PC to GM Engine Computer link
Jean Gagnon
PC to talk (and listen) to a GM Engine Computer. Does anyone have that?
I do NOT want to modify the Engine's program.
If not, any idea would be welcome! I am desperate! I'll take anything!
Jean
PS. Please Reply to email and group.
John Alexiou
>I am looking for the communication protocol (hardware & software) for a
>PC to talk (and listen) to a GM Engine Computer. Does anyone have that?
Look at the main CHIP on the board. get it's name (MCxx..)
and look up a referance for this chip in a technical bookstore.
for example if it's a MC68HC11 there are 10 million books on it.
>I do NOT want to modify the Engine's program.
>If not, any idea would be welcome! I am desperate! I'll take anything!
>Jean
>PS. Please Reply to email and group.
--
John Alexiou. ja...@prism.gatech.edu.
"There is no heresy or no philosophy which is so abhorrent to the church as
a human being." - James Joyce.
Markus Strobl
>
> I am looking for the communication protocol (hardware & software) for a
> PC to talk (and listen) to a GM Engine Computer. Does anyone have that?
>
>
> If not, any idea would be welcome! I am desperate! I'll take anything!
>
> Jean
>
> PS. Please Reply to email and group.
Most newer GMs are 8192 baud 8/N/1. Output is a UART. If you want to
hook up a PC serial port you need to convert to RS232. you can use
one pin on the parallell port also but you need special SW to do it.
Also, if you want to use the serial port you also need bus arbitration.
Rx and Tx is on a single wire from the PCM.
Have fun.
--
Markus Strobl 96 Z28 6M Black/grph. Borla, !CAGS, PEG2, QLC
Dallas, Texas 1LE driveshaft, Honker, T-tops, CD, leather
F-member 9/93 13.87 @100.31 2.11 60ft ---- 27.5mpg @85mph
Pumpkinsfreek
>
> Most newer GMs are 8192 baud 8/N/1. Output is a UART. If you want to
> hook up a PC serial port you need to convert to RS232. you can use
> one pin on the parallell port also but you need special SW to do it.
>
> Also, if you want to use the serial port you also need bus arbitration.
> Rx and Tx is on a single wire from the PCM.
>
> Have fun.
>
> --
> Markus Strobl
What?
Doug
>Jean Gagnon wrote:
>>
>> I am looking for the communication protocol (hardware & software) for a
>> PC to talk (and listen) to a GM Engine Computer. Does anyone have that?
>>
>> I do NOT want to modify the Engine's program.
>>
>> If not, any idea would be welcome! I am desperate! I'll take anything!
>>
A company called Rinda Technologies makes software and hardware to
read the GM computer. I'll look for the number if you're interested.
Doug
phuresky
Markus Strobl wrote:
>
> Jean Gagnon wrote:
> >
> > I am looking for the communication protocol (hardware & software) for a
> > PC to talk (and listen) to a GM Engine Computer. Does anyone have that?
> >
> > I do NOT want to modify the Engine's program.
> >
> > If not, any idea would be welcome! I am desperate! I'll take anything!
> >
> >
> > PS. Please Reply to email and group.
>
> Dallas, Texas 1LE driveshaft, Honker, T-tops, CD, leather
> F-member 9/93 13.87 @100.31 2.11 60ft ---- 27.5mpg @85mph
I am a little confused on how to hook up the serial port. Where is the
serial port anyway?
Paul
John A Novotny Jr
: > Jean Gagnon wrote:
: > >
: > > I am looking for the communication protocol (hardware & software) for a
: > > PC to talk (and listen) to a GM Engine Computer. Does anyone have that?
The last time I visited Sears (& Roebuck), they were selling a hand-held
display that plugs into the diagnostic port and displays the service
codes. That approach might be easier for you.
--
John Novotny November '96: time to furlough the politicians!
das...@jax.jaxnet.com
In article <4lmrrk$d...@tiger.utw.com>, dmi...@utw.com (Doug) pounded on the keyboard:
>Markus Strobl <eus...@exu.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
>>Jean Gagnon wrote:
>>>
>>> I am looking for the communication protocol (hardware & software) for a
>>> PC to talk (and listen) to a GM Engine Computer. Does anyone have that?
>>>
>>>
>>> If not, any idea would be welcome! I am desperate! I'll take anything!
