABS.

>
>>I'd rather spend my $$$ on a car that had good basic systems without
>>electronic band-aids covering up its shortcomings.
>
>
> ABS is not an electronic band aid. ABS covers up a shortcoming all cars
> share, i.e. that the normal brake system is unable to cope with different
> friction at the tires during heavy breaking and with keeping the car
> maneuverable during emergency breaking.

A good car should have a base brake system arranged so that under heavy
braking on a uniform surface, the front wheels lock up slightly before
the rears, and the brake pedal should offer good feedback and easy
modulation. Given those, it's really not that difficult for a good
driver to post decent stopping distances, without loss of control.

>
> Even the best cars profit from ABS and mediocre cars even more.
>

Indeed. The ones that benefit from ABS the most are the ones using it
as an electronic band-aid.

>
>>>The employee discount is just a consolidation of the rebates they were
>>>giving before. Uppricing cars and then giving large rebates has been a
>>>way of life for quite a few car makers lately.
>>
>>That doesn't negate the fact that it seems on the face of it to be the
>>sole reason for GM's recent increase in sales.
>
>
> I think one of the reasons is that GM is way up in customer satisfaction
> and independent quality assessments. Another factor is that they are
> starting to make more interesting cars.

I don't see the interesting cars.


>
>>>Currently: Yes, which is exactly what I said. The new models that are
>>>coming out are not. See Saturn Sky, Pontiac Solstice, even the already
>>>available Goat and CTS-V. More cars are going to be switched to RWD
>>>platforms and made for driving fun again, which will improve sales
>>>numbers even more than any discount scheme could.
>>>
>>
>>We can only hope that they don't continue their longstanding tradition
>>of promising new and exciting cars and delivering the same old blah.
>
>
> Goat. C6. C6 Z06. CTS-V.

All priced outside the reach of the average person, and the C6 is
getting a lot of criticism from the 'vette fans for not being a "real
'vette" whatever that means. Personally, I think it's a step in the
right direction, but the fact remains that I very rarely if ever see any
of the vehicles you mention "in the wild" so GM is missing their target
market, whatever that may be, badly with all four of those vehicles.

> Even the Cobalt SS is a fun little critter. And

I have no data on that one.

> the lineup that already is fixed for production adds to that. Sky.
> Solstice. STS-V.

We'll see. I don't have the faith that GM won't screw them up like
they've done so many times before.

>
>>How many cars have we had high hopes for in the past only to be sadly
>>disappointed by the mediocre execution? (anyone remember the Fiero?
>
>
> ... that only suffered from GM's utter lack of experience with midship
> engine cars. Fieros still are quite capable at autocrossing.

Late ones, sure.

>
>>And to rub salt in it, they killed it off almost immediately after
>>finally turning it into an almost respectable car)
>
>
> They are aware of one fact. If the first version didn't work, kill it off
> before you suffer even more damage. Itanic (Intel Itanium) anyone?
>

Perhaps they shouldn't use their first-year customers as beta testers then?


>
>>>>I think it's reasonable to assume that a light switch would have an off
>>>>position.
>>>
>>>Assuming something when buying a big-ticket item is simply stupid.
>>>
>>
>>Omitting a universal functionality to save a few pennies is stupid. If
>>that's GM's position on light switches, one can only imagine the corners
>>they've cut elsewhere.
>
>
> An auto light switch with an off position is a contradiction in terms. The
> whole point of having an automated system is reducing the number of
> unlighted cars at night and giving a driver the opportunity to switch off
> the system increases this number. And there is no traffic safety relevant
> reason to have an off switch.

Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Or are you dismissing all the other posts in
this thread just because you disagree with them?

>
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>You may see it as stupid, I see it as smart. Stops total idiots from
>>>switching off their lights at night.
>>>
>>
>>Sometimes you *WANT* to.
>>A company that assumes that I'm dumb enough to turn my lights off when
>>they're actually needed is insulting to my intelligence, and by
>>extension, their entire customer base. I see GM saying "hey, all you
>>people who buy our cars, we think that you're total morons."
>
>
> No, they are merely saying 'most people are forgetful'. If your self image
> really is so weak that you are feeling like a moron just because of a
> safety feature, that's a problem between you and your shrink.
>

I don't feel like a moron at all. I just don't like being treated like
one, which is my right.

>
>>>Given the number of GM cars driven by military personnel (including
>>>cars the military owns) I rather doubt that auto headlights are a
>>>problem at a security checkpoint.
>>>
>>
>>The military owned vehicles don't have DRL's; or at least GM is willing
>>to sell them vehicles without DRLs (along with law enforcement) You and
>>I, however, can't order vehicles without them.
>
>
> You and I can disable DRLs if we so choose.

Not easily. Not by checking a box on an order form. In fact, GM DRL's
are some of the most notoriously difficult to disable. I *could* rant
about the VW I bought that had DRLs but a) they were low beam, not high
beam and b) they were easily defeated simply by pulling the headlight
switch and putting a small piece of tape over one wiring harness
connection. No MIL or other annoying negative consequences. That's the
way it *should* be.

