The dangers of DRLs

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:28:40 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "CH" > wrote in message
> news
>>
>> From my own experience I can say that DRLs on other cars significantly
>> improve their visibility. I never got in a situation where the DRLs of
>> another car either made it harder for me to see or in any other way
>> created a safety hazard. And I assume that my DRLs are not any different
>> in that respect.
>>
>> But as you are so vocal about the dangers of DRLs he Describe a
>> situation, where DRLs have a negative impact on safety.
>>
> There are quite a few. Many are documented cases on file at the NHTSA.

Sure, that's why you can't list them here.

> There are way to many to list here.

If there are so many, how come you can't list even one?

> Those documents are all available online. Have fun with your research.

You made the claim. You provide the proof.

> But lets have a history lesson on how the military uses "negative
> contrast" and adding lighting as a form of camouflage (which means making
> a object less visible). But first, let's visit what "negative contrast"
> is. Negative contrast is the situation where a object appears in front of
> a light background. In those conditions, the object is most visible in
> dark silhouette against this light background (say the sky, a snow/sand
> bank or light faced mountain range brightly lit by direct sunlight). In
> that situation, a lighted object often becomes _less_ visible compared to
> a unlighted object. These are lighting conditions commonly found in
> desert areas of the southwest and southern US. In WWII, the military very
> successfully used this negative contrast effect by equipping bombers with
> floodlights that allowed the planes to virtually disappear in the daytime
> sky. It allowed them to get closer to targets undetected. The effects of
> how lighting on vehicles can be used to actually hide them has been known
> for several decades. So, the statement that DRLs make vehicles more
> visible is only partly correct. In certain lighting conditions, yes. In
> other lighting conditions, the opposite is true, But in most lighting
> conditions, it makes no real difference at all.

In most areas and most situations, where visibility plays a major role the
car is not seen against a light background. I would even go so far to say
that seeing a car against a light background is very rare. In these areas
it makes sense to buy a car that is dark in color. DRLs don't
diminish the visibility even in these rare situations.

Btw, I had one of these rare situations today. I drove across Dumbarton
bridge and saw a Corvette and a Nissan 300 ZX coming over the hill next to
each other. Both were silver (thus hard to see against the bright blue
sky). The Corvette has amber DRLs, the Nissan doesn't. Which car was more
visible? The Vette.

And in Real Life cars are usually seen against houses, trees, rocks,
meadows. Very rarely against the sky, unless you are driving street luge.

Chris

"CH" > wrote in message
news
> 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.

That is a incorrect statement. Training by conditioning is a effective
training means and has been for decades. IF something happens automatically
(or one assumes it does), one "conditionally" is trained to ignore that
which is already being done for them. That is just a well known thing that
happens to normal ordanary human beings under those sutuations. A auto
light system is a textbook example of a conditional training device. There
are a small percentage of people that are not trained/trainable (I would say
*untrainied* in this case) that way. Perhaps you are one of them...and so
am I actually.

> 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.

Some would, that is true. Others wouldn't. There are documented cases on
file at the NHTSA that dispells your statement. DRL equipped cars are less
likely to have their main lights on in situations of rain/fog/snow compared
with non-DRL equipped cars. It is just a documented fact. It's all on
fiile at the NHTSA. Even most of the experts in the field don't disagree
with that (not sure why you do). Add in the auto system that only works
reliably at night or when it's fairly dark, and that makes the situation
even worse than before from the conditional training aspect of the driver.

Of course, perhaps you have another explanation as to why more GM cars have
lights off in these weather conditions compared to vehicles made by other
manufacturers?

>
>> 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.

That discussion thread was not about a opinion, it was about lighting laws
that existed before auto light controls did. Your contributions to that
side-thread was indeed obtuse since you made a really rediculous statement
that auto light laws didn't exist before there was auto controls.
(Something already understood and actually Danial already said).

>
>> 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.

The behavior was admittedly a bit over the top...but it's Daniel, after all.
:-) But his point was correct.

>
> Chris

"CH" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:28:40 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>>
>> "CH" > wrote in message
>> news
>>>
>>> From my own experience I can say that DRLs on other cars significantly
>>> improve their visibility. I never got in a situation where the DRLs of
>>> another car either made it harder for me to see or in any other way
>>> created a safety hazard. And I assume that my DRLs are not any different
>>> in that respect.
>>>
>>> But as you are so vocal about the dangers of DRLs he Describe a
>>> situation, where DRLs have a negative impact on safety.
>>>
>> There are quite a few. Many are documented cases on file at the NHTSA.
>
> Sure, that's why you can't list them here.
>
>> There are way to many to list here.
>
> If there are so many, how come you can't list even one?

