The dangers of DRLs

"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.