The dangers of DRLs

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:45:09 +0000, 223rem wrote:

> C.H. wrote:
>> Then his rant against my claim in here that DRLs make sense is all the
>> more inexplicable. Apparently his hatred is clouding his vision.
>
> The current DRL implementation does not involve tail lights. This is the
> biggest problem. Better no DRLs than a half assed implementation.

Tail lights are unnecessary in DRL implementations, the more in
combination with automatic headlights.

The reason is this:

When another car approaches head-on the closing speed is high
_and_not_controllable_by_you_. The other guy could be much too fast, so it
is imperative to see the car as early as possible, thus the DRLs.

OTOH when you approach a car from behind, that is moving in the same
direction (or even stopped) the closing speed is entirely influenced by
you. And you as a driver are responsible for adjusting your speed so you
will be able to avoid even an unlighted obstacle in your path, so a car
without taillights on (which unlike a lot of other unlighted obstacles at
least has mandatory rear reflectors plus shiny paint plus the quite
visible lighted area in front of the car due to the DRLs) is never a
problem unless you are driving _much_ too fast for conditions.

Chris

"C.H." > wrote
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:45:09 +0000, 223rem wrote:
> Tail lights are unnecessary in DRL implementations, the more in
> combination with automatic headlights.
>
> The reason is this:
>
> When another car approaches head-on the closing speed is high
> _and_not_controllable_by_you_. The other guy could be much too fast, so it
> is imperative to see the car as early as possible, thus the DRLs.
>
> OTOH when you approach a car from behind, that is moving in the same
> direction (or even stopped) the closing speed is entirely influenced by
> you. And you as a driver are responsible for adjusting your speed so you
> will be able to avoid even an unlighted obstacle in your path, so a car
> without taillights on (which unlike a lot of other unlighted obstacles at
> least has mandatory rear reflectors plus shiny paint plus the quite
> visible lighted area in front of the car due to the DRLs) is never a
> problem unless you are driving _much_ too fast for conditions.

Why do the Europeans require rear fog lights, then? Try to
compare your rationalization with the reason they're required
(based upon much science and human-factors engineering.)
Guess what, you can't.

Floyd

C.H. wrote:
> I would be interested in what he has to say if he was able to say
> so in a civil manner.
>

Nonsense. You've proven otherwise in just about every intereaction
I've ever seen you have with Daniel.

E.P.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:37:55 -0700, fbloogyudsr wrote:

> "C.H." > wrote

>> OTOH when you approach a car from behind, that is moving in the same
>> direction (or even stopped) the closing speed is entirely influenced by
>> you. And you as a driver are responsible for adjusting your speed so you
>> will be able to avoid even an unlighted obstacle in your path, so a car
>> without taillights on (which unlike a lot of other unlighted obstacles
>> at least has mandatory rear reflectors plus shiny paint plus the quite
>> visible lighted area in front of the car due to the DRLs) is never a
>> problem unless you are driving _much_ too fast for conditions.
>
> Why do the Europeans require rear fog lights, then? Try to compare your
> rationalization with the reason they're required (based upon much science
> and human-factors engineering.) Guess what, you can't.

Don't ask me why any specific law is in effect, you wouldn't like my
answer. Rear fog lights are mandatory but one of the most hated (by almost
all drivers) additions to the StVZO (Strassenverkehrs-Zulassungsordnung).
They do increase visibility of a single car to a degree and at the same
time make people overestimate visibility. The original implementation made
people confuse rear foglights with brake lights, which is why only one
rear foglight is legal. Most German drivers I know doubt that there has
any human-factors engineering and science involved in making them
mandatory). And most of them, given a vote in the case, would vote for
abolishment of said rear foglights.

From my personal experience the rear foglights don't help at all, although
we had quite a lot of dense fog in the valley of the river Amper, as
visibility of single cars is never a problem given speed adjusted to
conditions. They sometimes turned out to be a problem though. People would
drive significantly too fast because they saw the rear foglights ahead and
thought that they could see other things at the same distance.
Unfortunately several accidents on the notorious B12 and B471 two-lane
express highways have been attributed to people seeing a car with rear
foglights far ahead and then running into an unlighted obstacle, because
visibility was not even close to as good as they thought.

