Chevrolet Malibu sales jump 51.5%; dealers pleased

Page 3 of 4  


Well, you said yourself that DRL's do increase visibility and reduce accidents in certain situations. You also said that, according to statistical data, the only place where there was a net reduction in fatalities was for pedestrians. So what do we do? Cancel the DRL's, and have innocent pedestrians (who aren't even driving a vehicle, by the way) get killed, or force people to learn about there vehicles? Like I already said, car's are full of safety features that, when used incorrectly, can pose a huge safety risk. Some people still pump ABS equipped vehicles, so do we get rid of ABS, just because some people don't know how it works? That would be akin to getting rid of books, because some people can't read. It's also like blaming the gun for the homicide, instead of the person pulling the trigger. If DRL's are that much of a problem (which, they aren't in Ontario), then people need to be taught how to use them correctly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
80 Knight wrote:

What you do is to implement a safety system that doesn't actually make things worse. It would not be hard to have a warning light or sound that warned when a driver only had their DRLs on at night or in low visibility conditions.
You also mandate standards for DRLs so that especially bad implementations of them, like GM has done on vehicles where they use the high beam headlights, are illegal.
You keep saying that it's the driver of the vehicle with DRLs that doesn't use them properly that's the problem, but you're not going to fix that behavior problem, and meanwhile their cluelessness makes things more dangerous for everyone.
The reason that the only statistical benefit of DRLs is pedestrians is not because DRLs don't work, it's because their benefits in the reduction of head-on collisions is being offset by how they contribute to other accidents.
It really isn't asking too much for the manufacturers to implement them properly, since this is already being done on many imports, such as Volvos, Saabs, etc. There needs to be a way to over-ride them and there needs to be a warning when the driver has _only_ their DRLs on at night (or the warning can be simply when the driver doesn't have their headlights on at night, regardless of the state of the DRLs).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You basically want the vehicle to have a warning system telling the driver the DRL's are on, but it's nighttime, and the full headlights should be on? GM's vehicles already have auto lights. When it gets dark, the headlights come on by themselves. As for the high beam DRL's, they don't bother me in the slightest, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
80 Knight wrote:

Yes, because that's the most common problem with DRL equipped vehicles. The driver thinks that their lights are on because the DRLs (which are usually brighter than European DRLs) are providing road illumination. But they don't realize that their tail lights aren't on.

Nah, we don't have to disagree, anyone that doubts that high beam DRLs annoy other drivers can simply read the NHTSA report, including the NHTSA proposal that the European standard for DRL brightness be adopted in the U.S..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is called "driver error". Has nothing to do with the DRL system.

Oh boy the NHTSA did a report! Seriously, neither you nor the NHTSA can tell me what bothers my eyes at night, or anytime. DRL's have been standard in Canada for years, and no one here complains about them. If you live in a US state where DRL's are not required by law, and wish to disable them, that is what you need to do. Like I said, agree to disagree.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
80 Knight wrote:

Not you specifically, but 80% of the population.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you got that right! One will see Pennsylvania State Police stopping Canadian drivers, on I-81 most any evening, for not turning on their headlamps. A $132 'donation' to the states road system LOL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There's nothing wrong with DRLs'. Any I've seen. The only problem is the anti-GM crowd that jumped on them because GM was the first to make them standard in the U.S./Canada. Did you know that GM plastic is "plastic" and Honda plastic is "leather-like"? They're seeing problems nobody else sees. Prowlers and burglars have to disable them, in order to furtively skulk around. Might be a real problem for them. If you want to stare at DRL's, go ahead. Your eyes. OTOH, there's those intense Euro headlights blinding everybody at night. BTW, the only time I touch the headlight switch in my DRL-equipped '97 Lumina is to turn on the interior lights. There's a sensor that turns on all the normal night time lights when it darkens. And they do go on in heavy rain. Personally, I could do without that automation, but so far it has been trouble-free.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Can we assume you do not ride a motorcycle?
DRLs are NOT standard in the US, the Congress conclude years ago that they caused more problems than the prevented.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:55:46 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

Good assumption, but nothing to do with it. Daytime lights on bikes have only proven good. Makes them more visible so you don't pull out in front of them and cause an accident. I've seen it work. Same for cars, especially the ones colored the same as the pavement, including bumpers. Seen that too.

As I said, they are standard on U.S./Canada GM vehicles - as far as I know. DRL's are the law in Canada. Easier to standardize production. Congress should give Canada the "facts" about DRL's. Include that crap free with the "Waterboarding Manual." Congress conclude? Might be a good idea. Probably got paid by some anti-DRL greenie wackos via lobbyists. DRL's burning use some gas, adding to global warming. Are you part of that crowd? Don't worry about it. You can bypass DRL's in the U.S. and do your part to reduce global warming. Turn down the heat in the house just to be sure. I don't care much about DRL's one way or another, except for arguing More concerned that my toaster doesn't zap me when I stick a fork in there. So I don't.
--Vic

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Vic Smith wrote:

GM is part of that crowd. They got permission to disconnect DRLs when conducting their EPA mileage tests. Considering that the amount of extra fuel that DRLs use is extremely small, you have to wonder why they felt compelled to disconnect them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When the US Congress was considering making DRLs standard in the US, several studies showed DRLs caused more accidents then the prevented. Particularly at times of limited vision and increases in motorcycle accidents. Do a search of the Congressional Record for the facts.
"80 Knight" <nospam> wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:25:02 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

Wacko bullshit. Even you could put something in the Congressional Record. Might as well read the Old Farmer's Almanac.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

The NHTSA study showed no increase or decrease from DRLs. DRLs increased rates for some types of accidents and decreased them for others. The only clear benefit of DRLs that was found was that pedestrians were more likely to see vehicles with DRLs at dawn and dusk, and hence there was a reduction in pedestrian fatalities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I replaced 3 out of 4 2005 Accord hybrid bulbs without looking at the manual (upgraded them to HIR). Got stuck on the 4th one and looked at the manual and found that all were easier than what I did.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nor when the trunk opening is so small you have to fold your suitcases to fit them into the nice sized trunk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On my fathers 2000 Malibu you have to remove the exterior brake lamp assembly to change the bulb! And there's no drain hole for water to exit which means more burnt out bulbs in rainy season.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Father Guido wrote:

I just had to change a brake light bulb on my wife's 1996 Camry. First time I had to change a rear bulb of any kind in 13 years! I was surprised to have to use a wrench rather than just a screwdriver, but it was still pretty easy to change.
I need to complain to Toyota that a bulb burned out after only 13 years. That's the first problem we've had with that vehicle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SMS turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

Yeah, the mid-90s Camry cars were pretty good. They had no guts but decent legroom. I have a buddy with a '95 model. Another buddy has an '05, which has no legroom whatsoever.
--
www.perfectreign.com
Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've rented one twice on trips. Nice car but not perfect. Interior a bit cramped and gaudy. Seemed that they copied the Accord but made it smaller. Would have been better off copying the Camry.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090205/BUSINESS01/902050392/1014/Chevrolet+Malibu+sales+jump+51.5+++dealers+pleased
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.