What thread have you been reading? Several people here have already listed
several. Were you asleep? You're being intentionally obtuse again, aren't
you?

>
>> Those documents are all available online. Have fun with your research.
>
> You made the claim. You provide the proof.

I provided the reference. It's all easily accessible onlne at
http://dms.dot.gov/ . Is it that much trouble to look it up so we should
waste bandwidth restating it all here? It's literaly thousands and
thousands of pages of reference materials, studies, cases and
testimonials...on both sides of the issue.

>
>> But lets have a history lesson on how the military uses "negative
>> contrast" and adding lighting as a form of camouflage (which means making
>> a object less visible). But first, let's visit what "negative contrast"
>> is. Negative contrast is the situation where a object appears in front of
>> a light background. In those conditions, the object is most visible in
>> dark silhouette against this light background (say the sky, a snow/sand
>> bank or light faced mountain range brightly lit by direct sunlight). In
>> that situation, a lighted object often becomes _less_ visible compared to
>> a unlighted object. These are lighting conditions commonly found in
>> desert areas of the southwest and southern US. In WWII, the military
>> very
>> successfully used this negative contrast effect by equipping bombers with
>> floodlights that allowed the planes to virtually disappear in the daytime
>> sky. It allowed them to get closer to targets undetected. The effects
>> of
>> how lighting on vehicles can be used to actually hide them has been known
>> for several decades. So, the statement that DRLs make vehicles more
>> visible is only partly correct. In certain lighting conditions, yes. In
>> other lighting conditions, the opposite is true, But in most lighting
>> conditions, it makes no real difference at all.
>
> In most areas and most situations, where visibility plays a major role the
> car is not seen against a light background. I would even go so far to say
> that seeing a car against a light background is very rare. In these areas
> it makes sense to buy a car that is dark in color. DRLs don't
> diminish the visibility even in these rare situations.

You ignore documented facts...again. Lighting does mask objects in many
common daytime lighting conditions. It's not disputed or disputable by
those that are experts on the subject.

>
> Btw, I had one of these rare situations today. I drove across Dumbarton
> bridge and saw a Corvette and a Nissan 300 ZX coming over the hill next to
> each other. Both were silver (thus hard to see against the bright blue
> sky). The Corvette has amber DRLs, the Nissan doesn't. Which car was more
> visible? The Vette.

Apparently you still saw the 300 ZX, no?

>
> And in Real Life cars are usually seen against houses, trees, rocks,
> meadows. Very rarely against the sky, unless you are driving street luge.
>
> Chris

- Houses are often painted white
- Rocks can be sandstone (or other light color)
- Concrete highways behind the car are light in color as well

A light background is really not that uncommon...except perhaps at night.
:-)

Don't get me started on turn signal DRL's. There is no excuse for the turn
signaling ambiguity those things have introduced into the driving
environment.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Harry K wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Yep, Power brakes weren't even standard issue until when...the 60s?,
> 70s?

They were never mandated, but the magic date upon which they appeared on
essentially all new cars was 1/1/76. This was when the pedal-effort
requirements of FMVSS 105 (brake systems) were rewritten and made more
stringent. Most automakers complied (and continue to comply) with this
aspect of FMVSS 105 by boosting the brakes rather than by changing the
brake friction material formulation, which would've been more expensive
given Americans' demand for silent brakes.

> I drove grain trucks back in the 50s loaded with 7-10 tons of grain with
> non-power brakes, no problem.

Yup. I've driven plenty of heavy cars with unboosted brakes, no problem.
I'm betting CH has no experience with unboosted brake systems, but thinks
he does because of the time his engine stalled and he stabbed at the
brakes a few times, exhausted the boost reserve, and had to stop the car
with nonfunctioning power brakes. Of course, nonfunctioning power brakes
aren't at all the same as unboosted brakes, but with a guy like CH, you
hafta be really careful not to let facts get in the way of his guesses and
opinions, otherwise he gets cranky and supercilious, and nobody has any
fun when CH gets cranky and supercilious.

DS

Around 7/6/2005 6:42 PM, CH wrote:

> 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'.

How most reasonable people would: the effect of slowing a vehicle.

Do you honestly not understand the meaning of the word "effect"?


>>Perhaps the required effort is different, but the effect is exactly the
>>same.
>
>
> There is more to the braking effect than g numbers.

Now *that's* a red herring: Nobody even mentioned "G (with a capital G)
numbers." My reply had absolutely nothing to do with G forces.


--
~/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, 06 Jul 2005 23:07:34 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "CH" > wrote in message
> news
>> 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.
>
> That is a incorrect statement. Training by conditioning is a effective
> training means and has been for decades.