>>>
>read the GM computer. I'll look for the number if you're interested.
>
>Doug
>
Doug,
Does this software and hardware allow your PC (laptop in my case) to do full
diagnostics with the car on the road? If so, I would be interested in any
info that you may have on this.
Rick
95 Z28 M6 13.789/101.56
rexford_t._hound
>I am looking for the communication protocol (hardware & software) for a
>PC to talk (and listen) to a GM Engine Computer. Does anyone have that?
>
>I do NOT want to modify the Engine's program.
>
>If not, any idea would be welcome! I am desperate! I'll take anything!
>
>Jean
>
>PS. Please Reply to email and group.
So have I. Good luck.
Rex
PTCam
I can tell you a little bit. I have a '93 Z28 and it will start talking
back if you send 5 numbers then wait. They are 244, 87, 1, 0, 180.
Everything is the opposite of a serial port. A 1 is 5 volts and 0 is 0
volts. When it is not doing anything it stays at 5 volts. Baud rate is
8192. A PC can be programmed to 8228 which is close enough as long as you
invert the signals.
The best thing to use is a Basic Stamp II, a $49 mini computer sold by
Parallax. It can be programmed to any baud rate as well as inverted or
non-inverted polarity. I used one to figure out what the Diacom was
sending to the car. The signal is 50 bits long and takes 6 milliseconds.
If nothing answers it does it four times per second.
Here is the actual pulse train (it starts off at 5 volts)
00010111110111010101010000000100000000010001011011
Good luck. You will definitely need it.
Paul Thompson, Santee, CA.
Adam D. Walker
pt...@aol.com (PTCam) wrote:
does yours act the same as the 94's and later??? i know yours isnt
flash-rom upgradable... does that make a diff???
-adam
Doug
>>A company called Rinda Technologies makes software and hardware to
>>read the GM computer. I'll look for the number if you're interested.
>>
>>Doug
>>
>Doug,
>Does this software and hardware allow your PC (laptop in my case) to do full
>diagnostics with the car on the road? If so, I would be interested in any
>info that you may have on this.
>Rick
>95 Z28 M6 13.789/101.56
I imagine you could use it like that. The number is (800) 888-4146.
The picture I saw in a book of the screen has a lot of info on it.
..engine speed, throttle position, barometric pressure, coolant temp,
manifold air temp, injector pulse width, spark advance and a bunch
more stuff.
Doug
Stergios
SnapOn sells a product called a ScanGraphics. It comes with a little hardware box that plugs
into your car's ecm on one end, and it has an rs232 port on the other end. It comes with
software for a pc, and I bet you build your own tsr that intercepts all communication between the
serial port and the application.
Stergios Marinopoulos
ster...@onward-net.com
Ron Johnson
A company called Mextel Inc. makes a product called "DIACOM" that may be what you
want. Their telephone # is (705)595-4146/(800)888-4146/fax(708)595-4149.
Martin Scarr
In <4m5rh6$6...@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> Ron Johnson <Ronald.Johnson%ccm...@x400gw.msfc.nasa.gov> writes:
>A company called Mextel Inc. makes a product called "DIACOM" that may be what you
>want. Their telephone # is (705)595-4146/(800)888-4146/fax(708)595-4149.
No. Diacom is made by Rinda Technologies, of Chicago, 312-736-6633.
Call them for a demostration disk. It's an excellent product.
Martin Scarr <mar...@efn.org>
Edward Rinda
Martin,
Thanks for the referral. Please visit our new web site.
The site contains information on our Diacom program as well as marine EFI
diagnostic software and testers.
Thanks Again,
Edward Rinda
SBA
I hate daytime driving lights so much that I bought a Ford product
rather than a Bonneville, which was my first choice. Stick it GM.
Steve
AKONOWE
>I hate daytime driving lights so much that I bought a Ford product
>rather than a Bonneville, which was my first choice. Stick it GM.
While I'm no big fan of GM either, I must point out that this tactic will
only work for a couple more years until DRLs become mandatory equipment,
just like the high-mounted brake light, airbags, etc.
-- Adam
=====================================================
Adam Konowe, ako...@aol.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Television Producer/Director by day...
Stage Combatant by night...
And not just another net-ignorant aol.com newbie!
