The dangers of DRLs

wrote:

> > I didn't think you would stoop that low, Dannyboy. Badmouthing someone
> > to their face is one thing, plonking them because one is too cowardly
> > to confront an adversary and then badmouthing them in postings from
> > others is something entirely different and much worse.

> Bwahaha! Hoist by your own petard - you did *exactly that same thing*,
> within the last two months. Right here in this newsgroup. And I can
> provide linked proof. LOL.

How droll; CH is making up little hierarchies which Usenet offences are
"much worse" than which others. I'm quivering as I post this, in fear I
might be violating CH's Rules of Usenet Order. What's more, in order to
post his latest tiny-fisted tantrum, it looks as though he used a slightly
different posting address in hopes of circumventing my killfile. Perhaps
*he* isn't smart enough to put together killfilters that work, but that
doesn't mean it can't be done. It was really, really easy, in fact. Took
me all of about 12 seconds.

Sheesh. Some people's children, eh?

DS

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > > I didn't think you would stoop that low, Dannyboy. Badmouthing someone
> > > to their face is one thing, plonking them because one is too cowardly
> > > to confront an adversary and then badmouthing them in postings from
> > > others is something entirely different and much worse.
>
> > Bwahaha! Hoist by your own petard - you did *exactly that same thing*,
> > within the last two months. Right here in this newsgroup. And I can
> > provide linked proof. LOL.
>
> How droll; CH is making up little hierarchies which Usenet offences are
> "much worse" than which others. I'm quivering as I post this, in fear I
> might be violating CH's Rules of Usenet Order.

That's right - he might put you on a list, then scratch you off.

>
> Sheesh. Some people's children, eh?
>

I'm sure his mother would be very proud of his loutish behavior.

Eh, killfiles - who needs 'em? Well, other than reducing the noise
level. That's the nice thing about using a usenet interface that can
do KFing, and other stuff. Kill thread, kill topic, kill by subject
keywords.

Google groups, well, sucks.

E.P.

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
>
> You are missing the point. Yes, your car is ok for you. It would not be ok
> for a person, who doesn't have the strength to consistently operate the
> non-power-assisted brakes in real life conditions. Unfortunately quite a
> number of licensed drivers falls into this category so the car makers need
> to offer cars that these people can drive.

Give me a break, believe it or not, women actually managed to operate
vehicles prior to the advent of power brakes. You are obviously not
familiar with the operation of a standard brake equipped vehicle, or you
would not be consistantly showing your ass here.

Bernard

"CH" > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:50:03 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>>
>> "CH" > wrote in message
>> news
>
>>> Conditioning can only happen if the subject is aware of the condition.
>>> By far the most drivers, especially the bad ones, are not even aware of
>>> DRLs, much less influenced by a fact they don't even think about. They
>>> get in their car and drive. If it gets too dark to see they turn on the
>>> light. Has been like that forever. The good ones turn on the light when
>>> they deem it necessary, DRLs or no DRLs.
>>
>> Documented observations indicate that DRLs exsaserbate the problem.
>
> Documented by whom? When? Where? URL?

As stated many times in this thread (and you've responded, so I know you've
read it), it is documented at the NHTSA. The NHTSA has been studying these
things for nearly 15 years! There is a wealth of information on the
subject available there. Many studies on file, etc. Most are hundreds of
pages...there is no direct link to the page. Much of this is also
documented by the HLDI (Highway Loss Data Institute) where their 1997 study
(which is also available at the NHTSA) actuially shows a 8% *increase* in
accident rates among DRL equipped cars. So, results are mixed at best, it
seems.

>
>> DRL equipped cars are more likely to be driven without the lights in
>> comparison to cars without DRLs. That is not disputed among the people
>> that are studying this.
>
> Then it will be easy for you to post references.
>
>> That is simply a known documented fact.
>
> No, it is merely claimed by you so far.

How so? Did you check the references I provided? If you did, you would
know that you are wrong. Being intentionally obtuse again, are we?

>
>> I would say that what you seem to believe is quite contrary to what is
>> known reality.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but reality is neither defined nor ruled by
> you.

