The dangers of DRLs

"CH" > wrote in message
news
> 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

Boy did Daniel's comment go way over your head.

"223rem" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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!

And if you're a camper...it's common courtesy to enter the camp ground with
only your parkers on. Can't do that in most GM cars either...you have no
choice but to annoy (and/or awaken) the other campers. But some people are
selfish and don't care about annoying other people, I suppose.

In my case, when I comp home late, I like to cut the headlamps before
turning into my driveway since the angle of the driveway shines headlights
right into the bedrooms. I couldn't cut the headlamps on the Malibu I used
to own. Hell the damn headlamps stayed on for a miinute after I turned the
blasted car off!! (which only made the problem worse).

>
>
>> 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.

But Nissan obviously understands how people use their lights in the real
world, at least. Not sure how tire alignment design has anything whatsoever
to do with lighting systems design though. (Apples and Oranges)

>
> So that problem alone dismisses Nissan in your eyes?
>

>> Washing turns on the wipers without turning on the lights.
>>
>
> Somehow it must know the difference...a good thing.

It's pretty simple - one pushes the button IN to wash ( which momentarily
activates the wiper without turning on the lights) or twists it to operate
the wiper (which also activates the lights when in AUTO mode).

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
news:1120643773.6151a1501fd47b981402a57eda947826@t eranews...
> 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
>

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.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, CH wrote:

> Weird, I never got into a situation, where the DRLs had a negative impact
> on safety

Yes, you did. You may not know enough about the effects of lighting upon
safety, but that doesn't mean there's no such effect.

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. Power steering,
likewise, does not remove directional control of the car from the driver;
there is no steering effect until the driver moves the steering wheel. ABS
is a borderline case; it reduces one kind of car control and augments
another kind of car control. Whether the tradeoff is a good one depends on
the implementation and the driver. In no case, however, is any of these
items analogous to DRLs.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, CH wrote:

> There are a lot of plans of how to override the automatic headlights on
> the web as far as I know.

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.

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.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Alan Baker wrote:

> > > Pardon me, but why would you *care*? What harm does it do? 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.

> You couldn't be more wrong.

Evidence you've provided indicates otherwise. You apparently care not a
jot for the annoyance of others.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:11:56 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, CH wrote:
>
>> 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.

An adult would not go ballistic if things don't go his way. That's what
three year olds do.

I suggest you get a grip on your manners, if you want to be seen as an
adult.

Chris