The dangers of DRLs

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:20:01 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

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

> I see nowhere where Nate called anyone "stupid". CH, you need to stop
> making this stuff up guy! The situation DOES call into question
> "intellect" when your restatement is far from what the original statement
> said!

Nate understood what I said. And from his response it is clear he meant
what I said he meant.

Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:08:20 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:56:36 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>>
>>>Nate, I had quite some respect for you until now. My opinion differs
>>>from yours but is just as well expressed, reasoned and properly
>>>referenced.
>>
>>No, it's not.
>
>
> That's merely your opinion and also no reason to become as unpleasant as
> you have been.
>
>
>>It is well expressed, I'll give you that, but the other two
>>- I don't think so.
>
>
> I do, but regardless, your tone is unwarranted.
>
> If my opinion was really as far off as you claim it is you would not have
> to get nasty at every opportunity. The fact that you do points to either
> lack of proper upbringing or lack of arguments.
>
> Chris

Or perhaps exasperation at seeing you disagree with literally everyone
else, presenting no logical or factual basis for your arguments? The
only explanation I can come up with is that you've invested heavily in
GM stock (and if I were in that position, I might be resorting to
desperate measures myself.)

nate

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:29:31 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:

>> Graduated ricers.
>
> So all fast Jap cars are for ricers?

No. And why the racial slur?

> BTW, Nissan is owned by Renault.

Which is about the worst owner I could wish for a car company. Renault
makes truly horrible automobiles. Zero reliability, horrible suspensions
and brakes, terrible ergonomics and short life expectancy paired with ugly
design and total lack of driving enjoyment.

The Maxima is not that bad but around here it seems to be bought mostly by
graduated ricers.

By the way, there are some japanese cars I respect, even a Nissan
design from the pre-Renault era. You may guess which model I mean.

Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:29:31 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>
>
>>>Graduated ricers.
>>
>>So all fast Jap cars are for ricers?
>
>
> No. And why the racial slur?
>
>
>>BTW, Nissan is owned by Renault.
>
>
> Which is about the worst owner I could wish for a car company. Renault
> makes truly horrible automobiles. Zero reliability, horrible suspensions
> and brakes, terrible ergonomics and short life expectancy paired with ugly
> design and total lack of driving enjoyment.

And yet you defend GM. You have just summed up my opinion of 95% of GM
products right there.

nate

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

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:29:31 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>
>
>>>Graduated ricers.
>>
>>So all fast Jap cars are for ricers?
>
>
> No. And why the racial slur?
>
>
>>BTW, Nissan is owned by Renault.
>
>
> Which is about the worst owner I could wish for a car company. Renault
> makes truly horrible automobiles. Zero reliability, horrible suspensions
> and brakes, terrible ergonomics and short life expectancy paired with ugly
> design and total lack of driving enjoyment.


Really. I like the looks of Renault cars. My very first car
was a 4cyl, MT, rear wheel drive, rear engine Renault
car. No power anything. It was a great little car.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but
Renault has won numerous F1 and rally races.

>
> By the way, there are some japanese cars I respect, even a Nissan
> design from the pre-Renault era. You may guess which model I mean.

Yes. THe new version is pretty cool too, and I'm sure
they've fixed whatever problems it had

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:24:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:05:27 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>>And your source for the demographic information? Last I read, the
>>>demographics were similar for both models. But, I'll defer to your
>>>source, please provide it.
>>
>> Observation. I don't have any positive or negative feelings for either
>> car, so the observation should be pretty unbiased.
>
> Hmm, most of the Sebring owners I know are young, just-out-of-college
> people who picked them up cheap and used. But of course the whole idea of
> relying on personal observation for demographic data is silly -
> demographics can vary wildly from one area to another.

I see a lot of old people in the car. I suppose the reason is the same as
for Reeves to buy it, namely fear of modern features, specifically ABS.
The Sebring is one of the few midsize cars that still is available without.

