A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The dangers of DRLs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old July 7th 05, 03:05 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"CH" > wrote in message
news
>
> I know of several people, who did the override and have no problems. So
> this is not a theory but fact.
>


And wouldn't GM's customers be happier with GM if GM would just do it for
the customer vs, making the customer go through the time and/or expense of
doing it? It would cost GM nothing to "program" these functions to the
buyers specifications if it is as painless as you sem to think. This then
would be a "no-brainer" customer service win for GM!


Ads
  #102  
Old July 7th 05, 03:09 AM
CH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:01:08 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "CH" > wrote in message
> news


>> 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.


And I believe the numbers are much lower than you think. Now what? Is your
opinion better, just because you become insulting instead of stating your
point?

> GM's competitors accommodate this group of potential customers that
> don;t want these things.


I don't think that _anyone_ would be stupid enough to buy/not buy a car
just because of one rather obscure feature. As you can see with Nate, who
seems to feel strongly about it and still chooses the economically better
solution for himself the impact seems to be small.

>> 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.


> 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!


Even 1% is much too high, let alone 4%.

Also, there is cost involved. If GM really took the suggestions from every
minute group that wants /doesnt want a certain feature their cars would
run six figures. Every auto maker in the world implements the features
they think most of the customers want and leaves out the features most
customers don't want. And you can be sure most auto makers have a much
better idea than you and I what the average customer wants or doesn't
want, simply because they have methods of determining that.

Chris
  #103  
Old July 7th 05, 03:09 AM
Harry K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
> 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?

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

Harry K

  #104  
Old July 7th 05, 03:11 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Garth Almgren wrote:
>> On 7/6/2005 1:36 PM, CH wrote:

>
>>>> Power brakes do not activate by themselves -- there is no braking
>>>> effect until the driver steps on the pedal.

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

>
> Garth's absolutely right, and CH is absolutely wrong. I'm sensing a
> pattern.


Me to. Perhaps CH isn't being "willfully" obtuse after all! He really
doesn't get it after all!


  #105  
Old July 7th 05, 03:13 AM
Harry K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



CH wrote:
> 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


Well my mother who dripping wet didn't go over 120 lbs had no problem
driving loaded trucks in the 50s. I knew other farm wives weighing a
lot less that also had no problems. The effort to operate non-power
brakes isn't that much, try it sometime. It is the diffeence between
touching a brake with your toe and actually stepping on it.

Harry K

  #106  
Old July 7th 05, 03:13 AM
CH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:05:03 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "CH" > wrote in message
> news
>>
>> I know of several people, who did the override and have no problems. So
>> this is not a theory but fact.
>>

> And wouldn't GM's customers be happier with GM if GM would just do it for
> the customer vs, making the customer go through the time and/or expense of
> doing it?


The vast majority of customers doesn't care. GM looks good to the
insurance companies (lowering insurance rates) for implementing a safety
feature without an override possibility for control freaks and the few,
who still manage to override it, usually know what they are doing.

Everyone wins, except for the minute number of control freaks, who are
incapable of finding out how to override the feature they don't like.

> It would cost GM nothing to "program" these functions to the buyers
> specifications if it is as painless as you sem to think.


Of course it would cost them, just as the person, who edits your BCM/ECM
is going to charge them. Every extra feature, especially one that
necessitates a more complex light switch (ever priced one of these? Not
fun.) costs money. Yours and mine. And implementing a feature for a tiny
number of customers and charging the big majority for it is a bad idea
business wise.

Chris
  #107  
Old July 7th 05, 03:28 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.
There are way to many to list here. Those documents are all available
online. Have fun with your research.

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.



  #108  
Old July 7th 05, 03:37 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"CH" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:01:08 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>>
>> "CH" > wrote in message
>> news

>
>>> 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.

>
> And I believe the numbers are much lower than you think. Now what? Is your
> opinion better, just because you become insulting instead of stating your
> point?


