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
  #181  
Old July 9th 05, 02:31 AM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"CH" > wrote in message
news
> 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.


Although the theft rate is considerably higher for the 2004 Sebring LXi I
have now compared to the 2003 Malibu LS it replaced, I pay about $105 a year
*less* for the insurance on the Sebring than I did on the Malibu. The
Malibu had these DRL and ABS safety features you seem to love so much that
the Sebring doesn't have. Coverage is identical for both. "Garaging" and
commute distance is identical for both. Annual mileage estimate is
identical for both. Yet the Malibu's insurance was higher. Care to tell me
why the insurance cost was higher for the vehicle that supposedly had the
better safety features? I asked my insurance company. The response what
that the average loss was higher for the Malibu. Since the Malibu is stolen
less frequently, the higher loss must be for other reasons (either higher
accident rates, or more costly to repair when damaged...dunno). Again
you're apparently flat out wrong making assumptions that one saves money
because a car has DRL's...it ain't necessarily so.

>
> 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.


No one wins when there is a self-proclaimed big brother (GM) imposing their
will on the customer by telling them how they *must* use their cars in a
otherwise legal manner. Is GM the government now?

>> 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.


Doesn't seem to be a problem for GM's competitors to accommodate the
customer in this regard. GM should try it...maybe they wouldn't need so
many gimmicks to sell their cars.

> And implementing a feature for a tiny
> number of customers


Hmmm.... Thern you go agiin. Let's see, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota all offer
DRLs as no-cost options...they're free for the asking (last I checked).
Less than 5% of Ford and Chrysler cars on the road have them. Less than 20%
of Toyota vehicles do (after 2000 model year when they realized they had
made a significant mistake from customer feedback after mandating them on
certain 1998 & 1999 models). That tells me that, given the choice, the
majority of car buyers choose not to have DRL's. I would say that that is a
majority number, NOT a "tiny number" as you seem to think it is.

> and charging the big majority
> for it is a bad idea business wise.
>


Why is it only bad for GM and not bad for everybody else that makes cars.
Doesn't make sense. Seems like most everyone else is able to sell their
cars better than GM can. Perhaps GM should give customers what they
want...and they will sell cars again! If a customer doesn't want DRLs, turn
them off. Seems simple enough to do rather than loose sales, doesn't it?
Must be simple, their competitors manage to find a way.






Ads
  #182  
Old July 9th 05, 02:34 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:52:24 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> CH wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>

> Are you the same guy who thought that the Camaro was a great car?


I never said 'great car', but good car, which it is.

That I supposedly claimed it is 'great' was injected into the thread by a
few haters so often that a few gullible other people started believing it.

> So Nissans suck, but the POS boy racers GM puts out are great?


I would say a car that eats expensive performance tires at the rate the
350Z does, does indeed suck.

And concerning the boy racers, around here most Camaro and Trans Am
drivers are in their thirties and forties and usually drive rather
responsibly, whereas the 350Z seems to be en vogue among the 'graduated
ricers' who want to rice out a nicer car than the fartpipe and parkbench
equipped POS Civics and Integras they had before.

If you love or hate a car because of its image you are not a very smart
person.

I know the limitations of the Camaro very well, much better than you guys,
because I actually own one instead of just repeating, what other people
say about them (who of course don't own one either).I also know the
virtues of the car better than you guys do, for the same reasons. I can
live with the limitations and happen to like some of the virtues of the
car very much, which is why the car is right for me.

And unless you are completely stupid you select cars according to the very
same principles I use. Of course your likes and dislikes are different, so
you will likely arrive at a different conclusion. Maybe the 350Z is
actually for you (i.e. you don't mind buying performance tires with every
oil change or you just slap on some cheapo '100000 mile warranty' hardwood
tires). If so, more power to you.

But ragging on a car just because of its image and ragging on a car owner
just because you have different priorities than he has is flat-out stupid.

Chris
  #183  
Old July 9th 05, 02:40 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:33:02 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

>
> "C.H." > wrote in message
> news


>>> Yet, somehow, they did not crash headlong into every obsticle that
>>> presented itself.

>>
>> They had to drive much slower than we are used to. Also the traffic
>> volume simply was much lower.

>
> I agree on the lower traffic volume back then. However, Interstates here
> were posted at 70MPH around here (and are now posted 55-65) and were
> unposted in the mid-west (no limit) where people there routinely could
> legally drive 80-100MPH back then...and did.


.... and encountered 10 other cars on a 50 mile trip. Brakes become
disproportionally more important with growing traffic volume.

>> Would be fun to see you drive one of these 50s bias ply tire cars as a
>> daily driver in today's traffic. Wanna bet that you would change your
>> opinion?

