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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message news:1120597660.d39a33feca30791119abf034ebb11082@t eranews... > 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). > > ITYM "come on with the wipers" yes? Yes, he stated it backwards. > >> >> It's about as "nanny" as having your brake light come on when you put on >> the brakes. But I suppose you'd prefer a switch on the dash to do that. >> The brake light system works properly 99.9% of the time. Hardly a comparable example to a inferior design that works properly under only one of many "conditions". > > I personally don't like "auto" mode to begin with. My philosophy on such > things is that if you provide an "auto" mode then drivers will assume that > no thought needs to be given to light use, ever - which we know isn't the > case. It's more than a philosophy...it's a known documented form of "conditioning" in training circles. Having such system WILL in fact "condition" people to stop thinking about something. In this case it is something that drivers should NEVER be conditioned to stop thinking about. Rare exceptions exist. > Thus, if you provide an "auto" mode it should be as close to truly > automatic as it's possible to be, because users will treat it as such. Exactly! And, so far, no one has yet been able to design such a fullproof auto light control system that can account for all the variables. An example would be Maryland 's law (section TR 22-201.1) when states that lights (all lights, not just DRLs) are required when "sight distance is below 1000 feet"...). There isn't a "auto" light control system made that can make that determination. > The reason GM is getting scorn for their implementation is that they have > provided an "auto" mode that isn't truly automatic - it doesn't turn the > lights on under conditions that ought to be easily detectable by the > control circuit and yet in most areas legally require that the lights be turned on. Correct. > Hence, a sucky design. **** poor too. > 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. > But overall, the added complexity, to me, isn't worth it, as at least for > me turning on the lights when it's dark/foggy/rainy/whatever is as > automatic as shifting - and having worked on enough older cars, I can > definitively state that I prefer working on the ones with fewer automatic > gadgets as opposed to more. > I agree!!! Until a better system comes along (one that actually works), I don't want it. What is available now is virtually useless (in my opinion...and I used to own one of those GM cars with the "sucky" auto light controls...annoying as hell!). |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:29:19 GMT, 223rem , said the following in
rec.autos.driving... > 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. > Especially bad for the person behind the car in question that is running on DRLs only in the conditions you describe... -- Paul Self-appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:09:43 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> "CH" > wrote in message >> And if it is >> not dark enough for the headlights to turn on automatically, there is a >> nifty little switch on the left side of the steering wheel, that allows >> me to turn on the headlights manually. > > The problem is that the average "joe blow" driver that drives a car with a > "auto" light control system (none work properly, BTW) no longer thinks > about their lights. The average Joe Blow doesnt even think about their lights when they don't have automatic headlights. If I had a dollar for every bozo, who drives around with their lights off even halfway during dusk, I'd buy a nice little island, Hawaii maybe... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"CH" > wrote in message news > On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:09:43 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: > >> "CH" > wrote in message > >>> And if it is >>> not dark enough for the headlights to turn on automatically, there is a >>> nifty little switch on the left side of the steering wheel, that allows >>> me to turn on the headlights manually. >> >> The problem is that the average "joe blow" driver that drives a car with >> a >> "auto" light control system (none work properly, BTW) no longer thinks >> about their lights. > > The average Joe Blow doesnt even think about their lights when they don't > have automatic headlights. If I had a dollar for every bozo, who drives > around with their lights off even halfway during dusk, I'd buy a nice > little island, Hawaii maybe... > > I disagree. The average Joe Blow does indeed think about their lights. Witness the non GM vehicles that DO have their lights on in fog/snow/rain with a manual only switch vs. the GM vehicles that don't with the auto system. One can't argue with the reality of the situation. I will agree, however, that there is a small percentage of driver that doesn't. For that small percentage, the "auto" system would probably be better than nothing (for them..but only them). Having said that, it is hardly a good reason to make it a requirement of the rest of us. Remember, the vehicle lighting laws in most places (at least the one's I've read) clearly states that the responsibility for proper vehicle lighting usage is the drivers, not the vehicle manufacturer. Auto systems are fine IF the driver chooses to relinquish said control to the auto system. For drivers that do not agree to relinquish said control, the manufacturer should provide a total override capability. Most manufacturers (except GM) do. Enforcement would be the best approach. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
