The dangers of DRLs

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:02:46 +0000, 223rem wrote:

>
>> 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.

Even if it was true in the generality you state it in here, it still would
be a minute fraction of the headlight violations that happen at
dusk/night/dawn. But it is not even true in this generality.

I have been through quite a bit of torrential rain with my car and I have
noticed that the lights usually come on before more than a handful of the
others switch theirs on manually. I have indeed seen two or three
situations within the last year where visibility was really bad and still
enough light present that it made manual interaction necessary.

And weighing these two or three situations against the several hundred
situations where the headlights came on at the right time I can safely say
the system works very well. Same goes for the other cars I see. If all
cars around here had automatic headlights, the number of headlight
violations would go down by somewhere north of 95%. Which is better than a
lot of other systems that are built into cars, including the automatic
transmission and other things.

I suggest you guys get some first-hand experience and lose your hatred and
rage so you will be able to think rationally again.

Chris

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:13:59 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.

And you would be wrong. Sorry. I'll buy a GM produce again in a heartbeat
if not for the idiotic nanny fratures they shove down your throat. You draw
too many incorrect conclusions.

>> 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

That is correct, I have been "ranting" about the DRLs and auto headlamps
specifically...not GM generally (or overall).

> 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.

Actually I like the GTO too (now that they added the hoos scoop). Not all
of a sudden, I've liked Buicks for years.

Now, surely you can separate a like for a product and a dislike for a
feature. Can't you? Although this certaintly explains how you incorrectly
correlate hatred of a idiotic feature for hatred for the entire company.
And explains a lot of things actually. But the correlation is a VERY large
stretch.

> 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.

And you had reverenced documents previously? No, you hadn't. So, what's
good for the goose...as they say!

>
>> 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'm fine with others coming to their own conclusions on that one.

> So far you have claimed that the NHTSA claims DRLs worthless or even
> dangerous.

No I stated that documents existed at the NHTA site that support what I was
stating. Naming the names of studies etc.

> Now all of sudden they don't claim anything because your
> precious 'study' went out the window.

No, I've claimed that there are elements of DRL implementation that have
known/documented problems. (specifically the observation by the Op of this
thread is one). If you remember (and you seem to forget A LOT), I had
stated in a previous post that there seems to be some positive aspects to
DRLs. However current implementations introduce safety-negative problems as
well. You have listed (and cited) the types of accidents they seem to help
with (finally). There are other types of accidents that increase with DRL
use, the most notable documented is the rear end collision (which also
correlates with the Op's observations). But there are other problems that
have arisen since DRLs have been intruduced. Some Motocycle accidents are
attributed to them, some accidents involving emergency vehicles and funeral
processions are attributed to them, etc. There are other clases as well that
seem to be negatively impacted with DRLs in the environment compared to
before they were. You cited a few specific types of situations where
safety gains have been identified. That is only part of the story. To draw
conclusions, it's best to have the rest of the picture. So, keep reading
and you will get that *complete* picture (positives and negatives).
Remember, you said you were unaware of any negative aspects of DRL's. There
are hundreds of documents at the site I provided that can give you that
insight you indicated that you lacked. I hope it's helpful.

>> 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).

True, you kept making claims without citing any document...the same thing
you acuse other of. No arguement here.

> Now it's your turn. Either reference your 'material' or stop making
> unfounded claims.

I have already referenced some. Antiono Perot & Stephen Prowler. HLDI
(Ironically they dismiss their own 1997 study now), Koornstra, Wisconsin's
Highway 12 Study, etc.

> Btw, who cares whether 'some' of the thousands of comments that supposedly
> are there,
> support your view?

I am certain that you don't care.

> 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.

Then you didn't look very hard. Visit Docket 17243 & 4124. And
please..while you're in those dockets, please add your minority view to them
so that there is at least some balance to your postion there!

> Put up or shut up.

If it hadn't been for me egging you on, you wouldn't have finally found your
document. So, what's the beef? You did good! Finally you presented
something to back up what you said. Bravo, I say! :-)

> 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.

If you visit, you may indeed fine it a "hellhole". However, I fail to
understand how you come to the conclusion you come to without forst having
visited and seen everyting else it has to offer.

> 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.

Explained in a earlier post where instrument panel lighting is too dim to
see on many vehicles in those lighting conditions. But you again missed it.

> 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.

Not here, apparently.

>
>> 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.

Sure they do. I can see them reflecting on the shiny paint or chrome
sufaces of the vehicle in front very easily, especially at stoplights, heavy
traffic and such. Of course I could use your tactic and say you must not be
very observent. ;-) But perhaps you are not in stop-and-go traffic very
often or behind people at stoplights very much. Remember also you have
turn-signal based DRL's, they probably don't create the same "headlamp-on"
reflection signature that a headlamp based DRL does.

> If it is dark enough that the DRLs would be visible
> on the road surface the automatic system already has switched on the
> headlights.

I will agree with that, generally. The reflection is mostly on the vehicle
in front of you. Even from some distance, you can see the "spots" from the
DRL reflecting bacl. That may be less obvious with the turn signal type you
have.

>> 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.

My eyes were fine at my last eye exam. Perhaps, I have my dash lights
dimmed down more than you do to reduce night driving glare?

>>> 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.

I used "bright daytime snowstorm", not "bright sunlit snowstorm".

> Thanks for admitting that one of your claimed 'auto headlight doesn't
> work' situations is just nonsense.

I've not said they didn't work correctly at night. That's the only time you
can be assured that they work properly. The other times they are required,
it's a crap shoot.

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

I'm so enbarrased. Quick, everybody, check out the previous post in your
news reader to better understand my superiority. :-)

>>> 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.

I see.

>> 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.

Yes, there is a lot more material on the site. You are correct.

>> 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.

Another assumption. Amazing how you read things that just aren't
there...and then actually believe it!

> It is cool nowadays to hate GM

I don't think it's cool at all!! I'm ****ed about it. But what ****es me
off more is when GM does stuff to deserve it. I want to see Toyota and
those other Jap cars wipe GM's butt again. But that will never happen IF GM
purposefully aleniates the very customer base they need to get back on top
of things.

You see, when Toyota implemented mandatory DRLs on their 1999 and 2000
models, the customer complaints came in (as it did at GM a few years
earlier). Toyota quickly switched their position in 2001 and offered DRLs
as options. GM should have as well if they want to sell cars and have
customers. So who is eating GM's lunch righ now...Toyota is. Duh...I
wonder why!

> 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...).

Daniel does seem to carry grudges about certain things from time-to-time.
But I've not found it to influence relaying information that is known to be
independently generated. Perhaps he will be quicker in relaying the
inependent subject matter in those cases where it isn't very flattering.
BUt if the content is correct, it is correct.

> Not a good base for a discussion.

If it infuences the content itself (false content), I would agree. If the
content is true, then it's irrelivant what the feelings are..the facts are
what they are...no feelings to it.

>>> 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.

Then you have more reading to do to get the complete picture. You only have
a little piece of information and then using that to make broad/sweeping
conclusions (what a surprise).

>>>> 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.