No disagreement from me on that statement!

> You claim 'this is fact' and 'that is fact' and are unable to post
> even a reference.

Yes, the references have been posted several times. So you missed each one?

>
>> In early 1990's the NHTSA agreed to GM's petition to allow voluntary
>> DRLs for study with the intent of making a "final rule" either making
>> them a requirement OR not requiring them at all within ~5-years. While
>> some benefits of DRLs have been documented since then, there are also
>> safety-negative issues that have also been documented (The Perot &
>> Prowler study being the most recent full study on file).
>> Nearly 15 years have passed since and the NHTSA is still struggling
>> with how to implement DRLs (or if they can be) while reducing the
>> negative aspets of them since the negative tradeoffs basically balance
>> out the positive aspects.
>> Insurance loss data from the insurance loss data institite also
>> indicates that there is no overall benefit of DRL equipped cars...they
>> simply have the same level of "loss" as a group compared to their
>> non-DEl equipped cars. The reason may not actually be the concept of
>> DRL's itself, but way they were implemented (yet to be determined,
>> however). Some accident types are actually higher with DRL equipped
>> cars (rear end accidents in particular). Others types are lower. But,
>> it's a wash...at least so far.
>
> Where are the impartial direct references for all that? Your
> interpretations have proven wildly wrong in the past, so Id like to read
> up on all your so called material myself. If the stuff exists you surely
> can post links.

The source references are contained in the paragraph above that you just
responded to. Being intentionally obtuse again, are we?

>
>>> Again, only works if the subject is _aware_, which by far most drivers
>>> arent. Ask the average driver whether his car has DRLs. You will find
>>> most don't know.
>>
>> And a driver not knowing that their car has DRLs or not is a good thing?
>
> In a way, yes. Better than not having DRLs and not knowing that and still
> not switching on the lights in bad conditions.

It is never EVER better for the driver of a vehicle to not know the status
of their lights. Especially since lighting laws specifically name the
driver as the person being responsible for their control. IF a lighting
control system creates this situation as you claim, that is NOT a good
thing.

>
>> So, if the driver doesn't know that the light reflecting back at them
>> from the car in front of them is coming from their DRLs instead of their
>> headlights, they'll intuitively believe that their headlights are on
>> when they're not...and that's not a good thing?!
>
> Most drivers don't even think about things like their DRLs/headlighs
> reflecting from the car in front of them as you can clearly see from the
> high rate of 'one-eyed' or 'blind' cars on the road.

I would say that one-eyed cars, people not turning lights on when thay
should, etc. etc. represent less than 5% of the cars out there
(approximately 1 car in 20). That percentage hardly qualifies as "most
drivers". The skewed concept you have of what the term "most" is (hint, it
is a precentage over 50%, not a precentage of 5%) explains a lot about your
observations of other things, I'd say.

>
>> This makes the very point as to why this phenomonem is so well
>> documented. You've just described so well why it is so! In fact,
>> better than I have, actually. Thanks for making the point!
>
> I didn't make your point, you just drew a wrong conclusion.

Mine is based on what has been documented by those studying this. Your
conclusion is based on...? (been waiting for a while now for that answer).
And yes I've provided references many times...which is more than you have
done.

>
>>>> Some would, that is true. Others wouldn't. There are documented
>>>> cases on file at the NHTSA that dispells your statement.
>>>
>>> Again your mysterious statements. Either quote them or don't try to FUD
>>> your readers with them.
>>
>> I've provided referrences open to public access, which is far more than
>> you have provided.
>
> No, you have provided references to a random website, which may or may not
> contain the info you claim it contains.

The NHTSA site is hardly a "random" site. It is the agency that governs
vehicle safety. They will be the ones that establish the final rule on DRL
use (or not). It's hardly a random site. It has the most comprehensive
information on this topic than any other resource. It IS the site to use to
research this topic.

> No point in telling without lengthy research. Unfortunately
> you are not paying me for this research so I
> suggest you do it yourself if you want to make a point.

