The dangers of DRLs

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 05:57:19 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> CH wrote:
>
>> Weird, I never got into a situation, where the DRLs had a negative
>> impact on either safety or conveninence. Pray tell us, what situation
>> that may be.
>
> Any vehicle that uses high beam DRL's, around dusk

That is not a problem of DRLs though, just of the implementation. My
car has DRLs, but not high-beam DRLs. And I very rarely see GM cars with
high beam DRLs on at dusk, simply because the auto headlight switches on
the (low beam) headlights before that becomes a problem.

>>>And you cant switch them off, no matter what, if the engine is running.
>>>Annoying as hell. I want full control of my vehicle.
>>
>> Sure. I am sure you want purely mechanical brakes too, because power
>> brakes and ABS don't give you 'full' control. ...
>>
> Hydraulic brakes are good, but I am guessing you have not driven a
> vehicle with non-power brakes otherwise you wouldn't say that in what
> comes across as such a sarcastic tone...

Actually, I own a vehicle without power brakes. Fortunately it only
weights only about 1000lbs including the driver, so stopping it with
non-power brakes is not a problem. That doesn't change the fact that
stopping a 3800lb-sedan with non-power brakes requires quite a bit of
physical force, force that a lot of drivers simply are not able to
administer. And that you wouldn't want to administer on a regular basis.

> amazing pedal feel, that used to be normal in all cars until everything
> got power-assisted.

I know what you mean, but I am sure that you wouldn't want to drive around
with non-power brakes in today's average car, all the same.

Chris

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:40:21 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, CH wrote:
>
>> An adult would not go ballistic if things don't go his way.
>
> That's true. That's also not what I did. I ranted at your apparently
> willful obtuseness.

No, you exploded, because you know exactly what I meant and you dislike my
opinion.

Your behavior is indeed childish. Unfortunately that seems to be normal
with you, I see you behave like that with other people all the time, so I
think it is safe to say that the problem is you, not the many others.

Chris

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:41:01 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, CH wrote:
>
>> > Most of them do not work on the latest GM vehicles, which monitor all
>> > lighting functions via the BCM and activate the chime and "SERVICE
>> > VEHICLE" light if you attempt to interfere.
>>
>> One, there are electronic ways to override. These sensors are not rocket
>> science. If you are unable to do so yourself, there are people, who can
>> do that. Two, it is not that difficult to access the control module and
>> just erase the trigger for the SES light.
>
> Reality has a nasty habit of punching ugly holes in beautiful theories.

I know of several people, who did the override and have no problems. So
this is not a theory but fact.

Chris

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 20:44:57 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> CH wrote:
>> But as you are so vocal about the dangers of DRLs he Describe a
>> situation, where DRLs have a negative impact on safety.
>
> 1. An annoyed camper or apartment complex resident might be a hazard to
> ones health.

Rest assured that I know how to defend myself even though I never start a
fight.

> 2. Many drivers in DRL equipped cars dont think to turn on the regular
> lights in fog or heavy rain in daytime.

A habit they share with many drivers of non-DRL equipped cars. Thus the
DRLs again become an advantage, because the DRL-bozos are visible at least
from the front (the direction where the closing speed is greater).

> Driving without tail-lights in such conditions is very dangerous.

Its just as dangerous with a non-DRL-equipped car as it is with a
DRL-equipped car. In real life conditions the percentage of bozos in both
groups is about equal, which makes the whole thing a non-issue.

I have been driving a DRL+auto-headlight equipped car and it hasn't
changed my light usage habits (yes, I use my low beams when visibility is
bad) a bit. You can safely assume that the average bozo, who forgets the
headlights in bad weather in a DRL car would do so in a non-DRL car as
well.

Chris

CH wrote:
>
>>2. Many drivers in DRL equipped cars dont think to turn on the regular
>>lights in fog or heavy rain in daytime.
>
>
> A habit they share with many drivers of non-DRL equipped cars.


Having DRLs (and automatic headlights, a combination
common in GM cars) gives many drivers the impression that
they need not worry about lights at all. Many drivers forget
that DRLs are only in the front, not in the back. As long as
their DRLs are on, they think they're 'visible'. Not true.

