The dangers of DRLs

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, CH wrote:
>
>> >> > Enforcement would be the best approach.
>
>> >> There are too many laws already, why would you want something that
>> >> minor
>> >> cast into legalese?
>
>> > It already is "cast into legalese" (which seems to be your hyped way of
>> > saying "codified"), and has been since your great-grandpappy was
>> > driving
>> > his Model-T...long before automatic headlamps.
>
>> Enforcement of having a manual override for automatic headlights has
>> been codified since the Model T? I think not, back then they couldn't
>> even imagine automatic headlights, much less override switches for them.
>
> No, you thundering shortbus retard, not "enforcement of having a manual
> override for automatic headlights". Nobody's talking about "enforcement of
> having a manual override for automatic headlights" except for you. Go
> play in your sandbox while the adults discuss the lengthy history of laws
> requiring that drivers properly use their lights.
>

Yes, existing vehicle lighting laws that could be enforced by issuing
tickets and fines to those that need the education. CH missed your (our)
point completely (but for the life of me I can't see how...it was as plain
as day).

CH wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> 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.

Actually, this is precisely the format of every argument you, Christian
Huebner, become involved in.

100%, every time. I wonder whose manners really are in question?

E.P.

James C. Reeves wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, CH wrote:
> >
> >> >> > Enforcement would be the best approach.
> >
> >> >> There are too many laws already, why would you want something that
> >> >> minor
> >> >> cast into legalese?
> >
> >> > It already is "cast into legalese" (which seems to be your hyped way of
> >> > saying "codified"), and has been since your great-grandpappy was
> >> > driving
> >> > his Model-T...long before automatic headlamps.
> >
> >> Enforcement of having a manual override for automatic headlights has
> >> been codified since the Model T? I think not, back then they couldn't
> >> even imagine automatic headlights, much less override switches for them.
> >
> > No, you thundering shortbus retard, not "enforcement of having a manual
> > override for automatic headlights". Nobody's talking about "enforcement of
> > having a manual override for automatic headlights" except for you. Go
> > play in your sandbox while the adults discuss the lengthy history of laws
> > requiring that drivers properly use their lights.
> >
>
> Yes, existing vehicle lighting laws that could be enforced by issuing
> tickets and fines to those that need the education. CH missed your (our)
> point completely (but for the life of me I can't see how...it was as plain
> as day).

He does it on purpose. Essentially trolling for an argument, that he
then turns into some sort of civility-measuring contest.

Search the archives.

E.P.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:13:29 -0700, Garth Almgren wrote:

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

Depends on how you define 'braking effect'. If you only look at the
absolute numbers, you may be right, but power brakes significantly change
the feedback, so the effect _is_ different.

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

There is more to the braking effect than g numbers.

Chris

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:05:41 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> 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.

Most drivers, who are too stupid to understand that they need to have
their lights on in bad visibility are too stupid to know that their car
has DRLs in the first place.

> 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.

Ask the average DRL bozo, they very probably don't even know they have
DRLs.

Chris

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:20:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> CH wrote:

>> 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.

That may be. Now take a 5'2 80lb woman and make her drive your Stude.
Chances are she is going to run into something.

Chris

"CH" > wrote in message
news
> 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

You still missed the glaringly obvious point? How is that possible? To
paraphrase the discussion so far....

CH: The average Joe Blow doesn't even think about their lights
when they don't have automatic headlights.
JR: I disagree. The average Joe Blow does, it's the small
exception that doesn't. (So) enforcement (of existing vehicle
lighting laws) would be preferable (compared to employing
auto systems for the purpose of compliance in those
small number of exception cases).
DS: Yes, and those laws existed long before auto systems did.
CH: Laws requiring auto light systems system existed? No
they didn't.
DS: No, laws specifically about the proper use of vehicle
lighting existed.
CH: You just don't like my opinion.

In short, we are discussing enforcement of existing vehicle lighting laws as
being a preferred solution to forcing auto systems on everybody as a form of
compliance enforcement. It's always best to train people to do what they
should do (give them a ticket and fines, driver training, etc.) instead of
training them to do the opposite of what they should do (which it what auto
control systems condition people to do by definition)

I've now come to the same conclusion that Daniel did. You ARE being obtuse.
When a person is being willfully obtuse (since the discussion context is
just WAY to obvious for anyone to have missed it as you seemed to have) it
has to be on purpose for the willful intent to frustrate others.
Congratulations, it worked...and now you're surprised?