>
> I dunno...I would pull low 14 quarters in my 1967 GTO on bias ply tires.


.... and have a bitch and a half of a time to stop it within twice the
distance a modern sedan uses to stop from the same speed.

> Given the average rush-hour speed here is 5-10MPH these days, it
> probably wouldn't matter much. 90% of the trip is spent "coasting".


I rarely drive during rush hour but I drive in heavy traffic outside the
rush hour, where getting cut off at 75mph is a frequent occurrence. I
watched a good condition older Ford LTD being destroyed in spite of
shrieking tires because the guy just couldn't get it stopped in time to
avoid the Expedition that decided he had to get off at this very exit and
pulled across four lanes of heavy traffic at a 30 degree angle. I (being
first in the Ford's path and thus having even less time to react, had no
problem slowing down enough).

Chris
  #184  
Old July 9th 05, 02:42 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:38:35 -0700, Bernard Farquart wrote:

>
> "C.H." > wrote in message
> news
>>

> I have a 1962 scout 80 that had bias ply tires on it for the first two
> or three years that I owned it, and I have ended up using it as my
> daily driver in city traffic in a city that throughout the nineties was
> rated in the top (or bottom) five cities for crappy traffic. (Seattle)
> I had a 1955 belair fourdoor, also with bias ply tires that I drove for
> about a year in Seattle city traffic.


> So yes, I have already driven quite a few miles in exactly the situation
> you suggest. My opinion remains that you are talking out of your ass.


And my opinion remains that you would see that subject much different if
you were my former flight instructor, who is 5' and maybe 90 lbs. My
opinon also remains that you should not assume everyone is talking out of
a certain backside orifice just because you use that orifice for talking.

Chris
  #185  
Old July 9th 05, 02:45 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:31:44 -0700, N8N wrote:

>
>
> C.H. wrote:
>>
>> Would be fun to see you drive one of these 50s bias ply tire cars as a
>> daily driver in today's traffic. Wanna bet that you would change your
>> opinion?
>>

> It's certainly possible if you exercise a bit of care and look ahead (like
> you're supposed to.) The only difference will be that on the old bias
> plys you will be operating closer to their traction limits than you would
> be on modern radials. Also the bias plys give you a lot more warning
> (squealing, gentle slip) before they let go completely, they have a much
> more progressive breakaway than radials.


You always can exercise caution. And you should, even with modern tires
and cars. Unfortunately you can't forsee everything (like a SUV cutting
people off from the left line at a 30 degree angle because he wants to
make the exit). Of course you could slow down to a crawl but then you have
problems with cars coming from behind.

Bottom line is that caution is feasible to a certain point, but if your
equipment is not up to snuff you still are much less safe than you would
be if your car was adjusted to modern driving conditions.

Which is exactly the point I was making from the very beginning.

Chris
  #186  
Old July 9th 05, 02:47 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 06:39:53 -0700, Harry K wrote:

>
>
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article .com>,


>> Again, steering ratios have increased and steering wheels gotten
>> smaller.

>
> Which has what to do with CH's claim that it takes superhuman strength to
> operate them??


Nowhere did I claim that it takes superhuman strength to operate them.

Sorry, Harry, this is not 'alt.i.invent.fairytales'. Please read properly,
what others are writing and refrain from letting your rage and hate goad
you into making false claims.

Chris
  #187  
Old July 9th 05, 02:54 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 06:45:47 -0700, Harry K wrote:

> C.H. wrote:


>> Btw, I know very well, how driving a heavy car without power steering
>> feels. Unfortunately cars get heavier from year to year, tires become
>> wider and braking grip increased very significantly over the years.
>>
>> The better a tire grips, the more force is needed to brake it to lock-up
>> (as you know the best brake performance is reached a smidgen before the
>> tire locks up).
>>
>> And ever increasing traffic increases the number of braking situations
>> from year to year, adding to the fatigue of driving a non-power car.
>>

> My god!


I am not god, so you may call me Chris.

> I didn't think it possible for you to be so wrong in every post.
> Weight of cars. Would you care to try the weight of a 68 for example
> Impala against the current big Chev? Clue, size for size modern cars
> weigh -less- than the lead boats of the past. As for effort, I drive both
> city and country and rarely touch my brakes except for coming to complete
> stops.


1959 Chevrolet Impala: 3625 lbs
1968 Chevrolet Impala: 3600 lbs
1996 Chevrolet Impala: 4250 lbs

And yeah, I know a few oldsters, who claim they almost never use their
brakes either. Apart from being wrong (IOW not noticing that they are
using their brakes) they usually eventually get into a situation, where
brakes would have been a good idea - and botch it.