CH wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 05:57:19 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>CH wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Weird, I never got into a situation, where the DRLs had a negative
>>>impact on either safety or conveninence. Pray tell us, what situation
>>>that may be.
>>
>>Any vehicle that uses high beam DRL's, around dusk
>
>
> That is not a problem of DRLs though, just of the implementation. My
> car has DRLs, but not high-beam DRLs. And I very rarely see GM cars with
> high beam DRLs on at dusk, simply because the auto headlight switches on
> the (low beam) headlights before that becomes a problem.

One word: Saturn.

>
>
>>>>And you cant switch them off, no matter what, if the engine is running.
>>>>Annoying as hell. I want full control of my vehicle.
>>>
>>>Sure. I am sure you want purely mechanical brakes too, because power
>>>brakes and ABS don't give you 'full' control. ...
>>>
>>
>>Hydraulic brakes are good, but I am guessing you have not driven a
>>vehicle with non-power brakes otherwise you wouldn't say that in what
>>comes across as such a sarcastic tone...
>
>
> Actually, I own a vehicle without power brakes. Fortunately it only
> weights only about 1000lbs including the driver, so stopping it with
> non-power brakes is not a problem. That doesn't change the fact that
> stopping a 3800lb-sedan with non-power brakes requires quite a bit of
> physical force, force that a lot of drivers simply are not able to
> administer. And that you wouldn't want to administer on a regular basis.
>

Hmm, my 3200 lb. '55 Stude coupe and '62 Stude hardtop seem to stop
quite well without power intervention. In fact I've driven
power-boosted versions of both vehicles, and I prefer the non-power.

>
>>amazing pedal feel, that used to be normal in all cars until everything
>>got power-assisted.
>
>
> I know what you mean, but I am sure that you wouldn't want to drive around
> with non-power brakes in today's average car, all the same.
>

*I* would, I dunno about the rest of y'all. Well, maybe not the
*average* car, but one that I'd be likely to buy, anyway...

nate

> Chris


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

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> Hmm, my 3200 lb. '55 Stude coupe and '62 Stude hardtop seem to stop
> quite well without power intervention. In fact I've driven
> power-boosted versions of both vehicles, and I prefer the non-power.

CH is stepping into areas of which he obviously has no real knowledge.
Power brakes do not increase the performance of the brake system, of
course. They simply reduce the pedal effort (and feedback). Stopping a
3,000-pound car (or a 5,000-pound car, for that matter) with a
properly-designed unboosted brake system is not at all difficult for any
ordinary individual in reasonably normal health.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, 223rem wrote:

> Having DRLs (and automatic headlights, a combination common in GM cars)
> gives many drivers the impression that they need not worry about lights
> at all. Many drivers forget that DRLs are only in the front, not in the
> back. As long as their DRLs are on, they think they're 'visible'. Not
> true.

What's more, cops haven't got the time or knowledge to discern between
oncoming cars with DRLs on and oncoming cars with proper headlamps on. The
difference between cars with and cars without lights, on the other hand,
is a no-brainer.

On 7/6/2005 1:36 PM, CH wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:04:56 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, CH wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, btw, Nissan also uses power brakes, power steering, ABS and
>>>countless other features that don't give you 'full control' of your car.
>>
>>Red herring. Power brakes do not activate by themselves -- there is no braking
>>effect until the driver steps on the pedal.
>
> But the braking effect is significantly different from what it would be
> if the car did not have power brakes.

Wrong, the braking effect is NOT significantly different between power
and non-power brakes.

Perhaps the required effort is different, but the effect is exactly the
same.



--
~/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)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Garth Almgren wrote:
> On 7/6/2005 1:36 PM, CH wrote:

>>> Power brakes do not activate by themselves -- there is no braking
>>> effect until the driver steps on the pedal.

>> But the braking effect is significantly different from what it would be
>> if the car did not have power brakes.

> Wrong, the braking effect is NOT significantly different between power
> and non-power brakes. Perhaps the required effort is different, but the
> effect is exactly the same.

Garth's absolutely right, and CH is absolutely wrong. I'm sensing a
pattern.