The dangers of DRLs

223rem wrote:
> An Accord with a V6 and MT is a *much* better car
> than the Impala.

Didn't know such a thing existed. I thought all the Accords with V6s
got ATs.

Well, here in the ol' U.S. of A., anyway.

E.P.

wrote:
>
> 223rem wrote:
>
>>An Accord with a V6 and MT is a *much* better car
>>than the Impala.
>
>
> Didn't know such a thing existed. I thought all the Accords with V6s
> got ATs.
>
> Well, here in the ol' U.S. of A., anyway.
>
> E.P.
>

You are wrong:

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/hond...90/prices.html

Of course, the Nissan Maxima SE with MT is even better

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
>
>
> Would be fun to see you drive one of these 50s bias ply tire cars as a
> daily driver in today's traffic. Wanna bet that you would change your
> opinion?
>

I have a 1962 scout 80 that had bias ply tires on it for the first two
or three years that I owned it, and I have ended up using it as my
daily driver in city traffic in a city that throughout the nineties was
rated
in the top (or bottom) five cities for crappy traffic. (Seattle) I had a
1955
belair fourdoor, also with bias ply tires that I drove for about a year
in Seattle city traffic.

So yes, I have already driven quite a few miles in exactly the
situation you suggest. My opinion remains that you are talking
out of your ass.

Bernard

"N8N" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> It's certainly possible if you exercise a bit of care and look ahead
> (like you're supposed to.) The only difference will be that on the old
> bias plys you will be operating closer to their traction limits than
> you would be on modern radials. Also the bias plys give you a lot more
> warning (squealing, gentle slip) before they let go completely, they
> have a much more progressive breakaway than radials.
>
> That said, I wouldn't *choose* to run bias plys, as it's undeniable
> that radials are overall better and safer, but as someone who's logged
> more miles on them than most people my age (driving old show cars) I
> can say they're certainly acceptable. If they weren't they would have
> been outlawed!

I never did change the tires on the '55 Belair I had, they remained
biasply until I sold it. I never really had much trouble with them, so
didn't consider changing them. Plus I liked the squared off look they
had, it seemed right for the car.


I actually changed the tires from bias-ply to radials on the Scout
mainly due to the fact that no one would touch the split-rim wheels
that it had on. I was very please to find that the truck tracked
down the highway much better on radials, that was a pleasant
suprise.

Plus you can get a much better selection of tire sizes in radial.

Bernard

223rem wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > 223rem wrote:
> >
> >>An Accord with a V6 and MT is a *much* better car
> >>than the Impala.
> >
> >
> > Didn't know such a thing existed. I thought all the Accords with V6s
> > got ATs.
> >
> > Well, here in the ol' U.S. of A., anyway.
> >
> > E.P.
> >
>
> You are wrong:
>
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/hond...90/prices.html
>
> Of course, the Nissan Maxima SE with MT is even better

Ah, I didn't remember that the Accord came in a coupe. But a MT is new
for this year and last, right? For any Honda/Acura V6 in the U.S.
(except the NSX)? IIRC, this was a big gripe some of the Honda
faithful had.

Now, if only the U.S. auto industry responded like that. Catering to
5% of the market for their cars by offering some sort of tranny choice.

I'll tell ya - if the wife is gonna make me drive a minivan, at least
let me opt out of the damn auto tranny. Especially if it's a DC
product.

E.P.

wrote:

> I'll tell ya - if the wife is gonna make me drive a minivan, at least
> let me opt out of the damn auto tranny. Especially if it's a DC
> product.

If you're referring to new model minivans, then you only can get an
auto. I know that some of the older Mazda MPVs had a manual
transmission option.

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:27:02 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>
> That you are incapable of referencing relevant information fortunately is
> not my problem. You don't pay me to search 'studies' for you, so I don't
> see why I should.

Perhaps debating with knowledge beyond your own experience on the subject
would be a good reason? Just a suggestion. You just might find subject
matter contained there that supports some of your points, if you would
bother to take the time to look for it. There actually is material there
you might could use in rebuttal...and I've handed it to you and you haven't
used it. Try searching and gaining knowledge beyond your own individual
observations...it's quite enlightening and often surprising (if one's mind
is open), I assure you.

> Btw, I hear SCO has an opening for a chief obfuscator and imaginary stolen
> Linux code specialist, you would fit in splendidly with SCO's 'we know
> there must be some stolen code in Linux, we just can't find it.', James
> 'I know there must be some DRL studies on www.nhtsa.gov' Reeves.

Having witnessed your qualifications, I thought you already won that job!
:-) Why bother to compete with the master and loose! ;-)

> The docket management system of the DOT? Interesting but not relevant to
> the discussion. If you seriously see DRL data on this page, you need new
> glasses and a lesson in reading comprehension.

