If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:36:18 +0000, 223rem wrote:
> CH wrote: > >> You always have the choice of buying a non-GM car if you don't like GM >> cars. I don't see a reason, why GM would make an override system for the >> handful of people, who see their manhood in jeopardy over the question, > > It's not about manhood. Sometimes it is not convenient to have your DRLs > on. 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. > 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. ... > Fortunately, Nissan seems to understand that. Considering the total engineering disaster that is the Nissan 350Z (google for alignment- and tire problems...) I am glad I don't own a Nissan. Oh, btw, Nissan also uses power brakes, power steering, ABS and countless other features that don't give you 'full control' of your car. Chris |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
CH wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:42:33 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote: > > >>CH wrote: > > >>>You always have the choice of buying a non-GM car if you don't like GM >>>cars. I don't see a reason, why GM would make an override system for the >>>handful of people, who see their manhood in jeopardy over the question, >>>who may turn on their headlights. >> >>Actually, in my case, I really *don't* have a choice of buying a non-GM >>car, unless I want to commit financial suicide. > > > Why not? A clunker Corolla is $500. Gas and insurance are significantly more than purchase price, however, and are basically fixed costs... > > >>I can either accept a GM company car or provide my own transportation. >>When you drive a minimum of 100 miles a workday, that's a lot of >>incentive, there. So I do have a bit of an incentive to bitch loud and >>long about GM's more boneheaded design features, in the vain hope that >>they'll listen. > > > 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. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
CH wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:36:18 +0000, 223rem wrote: > > >>CH wrote: >> >> >>>You always have the choice of buying a non-GM car if you don't like GM >>>cars. I don't see a reason, why GM would make an override system for the >>>handful of people, who see their manhood in jeopardy over the question, >> >>It's not about manhood. Sometimes it is not convenient to have your DRLs >>on. > > > 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 > > >>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... amazing pedal feel, that used to be normal in all cars until everything got power-assisted. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <1120619261.0dccee69877d67f00828b0058cfbda56@teran ews>, > Nate Nagel > wrote: > > >>Alan Baker wrote: >> >>>In article ch.edu>, >>> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Alan Baker wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>I prefer not to have my lights pop on for a couple of minutes just >>>>>>because I want to use the windshield washers, thank you. >>>> >>>>>Pardon me, but why would you *care*? What harm does it do? >>>> >>>>>>Because it is ****ing annoying, that's why. >>>> >>>>>Annoying, how? You can't even see your own lights. >>>> >>>>Alan, I notice you're in BC. Are you, by chance, a transplanted American? >>>>Your "Me first, **** the rest of the world, I'm the only one whose >>>>annoyance counts" attitude is most unCanadian. >>> >>> >>>LOL >>> >>>You couldn't be more wrong. >>> >>>I have a "why choose annoyance over little stuff" attitude. >>> >>>Face it: how would the OP even know to be annoyed if no one told him >>>that the lights were coming on? >>> >> >>He wouldn't, if his dashboard were all analog. However, when all the >>digital displays suddenly become unreadable (because they've dimmed for >>"night mode...") > > > Sorry, but we don't know that the OP's dashboard is digital. > Name one modern car that doesn't have at least a couple digital displays in the dash. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
JohnH > wrote: >> Are you saying that having the headlights come on automatically >> with the wipers is a good thing? It is not. It is yet another dumbass >> 'nanny' feature that denies drivers of their full control of their >> vehicle. > >You technophobes crack me up. > >It's not "nanny", it's the law here - headlights must be on when wipers >operating. On my 98 Jeep, they come on with the lights when the lights are >in "auto" mode (which I always use). It's a dumbass nanny feature for a dumbass nanny law. I ought to wire mine up a similar way. Only make it so the headlights come on only when the wiper motor is on, then use "intermittent" and "mist" whenever possible. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