Then we agree options are good things.

> And in your car you also have the option, that's what the light
> switch is for.

Then tell us how to switch the lights off. If there were a real switch,
that option would exist. It doesn't.

> That the automatic system switches on headlights when it
> shouldn't almost never happens,

Wooded tree canopy, underpasses, etc. are examples where almost never are
not a good words to use there...I see that happen every day.

> which is why the light switch doesn't need
> an 'off' position.

Then why does every other manufacture provide one? Apparently everyone else
thinks otherwise. Plus, if you're a camper, a private investigator, waiting
outside a restaurant shining lights on people inside, a astrology club
member, want to visit you local night holiday display when they ask for
lights out, want to signal other drivers or simply want to avoid distrubing
your sleeping family when pulling into the driveway late...some people need
a OFF switch sometimes.

> 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.

Yes, and I already said that I would manualy position my switch to "on" when
leaving for work on a foggy morning *even when* my lights were already on so
that they would not switch themselves off by themselves during the trip as
they often did. All of which is damn silly to have to do with a auto
system. I already understand this...again! The average driver apparently
doesn't.

>>>> 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...

Well, I'd better start a official club then. ;-) I'll set up a PayPal
account so I can collect membership fees!

New names I hadn't sen before. "Wannabe" and "ratty". You like giving
people and objects interesting names, I take it.

>> 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.

Exaggeration noted (on both our parts) ;-) Auto trannys really do work
fine for the average person. Maybe not optimally, but far better and
reliably than any auto light system does.

>>> 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.

Looks like a misunderstanding of terminology. I had stated "a bright daytime
snow storm" (no mention of "sunlight" at all). But no problem.

>>> 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.

Hope you never move to Florida, the southeast or the south then. You'll be
wearing out that override switch to compensate for the failures of the auto
system quite often there. It might even make you start to wonder "just what
is the point of this blasted auto thing that doesn't work?" :-)

Hmmm...last I checked, a LOT of people lived in these areas too!

>> 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.

Is name calling a dirty trick? Nope, no name calling from me.

I claim auto headlamps don't work as most people expect and assume they do.
Dangerious? Well, I would go so far as to say that the create a situation
where lights aren't on when they should be. I don't know how dangerious
that is, but it could sure get one a ticket. I don't remember using the
word dangerious in this thread. If I did, I misspoke.

DRL's in their curent implementation have little benefit *overall* (when
factoring in the negative along with the positive you found). Like the ABS
insurance data, the insurance data is similar with DRL. Little to know
difference in loss charistics between DRL equipped vehicles and non DRL
equipped vehicles. Keep reading...you'll find balanced information.

> 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.

Another name. "Hellhole". And that conclusion was derived from...?

These incorrect conclusions again...is there no end to them?

> 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.

And I've said repeatedly that is what I did...use the "on" position, even
when my lights were already on. Most other people apparently don't do that
though...they just let their lights cycle on and off during foggy commutes.
Again enough with the ME. This isn't a personal thing (even though you seem
to keep trying to make it that). Clearly I understand that I had to use the
ON position far too often (as I have said many times I would do) for any
system to claim to be "automatic".

>>> 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.

Those incorrect conclusions again.

>>> 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.

I wrote "many places". You then reply "some places". Interesting
translation. By the way, low laying fog occurs in valleys too. IF the
system works as you say it does, lights would go on when driving through low
valley areas and go of when at the tops of hills (and out of the fog). In
areas of the country where one drives up and down hills all the time, that
would sure be annoying as the lights keep cycling. Yes I know, just hit the
ON switch...which means the Auto system is of little value then.

>>> 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...

Not that I've said anything about the moon previously, but that is possible.
If you've never seen the moon out in the middle of the day, you must not be
observent enough to drive. Makes one wonder if you are observant enough to
speak to this topic...you just don't know your lights can cycle off in the
fog because you haven't observed it happening when it has. (Oops, I'm
starting to sound like you do...Yikes!) :-)

> 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.

Utterly amazing..I have to say. I gues REM223 was all wet with his
observation then (pun intended).

Actually, light conditions can be different with sudden storms compared to
prolonged rain events you say you have. Sudden storms can have a small
"storm cloud" surrounded by a clear sky, which allows in quite a bit of
light (sometimes direct sun during the rain storm). Although, that is
probably not very common in Michigan. A prolonged rain event tyically has
cloud cover from horizon to horizon, blocking more light. The auto light
system seems to work more reliably with prolonged rain events, but still not
close to 100% of the time. It almost never worked with the "sudden
downpour" scenario.

>> 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.

So far you are the only one here that believes that. Invitation to others
to join Chris' position in this debate is officially extended. Yes I know,
everybody hates GM (utter nonsense).

>> 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.

They'd better damn well get philosophical about the system in order for them
to have even a remote chance at a clue to when it isn't working (or
understand the many circumstances when it likely will fail)!

>> 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.

Yes that can happen, no question. Even without orange streetlights. Give
them tickets and driver training. I'd rather knowledgeable drivers than a
"automated nanny" (that doesn't work well) watching over them.

>> 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 ...

So what? Becides, since one has to manually turn the lights on with auto
systems so often anyway, there is little difference between the two in this
case.

>> 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.

Yes, that can and does happen.

>
>> 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.

Personally I see far more numbers of GM vehicles without lights in fog/snow
than I do other brand vehicles without lights at night. That gives the
potential for incorrect use score advantage to the manual system over the
auto system.

>> 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.

Perhapes I've forgotten when I've forgotten. Honestly, I don't remember a
single time. Remember, I'm damn anal about the subject! :-) I go through
a mental checklist routine before pulling off...lights happen to be on my
mental list.

>> (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.

You just can't resist getting off topic and making things personal, can you?
You live labels and names, I can tell. :-) Well, I'm so embarassed and
ashamed now that you feel that way about me and others here know you do too.

>> 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.

The opposite is actually the case. Remember the office parking lot count I
mentioned earlier? I didn't give you the results, only the summary. Here
they are (roughly): 70-75% (depending on the day) of non GMs had lights on
in the fog/rain while only 20%-30% of the GM vehicles did. Again, score
advantage goes to the manual system for correct light usage. Although I
suppose my hate for GM you au have might have made be put the tick marks in
the wrong columns...but I'm quite certain that that isn't the case.

Now the interesting question I would love to have a answer to. Of the
20%-30% of the GM's that had their lights on, how many were on because the
auto system turned them on and how many were on because the driver manually
turned them on. We will never know. But it matters not, the GM's as a
group failed to have the lights on in numbers compared to the rest of the
cars. That tells me that there is something very VERY wrong with what GM is
doing with the lighting control design AND the human interface thereof.

>> 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.

Just have to go there, don't you. Surely you are able to stay with the
topic...no?

Funny also how you would rely on the auto system if you say that you have
more confidence in your ability over said system. How is that possible you
would put control on a system that you have less confidence in than your own
abilities? Doesn't make sense.

> 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.

Well, one can always find a way to bury one's head in the sand, I suppose.
Reality is still there all around though.

>> 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.