> Maybe you need to pay more attention to your driving.


You need to get your info straight, before you post.

Chris
  #188  
Old July 9th 05, 03:23 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:31:02 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

> The Malibu had these DRL and ABS safety features you seem to love so much
> that the Sebring doesn't have. Coverage is identical for both.
> "Garaging" and commute distance is identical for both. Annual mileage
> estimate is identical for both. Yet the Malibu's insurance was higher.
> Care to tell me why the insurance cost was higher for the vehicle that
> supposedly had the better safety features?


Sebring: Geezers. Malibu: Beginner drivers.

>> 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.

>
> No one wins when there is a self-proclaimed big brother (GM) imposing
> their will on the customer by telling them how they *must* use their cars
> in a otherwise legal manner. Is GM the government now?


How can GM 'impose' something on you? Did they force you at gun point to
buy their car? Or were you just too lazy to read the spec sheet and see
that the car has your hated DRLs and ABS?

Fact is: You knew and you didn't mind the features back then. Now you
bought a car that doesn't have them and all of sudden you hate them,
because you can't admit that you purchased the wrong car without
researching it properly.

>> 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.

>
> Doesn't seem to be a problem for GM's competitors to accommodate the
> customer in this regard.


Their foreign competitors are much more expensive. And Chrysler was too
cheap to even fit ABS on the LXi. Funny: Their higher models all have ABS
stock, which clearly shows the reason they don't provide is not to give
the customer a choice but to save a few dollars and make even more dollars
by selling ABS as an optional feature.

>> And implementing a feature for a tiny number of customers

>
> Hmmm.... Thern you go agiin. Let's see, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota all offer
> DRLs as no-cost options...


.... and ABS stock.

> they're free for the asking (last I checked). Less than 5% of Ford and
> Chrysler cars on the road have them.


Before you start claiming further numbers I suggest you back these up.

[anti-GM-rant snipped]

Chris
  #189  
Old July 9th 05, 04:33 AM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:28:05 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:30:38 -0700, N8N wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You actually think I'm going to turn down a free car, insurance, and gas
>>>>- when I drive 100+ miles a day for work - because of a philosophical
>>>>difference of opinion with an auto mfgr.?
>>>
>>>If you thought it was a safety hazard of the magnitude DS and JR
>>>postulate, you would.

>>
>>You make no sense.

>
>
>>Clueless people driving a DRL equipped car are a danger because they're
>>not visibile from behind in fog or rain.

>
>
> If your speed is adjusted to conditions you will not have any problem
> stopping even behind a stopped car with no taillights (not even taking
> into account that a stopped car usually has its brakelights on because
> otherwise it will roll forward due to the AT). According to every state's
> vehicle code you have to adjust your speed so you can stop safely if an
> unlighted obstacle is in your lane. A car moving in the same direction as
> you are at a slower speed thus is not a problem unless you are speeding
> (i.e. driving too fast for conditions).



You are very good at unrealistic theory. Imagine torrential rain
on the interstate. It is bright but visibility is poor, so automatic
lights dont kick in. You cant go too slow, because you'll be tailgated
by the retard behind you. Imagine coming upon a slow granny running only
DRLs, no taillights. You may end up hitting her.

>
> Because if he is smart he won't drive a car he deems dangerous.


Nonsense.
  #190  
Old July 9th 05, 04:41 AM
Bernard Farquart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:38:35 -0700, Bernard Farquart wrote:
>
>>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> news
>>>

>> I have a 1962 scout 80 that had bias ply tires on it for the first two
>> or three years that I owned it, and I have ended up using it as my
>> daily driver in city traffic in a city that throughout the nineties was
>> rated in the top (or bottom) five cities for crappy traffic. (Seattle)
>> I had a 1955 belair fourdoor, also with bias ply tires that I drove for
>> about a year in Seattle city traffic.

>
>> So yes, I have already driven quite a few miles in exactly the situation
>> you suggest. My opinion remains that you are talking out of your ass.

>
> And my opinion remains that you would see that subject much different if
> you were my former flight instructor, who is 5' and maybe 90 lbs. My
> opinon also remains that you should not assume everyone is talking out of
> a certain backside orifice just because you use that orifice for talking.
>


I am talking out of said orifice why? Because I actually had experience
using
the tires in question? Because my opinion is based on thousands of miles of
real world urban driving?

Just because some midget in the 5th percentile of adult body mass can not
do something easily does not mean very much to the rest of us.

I am sure your "former flight instructor" would have a hard time riding an
adult's bicycle, but that does not make the bicycle a faulty design.

Bernard


 




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 05:02 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.