Uh....documents are maintained on the "document management system". The
name is a hint as to what it's used for...it manages the documents. The
ones I refer to ARE indeed maintained there. Since it maintains information
on thousands of topics, it's not hard for most people to understand that the
acronym/topic "DRL" may not be promenently displayed on the main page.
However, the document management system has this nifty little search feature
that can be quite helpful to find what you want. Give it a try.

> If they do they will arrive in places that have nothing to do with DRLs.
> Of course they could start digging but the probability that they do is
> just about zero, simply because it is the job of the claimant to provide
> proper references, not the job of the reader.

I am a "reader" too (your term). Since I'm not the Op making the claim, I
only contributing to the discussion, just like you are. My experience and
external knowledge just happen to support the Op's initial comment...yours
doesn't. That's fine. Perhaps we need 223rem to pony up! ;-)

>>> Again, you may want to upgrade to a more modern car.
>>
>> I did! I now own a 2004 Chrysler product. No DRLs. No Auto light
>> systems. No ABS. Everything works perfectly and as expected now! ;-)
>
> Then let's hope you are not as bad at driving as you are at producing
> evidence for your wild claims,

All I can say to that perhaps is "ditto". Although I don't know how "wild"
either of our claims are. We're just stating what we believe or have come
across. I will say that 35 years of driving and over a million miles
during that time with zero accidents...it can't be too bad (knock on wood).

> otherwise the non-ABS non-DRL car might get
> you killed.

Not to change the subject, Oh what the hell....perhaps you may be interested
in this link if you also think ABS is so good.

http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_fact...a/antilock.htm

In my particular case, I've used controlled braking as a optional form of
directional control during emergency maneuvers. ABS takes that control
capability away from me. I prefer to have full control of the
brakes...locking wheels if a controlled skid is what is required to get
extra directional control to get out of a sticky situation. One can't
momentary lock the wheels when needed if the car has ABS. Personally, I
believe them to be safety negative...but all I can show here in this case
from research is that ABS systems are "safety nutral" (no benefit, but no
detriment either). DRL's however, have some safety negative aspects to
them....at least the way they are imlemented. BTW, look up "Perot &
Prowler" on the site I gave you. But I warn you, it's a several hour read.

>>> Btw, if your 2003 GM product doesn't have reliable auto-headlights, I
>>> suggest you inform your nearest stealer and have the sensor fixed under
>>> warranty. My 2000 GM product has remarkably realiable auto headlights.
>>
>> And so thought several people at work when I've informed them that they
>> pulled into the parking lot with their GM vehicles on foggy mornings
>> with their lights off.
>
> Unlike you I am quite capable of determining whether my lights _are_ on
> and _should_be_ on, so I don't pull into parking lots on foggy mornings
> with my lights off.

I obviously understand like you do. So your words "unlike you" is
missplaced. My ability to tell what vehicle lights were doing is exactly
how I discovered that auto systems were not reliable under daytime fog/snow
conditions in particular. Or did you miss the fact that that is how I
understood what was happening.

By the way, *you* are the one that claimed "most" people didn't know if
their car was equipped with DRL's, or if their lights were on or not etc.
Not me. Now you claim the opposite?

> Maybe your bozo coworkers just need some driving
> lessons?

I agree with you, to a point. However, apparently bozos primarily buy GM
vehicles. People driving other brand vehicles pulling into the parking lot
typically had their lights on (all of them, not just DRLs) on foggy mornings
(some exception, of course). I submit that the people are not the problem
(unless you believe that more bozos buy GM brand vehicles than other
brands...which I don't believe). I submit then that it's the lighting
control implementation that GM uses that is the core problem...it is the
only common demonitator here. You disagree...fine with me.

> It is not very difficult to see, whether the lights are on or not, neither
> on non-automatic-headlight cars nor on automatic-headlight cars. (Hint:
> The instrument panel lighting is only on when the headlights are on)

I've never owned a car with instrument panel lighting that was bright enough
to tell if illuminated or not in bright daytime fog/snow weather conditions.
However, one can tell if their radio display has dimmed (assuming one
hasen't turned them to the full bright detent or looks at the radio display
frequently). For many cars, there is no sure-fire internal visual aid to
know lighting status during daylight hours...typically dash lights are
simply too dim to see in those conditions. IF your car turns on it's lights
and you can immediately see that your dash has lit up as a result, it's
waiting WAY too long to turn the lights on.

>
>> thay hadn't a clue!
>
> They seem not to be the only ones there...

No arguement from me to that statement. :-)


> Most GM cars don't need their light control systems serviced.

You are the one that suggested that, given what I and others posting here
have observed with a fair number of GM vehicles, that the auto system needed
to be serviced. Now you are saying the opposite (again)?

> The system doesn't provide for every eventuality

BINGO! You are correct, of course. The problem is that calling it
automatic is incorrect because of that. A better name might be "twilight
control" or something more realistic to it's capabilities and technical
limitations. The word "automatic" implies the wrong thing to the people
that own the car....it implies that it's a totally hands-off system..never
needing manual intervention, which is quite far from the truth.