You were reading references to studies. Keep reading. The 1997 HLDI study
showed a 8% increase in accidents. The fact is that yes DRLs (current
implementation) has benefits. It also has some fairly significant problems
too. What is hoped is that a better DRL implementation comes out to reduce
or mitigate the identified problem areas. Now, perhaps they've made some
progress there lately.

BTW: the last I checked, there wasn't any data available yet on the
potential that introducing turn signal based DRLs into the driving
environment might create signaling ambiguity. I believe you mentioned that
those are the types of DRLs you have. No one (no, not even you) knows if
that is a problem or not. It may not be..or it may be. Yet GM introduced
them without understanding that. Glad you appreciate them experimenting on
you that way. Personally, implementing something without knowing what the
adverse implications may be is, frankly, very irresponsible. In fairness to
GM, Toyota has some turn signal implementations as well (albeit at least
they're owner optional)

>>> 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.

First, mornings are a time where traffic is heavy with commuters.
Second, mornings are the time this atmospheric condition most often occurs
Third, That area is the most heavily populated area of the country
Fourth, is is far from "rare"...unless comparing to night.

Interestng too that would consider the south and southeast a "small part" of
the US.

>>> 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.

I didn't say my car had the problem...the lights came on fairly quickly
(about 5-6 seconds after sensing darkness). What I said was that problem
had been observed to occur with other cars pulling out from well lit gas
stations.

> 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,

Not mine. I had to take it out of Park AND pop the emergency brake (both
conditions in addition to the ignition) for the lights to come on. But,
essentially the same since you have a manual transmission.

> which is the case even under a seemingly brightly lit gas station canopy.

Not always. Sometimes mine didn't come on until 5-6- seconds after I pull
out from under the canopy...which was sufficient before entering the
freeway. Perhaps the position I parked at the pumps in relation to one of
the light fixtures? Don't know.

> Thus your gas station scenario is simply nonsense. But of course, having
> had a GM car, you knew that.

Right. You assuming what I know. Remember, you assumptions are wrong quite
frequently. Here is what I know. I can observe that I need to pop by
e-brake and put the tranny out of Park for the lights to come on, but
(according to you) I can't observe that the lights didn't always come on
under a gas station canopy. Does your assertion really make sense that I
can observe one condition and not observe the other? Of course not.

>> 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.

Traffic here is bad...often one gets stuck under overpasses waiting for
traffic to move...all the GM's under there light up like Christmas trees
until 20 seconds or so elapses after coming back out into the clear. One
can only shake ones head over the stupidity of it all.

>> 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.

Yes, that is a benefit. Agreed.

>>> 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.

Addressed earlier. No hatred...would love to get the GTO...relive my youth,
actually. It won't happen unless GM gives me control (total control) of my
lights though...and maybe knocks the price down closer to the Mustang.

>>> 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.

So, I should stop 500 feet back from others waiting at stop lights and leave
500 feet distance when in 5MPH traffic jambs? I assure you, you would be
the one to honk at anyone that does that! I bet you might even feel good
about calling them one of your names that make them cry.

>> 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...

I would say yes if I couldn't read the dials and display...the display is
perfectly clear. Reading glasses don't help with illumination. Oh wait, I
need the yellow tinted ones...I forgot.

>>> 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.
>

Those would be better, but even the dim red running lights show through fog
better than nothing. The seem to help quite a bit from my experience.

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

Yes true, but the subject is lights.

>>> 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?

Because it isn't about me. Think "big picture".

>> 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.

Well, live and learn. Had a pair of "Blue-Ray" (I think there were called)
sunglasses a while back. Never wore then in the fog though...guess I should
have!

>> 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.

Of course, but then you increase the risk of getting rear ended by the
person coming up behind at too high a rate of speed, but that's another
topic. :-)

> Also pileups practically never occur on two-lane roads, where overtaking
> is a problem.

Not sure that is true, but I honestly don't know. Do you have a source for
that?

> 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./

Yes, no doubt all true.

>>> 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.

Even dim red running lights add some margin that helps some. Proper speed
and distance, yes (but the topic is lighting, so a side item).

>> 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?

Yes, but I'm still going to do some reading on this out of curiosity. I
would imagine that the mechanics have other items that contribute to these
situations in addition to failure to keep proper speed and distance. It
would be interesting to see how often there was a mechanical problem, or a
medical issue, or whatever else as a percentage of causes.

> 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.

As the old saying goes..every little bit helps. Even if standard red
running lights only adds 20' of margin, that is 20' more distance to react.
That can make a difference in some percentage (albeit perhaps small
percentage) of cases. Surely you're not advocating leaving them off?

>>>> 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.

Incorect conclusions again. (and from what basis the Lord only knows!).
Where do you come up with this unrelated stuff. Let's see...30 years
driving, a million miles or so, many of those miles in fog, no accidents.
Remember?! Perhaps then that I more than likley do drive at proper speed
for conditions, ya think?

Lighting...remember the subject is lighting.

>>> 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.

That is what I said...I need to do some research on it...I agree. Since you
seem to be so well read on the topic of causes and effects of pilup
accidents, any good sources you can refer?

> 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.

You just have to keep going there with the incorrect personal stuff. I'm
curious as to what the point is in doing that? Although "specimen" is a
new name you have for me. Can I get a clean test tube please?

>>>> 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).

FWD does take away a direction control option, no question. I prefer to use
the standard brake over the emergency brake for braking control. Some cars
have a foot activated emergency brake which is more difficult to use for the
purpose that your hand brake can be used.

But it really matters not, the data shows they're practically useless (for
everybody, apaprenty) , so why have them.

>> 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.

You just said that you use the hand brake and/or accellerator when added
directional control was required. Same thing with a standard (non-ABS)
brake. Did that help?

>>> 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.

So you've figured out the why that the experts on the subject have yet to
figure out? Damn, you're good! Although, I keep coming back to so many
instances of assumptions and conclusions from you about me that I know to be
dead wrong. So, I think I'll wait until the real reason is found by the
real experts on the subject. Now if you have data that supports this rather
wild idea, please submit it to the NHTSA so that something can be done about
it.

>>> 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.

Right, the "luck" theory. Dug deep in the barrel for that one...eh?

>> 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.

Oh, the guardian angel theory now? Wow, I had no idea I had two things
going in my favor!

You do have a lot of interisting theories and conclusions as to why things
are so, I will say! And I assume you actually believe it too.

> 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.

I guess my guardian angel must like me more than your guardian angel likes
you. What did you do to **** her off? ;-)

Actually, I don't count rear ends, that wasn't your fault.

> 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'.

I believe REM223 made a observarion during a rain storm where lights are
required by law and most had their lights on but the GM vehicles. I don't
remember him saying he didn't see anybody.

>>> 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.

You are right...it is true that is how they work. I guess it is how they
work that is ridiculous.

> Thats what automatic
> systems do: Take external parameters to influence the system in a certain
> predetermined way.

Yes, which leaves out several requirements ("parameters, in your words")
necessary for them to be truly "automatic" by common Webster definition of
the word (not your definition).

>> 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.

