Of course insurance company's know what equipment is on any particular model, they have manufactures computerized part lists so they can estimate and repair damaged vehicles.
mike hunt
"James C. Reeves" wrote:
They knew specific options not tied to the model...somehow.
| > Understood, but it is somehow tied to some type of database of other | > information. My example is real. The insurance company knew as much about my | > last two cars as I did just from the VIN # ...and found that information darn | > near immediately. | >
I got this from the GM helpsite a while back. One should be able to help you with the disablel..
For TIS requests: snipped-for-privacy@techline.gm.com For SI requests: snipped-for-privacy@techline.gm.com For SPS requests: snipped-for-privacy@techline.gm.com For LTG requests: snipped-for-privacy@techline.gm.com For Service Info requests: snipped-for-privacy@techline.gm.com
Maybe you're both right in a way. For example, let's say the color isn't encoded in the VIN. The plant and build serial number are in the VIN though. It stands to reason that the plant would know what options, color and other stuff went into which serial number ranges. All they need do is have a database accessible to the dealer or whoever or publish it in a look up book. Simple.
In short, one piece of information can beget another sometimes.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Yes, you can get only that info from the VIN without using a computer. Using a computer, entering the VIN will allow you to get a list of factory-installed options for the vehicle. This list is called a build sheet and can be obtained from the dealer service department for many late-model vehicles.
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:
So it really begs the question.... why the hell are they so motivated in this, that they risk alienating customers or would-be customers? What do they get from forcing this DRL shit on us that they want soooo bad? You would think they would want to please customers, especially when it costs LESS to do so. Hmm.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.That is the $64,000 question. I've asked that very question of GM by telephone, email and by letters to Mr. Lutz himself. The call center person I was assigned wouldn't return my calls, the email response was "we will no longer accept email from you on this subject" (I saved that email and the hundreds of people I showed it too were quite taken aback that GM would send a customer such a email. The two letters to Mr. Lutz went unanswered. Your excellent insight is so obvious that one would think that such a elementary concept would be realized by the GM executives (wouldn't you think?). Obviously their reaction to the subject is to crawl into a hole and bury their heads. They quite obviously don't want to deal with it at all for some reason.
On the cost question, one common theory that is thrown around is that forcing DRLs on the US allows GM to produce one inventory stock of each model for both Canada/US consumption since Canada does require DRLs by law, thus saves GM some amount of re-tooling at assembly and inventory control costs. But that doesn't make complete sense to me since their competitors manage around that just fine and with today's technology the "feature" activation is largely a simple BCM programming change to set one way or the other (since GM needs to accommodate police/military applications that need DRLs to be off regardless). Plus they need to provide other changes for the different markets anyway, such as different speedo faces.
So, who knows. I'm sure it is a contributing factor to their continued loss of market share though.
One interesting note. The first couple of years that Toyota had DRLs they were also mandatory. Now it's a $40 option (or so I've heard). Toyota's management out smarted GM's...they provide what ALL customers want (so they don't loose some of them) and also make a little extra cash on the side to boot! :-) Although a small percentage of the buyers actually take the option. Now recently Toyota is claiming in their commercials that they "outsell every other car line in America". GM..wake up!!!
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.
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.
I can _almost_ see a response like that provided that they had already answered your question or addressed your concern, and you kept asking. But they gave you no response other than to say they never were going to respond. That is a TERRIBLE attitude to take towards a customer. It's almost unfathomable that any business would take such a stance, especially a large one that has real competition.
Even so you would at least expect some sugar coated canned statement meant to dry you up and let you blow away.
Right. I agree completely. They can make them just one way and do a simple BCM configuration change for U.S. customers. No real cost there. Heck, they could even set it up to be where you pay the dealer $25 to make the change. So as long as we're getting into theoretical territory... I have another potential theory that might explain it, even considering the simple BCM change ability.
I'm sure we're all aware of the tort and liability problems we all (especially deep pockets) face in the U.S. today. Could it be that GM gets some kind of liability insurance break for having this "safety" feature essentially mandatory on it's vehicles? Even if they are self insured they may see it as a reduction in liability risk.