Responses at NHTSA on the subject are 95+% in the negative. Since that is a
open coment docket that people of both pro and con can post comments to, I
have to believe (and conclude) that the numbers of people that dislike these
things are quite high. Not sure why that is insulting, however.

>
>> GM's competitors accommodate this group of potential customers that
>> don;t want these things.

>
> I don't think that _anyone_ would be stupid enough to buy/not buy a car
> just because of one rather obscure feature. As you can see with Nate, who
> seems to feel strongly about it and still chooses the economically better
> solution for himself the impact seems to be small.


With several people here stating that being the case (that wouldn't buy a
car with this feature), perhaps you (and GM's management) are in denial?

>
>>> 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.

>
>> 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!

>
> Even 1% is much too high, let alone 4%.
>
> Also, there is cost involved. If GM really took the suggestions from every
> minute group that wants /doesnt want a certain feature their cars would
> run six figures. Every auto maker in the world implements the features
> they think most of the customers want and leaves out the features most
> customers don't want. And you can be sure most auto makers have a much
> better idea than you and I what the average customer wants or doesn't
> want, simply because they have methods of determining that.
>


Then explain why GM's competitors have apparently come to a different
conclusion and accommodated this. I assume they are all going after the
same customer base, are they not?



  #109  
Old July 7th 05, 03:51 AM
CH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:37:24 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "CH" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:01:08 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>> And I believe the numbers are much lower than you think. Now what? Is
>> your opinion better, just because you become insulting instead of
>> stating your point?

>
> Responses at NHTSA on the subject are 95+% in the negative. Since that is
> a open coment docket that people of both pro and con can post comments to,
> I have to believe (and conclude) that the numbers of people that dislike
> these things are quite high.


Only people, who have a gripe with something post that. Polls like that
are worse than worthless, they are intentional distortion of the facts.

> Not sure why that is insulting, however.


Some of your other posts on the same topic were insulting and I take it
that you think that the person, who is more insulting, wins.

>> I don't think that _anyone_ would be stupid enough to buy/not buy a car
>> just because of one rather obscure feature. As you can see with Nate,
>> who seems to feel strongly about it and still chooses the economically
>> better solution for himself the impact seems to be small.

>
> With several people here stating that being the case (that wouldn't buy a
> car with this feature), perhaps you (and GM's management) are in denial?


Several people here, who wouldn't touch cars from Detroit with a ten foot
pole anyway and are looking for reasons to hate them. Look at Nate: 'Oh, I
don't like DRLs and automatic headlights, but I'm still gonna get a car
with both because its a financial advantage for me.'

>> Also, there is cost involved. If GM really took the suggestions from
>> every minute group that wants /doesnt want a certain feature their cars
>> would run six figures. Every auto maker in the world implements the
>> features they think most of the customers want and leaves out the
>> features most customers don't want. And you can be sure most auto makers
>> have a much better idea than you and I what the average customer wants
>> or doesn't want, simply because they have methods of determining that.
>>

> Then explain why GM's competitors have apparently come to a different
> conclusion and accommodated this.


Different priorities. Necessity to supply their customers with gimmicks.
And whatnot.

> I assume they are all going after the same customer base, are they not?


Trying to make an ass of u and me?

Chris
  #110  
Old July 7th 05, 03:59 AM
Sir Lex
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


It's scary how many drivers don't give a second thought about their
lights even when they don't have DRL's or automatic headlights.
Personally I like to err on the side of caution and as a result have my
headlights on more often than not when driving. I turn on my lights on
cloudy days, rainy days, in fog, dust, smoke, at all times when on rural
highways, and of course they are always on at night :-P

I figure it's better to have other drivers see me when they first glance
in my direction, seeing as few drivers have the time to double check for
other traffic these days.

The drivers that really bother me are those who do not have their head
lights on in bad weather conditions during the day, when 99% of other
drivers have their lights on. These people must figure it's better to
risk their lives by not making themselves visible to other drivers, than
to have the added burden of remembering to turn off their headlights
when they park.


--
SL

"The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over
to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they
succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it"

Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Minister of Propaganda, 1933 - 1945
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.