No because with a manual systems they are used to having to turn on their
lights every time they're needed. A majority of people do fairly well with
that...some don't. A manual system is consistent in it's application and is
intuitive to use. Once you give people a automatic system (so called) many
forget about their light control responsibility completely (which is far
worse). Present company excluded, of course.

>> 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.

Which is what the auto system does, causes people to drive without lights
when required (more than half the time...70% to 80%, aparently) ...note
number is from the earlier office observation numbers.

>> You are giving the average driver far too much technical credit.
>
> No, I am not giving him any technical credit...

No women drivers where you live? Oh, that's right, a another attempt to
make it personal. You're typical MO vs. focusing on the bigger picture.
Noted.

>> 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.

As you care to believe. No problem. Thankfully, there are people working
to try and improve on on this non existent problem you say doesn't exist.
All I can say is thank God we don't have a ostrich in charge of this!

>> 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.

Oh boy.

>>> 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.

Yes, totally. I guess my luck has run out...or I ****ed off my guardian
angel (I wonder which one) ;-)

>
> Chris

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

You have a different version of Websters than I do then.

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

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.

>>> Everyone wins, except for the minute number of control freaks, who are
>>> incapable of finding out how to override the feature they don't like.
>>
>> 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.

> 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. Don't give them any more ideas...please. Cater to the
customer at the same (or better) level as the competition will work better
in getting market share back.

> 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. Remember, at the time I was familiar with
another a cmpetitor that also had DRL's, but they would configure them to
your preference. GM won't. 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. Heck even BMW and Mercedes does
what the customer wants with DRLs.

> 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.

> 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). I do have a problem being sold something that
doesn't work as advertised (and causes problems, I discoverd to boot). 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. So you couldn't be more
wrong...yet again.

>>> Of course it would cost them, just as the person, who edits your BCM/ECM
>>> is going to charge them. Every extra feature, especially one that
>>> necessitates a more complex light switch (ever priced one of these? Not
>>> fun.) costs money. Yours and mine.
>>
>> Doesn't seem to be a problem for GM's competitors to accommodate the
>> customer in this regard.
>
> 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.

> 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).

>>> And implementing a feature for a tiny number of customers
>>
>> Hmmm.... Thern you go agiin. Let's see, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota all
>> offer
>> DRLs as no-cost options...
>
> ... and ABS stock.

ABS is a option on many models (not all).

>> 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. That's a potentially HUGE customer base
that GM is simply writing off. And for what?

> [anti-GM-rant snipped]

Uhm, GM would be helped if they gave the customer base what they want.
Hopefully they're listening and actualy do it. Maybe sales will go up again
without having to practically give them away.

>
> Chris

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?

C.H. wrote:

> If I want to know what bulbs go into my car's headlights I might use his
> 'knowledge' if I didn't already know. For DRL and auto-headlight info his
> bias makes his knowledge useless.

What bias would that be?

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:31:05 +0000, Arif Khokar wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>> If I want to know what bulbs go into my car's headlights I might use his
>> 'knowledge' if I didn't already know. For DRL and auto-headlight info
>> his bias makes his knowledge useless.
>
> What bias would that be?

Anti-GM/DRL/auto-headlights.

Chris

Around 7/10/2005 7:31 PM, Arif Khokar wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>
>> If I want to know what bulbs go into my car's headlights I might use his
>> 'knowledge' if I didn't already know. For DRL and auto-headlight info his
>> bias makes his knowledge useless.
>
>
> What bias would that be?

You know perfectly well which bias, Arif: the one against poor
automotive lighting design and implementation...



--
~/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)

>>C.H. wrote:
>>>If I want to know what bulbs go into my car's headlights I might use his
>>>'knowledge' if I didn't already know. For DRL and auto-headlight info
>>>his bias makes his knowledge useless.

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

C.H. wrote:
> Anti ... DRL

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

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:19:55 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "C.H." > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:13:59 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> And you would be wrong. Sorry. I'll buy a GM produce again in a
> heartbeat if not for the idiotic nanny fratures they shove down your
> throat. You draw too many incorrect conclusions.

In other words, you _do_ hate GM, even if it is because you have an agenda
concerning DRLs and auto-headlights.

I'd really like GM to do an experiment. Make !DRL and !auto-headlights a
$200 option. Wanna bet that no one is gonna buy it, not even the people,
who rant about 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.
>
> Actually I like the GTO too (now that they added the hoos scoop). Not
> all of a sudden, I've liked Buicks for years.

A few days ago you spewed hatred about GM, specifically for the auto
headlights and DRLs. Both the Goat and the Buicks have both.

> Now, surely you can separate a like for a product and a dislike for a
> feature. Can't you?

Yes, I can, provided I don't deem the feature dangerous.

>> 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.
>
> And you had reverenced documents previously? No, you hadn't.
> So, what's good for the goose...as they say!

I didn't have to, as I didn't claim support from unreferenced documents.
If you say 'document X supports my view' like you have done countless
times, it's your job to reference the document and the passage in it. I
challenge you to find where I called in external help without a reference.

You really need to enhance your capability to comprehend sentences beyond
the third word.

>> So far you have claimed that the NHTSA claims DRLs worthless or even
>> dangerous.
>
> No I stated that documents existed at the NHTA site that support what I
> was stating. Naming the names of studies etc.

Again, you did not reference the documents, which is your responsibility
if you call upon them as support for your theories.

>> Now all of sudden they don't claim anything because your precious
>> 'study' went out the window.
>
> No, I've claimed that there are elements of DRL implementation that have
> known/documented problems. (specifically the observation by the Op of
> this thread is one).

You have claimed that the NHTSA thinks DRLs are dangerous but were unable
to reference your source. I showed you a study contradicting your view.
Now all of sudden they only 'have problems', but of course again you are
incapable of referencing your source. See a pattern?

> If you remember (and you seem to forget A LOT), I had stated in a
> previous post that there seems to be some positive aspects to DRLs.

Only after you were proven wrong. And stop your stupid accusations, they
don't become you.

> However current implementations introduce safety-negative problems as
> well. You have listed (and cited) the types of accidents they seem to
> help with (finally).

I listed all types of accidents the NHTSA listed in their most prominent
study.

> There are other types of accidents that increase with DRL use, the most
> notable documented is the rear end collision (which also correlates with
> the Op's observations).

.... but is conspicuously missing from the NHTSA documents.

> But there are other problems that have arisen since DRLs have been
> intruduced. Some Motocycle accidents are attributed to them, some
> accidents involving emergency vehicles and funeral processions are
> attributed to them, etc.

Attributed to them by you, as always without any corroboration and in this
case even without any claimed observation.

> There are other clases as well that seem to be negatively impacted with
> DRLs in the environment compared to before they were. You cited a few
> specific types of situations where safety gains have been identified.

If safety problems had been identified the referenced document would have
clearly stated them. I also checked the numbers and aside from funeral
processions (which are so rare and accidents involving them even more rare
that they are without any statistical significance) did not find any
indication that the numbers of any accident type was negatively influenced
by DRLs.