Now, I'm not saying that DRLs make things safer. Initial logic would imply they would since they aid in visibility, and visibility is a proven virtue for safety. But things aren't always simple and there can be many other factors that figure in. In the end, large sample statistics should be able to observe the reality. According to what some have reported here, such statistics do not show any marked improvement in safety for DRL forced vehicles. Maybe GM should pay attention.
No joke. If the giant doesn't wake up soon, he may find himself all pinned down & tied up; unable to perform.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.Don't believe everything you read. GM sells more cars than Toyota, so does Ford Motor company, but with different brand manes. GM and Ford both sell more trucks in two months than Toyotas sells trucks in year. Ford and GM sell more trucks than all of Toyota vehicles combined. Ford sell more 'F Series' truck than all of Toyotas sales combined
mike hunt
"James C. Reeves" wrote:
Actually it was on TV so must be true! ;-) Actually I agree. My guess is that it was a play on words, so to speak since they were comparing the brands..which breaks up GM, Ford, etc. in to smaller pieces. It's possible that Toyota sells more than Chevy, more than Buick, more than Pontiac, etc.
| > That is the $64,000 question. I've asked that very question of GM by | > telephone, email and by letters to Mr. Lutz himself. The call center person I | > was assigned wouldn't return my calls, the email response was "we will no | > longer accept email from you on this subject" (I saved that email and the | > hundreds of people I showed it too were quite taken aback that GM would send a | > customer such a email. The two letters to Mr. Lutz went unanswered. Your | > excellent insight is so obvious that one would think that such a elementary | > concept would be realized by the GM executives (wouldn't you think?). | > Obviously their reaction to the subject is to crawl into a hole and bury their | > heads. They quite obviously don't want to deal with it at all for some reason. | >
| > On the cost question, one common theory that is thrown around is that forcing | > DRLs on the US allows GM to produce one inventory stock of each model for both | > Canada/US consumption since Canada does require DRLs by law, thus saves GM some | > amount of re-tooling at assembly and inventory control costs. But that doesn't | > make complete sense to me since their competitors manage around that just fine | > and with today's technology the "feature" activation is largely a simple BCM | > programming change to set one way or the other (since GM needs to accommodate | > police/military applications that need DRLs to be off regardless). Plus they | > need to provide other changes for the different markets anyway, such as | > different speedo faces. | >
| > So, who knows. I'm sure it is a contributing factor to their continued loss of | > market share though. | >
| > One interesting note. The first couple of years that Toyota had DRLs they were | > also mandatory. Now it's a $40 option (or so I've heard). Toyota's management | > out smarted GM's...they provide what ALL customers want (so they don't loose | > some of them) and also make a little extra cash on the side to boot! :-) | > Although a small percentage of the buyers actually take the option. Now | > recently Toyota is claiming in their commercials that they "outsell every other | > car line in America". GM..wake up!!!
===================== Come on Guys! having DRL's do increase vivibility in less than optimum visibility. Most drivers don't put their headlights on untill it's dark. It really doesn't cost you anything because they are on reduced voltage. Don't be so anal. Shees! some people.
That is as good of a theory as any I guess. Although wouldn't the other manufacturers do the same if this were so?
I'm familiar with the text of state vehicle lighting laws. They seem quite clear to me in defining the operator/driver as the one who is responsible for the operation of the lights on a vehicle. Nowhere in the state statute is the manufacturer of the vehicle mentioned of having responsibility. They also define specifically when lights (meaning all front, side and back) are required to be used. So it would seem to me that liability involving use of lighting on a vehicle would rest solely with the operator/driver, since the law says that is who is responsible. On the other hand, if a manufacturer comes along and insinuates themselves into (or indeed takes over completely) the decision process that the law says belongs to the driver, it seems to me that that would actually open a fairly wide door of opportunity of being brought into a liability case, not the other way around. But, who knows, the legal arena can be a odd place at times. One would hope that GM management worked through this same exercise already when they decided to take away control of a key system away from the driver/operator/owner.