-----------------------------------------------------
Noble Blades Stage Combat Troupe Web Page
http://www.clark.net/pub/reichera/noble.html
=====================================================
BJ ASHLOCK
You must not have really wanted a Bonneville. Turning off the daytime
running lights is as simple as pulling a wire on the emergency brake
switch. Even pushing the emergency brake down one click will turn them
off.
Bob
David M. Spera
ako...@aol.com (AKONOWE) wrote:
>>I hate daytime driving lights so much that I bought a Ford product
>>rather than a Bonneville, which was my first choice. Stick it GM.
>
>While I'm no big fan of GM either, I must point out that this tactic will
>only work for a couple more years until DRLs become mandatory equipment,
>just like the high-mounted brake light, airbags, etc.
There are no plans to make this feature mandatory.
--Dave
William C. Devine, II
Pulling the DRL fuse or 'fixing' the wire does the same thing :-P
william
Paul Lu
AKONOWE wrote:
>
> >I hate daytime driving lights so much that I bought a Ford product
> >rather than a Bonneville, which was my first choice. Stick it GM.
>
> While I'm no big fan of GM either, I must point out that this tactic will
> only work for a couple more years until DRLs become mandatory equipment,
> just like the high-mounted brake light, airbags, etc.
It is more appropriate to compare DRL to the mouse belt, not the
air bag. Aigbag was the goal, those cheap manufactures came up with
mouse belt. The real goal for GM is to build real safe car and here
DRL let them play the same game they did with the door mount belt.
Where are the door mount belt? Waiting for DRL to join, hopefully.
By the way, I need some police searching lights to put arround my
car when I drive to Canada. Government there believe people need
to have DRL to avoid accident. I'll follow their rule there; however,
with those GM DRL setup on their high beam, I need the cop search
lights in order not to be out powered. I also need that in every direction
some car might be hitting me - that is front, side and rear. I can do
away with under and above. I WILL put emphasis in the back - I fear
for the rear-end impact the most. Those who thinks DRL is the greatest
thing and stand strong saying it is must, don't complaint when following
me. According to your theory, I am afraid that you can't see me under
the bright day light.
I don't think light is a problem; however, I see way too many examples
people don't see.
When the 55mph were golden rules, I took every chance doing 55mph in
front of cop without aggrovating them. Just wait, if DRL go in effect
as yet another silly law. I'm gona install those lights behind my rear.
Comes in really handy to take car of those tailgater in the night.
Lorin Grable
Unfortunately, daytime running lights will probably be federally mandated equipment
for all new cars in the next few years. (I'm pretty sure that the law in on the
books for compliance within the next few years). The automakers just don't decide
that they are going to arbitrarily add safety equipment to cars-why would they want
to drive the cost up. Canada already has a mandatory daytime running lights law.
I can't say that that car car with its lights on during the day is a pretty site.
But as a previous motorcycle rider, I always had my headlight on (of course it has
manadatory equipment for M/C for many years). The point is that you are more
visible to other people when you have headlights on during the day. Just thick
about that when someone pulls out in front of you in your new car.
Besides, what's the problem when you are in your car driving? You don't see the
lights. Are you really that self conscious about your image in your car?
Bottom line is don't get mad at GM, they are just trying to prepare for what will
become law in a year or two. Its that or they don't get to make cars for the US.
Complain to your congressman - he/she makes the laws,
Sandwich Maker
Lorin Grable <gra...@usit.net> writes:
" The point is that you are more
"visible to other people when you have headlights on during the day. Just thick
"about that when someone pulls out in front of you in your new car.
but when everyone does it, you'll become invisible again. i believe
rear-end accident stats have started to climb again...
how often do you notice the speed-limit signs in your neighborhood?
"Bottom line is don't get mad at GM, they are just trying to prepare for what will
"become law in a year or two.
-all- chrysler cars have been drl wired since canada mandated them; all
you need to convert us models is the plug-in drl module [so i'm told].
--
although you should be doing something productive
with your life, you are instead wasting your time
reading this inane mindless rambling drivel from
the keyboard of: Andrew Hay, a...@an.bradford.ma.us
Joseph Jones
I work for a large transportation company, that had problems with DRL's.
All new equipment had them. It is a courtesy to flash your lights when
another truck passes you. We had many trucks almost run off the road, so
the company, with approval of it's drivers disconnected all the day time
running lights.