>>>Apparently gunpoint will soon be the only way they will sell the cars,
>>>if the trend continues.
>>
>> Weird, the sales numbers for GM don't seem so bad right now.
>
> At this exact moment, no, but that's mostly due to their new "employee
> discount" sales gimmick. Their numbers looked downright terrifying
> prior to that.

The employee discount is just a consolidation of the rebates they were
giving before. Uppricing cars and then giving large rebates has been a way
of life for quite a few car makers lately.

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

Currently: Yes, which is exactly what I said. The new models that are
coming out are not. See Saturn Sky, Pontiac Solstice, even the already
available Goat and CTS-V. More cars are going to be switched to RWD
platforms and made for driving fun again, which will improve sales numbers
even more than any discount scheme could.

>> In other words, you didn't test drive the car or were so inattentive
>> during the test drive that you didn't see that the light switch has no
>> off position.
>
> I think it's reasonable to assume that a light switch would have an off
> position.

Assuming something when buying a big-ticket item is simply stupid.

> The fact that he didn't notice it was because it's really fairly
> surprising that any mfgr. would be so stupid as to not include it.

You may see it as stupid, I see it as smart. Stops total idiots from
switching off their lights at night.

> Yes, there are very good reasons for wanting to kill all your lights,
> or switch to only parking lights - as repeatedly stated in this
> newsgroup.

Reasons that mostly entail keeping your engine running where you should
not beause of environmental reasons.

> Military installation security checkpoints, restaurant> parking lots, Xmas light displays, to name the first three that come to
> mind.

Given the number of GM cars driven by military personnel (including cars
the military owns) I rather doubt that auto headlights are a problem at a
security checkpoint.

>> You had a very good reason to do your homework. If you don't it's your
>> fault and yours alone.
>>
> GM is still taking a very consumer-unfriendly position.

I don't see it that way. And if you don't like GM, buy a competitor's car.

>> If you really didn't know a feature you feel strongly about, you are at
>> fault.
>>
> Are you quite finished telling James what an idiot he is yet?

I don't think he is an idiot, neither do I think you are one. If you
thought you were idiots I would not debate with you.

I merely pointed out that James did something stupid (and if you think
only idiots do stupid things you are less sophisticated than I thought)
and that like any good middle-class American he needs to find someone to
blame for his mistake. And a large company like GM is always a welcome
victim.

>> GM is not at fault here. The cars work as advertised and there is any
>> number of sources telling you exactly what the car does and doesn't do.
>> You are alone to blame for lack of research and buying a car without
>> even properly test driving it.
>>
> Blah, blah, blah...

If you have something productive to say, do so, otherwise I advise not
commenting at all.

>>>You're just so good at figuring things out, aren't you. Perhaps that
>>>particular customer base that buys high end cars had a high request for
>>>ABS? But, I don't know why (and neither do you).
>>
>> Ferrari has ABS stock on all models. Porsche has ABS stock on all
>> models. Ferrari even fitted it on their formula one racers until it got
>> outlawed. Mercedes, BMW, all mitsize to luxury cars from Japan and the
>> US. Everyone has ABS except for a bunch of cheapo base models for
>> clueless penny pinchers.
>
> The ABS fitted to high end sports cars and F1 racers is very different
> from the ABS fitted to consumer-grade sedans,

The differences have been big 20 years ago. Today the differences are
quite small and ABS does a better job than just about any consumer grade
sedan driver in every situation.

> and often has
> driver-selectable programs ranging from "normal" to "don't intervene
> until you detect that I'm about to commit vehicular suicide" and
> sometimes even "off."

Ferrari had that when they first introduced ABS. The new models do not
have an ABS off switch. Neither does Porsche or Mercedes-Benz, simply
because ABS does work. It works even on the track, reducing tire wear,
improving control and even making it possible to brake hard into the turn,
which is a driving style that has become very fashionable.

No racer would seriously claim (like James does) that he induces a
controlled skid with a 4-wheel non-ABS system.

>> Btw, I am still waiting for your explanation, how you induce a
>> controlled skid on your FWD box without ABS.
>
> Huh? Surely there's a typo in that sentence 'cause it doesn't make
> sense.