>
>
>>>I merely pointed out that James did something stupid (and if you think
>>>only idiots do stupid things you are less sophisticated than I thought)
>>>and that like any good middle-class American he needs to find someone
>>>to blame for his mistake. And a large company like GM is always a
>>>welcome victim.
>>>
>>
>>Is it not acceptable then to criticize GM even after one has bought one
>>of their products?
>
>
> Not if the criticism is based on something he should have known before
> buying the car. If GM had hidden something (like put an off position on
> the switch that in reality only was 'auto' I would understand his anger,
> but he simply didn't a good job researching a car and GM is not to blame
> for that.
>

They're still to blame for a **** poor design.

>
>>>The differences have been big 20 years ago. Today the differences are
>>>quite small and ABS does a better job than just about any consumer
>>>grade sedan driver in every situation.
>>>
>>
>>Your definition of "quite small" is very different from mine. Even if
>>the hardware is similar, the software is radically different, and
>>deliberately so. I can tell you for a fact that the ABS on many "mass
>>market" vehicles is tuned for maximum stability at the expense of
>>ultimate stopping performance.
>
>
> The software in the average car works better than almost all drivers could
> do by themselves on the road. What I was talking about was the abdominable
> mechanical ABS Ford used in the Fiesta and Escort in Germany.
>
> ABS does a better job than all but a select few and I am sure neither you
> nor I can claim to consistently outdo ABS. In my little sportscar (not the
> Camaro) I can under good conditions because I can hear a certain sound
> shortly before the tires are at the lockup level so I can brake very close
> to locking them up. I daresay, though, that under pressure and adverse
> conditions I don't think I could do a job to match ABs. And neither could
> you.
>

Depends on the vehicle. As I stated above, some of the poorer ABS
implementations that trade ultimate stopping power for stability, I'm
CERTAIN I could beat.

>
>>>Ferrari had that when they first introduced ABS. The new models do not
>>>have an ABS off switch. Neither does Porsche or Mercedes-Benz, simply
>>>because ABS does work. It works even on the track, reducing tire wear,
>>>improving control and even making it possible to brake hard into the
>>>turn, which is a driving style that has become very fashionable.
>>>
>>
>>I don't really feel like doing the research right now, but I'm certain
>>there are current vehicles that do indeed have different,
>>driver-selectable levels of ABS/DSC intervention.
>
>
> They do, but they neither do have the off switch you postulate nor is this
> setting meant for street use.

Some of them do have an "off" position, or at least a position that
kills all but the most minimal electronic intervention, and who are you
to say what a setting is to be used for? Sure, it may be intended for
track use, but the point is, it's there if the driver wants to use it.

>
>
>>>No racer would seriously claim (like James does) that he induces a
>>>controlled skid with a 4-wheel non-ABS system.
>>
>>I must have missed whatever post prompted your comment, but inducing a
>>controlled skid in a non-ABS vehicle is really no great feat. Either
>>I'm missing some context, or your comment makes no sense.
>
>
> Then pray tell how you induce a controlled skid in a non-ABS FWD vehicle
> without using external help (i.e. parking brake). Keyword here is
> controlled. Making a car skid with only non-ABS brakes is easy.

Turn, quick jab of brakes to unsettle the chassis, then recover as
appropriate. Not saying that it's a good idea, but it's still not
difficult.

>
>
>>>No, it doesn't but that's exactly what James claims as the reason he
>>>doesn't want ABS on his car.
>>>
>>
>>See above.
>
>
> I can't wait for your explanation.

Well, now you have it.

>
>
>>>>Due to DRL's? I call bull**** until I see a cite.
>>>
>>>http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...mentofDRLs.pdf
>>>
>>>Look at page 23.
>>>
>>
>>I have absolutely no respect for NHTSA and their supposed objectivity
>>and concern for safety. Likewise for the IIHS. In my mind both are
>>corrupt, incredibly biased organizations that have their own agendas
>>that they push at great cost, both in dollars and in safety.
>
>
> ROTFL. James claims the NHTSA as _the_ source for safety info

I don't think anyone ever said NHTSA was *the* source for anything.

> and claims
> somewhere within the vaults of their document management system is the
> proof he so desperately desires. And you support him every step on the
> way.

Because it is there.

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...hTyp e=docket

found this in less than five minutes of searching, notice that the
comments are almost universally anti-DRL. So where is the overwhelming
public support for them that you claim? Seems like a lot of people hate
them enough to write to NHTSA.


>
> I suggest you find a better source instead of just complaining about mine.
>

You *HAD* a source?

>
>>>Insurance companies give a benefit where they think it will increase
>>>sales and not cost too much. Most drivers would be royally ****ed if
>>>their insurance company gave discounts for DRLs, because they don't
>>>have them.
>>
>>Most drivers do have DRLs, it seems.
>
>
> All of sudden? James claims they don't. According to him not even 10% of
> the non-GM cars have DRLs.

Enough cars on the road have them that it's a good proportion.