Hello. If you've followed this thread at all you should have learned a couple of things by now:
Have a nice day. Sheesh.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Depends perhaps on which if any are self insured or if one company places more or less relative weight on disappointing some customers vs. lessened liability. Hard to say really. It's all just speculation because they won't say for themselves. Uhhg.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
I didn't intend to insult you.....I think we are all anal about something or other, maybe anal was a bad choice of words. This thing about "having control" is a bit strange don't you think? I don't like having my choices taken away from me either, but I'm not going to flip over my car turning the lights on. If that were my biggest worry, I'd be a very happy man :-)) As far as proof is concerned, I know I can see cars sooner if they have their lights on. Wouldn't that make me less likely to make a mistake. Have a nice day too :-))
| > >Come on Guys! having DRL's do increase vivibility in less than optimum | > >visibility. Most drivers don't put their headlights on untill it's dark. | It | > >really doesn't cost you anything because they are on reduced voltage. | Don't | > >be so anal. Shees! some people. | >
| > Hello. If you've followed this thread at all you should have learned | > a couple of things by now: | >
| > 1. Despite casual inclinations to the contrary, DRL aren't proven to | > enhance safety. In fact, some have sited evidence which indicates | > there is no meaningful difference between those vehicles so equipped | > and those which are not. | >
| > 2. Many drivers in here like to control if / when to turn on / off the | > lights, and do in fact mind when their options are taken from them. | >
| > 3. Just because you are someone who doesn't require proof or else | > maybe just doesn't mind having his options taken away, doesn't give | > you the right to insult those who do. | >
| > Have a nice day. Sheesh. | > =================================== | | I didn't intend to insult you.....I think we are all anal about \ | something or other, maybe anal was a bad choice of words.
I can accept "anal" directed at me personally. It fits. :-)
| This thing about "having | control" is a bit strange don't you think?
Not when your state vehicle lighting laws _specifically_ say you're the one responsible and are supposed to be in control (of the lights). Otherwise, perhaps. One could _decide_ to allow a automatic lighting system to do the work for them, (both DRLs and headlamp controls) but for many GM models, the choice simply isn't made available (and it should be).
| I don't like having my choices taken away from | me either, but I'm not going to flip over my car | turning the lights on.
Agreed...which really begs the question as to why not the option for those that want it.
| If that were my biggest worry, I'd be a very happy man :-))
Me too! :-)
| As far as proof is concerned, I know I can see cars sooner | if they have their lights on.
Me too..two miles down the road when it makes little difference if the car is even there or not...or will turn off before even reaching it...which I frankly consider to be a unnecessary distraction from vehicles/objects that are closer and more relivant to be focused on. When the vehicle is close enough to really matter, it is plenty visable either way (lights or not). But to be fair, personal perceptions are different for different people So my individual perceptions are as irrelivant as yours. The only thing we have that is relivant is overall data to show what the situation really is. Anecdotal "stories" are simply not very useful.
| Wouldn't that make me less likely to make a mistake.
The data seem to indicate that it isn't nearly as cut and dried as that. Yes, it would seem so, but things are rarely "as they seem"...always subtle dynamics that interplay that often produce unintended consequences.
| Have a nice day too :-)) |
Thanks...you too! :-)
In summary: Since vehicle lighting laws in most states specifically identify the operator/driver as the entity that is responsible for the operation of the lights, some of us simply prefer the "peace of mind" of actually being in control of something that a law says we should be in control of, especially should a lawyer throw that back at us if "lighting status questions" become a relevant part of some liability case we get sucked into. Although, I suppose that if GM is actually the ones in control of the lights (not the driver) we could bring them into the case as a party to the case...hmmm....maybe that's a good thing after all! ;-) Although GM would probably make the case that upon taking delivery of the car the buyer relinquished control since they essentially agreed by accepting the car with the "feature" and effectively agreed to allow the car to assume their legal responsibility on their behalf. Hmmmm...I wonder if there is any case history on that! ;-) For now I choose to avoid all of that mess by buying a car without automatic lighting systems or DRL so I can decide how and when to use the lights...for now that means buying just about anything but a GM vehicle, unfortunately. :-(
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.