> but is quite a bit more reliable than the average driver.

At dusk/dawn/twilight, I would tend to agree with you. At dark of night,
it's a wash. During the atmospheric conditions that limit visability during
bright daytime situations, I disagree very strongly...it is far less
reliable than the typical driver is (at least the drivers that drive a car
with totally manual controls so that they are used to being in complete
charge of the lights).

> I prefer a few bozos without taillights in fog
> to the same bozos without DRLs _and_ taillights in fog.

I don't see much difference between the two. Both are dangerious stuations.
However, when DRL/Auto equipped cars are more likely to have the tail lights
off, I believe that increases risk unnecessarily. (the HLDI data and
insurance loss data shows higher rear-end colisions with DRL equipped cars
demonstrating that added risk is real). Fortunately there are a people
working on fixing issues like that (supposedly). The fix will likely
require a different DRL design and implelentation AND very different auto
headlamp control technology (that actually works properly...IF that is even
possible)

>
> [Daniel Stern adoration snipped]
>
> If DS has a gripe with me he should gather his courage and confront me
> instead of sending his sidekick to defend him.
>

I believe he did address you directly. I sure don't defend the outburst,
and have stated as such here (did you miss that too?!). Daniel does know
his stuff however. No one can take that away. His credibility on the topic
surpasses either of us, that's for sure!

"223rem" > wrote in message
...
> C.H. wrote:
>
> tems serviced under warranty...yes?
>>
>>
>> Most GM cars don't need their light control systems serviced. The system
>> doesn't provide for every eventuality but is quite a bit more reliable
>> than the average driver).
>
> Nonsense. The average driver forgets to turn on his tail lights in
> DRL equipped cars in low visibility conditions during the day.
>
>> I prefer a few bozos without taillights in fog
>> to the same bozos without DRLs _and_ taillights in fog.
>
> DRLs and no taillights in fog is a much more frequent combo than
> completely dark vehicles.
>
> Hey, do you work for GM by any chance?

I was beginning to wonder the same thing?

"Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C.H." > wrote in message
> news
>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:49:59 -0700, Bernard Farquart wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>>> news >>>>
>>>> You are missing the point. Yes, your car is ok for you. It would not be
>>>> ok for a person, who doesn't have the strength to consistently operate
>>>> the non-power-assisted brakes in real life conditions. Unfortunately
>>>> quite a number of licensed drivers falls into this category so the car
>>>> makers need to offer cars that these people can drive.
>>>
>>> Give me a break, believe it or not, women actually managed to operate
>>> vehicles prior to the advent of power brakes.
>>
>> Yes, they did. Cars with bias-ply tires, that locked up if you even
>> looked
>> at them and that needed only minimal force to get to that lock up point.
>
> So not only did they manage to drive, they were apparently expert
> at handling these leviathans on stone tires!
>
> How did the species survive?
>
>>
>> Plus the percentage of women driving and especially the percentage of
>> women driving more than to the store and back was _very_ small in the 50s
>> and early 60s.
>
> Yet, somehow, they did not crash headlong into every obsticle that
> presented itself.
>
> Even with standard, non power brakes.
>
> It must not be that hard, huh?
>
> Bernard
>
>
>

My 70-year-old grandmother drove a 1968 Chevy Biscayne (same size as the
Impala of the day)that had neither power steering or power brakes. She
handled it amazingly well. It must not have been too difficult! She was
less than 5-feet tall and quite petite.

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:40:36 -0700, Bernard Farquart wrote:
>
>>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> news
>
>>> Yes, they did. Cars with bias-ply tires, that locked up if you even
>>> looked at them and that needed only minimal force to get to that lock up
>>> point.
>>
>> So not only did they manage to drive, they were apparently expert at
>> handling these leviathans on stone tires!
>
> No, they just had to contend with much less traffic. Plus the number of
> fatalities per driven mile was indeed significantly higher.
>
>>> Plus the percentage of women driving and especially the percentage of
>>> women driving more than to the store and back was _very_ small in the
>>> 50s and early 60s.
>>
>> Yet, somehow, they did not crash headlong into every obsticle that
>> presented itself.
>
> They had to drive much slower than we are used to. Also the traffic volume
> simply was much lower.

I agree on the lower traffic volume back then. However, Interstates here
were posted at 70MPH around here (and are now posted 55-65) and were
unposted in the mid-west (no limit) where people there routinely could
legally drive 80-100MPH back then...and did.

>
>> Even with standard, non power brakes.
>>
>> It must not be that hard, huh?
>
> Would be fun to see you drive one of these 50s bias ply tire cars as a
> daily driver in today's traffic. Wanna bet that you would change your
> opinion?
>
> Chris

I dunno...I would pull low 14 quarters in my 1967 GTO on bias ply tires.
Given the average rush-hour speed here is 5-10MPH these days, it probably
wouldn't matter much. 90% of the trip is spent "coasting".