Conditioning can only happen if the subject is aware of the condition. By
far the most drivers, especially the bad ones, are not even aware of DRLs,
much less influenced by a fact they don't even think about. They get in
their car and drive. If it gets too dark to see they turn on the light.
Has been like that forever. The good ones turn on the light when they deem
it necessary, DRLs or no DRLs.

> IF something happens automatically (or one assumes it does), one
> "conditionally" is trained to ignore that which is already being done
> for them.

Again, only works if the subject is _aware_, which by far most drivers
arent. Ask the average driver whether his car has DRLs. You will find most
don't know.

> That is just a well known thing that happens to normal
> ordanary human beings under those sutuations. A auto light system is a
> textbook example of a conditional training device. There are a small
> percentage of people that are not trained/trainable (I would say
> *untrainied* in this case) that way. Perhaps you are one of them...and
> so am I actually.

Wow, backslapping

>> 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.
>
> Some would, that is true. Others wouldn't. There are documented cases
> on file at the NHTSA that dispells your statement.

Again your mysterious statements. Either quote them or don't try to FUD
your readers with them.

> DRL equipped cars are less likely to have their main lights on in
> situations of rain/fog/snow compared with non-DRL equipped cars. It is
> just a documented fact.

From my experience: No. If you disagree on the base of NHTSA findings,
post the numbers. Should be easy to do if it's really on file.

> It's all on fiile at the NHTSA. Even most of the experts in the field
> don't disagree with that (not sure why you do).

I disagree, because I don't see your alleged 'facts' on the street and you
are unable to provide evidence.

> Add in the auto system that only works reliably at night or when it's
> fairly dark, and that makes the situation even worse than before from
> the conditional training aspect of the driver.

Maybe your '95 Cavalier is defective. My automatic lights work remarkably
well, i.e. even switch on when dark rainclouds or fog diminishes light
intensity.

> Of course, perhaps you have another explanation as to why more GM cars
> have lights off in these weather conditions compared to vehicles made by
> other manufacturers?

You _claim_ a difference, but are unable to provide evidence.

>> 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.
>
> That discussion thread was not about a opinion, it was about lighting
> laws that existed before auto light controls did.

The discussion thread was about the mysterious dangers of DRLs. And still
is.

> Your contributions to
> that side-thread was indeed obtuse since you made a really rediculous
> statement that auto light laws didn't exist before there was auto
> controls. (Something already understood and actually Danial already
> said).

Maybe you are in danial about red-iculous statements...

>> 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.
>
> The behavior was admittedly a bit over the top...but it's Daniel, after
> all.
> :-) But his point was correct.

His point was making a fool of himself. He has a lot to contribute and
ruins it totally because he is unable to control himself. What a pity.

Chris

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:53:58 -0700, Garth Almgren wrote:

> Around 7/6/2005 6:42 PM, CH wrote:
>
>> 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'.
>
> How most reasonable people would: the effect of slowing a vehicle.

Slowing a vehicle entails more than four strips of rubber on the road
surface.

> Do you honestly not understand the meaning of the word "effect"?

Yes. The effect includes the feedback necessary to adjust brake pedal
pressure to conditions (on non-ABS cars), because this feedback directly
influences brake distances.

>>>Perhaps the required effort is different, but the effect is exactly the
>>>same.
>>
>> There is more to the braking effect than g numbers.
>
> Now *that's* a red herring:

You guys eat too much fish. Over time that apparently leads to seeing
herring everywhere.

> Nobody even mentioned "G (with a capital G)
> numbers." My reply had absolutely nothing to do with G forces.

Whether you call it g-forces or brake distance is irrelevant, it's still
only a part of the 'brake effect.

By the way: In physics the symbol for the gravitational constant
(9.81m/s^2) is a lowercase g, not an uppercase g. Maybe that's different
at the ricer stores where you can buy a cheap lateral acceleration
measuring device, which is mildly amusing but wildly inaccurate...

Chris

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:30:47 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "CH" > wrote in message
> news

>>> There are way to many to list here.
>>
>> If there are so many, how come you can't list even one?
>
> What thread have you been reading? Several people here have already
> listed several. Were you asleep? You're being intentionally obtuse
> again, aren't you?

I read the thread and read a few theoretical ideas of how DRLs could be
declared dangerous. 'Military "camouflage by lighting"...

>>> Those documents are all available online. Have fun with your
>>> research.
>>
>> You made the claim. You provide the proof.
>
> I provided the reference. It's all easily accessible onlne at
> http://dms.dot.gov/ . Is it that much trouble to look it up so we should
> waste bandwidth restating it all here?

