Cancelling DRL on Impala 2003

Page 5 of 5  
Might as well save it. Most of the GM lemmings here in this NG will never believe that GM is making suckers out of them by lying to them over these things. Yet all the evidence is there...much of it on file at the
NHTSA...assuming you don't "cherry pick" the information, but take the time to review it ALL in it's _entirety_! Perot & Prowler being the most recent comprehensive white paper on file on the matter (great reading if interested in the subject). The most recent _independent_ information is ever increasingly damaging to GM's "position" on DRLs. Insurance accident loss data hasn't shown any conclusive benefit (in fact, cars with DRLs have a very slight higher accident loss rate). So real data is coming in...the results certainly are not what most expected.
What is really quite sad is that we've yet to see what the real world implications will be from the relatively recent DRL implementation using the turn signal lamps as DRLs. Surely the ambiguity of increased likelihood of misinterpreting a signal that that DRL design will create under certain driving situations can't be a good thing! I really do wish that GM would just STOP using those of us on the road as their experiment ground! <sigh>
| However, tests conducted by the Engineering Departments of two | Universities, for the State of Pennsylvania when they were | considering the use of DRL's, indicated that DRL's was NOT one of | them. Engineering studies indicated the opposite to be true, | that DRL's would lead to MORE accidents in certain driving | conditions, rather than fewer.. One can search the archives of | the Pa State Senate, or those of Penn State and Lehigh | Universities, for the reports on the dangers of DRL's for anybody | wanting to catch up on CURRENT science in the field. Similar | findings were presented to the US Congress when the US Senate | turned down GM's request to make DRL's mandatory in the USA. The | reports are available in the 'Congressional Record,' as well, for | those wishing verification. ;) | | | mike hunt | | | | Matt Keefer wrote: | > | <snip> | > I know you Yanks are incredibly anal about mandatory things | > like seatbelts, and safety, and distrustful of anything | > labelled "for your own good".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You picked the wrong tact there. Tell you what. Why don't you Canadians just outlaw driving, or at least for everyday folks or recreational driving? Heck it would be safer, and that is more important than self determination and freedom right? You just damn well don't need lights on when the sun is shining. I realize your point and purposefully went a bit extreme there, but really, some things just don't need to be shoved on folks by big brother. Gotta have balance.
May I suggest some reading? Try this site:
http://www.tuccille.com/scribble/fullauto/auto5.htm
wrote:

** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And in the case of the folks in the U.S., it isn't even big brother doing the forcing (big brother says you can decide for yourself), it is actually General Motors...the apparent big brother wannabe.
| You picked the wrong tact there. Tell you what. Why don't you | Canadians just outlaw driving, or at least for everyday folks or | recreational driving? Heck it would be safer, and that is more | important than self determination and freedom right? You just damn | well don't need lights on when the sun is shining. I realize your | point and purposefully went a bit extreme there, but really, some | things just don't need to be shoved on folks by big brother. Gotta | have balance. | | May I suggest some reading? Try this site: | | http://www.tuccille.com/scribble/fullauto/auto5.htm | |
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| [SNIP] | I know you Yanks are incredibly anal about mandatory things like seatbelts, | and safety, and distrustful of anything labelled "for your own good", but | some things actually do save lives, such as being visible. | |
History tells us that governments throughout time that have forced things on it's citizenry under the guise "for your own good" have been quite often found in the end to be quite the opposite. One should be skeptical (distrustful may be too strong a word, depending on the government) and challenge, especially when it is something that can be considered by some as a infringement. However, in the United States, we're not talking about the government, we're talking about a _car company_ that has clearly overstepped it's bounds on the matter...and THAT should most definitely be challenged.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
James C. Reeves wrote:

In many states, yes they are.

Yes, because the manufacturer offers it as an option. GM does not.
[Infer whatever opinion you want from that, I'm just stating fact, and I'm sure as hell not getting into a discussion over whether GM is right or wrong in this regard.]
One other thing: I know that in my state (New Jersey) a vehicle that has its "Service Vehicle Soon" or "Service Engine Soon" light will fail inspection. And in most cases, disabling the DRLs on a GM vehicle will light up the SVS, giving you a guaranteed fail.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| > | I don't know about your state laws, but my state says that lights must | > | work as designed and OEM lights must operate when the vehicle is | > | inspected. | > | > Interesting then that many police departments disable them. I guess they're | > exempt? | | In many states, yes they are. | | > How about Toyotas, BMWs, Benz's, Volvos, etc. that will disable DRLs | > upon owner request (and most buyers do)...they exempt too? | | Yes, because the manufacturer offers it as an option. GM does not. | | [Infer whatever opinion you want from that, I'm just stating fact, and | I'm sure as hell not getting into a discussion over whether GM is right | or wrong in this regard.]
Aw...common, what's the fun in that!? ;-)
| | One other thing: I know that in my state (New Jersey) a vehicle that has | its "Service Vehicle Soon" or "Service Engine Soon" light will fail | inspection. And in most cases, disabling the DRLs on a GM vehicle will | light up the SVS, giving you a guaranteed fail.
Yep. Same in Maryland.
| | | | -- | E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. | Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. |
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.