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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. Technofobe? Are you saying that automatic headlights and similar features are high-tech? No, they're not. Examples of real high-tech features: traction control, stability control, electronic brakeforce distribution, advanced airbags. These are the kind of high-tech features I like in a modern car. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, 223rem wrote: > > >>Yesterday, in northern Michigan, was raining torrentially, and >>visibility was almost zero. Almost everyone was driving with their >>lights on, except for the GM cars, which had only their headlights >>(DRLs) on. Real helpful on the road in poor visibility conditions! Lots >>of GM cars have DRLs and automatic headlights, and give you the >>impression that you dont have to worry about your ligths. > > > I see this literally every day (night) here in Ontario, where all new cars > have been equipped with DRLs since 1/1/90. A steady stream of cars running > only DRLs (or DRLs plus parkers and markers) without proper headlamps. > It's such a simple, basic problem, and it's so incredibly easy to fix, but > the regulator in charge of Canada's lighting laws says the problem doesn't > exist. True, but I am more concerned about *tail-lamps* not being on in DRL equipped cars. That's really dangerous in low visibility conditions. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
>> You technophobes crack me up. > > Technofobe? Are you saying that automatic headlights and similar > features are high-tech? No, they're not. > > Examples of real high-tech features: traction control, stability > control, electronic brakeforce distribution, advanced airbags. > These are the kind of high-tech features I like in a modern car. Somewhat ironically, the only automatic control I regularly disabled was the "traction control" in my old 1996 Corvette. That thing was way too sensitive for my liking. Let's add to that the annoying proximity detector lock it also had; everytime I walked near the friggin car it'd unlock. Silly gimmick. Chrysler does a far better job with these automatic things IMHO. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
JohnH wrote:
> Chrysler does a far better job with these automatic things IMHO. You mean Daimler. All the good high tech stuff Chrisler puts in their cars comes from Mercedes. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, 223rem wrote:
> > I see this literally every day (night) here in Ontario, where all new > > cars have been equipped with DRLs since 1/1/90. A steady stream of > > cars running only DRLs (or DRLs plus parkers and markers) without > > proper headlamps. It's such a simple, basic problem, and it's so > > incredibly easy to fix, but the regulator in charge of Canada's > > lighting laws says the problem doesn't exist. > > True, but I am more concerned about *tail-lamps* not being on in DRL > equipped cars. That's really dangerous in low visibility conditions. Erm...that's implicit in the problem of "running only DRLs" I mention above. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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...") nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:33:09 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> 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. Chris |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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. > 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. Chris |
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 |