The dangers of DRLs

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.

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.

>> 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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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."

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

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