If you don't want search for the truth, no problem in my book.

>
>> All of your assertions are from your feelings and opinions. Mine are
>> from sources available to anyone. You are hardly are in a position to
>> ask for more from me when what I have provided as reference sources is
>> far more than you've provided.
>
> Your assertions are from thin air,

I could say the same thing back to you. But that matters not. The
information is avaioable at the references I provided. So where does that
leave us?

> otherwise you would have posted direct
> links to your 'sources' long ago.

I have posted the URL link. Since you seem to mis quite a bit in your
reading comprehension, here it is again. http://dms.dot.gov/ Did you get
it this time?

>
>>>> DRL equipped cars are less likely to have their main lights on in
>>>> situations of rain/fog/snow compared with non-DRL equipped cars. It
>>>> is just a documented fact.
>>>
>>> From my experience: No. If you disagree on the base of NHTSA findings,
>>> post the numbers. Should be easy to do if it's really on file.
>>
>> I don't agree or disagree with what is on file with the NHTSA. I only
>> state what is on file.
>
> No, you claim that these things are on file but at the same time are
> unable to provide a reference to them. IOW, you either just _think_ they
> are on file or you are outright lying.

Oh boy! Well, lets just leave it for those that are lurking (and laughing
at us) to decide if they want to seek facts in the matter or not. They can
follow the links I have provided (or not). When they do, they will know the
truth...AND they will know if it's you that is all wet, or if it is me that
is all wet. I'm perfectly fine with leaving it there at this point.

>
>>>> It's all on fiile at the NHTSA. Even most of the experts in the field
>>>> don't disagree with that (not sure why you do).
>>>
>>> I disagree, because I don't see your alleged 'facts' on the street and
>>> you are unable to provide evidence.
>>
>> And you have provided such evidence from your perspective? You've not
>> even provided a reference.
>
> Neither have you.

Well I'm fine with those lurking making the determinition as to who here has
provided references and who hasen't. I'm perfectly fine with leaving it at
that.

>
>> At least provide counter referrence.
>
> I will go looking for counter-reference when (read: if) you ever provide
> a direct reference to the documents you claim to have seen and thus must
> be able to easily locate.
>
>> Unlike you, I have no problem following the reference to see for myself.
>
> If you had no problem you would have triumphantly posted your findings
> long ago.

They aren't my findings. They are the findings of academics and others that
have researched and studied this for quite a while.

>
>> Another source are the many thousands of internet traffic cameras. Find
>> a city where it's foggy or raining and watch for yourself.
>
> I did. Proves my point.

Did you put on your glasses? ;-)

>
>>> Maybe your '95 Cavalier is defective. My automatic lights work
>>> remarkably well, i.e. even switch on when dark rainclouds or fog
>>> diminishes light intensity.
>>
>> Sometimes they do...that is true. Sometimes they don't. Therefore,
>> reliability that control will be proper is very poor.
>
> Again, you may want to upgrade to a more modern car.

I did! I now own a 2004 Chrysler product. No DRLs. No Auto light systems.
No ABS. Everything works perfectly and as expected now! ;-)

>
>> The vehicle I had was a 2003 GM product. I doubt that a 95 Cavalier
>> model even had auto light control, actually. Curious why the reference
>> specifically to a Cavalier of that year?
>
> I was just making fun of you. You need to have your humor module
> recalibrated.

Apparently so...I still don't understand the reference. I'm certain that
model had neither DRLs or auto light control. So it would be totally
irrelivant to the discussion...even if the purpose was to poke fun.

>
> Btw, if your 2003 GM product doesn't have reliable auto-headlights, I
> suggest you inform your nearest stealer and have the sensor fixed under
> warranty. My 2000 GM product has remarkably realiable auto headlights.

And so thought several people at work when I've informed them that they
pulled into the parking lot with their GM vehicles on foggy mornings with
their lights off. They had no idea their lights were off (so thay claimed).
"They're automatic", they claim. They thought it was "reliable" too. thay
hadn't a clue! For which I've replied..obviously NOT! Same thing with my
neighbor's daughter who owns a Aztek...and her dad that owns a Impala. Both
has left for work on bright but foggy mornings as I watch out of the window,
tail lights dark as thay go down the street. Unbelieveable! Apparently
there a lot of people that need to have their GM auto light control systems
serviced under warranty...yes?

>
>>>> Of course, perhaps you have another explanation as to why more GM cars
>>>> have lights off in these weather conditions compared to vehicles made
>>>> by other manufacturers?
>>>
>>> You _claim_ a difference, but are unable to provide evidence.
>>
>> Yes I have provided the reference.
>
> No, you haven't. A reference is a direct pointer to a document you are
> either quoting or taking info from, not the URL of some random website.
>
>>>> That discussion thread was not about a opinion, it was about lighting
>>>> laws that existed before auto light controls did.
>>>
>>> The discussion thread was about the mysterious dangers of DRLs. And
>>> still is.
>>
>> The main topic yes. The sub topic/discussion thread we were on was a
>> divergent discussion about lighting laws specifically...I guess you
>> missed it
>
> If you start a sub-topic, change the topic of the postings. I asserted
> that you were still talking about the topic the thread is about.

So the actual words in the body just completely escaped you I take it?

>
>>>> Your contributions to
>>>> that side-thread was indeed obtuse since you made a really rediculous
>>>> statement that auto light laws didn't exist before there was auto
>>>> controls. (Something already understood and actually Danial already
>>>> said).
>>>
>>> Maybe you are in danial about red-iculous statements...
>>
>> It's right here in this thread...you said something that had already
>> been said (or implied). Either you were being intentionally obtuse OR
>> you are very slow to comprehend (one ot the other). I would think the
>> former would actually be the better conclusion...so Daniel was actually
>> being nice to you from that perspective. :-)
>
> Your humor module is definitely defective. Your nearest stealer will sell
> you a new one.
>
>>>> The behavior was admittedly a bit over the top...but it's Daniel,
>>>> after all.
>>>> :-) But his point was correct.
>>>
>>> His point was making a fool of himself.
>>
>> How so?
>
> By starting ridiculous rants every time I said something that didn't match
> his opinion - an opinion beatified by his supersized ego.

Hmmm..
You stated "Auto light laws don't exist.
Daniel already said that...for which he called you on the carpet by stating
you were being obtuse (which you were in that excahnge). So, where in that
dialog was their ANY opinion anyone could disagree with. Hint, there was no
opinion expressed in that exchange, by anyone.

>> You were the one that repeated that which was the obvious to
>> the rest of us...and calling Daniel on the carpet over making a
>> statement that auto light laws exist (which he already made obvious he
>> was talking about general lighting laws, not automatic lighting laws).
>> You really are that slow...huh?
>
> If you read the posting again you will find that the last sentence of the
> second to last paragraph was about auto lighting and the next paragraph
> referenced that and claimed legislation exists.

His exact words:

"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."

In that statement, Daniel specifically states that vehicle lighting laws
existed before auto headlamps existed. Obviously the laws that exist
pertain to lighting in general, not to auto systems by his very words
"..long before automatic headlamps."

Yet you replied:

"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."

My reply would have been simplier than Daniels. I would have probably said;
"No- DUH" (since Daniel already implied that obvious fact you apparently
missed). If you look up the word Obtuse...your will see the above exchange
as an example.

Speaking of lighting laws. Can you explain how GM's "auto" implementation
can determine when sight distance is below 1000 feet (a requirement for
lights-on in Maryland). A low-hanging fog with bright sun shining ust above
creates that common condition...especially during morning hours. The
answer? It can't.


>
>>> He has a lot to contribute and ruins it totally because he is unable to
>>> control himself. What a pity.
>>>
>> Well, one can overlook ones faults once they're understood.
>
> Why would I overlook being insulted constantly by someone, whose
> super-sized ego cannot tolerate different opinions?

One can only be insulted if they choose to be insulted. What another person
says is irrelivant. Just ignore it...and certaintly respond only to the
topic itself (if responding at all).