>
>
>>And since when were insurance companies concerned about sales?
>>I'm not aware of too many places where insurance isn't compulsory,
>>unless you're filthy stinkin' rich.
>
>
> Still there are many competitors, so the question is not, whether someone
> has insurance, but what company gets to fleece him. And companies go to
> extreme length to pull customers into their fold.

So if a common "safety" feature worked well enough that they could
afford to give a discount, they might?

>
>
>>>>>... which is fun to drive cars.
>>>>
>>>>It would be nice if they made those, yes.
>>>
>>>They are. Corvette. GTO. CTS-V.
>>
>>All overpriced for what they are.
>
>
> Bruahahahah!
>
> Show me a sports car that comes even close to the Vette within the price
> range. Even more so with the Z06 and the upcoming supercar dubbed the
> 'blue devil'.
>
> The GTO kicks the butt of every sub-40k coupe.

How many people do you know that can AFFORD a $40K new car? not many.

>
> The CTS-V offers six-speed and a 400hp V8 in a price range that has
> lackluster V6 sedans from other manufacturers.

Again, priced outside the range of the vast majority of consumers, or at
least those averse to overextending their credit.

>
> I can't wait to see what models you offer as a support for your claims.
>

I could build a car faster than any of those for half the cost.

>
>>>The readers of this small newsgroup are a very small minority and
>>>certainly not a feasible market for car makers.
>>>
>>
>>But if a company wants to build a reputation for making good cars, they
>>have to impress the car guys first.
>
>
> I wouldn't call the majority in here car guys.

What would you call them, then?

>
>
>>>And concerning my opinion, it is well founded unlike yours.
>>
>>Bull****.
>
>
> Calling it bull**** doesn't change the fact. Support your opinion with
> studies and we will see...

Already done, many times. Do your homework.

>
>
>>>I still want
>>>to see your references to sources that deem DRLs and automatic
>>>headlights dangerous.
>>
>>People more knowledgeable than I have already posted info that you have
>>refused to look at.
>
>
> I looked at all information that was directly referenced. Claiming the
> info is somewhere inside some website is _not_ info but just Bull**** (to
> borrow from your vocabulary).

Sounds to me like you're more interested in "winning" an argument than
actually educating yourself.

>
>
>>>So far I have supported my opinion by an NHTSA study.
>>
>>Oooh, I'm so impressed. You posted one link to a study funded by a
>>corrupt and deeply flawed organization.
>
>
> Then post something better.

Already done, many times.

>
>
>>>You have not. And until you do so you certainly have no basis to call
>>>my opinion wrong.
>>
>>You are wrong.
>
>
> No, you are wrong.

Ooh!

> If you were right, you would post references yourself.

Why should I? Others have already done so, IN THIS THREAD.

> Unfortunately you can't, which is why you think that simply calling me
> wrong will automatically sway people in your direction.
>

You're the only one disagreeing.

>>There's plenty of evidence out there that says so, some of it posted in
>>this thread. Some of it actually on the NHTSA web site, amusingly
>>enough (I'm thinking of the docket on DRLs and glare in particular.
>
>
> The dockets are political junk. Post a serious study insead.

There are references to serious research in the comments under those
dockets. However, since they aren't easily linkable (often one .pdf
will contain many different short letters, and the ones that do
reference hard research may be buried in the middle - and may even
reference research not available on the Web, you might have to do a
little bit of legwork.)

So NHTSA is good but dockets are bad? I'll have to remember that. *snork*

>
>
>>>>Who said anything about the GTO?
>>>
>>>Reeves did. He said that he wants GM to price the Goat down to the
>>>Mustang's level.
>>
>>That would be a good marketing move on GM's part, I think.
>
>
> The Goat sells very well and is priced far below its competitors. The
> Mustang GT doesn't even come close with its lackluster modular engine.


That would explain why I see all kinds of new Mustangs and can't
remember the last time I saw a GTO in the wild - if I ever did.

>
>>Otherwise the Mustang is going to be a runaway success and the GTO is
>>going to be yet another "could have been."
>
>
> One, the Stang and the GTO are not direct competitors.

This is true, but the fact remains that when you compare the prices,
someone originally tempted to buy a GTO just might decide to buy a
Mustang instead and pocket the difference for, say, a down payment on a
small house. Add to that that the average Joe can afford a Mustang but
not a GTO... well, you do the math.

> The performance of
> the cars is not even close to comparable. Two, as long as GM sells every
> GTO they get from Australia they won't have to worry about pricing.

Where are these cars selling? Why don't I see any of them at all? It
doesn't matter how good the thing is, if they don't sell.

>
>>>If they are giving away cars I want to see where. I could use a new
>>>Duramax Diesel Silverado. Last time I looked the Silverado I want is
>>>somewhere north of $40k which is nowhere near 'given away' or 'free.
>>>
>>>GM is not giving anything away, they just price cars up and then give
>>>discounts. Apparently this works, because the less informed think they
>>>are giving something away.
>>
>>Yes, and it's fairly clear that that perception is why they're selling
>>as many vehicles as they are.
>
>
> Clever marketing.

And apparently effective.

nate

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