> That is only part of the story. To draw conclusions, it's best to have
> the rest of the picture. So, keep reading and you will get that
> *complete* picture (positives and negatives). Remember, you said you
> were unaware of any negative aspects of DRL's. There are hundreds of
> documents at the site I provided that can give you that insight you
> indicated that you lacked.

I have the insight _you_ lack. You are incapable of comprehending
scientific texts, claim total nonsense that is supposedly in them and
turns out to be missing after all, post wild speculations without any
supporting evidence and when you are proven wrong you jump to another
angle of attack and start the 'game' anew. People like you work for the
National Enquirer and the Weekly World News.

> I hope it's helpful.

It definitely would be helpful for you to read the texts again.

>> I have shown a document supporting my view (even though I did not
>> constantly claim that the document exists).
>
> True, you kept making claims without citing any document...

I make claims based on reasoning and occasionally I claim a document
exists and reference this document. You constantly claim documents are
supporting your view but are unable to reference them.

If you are not able to see the difference I suggest reading
comprehension 101.

>> Now it's your turn. Either reference your 'material' or stop making
>> unfounded claims.
>
> I have already referenced some. Antiono Perot & Stephen Prowler. HLDI
> (Ironically they dismiss their own 1997 study now), Koornstra,
> Wisconsin's Highway 12 Study, etc.

Then post URLs and page numbers. I sifted through the documents for you
and provided a strong corroboration for my point of view. Now it's your
turn, and I am not going to sift through the info again just because you
are too uneducated or not intelligent enough to provide simple references
to the documents together with page numbers of the passages supporting
your claims.

>> 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.
>
> Then you didn't look very hard. Visit Docket 17243 & 4124. And
> please..while you're in those dockets, please add your minority view to
> them so that there is at least some balance to your postion there!

Oh, that's what it's all about. The docket doesn't in any way contain
scientific data, but what it _does_ contain is a mini essay from you, that
you are so fearfully proud of that you have to tout it in here.

Now get your ego under control and post reference to the scientific data,
that you claim to have concerning the dangers of DRLs.

> If it hadn't been for me egging you on, you wouldn't have finally found
> your document.

You didn't egg me on, you were desperately hoping I wouldn't call your
bluff.

> So, what's the beef?

The beef is that you are too uneducated or too stupid to reference your
claimed evidence. And spare me your patronizing. You screwed up and you
know it, even though you still desperately hope others don't notice.

> If you visit, you may indeed fine it a "hellhole". However, I fail to
> understand how you come to the conclusion you come to without forst
> having visited and seen everyting else it has to offer.

Thanks, not interested. Closed-minded people like you and brightly lit
ground fog depress me.

>> 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.
>
> Explained in a earlier post where instrument panel lighting is too dim
> to see on many vehicles in those lighting conditions. But you again
> missed it.

The instrument panel lighting in just about any car is adjustable. I have
mine on pretty low intensity because I like it that way. And I still see
it in relevant conditions, i.e. if the outside light intensity is in the
range where the automatic system might shift. If you don't either your
instrument panel lights are too dim or you are.

>> 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.
>
> Not here, apparently.

That's not a problem of the dashboard lights but of their intensity
setting and your vision.

>> 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.
>
> My eyes were fine at my last eye exam. Perhaps, I have my dash lights
> dimmed down more than you do to reduce night driving glare?

Mine are dimmed down pretty far. And still I can see the lighting when I
need it.

>> You were the one, who repeatedly claimed that bright sunlight makes
>> impossible for you to see the dash light needed because of the
>> snowfall.
>
> I used "bright daytime snowstorm", not "bright sunlit snowstorm".

In bright daytime snowstorms the light is almost always not sufficient to
trigger the auto headlights to off.

>> Thanks for admitting that one of your claimed 'auto headlight doesn't
>> work' situations is just nonsense.
>
> I've not said they didn't work correctly at night. That's the only time
> you can be assured that they work properly. The other times they are
> required, it's a crap shoot.

I would like auto headlights on other cars even if they only worked 'at
night' i.e. in dusk/dawn, because that would already solve 95% of
situations where headlights should be on and aren't. But from my
experience even heavy rain/overcast with fog/daytime snowfall usually
triggers the system. And as I have driven a whole bunch of different
auto-headlight models I know that the system works quite well in a wide
range of GM vehicles. Why yours didn't work (assuming it didn't) is
between you and your mechanic, resp. GM.

>>> 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.
>
> Another assumption. Amazing how you read things that just aren't
> there...and then actually believe it!

I only read things that are there, unlike you, who often misses things
that are there and invents things.

>> It is cool nowadays to hate GM
>
> I don't think it's cool at all!!

Your exclamation mark key is broken.

> I'm ****ed about it.

Then why do you spew hate rants about GM? It's funny to see how you have
toned down your hate though since I pointed it out.

> But what ****es me off more is when GM does stuff to deserve it. I
> want to see Toyota and those other Jap cars wipe GM's butt again. But
> that will never happen IF GM purposefully aleniates the very customer
> base they need to get back on top of things.

Farther up in this posting you adore Buick and the Goat and say it is ok
to adore them even though you don't like a certain feature. Here all of
sudden this one feature supposedly costs GM all customers. Make up your
mind.

> You see, when Toyota implemented mandatory DRLs on their 1999 and 2000
> models, the customer complaints came in (as it did at GM a few years
> earlier). Toyota quickly switched their position in 2001 and offered
> DRLs as options. GM should have as well if they want to sell cars and
> have customers. So who is eating GM's lunch righ now...Toyota is.
> Duh...I wonder why!

GM is hurting in certain areas, because they neglected to build excitement
in their cars. What do you think why the Chrysler 300 sells so well? Not
because it doesn't have DRLs but because it looks cool. The Vette outsells
the already high expectations even though it has both DRLs and automatic
headlights and no one in the Corvette boards complains about the DRLs.

Face it, a whacky vocal minority, who wants to eradicate DRLs and auto
headlights because they think a certain body part is going to shrink
because the car does something on its own, doesn't influence GM's or
Toyota's revenue significantly.

>> 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...).
>
> Daniel does seem to carry grudges about certain things from
> time-to-time.

That's the understatement of the year.

> But I've not found it to influence relaying information that is known
> to be independently generated.

Seeing how you lack any independently generated information that doesn't
surprise me in the least.

>> 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.
>
> Then you have more reading to do to get the complete picture. You only
> have a little piece of information and then using that to make
> broad/sweeping conclusions (what a surprise).

I got quite a good picture, obviously a better one than you do, because
unlike you I was able to support my views with a major NHTSA study,
whereas you still only referenced some political babble.

>>> And you have that option...as it should be.
>>
>> In case of ATs, that very often guess wrong, one certainly should have
>> the option.
>
> Then we agree options are good things.

Yes, which is why the auto-headlight system gives you the option 'auto' or
'on'. As the system practically never switches the lights on when they
should not be on, the 'off' option is not necessary.

With the AT on the other hand oftentimes the system should upshift and
doesn't and there is no way to force it. It also should downshift in some
situations and doesn't react immediately to the lever being moved.