Now a nice piece of homework for you: Explain why all northern european
countries have mandatory DRLs with all your 'human-factors engineering'
and science involved? They have a lot of fog, so DRLs should be dangerous
according to you. Explain.

Chris

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:56:36 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
>> C.H. wrote:
>>> Nate, I know you can't control your anger very well, so I will leave you
>>> to yourself until you have regained your composure.
>>>
>> I'm not angry at all, just trying to find words that adequately express
>> my
>> lack of respect for your intellect.
>
> Nate, I had quite some respect for you until now. My opinion differs from
> yours but is just as well expressed, reasoned and properly referenced. To
> call stupid just because I don't share your opinion is not worthy of an
> intelligent person.
>
> I will let you cool off some more, maybe the old Nate will reemerge once
> you get your composure back.
>
> Chris

Nate said: "I'm not angry at all, just trying to find words that adequately
express my
lack of respect for your intellect."

CH interpreted: "To call stupid just because I don't share your opinion is
not worthy of an
intelligent person."

I see nowhere where Nate called anyone "stupid". CH, you need to stop
making this stuff up guy! The situation DOES call into question "intellect"
when your restatement is far from what the original statement said!

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:28:14 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Wow. Pretty accurate!
>>What about Nissans Maxima?
>
>
> Graduated ricers.

So all fast Jap cars are for ricers?

BTW, Nissan is owned by Renault.

C.H. wrote:

>
> Now a nice piece of homework for you: Explain why all northern european
> countries have mandatory DRLs with all your 'human-factors engineering'
> and science involved? They have a lot of fog, so DRLs should be dangerous
> according to you. Explain.
>
> Chris

The drivers in Northern Europe are much more competent on averge
than the drivers in North America. And they'd never forget to
turn on their tail lights in low visibility conditions.

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:45:09 +0000, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>Then his rant against my claim in here that DRLs make sense is all the
>>>more inexplicable. Apparently his hatred is clouding his vision.
>>
>>The current DRL implementation does not involve tail lights. This is the
>>biggest problem. Better no DRLs than a half assed implementation.
>
>
> Tail lights are unnecessary in DRL implementations,

No, they're not.

> the more in
> combination with automatic headlights.
>

Wrong. Period, end of story. The reasons have been discussed to the
point of bleeding fingertips. Just like the indisputable fact that turn
signal DRLs are a nasty hack and should never have been allowed.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:37:55 -0700, fbloogyudsr wrote:
>
>
>>"C.H." > wrote
>
>
>>>OTOH when you approach a car from behind, that is moving in the same
>>>direction (or even stopped) the closing speed is entirely influenced by
>>>you. And you as a driver are responsible for adjusting your speed so you
>>>will be able to avoid even an unlighted obstacle in your path, so a car
>>>without taillights on (which unlike a lot of other unlighted obstacles
>>>at least has mandatory rear reflectors plus shiny paint plus the quite
>>>visible lighted area in front of the car due to the DRLs) is never a
>>>problem unless you are driving _much_ too fast for conditions.
>>
>>Why do the Europeans require rear fog lights, then? Try to compare your
>>rationalization with the reason they're required (based upon much science
>>and human-factors engineering.) Guess what, you can't.
>
>
> Don't ask me why any specific law is in effect, you wouldn't like my
> answer. Rear fog lights are mandatory but one of the most hated (by almost
> all drivers) additions to the StVZO (Strassenverkehrs-Zulassungsordnung).
> They do increase visibility of a single car to a degree and at the same
> time make people overestimate visibility. The original implementation made
> people confuse rear foglights with brake lights, which is why only one
> rear foglight is legal. Most German drivers I know doubt that there has
> any human-factors engineering and science involved in making them
> mandatory). And most of them, given a vote in the case, would vote for
> abolishment of said rear foglights.

CH attempts to second guess the German authorities! Priceless!

BTW, they're used in other countries besides Germany - are they ALL
wrong then?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

C.H. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:56:36 -0700, N8N wrote:
>
>
>>C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>Nate, I know you can't control your anger very well, so I will leave you
>>>to yourself until you have regained your composure.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not angry at all, just trying to find words that adequately express my
>>lack of respect for your intellect.
>
>
> Nate, I had quite some respect for you until now. My opinion differs from
> yours but is just as well expressed, reasoned and properly referenced.

No, it's not. It is well expressed, I'll give you that, but the other
two - I don't think so.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel