The dangers of DRLs

C.H. wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:23:23 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > C.H. wrote:

<snip>

> >> 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

I'm not angry at all, just trying to find words that adequately express
my lack of respect for your intellect. Why don't you go play with that
engineer guy from MTR, you two would get along famously.

nate

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:22:45 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>> Automatic says that they go on and off by themselves within certain
>> parameters. Thus they are automatic headlamps.
>
> You have a different version of Websters than I do then.

My Webster says "having a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism" which
amounts to the same thing I said.

Now state your definition of automatic.

Chris

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:28:14 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:31:02 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Malibu had these DRL and ABS safety features you seem to love so
>>>much that the Sebring doesn't have. Coverage is identical for both.
>>>"Garaging" and commute distance is identical for both. Annual mileage
>>>estimate is identical for both. Yet the Malibu's insurance was higher.
>>>Care to tell me why the insurance cost was higher for the vehicle that
>>>supposedly had the better safety features?
>>
>> Sebring: Geezers. Malibu: Beginner drivers.
>
> Wow. Pretty accurate!
> What about Nissans Maxima?

Graduated ricers.

Chris

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.

>>> 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. 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.

>> 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 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

>>> 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%

>> [anti-GM-rant snipped]
>
> Uhm, GM would be helped if they gave the customer base what they want.

.... which is fun to drive cars. No one cares about DRLs except for a few
'back to the 50s' crusaders.

> 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

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:56:36 -0700, N8N wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> Nate, I know you can't control your anger very well, so I will leave you
>> to yourself until you have regained your composure.
>>
> I'm not angry at all, just trying to find words that adequately express my
> lack of respect for your intellect.

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. To
call stupid just because I don't share your opinion is not worthy of an
intelligent person.

I will let you cool off some more, maybe the old Nate will reemerge once
you get your composure back.

Chris

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.

The current DRL implementation does not involve tail lights. This is the
biggest problem. Better no DRLs than a half assed implementation.

"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.

Actually, it's your vision that's bad. You seem to be able to use
Google; why don't you use it to find past postings by Daniel where
he cites scientific studies that support his rant, and debunk your
claim?

Floyd

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:52:24 -0700, fbloogyudsr wrote:

> "C.H." > wrote

>> Then his rant against my claim in here that DRLs make sense is all the
>> more inexplicable. Apparently his hatred is clouding his vision.
>
> Actually, it's your vision that's bad. You seem to be able to use Google;
> why don't you use it to find past postings by Daniel where he cites
> scientific studies that support his rant, and debunk your claim?

Why should I? If he makes claims it is _his_ responsibility to provide the
proper citations. And ranting never is a proper way to try to convince
someone. I would be interested in what he has to say if he was able to say
so in a civil manner.

Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:56:36 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
> > C.H. wrote:
> >> Nate, I know you can't control your anger very well, so I will leave you
> >> to yourself until you have regained your composure.
> >>
> > I'm not angry at all, just trying to find words that adequately express my
> > lack of respect for your intellect.
>
> 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. To
> call stupid just because I don't share your opinion is not worthy of an
> intelligent person.
>
> I will let you cool off some more, maybe the old Nate will reemerge once
> you get your composure back.
>

As I predicted, it's all about getting off the topic in which Christian
is beaten by facts to where he can discuss his "feelings."

It's the same way every time. Snip all the discussion of the topic in
which you're losing badly, then talk about "civility."

Heh. What a maroon.

E.P.