"James C. Reeves" > wrote: > > 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. Pardon me, but why would you *care*? What harm does it do? -- 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." |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:11:17 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "CH" > wrote in message > news >> The average Joe Blow doesnt even think about their lights when they >> don't have automatic headlights. If I had a dollar for every bozo, who >> drives around with their lights off even halfway during dusk, I'd buy a >> nice little island, Hawaii maybe... >> > I disagree. That's your right. > The average Joe Blow does indeed think about their lights. Witness the > non GM vehicles that DO have their lights on in fog/snow/rain with a > manual only switch vs. the GM vehicles that don't with the auto system. Around here I cannot see a significant difference, except that GM vehicles tend to have their lights on at dusk unlike a lot of the non-auto headlight cars. > Having said that, it is hardly a > good reason to make it a requirement of the rest of us. Say, where do you all of sudden get this 'requirement' thing from? I merely state that the auto headlights have advantages and that the question of whether or not one wants to have one, is a question of personal preference. > Remember, the vehicle lighting laws in most places (at least the one's > I've read) clearly states that the responsibility for proper vehicle > lighting usage is the drivers, not the vehicle manufacturer. Auto > systems are fine IF the driver chooses to relinquish said control to the > auto system. For drivers that do not agree to relinquish said control, > the manufacturer should provide a total override capability. Most > manufacturers (except GM) do. 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. > Enforcement would be the best approach. There are too many laws already, why would you want something that minor cast into legalese? It's really not that difficult, walk into a Toyota or Honda dealership and buy one of their cars, if you don't like GM. The choice is yours. Chris |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >, > "James C. Reeves" > wrote: > > >>>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. > > > Pardon me, but why would you *care*? What harm does it do? Because it is ****ing annoying, that's why. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Baker" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > "James C. Reeves" > wrote: > >> > 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. > > Pardon me, but why would you *care*? What harm does it do? > > -- 1. One can't see the radio/odo/trip computer/compass displays, etc. etc. when those displays dim for that 1-2 minutes as the auto system runs through it's cycle. (I suppose one could keep adjusting the dash light control to resolve this...but that is more work than just having a switch for the lights in the 1st place). 2. Incandescent lamps suffer most from intermittent use that cycling creates. When voltage hits a cold filament, it's resistance causes a influx of current that reduces bulb life of all lamps that are impacted from the unnecessary cycling. See the GE lighting catalog online. Lamp life ratings are generally given based on hours between "starts" or "continuous duty" ratings vs. "intermittent" duty ratings. (But unnecessary cycling being the operative word here reduces lamp life). 3. So, add the unnecessary wiper activation/cycling of lamps to the unnecessary lamp cycling that is already occurring when traveling in and out of heavily wooded areas, lamp cycling as one is in heavy traffic and goes under bridges and overpasses, etc. All of the unnecessary lamp cycling (regardless of reason) can be especially annoying to the person that just happens to be in front of you having all this going on in their rear view mirror as well. Which makes one wonder if there isn't some sort of idiot following them...what? There just isn't any excuse to put up with **** poor systems design like that. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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. And you cant switch them off, no matter what, if the engine is running. Annoying as hell. I want full control of my vehicle. Fortunately, Nissan seems to understand that. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
CH wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:11:17 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: >>Remember, the vehicle lighting laws in most places (at least the one's >>I've read) clearly states that the responsibility for proper vehicle >>lighting usage is the drivers, not the vehicle manufacturer. Auto >>systems are fine IF the driver chooses to relinquish said control to the >>auto system. For drivers that do not agree to relinquish said control, >>the manufacturer should provide a total override capability. Most >>manufacturers (except GM) do. > > > 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. 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. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
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 |