No, it doesn't but that's exactly what James claims as the reason he
doesn't want ABS on his car.

>> For safety. Fatal accidents down 5-20%
>
> Due to DRL's? I call bull**** until I see a cite.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...mentofDRLs.pdf

Look at page 23.

> Even most insurance companies admit that there's no benefit to DRL's,
> or at least don't give a discount for DRL's which is pretty much the
> same thing.

Insurance companies give a benefit where they think it will increase sales
and not cost too much. Most drivers would be royally ****ed if their
insurance company gave discounts for DRLs, because they don't have them.

>>>Uhm, GM would be helped if they gave the customer base what they want.
>>
>> ... which is fun to drive cars.
>
> It would be nice if they made those, yes.

They are. Corvette. GTO. CTS-V. And upcoming models like Saturn Sky,
Pontiac Solstice and more.

>> No one cares about DRLs except for a few 'back to the 50s' crusaders.
>>
> And most of the readers of this newsgroup, and most people who take an
> active interest in road safety. Yourself included, apparently. Granted,
> you're wrong, but you apparently have a strong opinion on the subject.

The readers of this small newsgroup are a very small minority and
certainly not a feasible market for car makers.

And concerning my opinion, it is well founded unlike yours. I still want
to see your references to sources that deem DRLs and automatic headlights
dangerous. So far I have supported my opinion by an NHTSA study. You have
not. And until you do so you certainly have no basis to call my opinion
wrong.

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

> Who said anything about the GTO?

Reeves did. He said that he wants GM to price the Goat down to the
Mustang's level.

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

If they are giving away cars I want to see where. I could use a new
Duramax Diesel Silverado. Last time I looked the Silverado I want is
somewhere north of $40k which is nowhere near 'given away' or 'free.

GM is not giving anything away, they just price cars up and then give
discounts. Apparently this works, because the less informed think they are
giving something away.

Chris

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:57:22 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:02:40 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

>>>CH attempts to second guess the German authorities! Priceless!
>>
>> Do you really think all laws in the United States make sense? Until a
>> few years ago the law even mandated Sealed Beam headlights, which are
>> among the worst headlights in the world. They mandate huge airbags, that
>> have been shown to be less than ideal for a belted in driver. They have
>> useless speed limits in most places.
>>
>> If you really try to claim something is good because it is mandatory
>> under the law you need a reality check.
>>
> There's a BIG difference between the (often stupid) regulations in place
> in the US, and the ECE regulations which are used in Europe and influence
> other regs elsewhere throughout the world.

A lot of the ECE regulations are just as stupid, they just look smart
because most good US boys adore Mercedes-Benz and BMW. I have quite some
experience with rules and regs in Germany, specifically concerning having
a car certified roadworthy and I can tell you that the number of stupid
rules is just about the same as it is over here. By the way, the ECE does
not mandate rear fog lights. That's a national law in Germany.

> I don't pretend to be a complete expert on everything automotive, but I
> can say that in the vast majority of cases where there's a significant
> difference between US and ECE regs the ECE ones usually make more sense
> and work out better in real life. (headlights are but one, ahem,
> glaring example of same.)

With the headlights you are totally right. But you don't know the majority
of ECE regulations (even going so far to think the ECE determines what has
to be on a car and what doesn't).

Some ECE regs make sense, some don't just like some regs over here make
sense and some don't. I suggest going to an ECE country for a while before
you start knocking on my knowledge about Europe/Germany and the rules and
regulations concerning cars over there.

>> IMO: yes. And in the opinions of most other drivers too.
>
> Chris against the world. Good luck with that.

Chris and most other drivers in Germany. Ask the average German driver
about rear foglights and prepare to be on the receiving end of a stream of
profanity.

Chris

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:56:28 -0700, fbloogyudsr wrote:

> "C.H." > wrote

>> If the reasons have been discussed it won't be a problem for you to name
>> them. And no, your desire to drive too fast under low visiblity
>> conditions doesn't count.
>
> We already have - my mention of Daniel's previous postings. You said you
> don't want to bother googling them, so you lose.