If it is no trouble you can do it and prove your point. As you are not
doing it, it can only mean that it is either beyond your capabilities or
the reference was just posted because you assumed noone would go there.

> It's literaly thousands and
> thousands of pages of reference materials, studies, cases and
> testimonials...on both sides of the issue.

You said it was simple. If it is, provide the reference. You can't, that's
the problem for you. And you just hope your FUD strategy will work.

>> In most areas and most situations, where visibility plays a major role
>> the car is not seen against a light background. I would even go so far
>> to say that seeing a car against a light background is very rare. In
>> these areas it makes sense to buy a car that is dark in color. DRLs
>> don't diminish the visibility even in these rare situations.
>
> You ignore documented facts...again. Lighting does mask objects in many
> common daytime lighting conditions. It's not disputed or disputable by
> those that are experts on the subject.

Post a reference, where experts agree on that DRLs in real traffic 'mask'
the car. We are not talking some obscure lab work but real traffic, real
cars, real environmental conditions. In real conditions, be it desert,
mountains, countryside or the city (and I have quite some driving
experience in each of the conditions) I notice how much better a car is
visible with DRLs than it is without, especially with the amber DRLs some
GM cars have.

>> Btw, I had one of these rare situations today. I drove across
>> Dumbarton bridge and saw a Corvette and a Nissan 300 ZX coming over the
>> hill next to each other. Both were silver (thus hard to see against the
>> bright blue sky). The Corvette has amber DRLs, the Nissan doesn't.
>> Which car was more visible? The Vette.
>
> Apparently you still saw the 300 ZX, no?

Sure I did. DRLs are not 'see vs. not see' but 'see early vs. see late'.

>> And in Real Life cars are usually seen against houses, trees, rocks,
>> meadows. Very rarely against the sky, unless you are driving street
>> luge.
>
> - Houses are often painted white
> - Rocks can be sandstone (or other light color) - Concrete highways
> behind the car are light in color as well

Maybe my eyes are just so much better than yours but I have never mistaken
a car for a whitewashed wall or vice versa, DRLs or not.

> A light background is really not that uncommon...except perhaps at
> night.
> :-)

A background light enough to make headlights or turn signals invisible is
_very_ rare.

> Don't get me started on turn signal DRL's. There is no excuse for the
> turn signaling ambiguity those things have introduced into the driving
> environment.

I like them and they improve visibility even more than headlight DRLs. As
for the 'ambiguity': If you are too blind to see the difference between a
steady and a flashing light or dumb enough to actually rely on turn
signals it's your problem.

Turn signals are an indication of intention. Most people don't use them
when they should and use them when they shouldn't (aka leave them on after
the turn). The intention, if signalled correctly is clearly recognizable
on both amber-DRL- and non-amber-DRL cars. Of course some people are so
spectacularly stupid that they turn in front of an oncoming car just
because they see a turn signal and think the car is also going to turn,
but I sincerely hope you are not one of them.

Chris

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:21:47 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>> I drove grain trucks back in the 50s loaded with 7-10 tons of grain with
>> non-power brakes, no problem.
>
> Yup. I've driven plenty of heavy cars with unboosted brakes, no problem.
> I'm betting CH has no experience with unboosted brake systems, but thinks
> he does because of the time his engine stalled and he stabbed at the
> brakes a few times, exhausted the boost reserve, and had to stop the car
> with nonfunctioning power brakes.

You just lost another bet to Ditech

I own an unboosted car (RSA Kindred Spirit) and drove the identical
model with boosted brakes. I made the decision to go unboosted because I
preferred the pedal feel.

> Of course, nonfunctioning power brakes aren't at all the same as
> unboosted brakes,

I didn't claim that but you never let facts get in the way of insulting
people, do you, Daniel?

> but with a guy like CH, you hafta be really careful
> not to let facts get in the way of his guesses and opinions, otherwise
> he gets cranky and supercilious, and nobody has any fun when CH gets

Wow, DS is talking about cranky and supercilious. Daniel, you really
must have a distorted (idealized) self image, because in here you are the
one, who has to run his mouth and insult people regardless of facts
getting in your way. If you run into a fact you just throw a nice tantrum
and declare the fact invalid together with your opponent. You seem to
seriously think that apart from a handful of cronies anyone thinks your
ranting and your tantrums are cool.

I suggest you take some anger management classes. Reading up on proper
behavior also couldn't hurt.

Chris

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Garth Almgren wrote:

> Around 7/6/2005 6:42 PM, CH wrote:

<a bunch of CH's apparently normal asininities>

Y'know, Garth, killfiles are a wonderful thing.