>
>> Daniels contributions are well worth it, despite it all. And if you
>> take the content of the statements, it's usually pretty close to the
>> mark, even if the delivery is a bit much. :-
>
> Not really. Daniel thinks his opinion is god's holy truth.

He is familiar with the same research I am (more so in fact)...It is his
business, after all. I would put his contributions on this topic well above
yours (or mine for that matter) since it is his business.

> It isn't and
> his constant anger management issues don't make it the truth either.

Don't make what the truth? That you were being Obtuse? Well, yes, actually
you were. Now the part about it being intentional...well, that part may be
debatable! ;-)

>
> Chris

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:27:02 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

[a lot of nonsense concerning 'references']

>> No point in telling without lengthy research. Unfortunately you are not
>> paying me for this research so I suggest you do it yourself if you want
>> to make a point.
>
> If you don't want search for the truth, no problem in my book.

That you are incapable of referencing relevant information fortunately is
not my problem. You don't pay me to search 'studies' for you, so I don't
see why I should.

Btw, I hear SCO has an opening for a chief obfuscator and imaginary stolen
Linux code specialist, you would fit in splendidly with SCO's 'we know
there must be some stolen code in Linux, we just can't find it.', James
'I know there must be some DRL studies on www.nhtsa.gov' Reeves.

>> otherwise you would have posted direct links to your 'sources' long
>> ago.
>
> I have posted the URL link. Since you seem to mis quite a bit in your
> reading comprehension, here it is again. http://dms.dot.gov/ Did you
> get it this time?

The docket management system of the DOT? Interesting but not relevant to
the discussion. If you seriously see DRL data on this page, you need new
glasses and a lesson in reading comprehension.

>>> I don't agree or disagree with what is on file with the NHTSA. I only
>>> state what is on file.
>>
>> No, you claim that these things are on file but at the same time are
>> unable to provide a reference to them. IOW, you either just _think_
>> they are on file or you are outright lying.
>
> Oh boy! Well, lets just leave it for those that are lurking (and
> laughing at us) to decide if they want to seek facts in the matter or
> not. They can follow the links I have provided (or not).

If they do they will arrive in places that have nothing to do with DRLs.
Of course they could start digging but the probability that they do is
just about zero, simply because it is the job of the claimant to provide
proper references, not the job of the reader.

>> Again, you may want to upgrade to a more modern car.
>
> I did! I now own a 2004 Chrysler product. No DRLs. No Auto light
> systems. No ABS. Everything works perfectly and as expected now! ;-)

Then let's hope you are not as bad at driving as you are at producing
evidence for your wild claims, otherwise the non-ABS non-DRL car might get
you killed.

>>> The vehicle I had was a 2003 GM product. I doubt that a 95 Cavalier
>>> model even had auto light control, actually. Curious why the
>>> reference specifically to a Cavalier of that year?
>>
>> I was just making fun of you. You need to have your humor module
>> recalibrated.
>
> Apparently so...I still don't understand the reference.

That doesn't surprise me at all.

>> Btw, if your 2003 GM product doesn't have reliable auto-headlights, I
>> suggest you inform your nearest stealer and have the sensor fixed under
>> warranty. My 2000 GM product has remarkably realiable auto headlights.
>
> And so thought several people at work when I've informed them that they
> pulled into the parking lot with their GM vehicles on foggy mornings
> with their lights off.

Unlike you I am quite capable of determining whether my lights _are_ on
and _should_be_ on, so I don't pull into parking lots on foggy mornings
with my lights off. Maybe your bozo coworkers just need some driving
lessons?

> They had no idea their lights were off (so thay claimed). "They're
> automatic", they claim. They thought it was "reliable" too.

It is not very difficult to see, whether the lights are on or not, neither
on non-automatic-headlight cars nor on automatic-headlight cars. (Hint:
The instrument panel lighting is only on when the headlights are on)

> thay hadn't a clue!

They seem not to be the only ones there...

