| >No, you don't live in a communist country, just GM thinks it is
| >(since thereis no law requiring DRL).
| So, only the red commies have laws about DRL? Don't bother crossing
| the border into Canada, then.
Been to Canada, it's beautiful up there. But that isn't what I intended to
say (although perhaps it came out that way). GM is acting like the "red"
commies...in a country that has free choice on the matter (the NHTSA rule
state that DRL use is to be _voluntary_ at least as of today). But GM
believes, apparently, that they know better then their customer do and have
crowned themselves as the King Enforcer over something that isn't even
legally required. It isn't their perview to assume such a role and
insinuate themselves into what all state vehicle lighting laws I've read
clearly state is the operator's responsibility (not the manufacturers
| And just what exactly is wrong with DRL?
Too lenghty to go into "exact" detail in a NG. :-) Generally and in
short...thousands of pages of studies and data on record say it all (I've
read through nearly all of them). When taken as a whole and with applicable
individual contexts applied, overall results across all studies are clear in
showing the benefits are at best mixed. I used to believe the DRL idea was
worthwhile. Now, I'm quite certain that they likely are not of any real
value (except possibly at dusk, dawn and overcast situations, but certainly
not at high noon). After 9 years sitting...waiting at the NHTSA and after
many studies and volumes of insurance data on the matter, etc., I'm sure
that if the NHTSA was so sure about their value, they would have made a
final rule (one way or the other) long before now. They're taking much
longer with the DRL item than anythng else on their dockets.
By the way, most of all other car manufacturers, even though they could save
money just like GM is doing from what GM has done, understand (and have
stated such in news article interviews) that the overall results on DRLs are
a mixed bag...no concise or clear direction of benefit. Most then leave the
choice up to their customers, as a car company really should do in a case
like that. They choose the customer desires over their expense
reduction...unlike GM that puts the customer last in that equasion.
| For many idiot drivers - no, James,
| I'm not saying you are - who don't even bother turning
| the lights on at all, this is at least a step in the right direction.
I agree with you that far too many people don't turn on their lights when
they should. But GM's own auto light control systems don't always do very
well at that either. My 2003 Malibu LS almost never would activate the real
lights in daytime fog, for example (or snow or rain). Or, I would leave the
house on a foggy morning shaded by trees and would have the lights on, BUT
the car would turn them off on it's own without me noticing somewhere during
the trip into the office. Since it was still foggy, I could have gotten a
ticket since the car can't tell when it's foggy and subsiquently turned my
lights off when it shouldn't have. Sure I could have turned on the switch
when I left, but the lights were already on...seems silly to turn on a
switch when it doesn't do anything. But, I learned that I had to anyway
(which questions the value of the auto system IF one still must turn on a
switch most of the time)?
So for those of us that do operate the lights properly (I am anal about
it...can you tell!?), or just simply feel more comfortable driving a car
with manual light controls and knowing for certain EXACTLY the state of
their lights at all times (since they have total control over them) and can
be certain that they won't be turning themselves off by themselves when they
shouldn't and without the operator's informed concent, shouldn't have to be
confronted with dumbed-down idiot and sometimes confusing "auto" controls.
| Chrysler went from having the normal headlights on at part intensity
| to using those damned turn lights that for some reason are BRIGHTER
| than the normal headlights.
I've not seen a single Chrysler vehicle with this configuration here in the
states. But then, Chryslers don't have DRLs at all here. (Neither does
Ford, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Mercury, Honda, Most Toyotas, etc. etc.) GM's
are the ones here with the turn signal DRLs. I haven't found them to be
brighter personally though, especially compared to older Saturns, Blazers
and other GMs that use the high-beam designs. But, I guess it's possible
that some are brighter and I just haven't personally seen them. I'll take
your word for it. What I have found is as stated earlier, improper turn
signal intrepretation on occasion with that configuration.
| We've all had this arguement before. Don't give me the crap about
| about having the "freedom" not to operate your lights.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people that benefit from "freedoms"
don't care when they're slowly, piece-by-piece taken away....ESPECIALLY when
it's not even a government doing it, but a car company! Do you REALLY want
a car company enforcing it's will on you against YOUR better judgement?
BTW: state vehicle lighting laws deal with when lights are required...so
while a person can be free not to turn their lights on, the cop is free to
give them a ticket. But it certaninly shouldn't be the car manufacturers
(or any non-government or non representative entity) enforcing the laws.
Some people fight and die for freedoms. Others, I guess, don't care and
just roll over and take it...even from their car company! I'll give a hint,
you really don't have to take it from your car company! ;-)
| What is REALLY the
| reason you don't want the DRL?
In short, personal choice and informed judgment. To explain, I happen to
believe the studies (and there are many) like the very comprehensive 1997
Highway Loss Data Institute (HDLI) study that resulted in a 8% increase in
overall accident rates of DRL equipped cars, insurance industry statistics
that have a unexplained very slight (statistically insignificant though)
higher loss rates for those cars so equipped as well. The Perot and Prowler
study done this year is the most recent. The Wisconsin and Oregon's 2-way
highway studies...no change in accident rates during the study periods in
both cases (done in the 1980,s before the issue was politicized). There are
many more. Then factor in the fact that nearly all of the studies that are
pro-DRL were commissioned and paid for by those with interests (financial,
political or otherwise) in promoting DRLs, OR paid for by lawmakers with the
ego never to accept that a law they passed may not have had the effect they
sold it on. All which certainly makes the results of those pro studies VERY
suspect. Remove those "tainted" studies and DRLs are likely actually
causing certain types of accidents (motorcycle, pedestrian, children/cycles,
emergency vehicle collisions, funeral processions, etc.)
But let's say for argument sake that DRLs have some benefit. For those
(usually older) people that have a problem with glare, and pay a personal
price by getting headaches driving to see their grandchildren, etc. should
have the choice of doing their own cost/benefit analysis as to the value vs.
cost and make personal choices...as it should be. After all, we all accept
risk every day in life. For example when we cross a street...the benefit of
what is on the other side is often worth the slight risk of being hit and
killed while crossing.
A final thought...as long as we keep doing things for everyone, the sooner
more people will not be capable of doing anything for themselves (a larger
issue) and we'll have ten times the idiots out there than we have today!
The solution is enforcement and fine, not pandering like a mommy and wiping
Johnnys little chin for him.