>> And in your car you also have the option, that's what the light switch
>> is for.
>
> Then tell us how to switch the lights off.

Not necessary. Tell me a situation, where the system switches the light on
and it should be off (traffic safety wise not you not waking up your SO).

> If there were a real switch, that option would exist. It doesn't.

There is a very real switch, that switches between 'auto' and 'on'.

>> That the automatic system switches on headlights when it shouldn't
>> almost never happens,
>
> Wooded tree canopy, underpasses, etc. are examples where almost never
> are not a good words to use there...I see that happen every day.

Weird, that this problem only seems to exist for people, who don't have
auto-headlights. My lights come on in longer tunnels (>5s) and they
should. They come on in dense forest, and they should. Otherwise they stay
off.

>> which is why the light switch doesn't need an 'off' position.
>
> Then why does every other manufacture provide one?

Because there are always some vocal whackjobs, who threaten not to buy the
precious car if they don't get 'full control'.

> Apparently everyone else thinks otherwise. Plus, if you're a camper,

I never had a problem with that, neither as the one in the tent nor as the
one driving.

> a private investigator,

Switch off the engine when you dont want lights. Prolonged idling is very
bad for the environment.

> waiting outside a restaurant shining lights on people inside,

Switch off the engine.

> a astrology club member,

That at least explains where you get your 'info' from...

But be assured that the tarot cards and the tea leaves don't care whether
you have your car lights on or not.

> want to signal other drivers

That's what flashing high beams is for.

> or simply want to avoid distrubing your sleeping family when pulling
> into the driveway late...some people need a OFF switch sometimes.

If someone provides an off switch the system loses its usefulness, because
specifically the stupidest 20%, who are likely to drive around without
lights at night, are also the control freaks, who have to have their
lights off until _they_tell_their_car_to_switch_them_on_.

>> 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.
>
> Yes, and I already said that I would manualy position my switch to "on"
> when leaving for work on a foggy morning *even when* my lights were
> already on so that they would not switch themselves off by themselves
> during the trip as they often did.

And did you overwork your wrist switching the light on manually? Did your
light switch break because of all the usage?

> All of which is damn silly to have to do with a auto system.

Every automatic driver has to downshift manually on downgrades (or
stupidly ride his brakes).

> I already understand this...again! The average driver apparently
> doesn't.

The average driver wouldn't use headlights in these situations without the
automatic system either. But at least the DRLs provide some visibility and
the automatic system at least prevents that the bozo drives around without
light at night.

>>> 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...
>
> Well, I'd better start a official club then. ;-) I'll set up a PayPal
> account so I can collect membership fees!

I doubt paypal ships fallen-off Audi parts.

> New names I hadn't sen before. "Wannabe" and "ratty". You like giving
> people and objects interesting names, I take it.

If you have never seen 'wannabe' your hellhole must be even more remote
than I thought.

>> 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.
>
> Exaggeration noted (on both our parts) ;-) Auto trannys really do work
> fine for the average person.

Like the Jetta in front of me that stunk to high heaven at the bottom of a
10 mile grade because he was to stupid to downshift...

> Maybe not optimally, but far better and reliably than any auto light
> system does.

On the contrary, automatic transmissions waste millions of gallons of fuel
every year, because they rarely shift right. The automatic headlight
system works in almost all situations, even if you don't want to see it.
Plus it provides an override for the rare cases (except for your hellhole
of course) where it doesn't.

>> 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.
>
> Looks like a misunderstanding of terminology. I had stated "a bright
> daytime snow storm" (no mention of "sunlight" at all). But no problem.

No change here. Heavy overcast (which almost always is associated with a
snowstorm and the light absorption effect of the snow itself usually drops
light intensity deep into 'auto-on' territory.

>> Again, that may or may not be true for your area but it is a very rare
>> phenomenon.
>
> Hope you never move to Florida, the southeast or the south then. You'll
> be wearing out that override switch to compensate for the failures of
> the auto system quite often there. It might even make you start to
> wonder "just what is the point of this blasted auto thing that doesn't
> work?"
> :-)

Even if it was, the majority of Americans and the majority of the area of
the USA are not within your supposed freak-weather zone. In other words,
the system works just about everywhere, except of a few hours on a few
days in a few areas.

> I claim auto headlamps don't work as most people expect and assume they
> do. Dangerious? Well, I would go so far as to say that the create a
> situation where lights aren't on when they should be. I don't know how
> dangerious that is, but it could sure get one a ticket. I don't
> remember using the word dangerious in this thread. If I did, I
> misspoke.

Sure...

> DRL's in their curent implementation have little benefit *overall* (when
> factoring in the negative along with the positive you found).

The 'positive' was a reduction in fatalities in all listed accident types
and no increase in any accident type. In my book that is quite some
benefit. Show me any other measure that has caused a reduction of
fatalities of 20+% of any specific accident type.

> Like the ABS insurance data, the insurance data is similar with DRL.
> Little to know difference in loss charistics between DRL equipped
> vehicles and non DRL equipped vehicles. Keep reading...you'll find
> balanced information.

I already have balanced information, unlike you, who merely has claims
about supposed locations of possible studies that maybe have paragraphs of
information supporting your claim.

>> 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.
>
> Another name. "Hellhole". And that conclusion was derived from...?

A place that has brightly lit ground fog most of the time and closed
minded people like you sounds like a hellhole to me.

>> 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.
>
> And I've said repeatedly that is what I did...use the "on" position,
> even when my lights were already on. Most other people apparently don't
> do that though...they just let their lights cycle on and off during
> foggy commutes. Again enough with the ME. This isn't a personal thing
> (even though you seem to keep trying to make it that).

It certainly is a personal thing with you as the system works well for
most people in most locations. And I am sure your light-switch-wrist was
covered under health insurance...

> Clearly I understand that I had to use the ON position far too often
> (as I have said many times I would do) for any system to claim to be
> "automatic".

The definition of automatic is that the system does operations by itself
based on a parameter set. The automatic headlight system does that, so it
is an automatic system. There is no automatic system in the world, that
does, what it's human 'master' wants it to do instead of what its
parameter set tells it to do. If you were an engineer or even moderately
tech savvy you would know that.

>> 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.
>
> I wrote "many places". You then reply "some places". Interesting
> translation.

I tried to decrease the embarrassment factor for you a little bit.

> By the way, low laying fog occurs in valleys too.
> IF the system works as you say it does, lights would go on when driving
> through low valley areas and go of when at the tops of hills (and out of
> the fog).

Where did I say the system has a fog detector? It works within its
parameter set (and fog happens to often be so dense that the system still
gets triggered. And the areas, where low lying ground fog in combination
with bright sunlight is prevalent over a significant part of the day over
a large part of the year are small and far between, so the system doesn't
provide for them.

Are you familiar with the system of diminished returns? No, of course you
are not. It says that for the first large change of something a relatively
small trigger is necessary. But as you are nearing the limits of the
system larger and larger stimuli are necessary to realize smaller and
smaller gains. A system that makes sure that people have their light on at
night is useful and relatively simple and cheap.