It always is the responsibility of the claimant to provide references,
which is why scientific papers invariably have a long list of references
attached to it. Demanding that someone else find proof for your claims is
simply preposterous.

Chris

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:54:22 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> C.H. wrote:

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

A few claims? Yes. The only scientific evidence was provided by me,
though, and it points out that DRLs decrease fatalities significantly.

> Some of them in this thread, so I don't feel the need to retype them
> because you're unable to use a newsreader.

And then:

> Thanks for the baseless insult too, that's really improving my opinion
> of you.

I know how to use a newsreader, but that doesn't change the fact that all
you guys have provided so far were a few biased observations and some
claims to have knowledge of some obscure documents 'inside the NHTSA
website'.

As you want to whine about baseless insults I suggest to refrain from
using same yourself.

Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:57:22 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:02:40 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>>>CH attempts to second guess the German authorities! Priceless!
>>>
>>>Do you really think all laws in the United States make sense? Until a
>>>few years ago the law even mandated Sealed Beam headlights, which are
>>>among the worst headlights in the world. They mandate huge airbags, that
>>>have been shown to be less than ideal for a belted in driver. They have
>>>useless speed limits in most places.
>>>
>>>If you really try to claim something is good because it is mandatory
>>>under the law you need a reality check.
>>>
>>
>>There's a BIG difference between the (often stupid) regulations in place
>>in the US, and the ECE regulations which are used in Europe and influence
>>other regs elsewhere throughout the world.
>
>
> A lot of the ECE regulations are just as stupid, they just look smart
> because most good US boys adore Mercedes-Benz and BMW. I have quite some
> experience with rules and regs in Germany, specifically concerning having
> a car certified roadworthy and I can tell you that the number of stupid
> rules is just about the same as it is over here. By the way, the ECE does
> not mandate rear fog lights. That's a national law in Germany.

You mean like the TUeV inspections? I'm sure they're a royal PITA but
personally given the US climate of "get away with whatever you can, and
do the bare minimum necessary to keep it legal enough that I won't get
hassled" I can certainly respect where they're coming from.

I'm aware that the ECE codes don't mandate rear fogs, but I believe that
several other European countries do, and that the rear fogs must conform
to ECE spec (starting to bisect lagomorphs here, but WTF...)

>
>
>>I don't pretend to be a complete expert on everything automotive, but I
>>can say that in the vast majority of cases where there's a significant
>>difference between US and ECE regs the ECE ones usually make more sense
>>and work out better in real life. (headlights are but one, ahem,
>>glaring example of same.)
>
>
> With the headlights you are totally right. But you don't know the majority
> of ECE regulations (even going so far to think the ECE determines what has
> to be on a car and what doesn't).

I have actually read more of them than most people likely have, due to
having access to them at a previous job and just a natural curiosity
about such things. Likewise with NHTSA regs.

>
> Some ECE regs make sense, some don't just like some regs over here make
> sense and some don't. I suggest going to an ECE country for a while before
> you start knocking on my knowledge about Europe/Germany and the rules and
> regulations concerning cars over there.
>
>
>>>IMO: yes. And in the opinions of most other drivers too.
>>
>>Chris against the world. Good luck with that.
>
>
> Chris and most other drivers in Germany. Ask the average German driver
> about rear foglights and prepare to be on the receiving end of a stream of
> profanity.
>

Because people use them incorrectly over there? Not a uniquely German
trait. There's actually an easy fix for that however, make the switch a
momentary one activating a latching relay that resets whenever the car
is turned off. Costs a little more, but it takes a DETERMINED idiot to
leave his rear fog on 24/7 then. There's no need to lambast a useful
safety feature just because people don't know how to use it correctly
(i.e. rarely.) Personally I like the rear fog, at least 2-3x a year I
seem to end up getting caught in a true pea soup fog, and always feel
better having that little extra light back there. Which reminds me, I
have a rear fog switch that I got from the YooKay, I'd better get that
wired up before it cools off again.

nate

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