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:43:37 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> 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.

Daniel, whether it's lack of human contact, drugs, lack of sex or an
inferiority complex, your behavior is atrocious and you need to do
something about it. I respect your knowledge, but I am appalled by your
lack of manners and upbringing. You sound like a redneck after the
fifteenth beer of the evening, just randomly insulting people, because
they don't bow down to his high and mighty opinion.

> Power brakes do not increase the performance of the brake system, of
> course.

I never claimed they did.

> They simply reduce the pedal effort (and feedback).

That's what I said.

> 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.

For a 6' 180lb man: No. For a small woman of slight build: yes.

And even for the man driving a road that needs a lot of braking is going
to take its toll in terms of fatigue (and the associated safety hazards).

What you need to do is read things others write _properly_ and stop
letting your dislike of your 'opponent' (as you seem to see rad as a
fighting arena) influence your reading comprehension abilities.

I know just as well as you do, that power brakes don't stop a car faster
unless the person driving the non-power-brake-car doesn't have enough
strength to push the brakes to the point where the wheels lock up and you
know just as well as I do that I never claimed they do.

Chris

"CH" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:43:03 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> news:1120643773.6151a1501fd47b981402a57eda947826@t eranews...
>>
>>>> There are a lot of plans of how to override the automatic headlights on
>>>> the web as far as I know.
>>>>
>>> Will definitely be looking at those should it become an issue.
>>>
>> The biggest problem with GM vehicles is that the BCM monitors DRL and
>> headlamp functions. Doing the disable procedure incorrectly will set a
>> code and illuminate the "Service Vehicle Soon" light in the instrument
>> cluster. GM is apparently hell-bent on ****ing off the owners of their
>> vehicles that just want to fix (or get rig of) their poor design...or so
>> it seems.
>
> The percentage of people, who even worry about things like automatic
> headlights, is so small, that GM doesn't really think it is necessary to
> cater to them. It's like with any other feature, only if significant
> numbers of purchases depend on it being present or not present, a company
> will provide/eliminate the feature.

I believe the numbers are higher than you think. GM's competitors
accommodate this group of potential customers that don;t want these things.

>
> Also, there are a whole bunch of ECM/BCM modification services out there
> that can program your ECM/BCM almost any way you like. Erasing a trigger
> for the SES light is one of their easiest exercises.
>
> Chris

If it's so easy (and apparently at no cost), why then doesn't GM offer it to
gain that extra 1% market share (probably more like 3% - 4% actually)?
Pretty damn dumb on GMs part, if you ask me!

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:55:21 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

> In short, we are discussing enforcement of existing vehicle lighting laws
> as being a preferred solution to forcing auto systems on everybody as a
> form of compliance enforcement. It's always best to train people to do
> what they should do (give them a ticket and fines, driver training, etc.)
> instead of training them to do the opposite of what they should do (which
> it what auto control systems condition people to do by definition)

Auto control systems dont train anyone to do something they wouldn't do by
themselves. The people you are complaining about would drive around in
rain and fog with their lights turned off just as they do in their DRL
equipped cars. Stupid is stupid, regardless of DRLs.

> I've now come to the same conclusion that Daniel did. You ARE being
> obtuse.

No, I am not. I merely have a different opinion. And I did not complain
about Daniel having a different opinion, just for behaving like a three
year old.

> When a person is being willfully obtuse (since the discussion
> context is just WAY to obvious for anyone to have missed it as you
> seemed to have) it has to be on purpose for the willful intent to
> frustrate others.

I was not being wilfully obtuse and I am certainly not trying to frustrate
you (you seem to do fine on your own), but I happen to have a different
opinion, which you two don't like and use as an excuse to blow off
steam/frustration from work/whatever.

> Congratulations, it worked...and now you're surprised?

I am not in the least surprised, that you are defending Daniel's childish
behavior.

Chris