A system that has a rain sensor in addition to that to make sure the
lights are on in torrential rain is more complicated and less useful,
because torrential rain with sunshine is rare in relation to nighttime.

A fog sensor in addition to that to make sure the light goes on in fog
beyond a certain density is even more complicated by a large factor, even
more expensive and given the fact that brightly lit fog is quite rare is
simply not feasible.

> In areas of the country where one drives up and down hills all the time,
> that would sure be annoying as the lights keep cycling. Yes I know,
> just hit the ON switch...which means the Auto system is of little value
> then.

I thought you don't even notice when your lights go on and off (-> you
cant see your dashboard lights and have to stare at the radio to notice at
all)?

>>> 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...
>
> Not that I've said anything about the moon previously, but that is
> possible. If you've never seen the moon out in the middle of the day,
> you must not be observent enough to drive.

I have observed the moon in the middle of the day, but so far it never has
influenced my decision of whether to switch on my headlights or not nor
has it triggered my automatic system. I also avoid looking at the moon
while driving because distractions are bad for safety. If you are staring
at the moon during daytime, of course, that explains why you are having
problems seeing your dashboard lights.

>> 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.
>
> Utterly amazing..I have to say. I gues REM223 was all wet with his
> observation then (pun intended).

What did the quoted sentence have to dow ith rem223 or the moisture level
of his clothing?

> Actually, light conditions can be different with sudden storms compared
> to prolonged rain events you say you have. Sudden storms can have a
> small "storm cloud" surrounded by a clear sky,

When the storm cloud is overhead the light intensity still goes down far
enough to trigger the headlights.

> Although, that is probably not very common in Michigan.

And who said anything about Michigan?

> A prolonged rain event tyically has cloud cover from horizon to
> horizon, blocking more light. The auto light system seems to work more
> reliably with prolonged rain events, but still not close to 100% of the
> time. It almost never worked with the "sudden downpour" scenario.

Weird, mine does.

>> 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.
>
> So far you are the only one here that believes that. Invitation to
> others to join Chris' position in this debate is officially extended.
> Yes I know, everybody hates GM (utter nonsense).

Your position has not been supported since DS jumped ship either. So ...

>> 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.
>
> They'd better damn well get philosophical about the system in order for
> them to have even a remote chance at a clue to when it isn't working (or
> understand the many circumstances when it likely will fail)!

Brightly lit fog is a rare condition, so is torrential rain from a tiny
storm cloud. Of course, if someone has fog in his brain, whether induced
by substances or simple personal density that may change their perception...

>> ... 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.
>
> Yes that can happen, no question. Even without orange streetlights.

It can happen and it does happen very frequently unlike your brightly lit
fog.

> Give them tickets and driver training.

Ticketing neither increases safety nor compliance with the law. And driver
training would be nice but is not going to happen anytime soon. Automatic
headlights on the other hand are here and reliably eliminate the situation
of cars driving around without headlights at night.

> I'd rather knowledgeable drivers than a "automated nanny" (that doesn't
> work well) watching over them.

You know what? I agree with you. Unfortunately it is not going to happen.
Ever. So the next best thing is an automated nanny that does work well,
like automatic lighting.

>>> 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.
>
> Yes, that can and does happen.

.... often enough to justify an automatic system that reliably prevents
driving at night without lights.

>>> 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.
>
> Personally I see far more numbers of GM vehicles without lights in
> fog/snow than I do other brand vehicles without lights at night.

An observation, that only exists in your fantasy because you needed
something to justify your hatred for DRLs and automatic headlights.

> That gives the potential for incorrect use score advantage to the
> manual system over the auto system.

GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out.

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

Then why did you claim you haven't?

> Honestly, I don't remember a single time.

.... which only shows that you lack the focus necessary for both driving a
motor vehicle and for the observations you claim to have made.

> I go through a mental checklist routine before
> pulling off...lights happen to be on my mental list.

And you never got into a situation where you had to switch on or off your
lights during a drive? ROTFL.

>>> 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.
>
> The opposite is actually the case. Remember the office parking lot
> count I mentioned earlier?

Your office doesn't by any chance make alcoholic drinks?

> I didn't give you the results, only the summary. Here they are
> (roughly): 70-75% (depending on the day) of non GMs had lights on in
> the fog/rain while only 20%-30% of the GM vehicles did.

I did a count on a short drive last night. Nine cars without headlights
after dark within 3 miles. None of the nine was a GM-product. Pretty
average for the area I'd say.

> Now the interesting question I would love to have a answer to. Of the
> 20%-30% of the GM's that had their lights on, how many were on because
> the auto system turned them on and how many were on because the driver
> manually turned them on.

If the conditions were really bright but foggy I suspect the latter, but
as your observations are tainted anyway, the question is moot.

> Funny also how you would rely on the auto system if you say that you
> have more confidence in your ability over said system. How is that
> possible you would put control on a system that you have less confidence
> in than your own abilities? Doesn't make sense.

I also have confidence in my ability to build a TV set if I choose so. I
still buy one in the store because I appreciate the comfort of not having
to solder it together myself. The automatic system works almost always. I
override it when necessary (rarely). End of story.

>> 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.
>
> You were reading references to studies. Keep reading.

I am more than willing to once you reference them properly.

> The 1997 HLDI study showed a 8% increase in accidents.

Then it's fortunate that the newer studies show a decrease. And btw,
throwing around acronyms is _NOT_ referencing.

> The fact is that yes DRLs (current implementation) has benefits. It
> also has some fairly significant problems too. What is hoped is
> that a better DRL implementation comes out to reduce or mitigate the
> identified problem areas. Now, perhaps they've made some progress there
> lately.



> BTW: the last I checked, there wasn't any data available yet on the
> potential that introducing turn signal based DRLs into the driving
> environment might create signaling ambiguity.

I know that some people with short attention spans and the trigger happy
driving style of a ricer in a 1992 Honda Civic have a problem because they
see a flash and turn in front of the oncoming traffic because they think
the other car will also turn, but any halfway intelligent person does
_not_ rely on one flash of a turn signal. The more so as in the last few
years misuse of turn signals has far eclipsed their proper use.

> I believe you mentioned that those are the types of DRLs you have.

Yes, they are.

> No one (no, not even you) knows if that is a problem or not.

I know it is not a problem for me. F- and Y-Bodies (Camaro/Firebird and
Corvette) both with amber DRLs are quite abundant around here and I never
had a problem determining whether they are signaling or not. Other drivers
don't seem to have a problem with my car either.

>> And still rare weather phenomena, limited to a small part of the US and
>> a small part of the day.
>
> First, mornings are a time where traffic is heavy with commuters.
> Second, mornings are the time this atmospheric condition most often
> occurs Third, That area is the most heavily populated area of the
> country

I have to disappoint you. New York City is neither in the South nor in the
Southeast.

> Fourth, is is far from "rare"...unless comparing to night.

Areas with frequent brightly lit ground fog are very small in relation to
the area of the US.
> Interestng too that would consider the south and southeast a "small
> part" of the US.