CH wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:36:18 +0000, 223rem wrote: > > >>CH wrote: >> >> >>>You always have the choice of buying a non-GM car if you don't like GM >>>cars. I don't see a reason, why GM would make an override system for the >>>handful of people, who see their manhood in jeopardy over the question, >> >>It's not about manhood. Sometimes it is not convenient to have your DRLs >>on. > > > 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. When I sit (in winter) with my engine idling waiting for someone in an apartment complex and I dont want my lights shining in someones windows. Couldnt do that in my GM car! > Considering the total engineering disaster that is the Nissan 350Z (google > for alignment- and tire problems...) I am glad I don't own a Nissan. So that problem alone dismisses Nissan in your eyes? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"JohnH" > wrote in message ... > James C. Reeves wrote: >> "JohnH" > wrote in message >> ... >>> >>>>> On my 98 Jeep, they come on with the lights when the lights are in >>>>> "auto" mode (which I always use). >>>> >>>> So your wipers always come on when your lights do? Even is it >>>> isn't raining? >>> >>> Make that the lights come on with the wipers. >>> >> >> Ah. That makes more sense. Does it still do this even when using the >> washers (and don't need the lights)? > > Washing turns on the wipers without turning on the lights. > Somehow it must know the difference...a good thing. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Baker" > wrote in message ... > In article ch.edu>, > "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote: > >> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Alan Baker wrote: >> >> >>I prefer not to have my lights pop on for a couple of minutes just >> >>because I want to use the windshield washers, thank you. >> >> > Pardon me, but why would you *care*? What harm does it do? >> >> >> Because it is ****ing annoying, that's why. >> >> > Annoying, how? You can't even see your own lights. >> >> Alan, I notice you're in BC. Are you, by chance, a transplanted American? >> Your "Me first, **** the rest of the world, I'm the only one whose >> annoyance counts" attitude is most unCanadian. > > LOL > > You couldn't be more wrong. > > I have a "why choose annoyance over little stuff" attitude. > > Face it: how would the OP even know to be annoyed if no one told him > that the lights were coming on? > > -- Your response just proved Daniels assertion...you've completely missed his point of the annoyance to others...especially the person in front of you that has this "light cycling" business going on right in their rear view mirror. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message news:1120643910.3f4f85ad82889905b640c985e40e9e7c@t eranews... > Alan Baker wrote: >> In article <1120619261.0dccee69877d67f00828b0058cfbda56@teran ews>, >> Nate Nagel > wrote: >> >> >>>Alan Baker wrote: >>> >>>>In article ch.edu>, >>>> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>I prefer not to have my lights pop on for a couple of minutes just >>>>>>>because I want to use the windshield washers, thank you. >>>>> >>>>>>Pardon me, but why would you *care*? What harm does it do? >>>>> >>>>>>>Because it is ****ing annoying, that's why. >>>>> >>>>>>Annoying, how? You can't even see your own lights. >>>>> >>>>>Alan, I notice you're in BC. Are you, by chance, a transplanted >>>>>American? >>>>>Your "Me first, **** the rest of the world, I'm the only one whose >>>>>annoyance counts" attitude is most unCanadian. >>>> >>>> >>>>LOL >>>> >>>>You couldn't be more wrong. >>>>I have a "why choose annoyance over little stuff" attitude. >>>> >>>>Face it: how would the OP even know to be annoyed if no one told him >>>>that the lights were coming on? >>>> >>> >>>He wouldn't, if his dashboard were all analog. However, when all the >>>digital displays suddenly become unreadable (because they've dimmed for >>>"night mode...") >> >> >> Sorry, but we don't know that the OP's dashboard is digital. >> > > Name one modern car that doesn't have at least a couple digital displays > in the dash. > > nate > I can't name any. Even the cheap Dodge neon's and Chevy Cavaliers have a couple components that are digital (usu. the radio and odo displays at least). |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"JohnH" > wrote in message ... >>> The way you describe your Jeep working sounds much more logical. >> >> I prefer not to have my lights pop on for a couple of minutes just >> because I want to use the windshield washers, thank you. > > They don't. Apparently there are some engineers at Chrysler who design > for the Real World (tm). > > A good thing. They need to teach the GM engineers a thing or two then! ;-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Enable Caravan Daytime Running Lights (DRL's) Option | ls_dot1 | Chrysler | 11 | May 26th 05 01:49 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Pete | Technology | 41 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Daniel J. Stern | Driving | 3 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Why no rear lights with DRLs? | Don Stauffer | Technology | 26 | April 26th 05 04:16 AM |
Chevy Tahoe DRls? | BE | Driving | 0 | March 28th 05 03:45 PM |