> For which I've replied..obviously NOT! Same thing with
> my neighbor's daughter who owns a Aztek...and her dad that owns a
> Impala. Both has left for work on bright but foggy mornings as I watch
> out of the window, tail lights dark as thay go down the street.
> Unbelieveable! Apparently there a lot of people that need to have
> their GM auto light control systems serviced under warranty...yes?

Most GM cars don't need their light control systems serviced. The system
doesn't provide for every eventuality but is quite a bit more reliable
than the average driver). I prefer a few bozos without taillights in fog
to the same bozos without DRLs _and_ taillights in fog.

[Daniel Stern adoration snipped]

If DS has a gripe with me he should gather his courage and confront me
instead of sending his sidekick to defend him.

Chris

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:59:53 -0700, Harry K wrote:

>> Many competition classes have power brakes, some even ABS.
>>
> Get off it already! Non-power brakes do not take that much effort to
> operate. Jeez, cars (and trucks) went for 40 years before power breaks
> even became available, more like 80 before they became de facto standard
> on most cars. I suppose you also have the false belief that it takes
> weight lifter strength to operate non-power steering.

Classic case of non-sequitur.

Please quote properly.

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.

Chris

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:49:59 -0700, Bernard Farquart wrote:

>
> "C.H." > wrote in message
> news
>>
>> You are missing the point. Yes, your car is ok for you. It would not be
>> ok for a person, who doesn't have the strength to consistently operate
>> the non-power-assisted brakes in real life conditions. Unfortunately
>> quite a number of licensed drivers falls into this category so the car
>> makers need to offer cars that these people can drive.
>
> Give me a break, believe it or not, women actually managed to operate
> vehicles prior to the advent of power brakes.

Yes, they did. Cars with bias-ply tires, that locked up if you even looked
at them and that needed only minimal force to get to that lock up point.

Plus the percentage of women driving and especially the percentage of
women driving more than to the store and back was _very_ small in the 50s
and early 60s.

Chris

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:49:59 -0700, Bernard Farquart wrote:
>
>>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> news
>>>
>>> You are missing the point. Yes, your car is ok for you. It would not be
>>> ok for a person, who doesn't have the strength to consistently operate
>>> the non-power-assisted brakes in real life conditions. Unfortunately
>>> quite a number of licensed drivers falls into this category so the car
>>> makers need to offer cars that these people can drive.
>>
>> Give me a break, believe it or not, women actually managed to operate
>> vehicles prior to the advent of power brakes.
>
> Yes, they did. Cars with bias-ply tires, that locked up if you even looked
> at them and that needed only minimal force to get to that lock up point.

So not only did they manage to drive, they were apparently expert
at handling these leviathans on stone tires!

How did the species survive?

>
> Plus the percentage of women driving and especially the percentage of
> women driving more than to the store and back was _very_ small in the 50s
> and early 60s.

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

Even with standard, non power brakes.

It must not be that hard, huh?

Bernard

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:40:36 -0700, Bernard Farquart wrote:

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

>> Yes, they did. Cars with bias-ply tires, that locked up if you even
>> looked at them and that needed only minimal force to get to that lock up
>> point.
>
> So not only did they manage to drive, they were apparently expert at
> handling these leviathans on stone tires!

No, they just had to contend with much less traffic. Plus the number of
fatalities per driven mile was indeed significantly higher.

>> Plus the percentage of women driving and especially the percentage of
>> women driving more than to the store and back was _very_ small in the
>> 50s and early 60s.
>
> 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.

> Even with standard, non power brakes.
>
> It must not be that hard, huh?

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?

Chris

C.H. wrote:

tems serviced under warranty...yes?
>
>
> Most GM cars don't need their light control systems serviced. The system
> doesn't provide for every eventuality but is quite a bit more reliable
> than the average driver).

Nonsense. The average driver forgets to turn on his tail lights in
DRL equipped cars in low visibility conditions during the day.

> I prefer a few bozos without taillights in fog
> to the same bozos without DRLs _and_ taillights in fog.

DRLs and no taillights in fog is a much more frequent combo than
completely dark vehicles.

Hey, do you work for GM by any chance?