If you are seriously trying to tell me that the south and souteast are
covered with brightly lit fog every day I should probably hook you up with
Judy Diarrhea, s/he makes about as much sense.

>> 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.
>
> I didn't say my car had the problem...the lights came on fairly quickly
> (about 5-6 seconds after sensing darkness). What I said was that
> problem had been observed to occur with other cars pulling out from well
> lit gas stations.

The 'other cars' were not GM models with automatic headlights, as when
starting the engine at night, even in a 'brightly lit' area the lights are
coming on instantly. With all GM models with auto-headlights. The delay
only applies when starting the engine during daylight and then proceeding
into a dimly lit area.

>> 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,
>
> Not mine. I had to take it out of Park AND pop the emergency brake
> (both conditions in addition to the ignition) for the lights to come on.

Both of which you always do when pulling out of a gas station.

Your explanation still doesn't hold up.

>> which is the case even under a seemingly brightly lit gas station
>> canopy.
>
> Not always. Sometimes mine didn't come on until 5-6- seconds after I
> pull out from under the canopy...

Which supports my assertion that your system simply was defective.

> which was sufficient before entering the freeway. Perhaps the position
> I parked at the pumps in relation to one of the light fixtures? Don't
> know.

The neon lights of a gas station only produce a tiny fraction of the light
output of sunlight. The human eye adjusts and thinks 'bright', the sensor
doesn't care though and switches on the lights.

Of course your reasoning supports my claim that automatic headlights are
important, because these are exactly the situations that lead to
non-auto-headlight cars driving around without lights at night.

>>> 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.
>
> Addressed earlier. No hatred...would love to get the GTO...

Hatred (for GM) and envy (for a specific car you like). A truly unique
combination...

> It won't happen unless GM gives me control (total control) of my lights
> though...and maybe knocks the price down closer to the Mustang.

The Goat has 100hp more than a Mustang GT, doesn't suffer from the
wretched reliability problems of the modular motor and is the more
sophisticated car to boot. Also since the '05 model year they sell
quite well. Why should they knock down the price?

>> 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.
>
> So, I should stop 500 feet back from others waiting at stop lights and
> leave 500 feet distance when in 5MPH traffic jambs? I assure you, you
> would be the one to honk at anyone that does that! I bet you might even
> feel good about calling them one of your names that make them cry.

In a traffic jam or stop-and-go the question of whether the headlights are
on or not is truly irrelevant. If you are only 5 feet from the car in
front of you, you should be able to see it regardless of whether its
lights are on, even at night.

>> 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.
>>
> Those would be better, but even the dim red running lights show through
> fog better than nothing. The seem to help quite a bit from my
> experience.

From my experience they don't. Now what?

>> No. Adjusting speed to conditions helps.
>
> Of course, but then you increase the risk of getting rear ended by the
> person coming up behind at too high a rate of speed, but that's another
> topic. :-)

As you have your lights on because you are such a good driver and your
lights make you oh so visible in fog, that shouldn't be a problem.

>> Also pileups practically never occur on two-lane roads, where
>> overtaking is a problem.
>
> Not sure that is true, but I honestly don't know. Do you have a source
> for that?

Read the newspapers.

>>> They why do they mostly occur in fog conditions?
>>
>> Improper speed and distance.
>
> Even dim red running lights add some margin that helps some.

No. I usually am able to make out the shape of the car before seeing
its taillights, especially in brightly lit fog.

> Proper speed and distance, yes (but the topic is lighting, so a side
> item).

The topic doesn't change the fact that improper speed and distance are
always factors in multi vehicle accidents, whereas lighting practically
never is.

>> Did I mention improper speed and distance?
>
> Yes, but I'm still going to do some reading on this out of curiosity. I
> would imagine that the mechanics have other items that contribute to
> these situations in addition to failure to keep proper speed and
> distance. It would be interesting to see how often there was a
> mechanical problem, or a medical issue, or whatever else as a percentage
> of causes.

A single or two-vehicle accident can have many causes. A multi vehicle
accident only has speed and distance, regardless of what caused the one
accident that started the chain reaction. In other words, if you crash
into an accident site it is your fault for improper speed and/or distance.
Come to think of it, your reliance on taillights may contribute to your
higher risk of getting into one of these.

>> 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.
>
> As the old saying goes..every little bit helps.

On the contrary. If the lighting really made cars more visible (and rear
fog lights indeed do) it would make the drivers think that visibility is
better than it actually is and make them drive faster than conditions
allow. That phenomenon has indeed been observed in Europe, which is why
the rear fog lights are not everyone's darling.

> Even if standard red running lights only adds 20' of margin, that is
> 20' more distance to react.

No, that's just an excuse to drive 5% faster. In reality it really doesn't
matter, because in your brightly lit fog the taillights are next to
invisible.

> That can make a difference in some percentage (albeit perhaps small
> percentage) of cases. Surely you're not advocating leaving them off?

I am advocating driving at a speed and distance that makes it unnecessary
for the guy in front of you to have them on.

>> 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).
>
> FWD does take away a direction control option, no question. I prefer to
> use the standard brake over the emergency brake for braking control.

To induce a controlled skid the standard brake, being heavily front
biased, is mostly useless. Pray tell me how you induce a controlled skid
in your FWD car with only the standard brake.

> Some cars have a foot activated emergency brake which is more difficult
> to use for the purpose that your hand brake can be used.

These cars are not suitable for controlled skids (except for some more
powerful Mercedes-Benz cars that are able to induce a controlled skid via
accelarator.

> But it really matters not, the data shows they're practically useless
> (for everybody, apaprenty) , so why have them.

ABS is far from useless for me. If you think accident avoidance culminates
in closing your eyes, hammering the brake and praying you may think
differently. ABS has saved my life twice in very difficult conditions and
I would not want to drive without it.

> You just said that you use the hand brake and/or accellerator when added
> directional control was required. Same thing with a standard (non-ABS)
> brake. Did that help?

Now at least your sentence makes sense. My answer: You claimed that ABS
removes this option from the driver, which simply is untrue.

> You do have a lot of interisting theories and conclusions as to why
> things are so, I will say! And I assume you actually believe it too.

Your humor module is defective. I told you a while ago that it needs to be
exchanged.

>> 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.
>
> I guess my guardian angel must like me more than your guardian angel
> likes you. What did you do to **** her off? ;-)

> Actually, I don't count rear ends, that wasn't your fault.

Neither was the spill on the bike. And the cop, who came to my rescue when
I was blown off the road, fell flat on his ass when he got out of his
Bronco, it was that slick. I am 100% sure that you would have gotten in an
accident in the same situation too, which is one of the reason why I keep
referencing your luck, or let's say lack of experience driving in really
adverse conditions.

>> Thats what automatic systems do: Take external parameters to influence
>> the system in a certain predetermined way.
>
> Yes, which leaves out several requirements ("parameters, in your words")
> necessary for them to be truly "automatic" by common Webster definition
> of the word (not your definition).

Webster's definition is 'having a self-acting or self-regulating
mechanism', which amounts to the same as my definition. And by both
definitions automatic headlights are automatic.

Chris