Gerry Vahe
> I'm tired of having to cater to incompetant dumbasses.
Ill Tell you, I'm glad G.M is doing this. I cant believe how many
incompetant dumasses dont know where there light switch is when its
raining out. (Or snowing for that matter)
Oto60
Lorin Grable wrote:
>
> I can't say that that car car with its lights on during the day is a pretty site.
> But as a previous motorcycle rider, I always had my headlight on (of course it has
> visible to other people when you have headlights on during the day. Just thick
> about that when someone pulls out in front of you in your new car.
This is absolutely ridiculous. What next, are all cars gonna have mandatory flashing
lights and buzzers? "ATTENTION, ATTENTION. I AM IN MY CAR, AND I AM DRIVING." What
the hell is this, Nerfworld?
If you cannot see other vehicles broad daylight, than you should not be driving!
Having the light on all the time used to be the motorcyclists advantage, now what?
Riders are gonna simply "blend in".
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, gra...@usit.net (Lorin Grable) says:
>Unfortunately, daytime running lights will probably be federally mandated equipment
>for all new cars in the next few years. (I'm pretty sure that the law in on the
>books for compliance within the next few years). The automakers just don't decide
>that they are going to arbitrarily add safety equipment to cars-why would they want
>to drive the cost up.
Side-impact air bags and traction control aren't federally mandated, either,
but look at all the cars that tout these "safety" features. Heck, anti-lock
brakes aren't federally mandated, either, but good luck finding a car that
*doesn't* have ABS. What the public wants, the public gets, and the public
seems to want safety. If ya don't like the DRLs, then either don't get a
GM, or disconnect the DRL fuse.
Just out of curiosity, how does the Corvette manage the DRL situation?
I saw a '96 Grand Sport a couple months ago, and I don't remember it
having any lights operating. It would suck to have the flip-up lights
constantly flipped up while driving... so much for better aerodynamics
and a cleaner look.
--
'72 429 Thunderbird: Because size *does* matter.
"Yeah.... I'm fit-shaced"
- the ever-erudite Beavis
Richard J Jones
In <4mhhvb$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
ssau...@ix.netcom.com(Richard J Jones) writes:
>
>In <4me0l3$i...@scramble.lm.com> "David M. Spera"
><sp...@telerama.lm.com> writes:
>>ako...@aol.com (AKONOWE) wrote:
>>>>I hate daytime driving lights so much that I bought a Ford product
>>>>rather than a Bonneville, which was my first choice. Stick it GM.
>>>
>>>While I'm no big fan of GM either, I must point out that this tactic
>will
>>>only work for a couple more years until DRLs become mandatory
>equipment,
>>>just like the high-mounted brake light, airbags, etc.
>>
>>
relay.
>check the electrical to see which one.
>Rick
On Toyotas, remove the black/orange wire.
whok...@escape.ca
"David M. Spera" <sp...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>There are no plans to make this feature mandatory.
>--Dave
They are mandatory here in canada
Phil
Richard J Jones
In <4me0l3$i...@scramble.lm.com> "David M. Spera"
<sp...@telerama.lm.com> writes:
>
>ako...@aol.com (AKONOWE) wrote:
>>>I hate daytime driving lights so much that I bought a Ford product
>>>rather than a Bonneville, which was my first choice. Stick it GM.
>>
>>While I'm no big fan of GM either, I must point out that this tactic
will
>>only work for a couple more years until DRLs become mandatory
equipment,
>>just like the high-mounted brake light, airbags, etc.
>
>
SBA
In <4mhpdv$r...@wpg-01.escape.ca> whok...@escape.ca writes:
>
>"David M. Spera" <sp...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Phil
>
Steve
>
GNC
Gerry Vahe wrote:
>
> > I'm tired of having to cater to incompetant dumbasses.
>
> incompetant dumasses dont know where there light switch is when its
> raining out. (Or snowing for that matter)
Absolutely correct! This last point may be THE really useful reason for
having DRLs. Way too many people are completely INVISIBLE during
rain/snow conditions. --GNC
James Summers
In article <4mhhvb$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, ssau...@ix.netcom.co
says...
>this can be disabled by removing one wire from the running light relay.
>check the electrical to see which one.
>Rick
The DRL's "failed" on my '96 Chevy pickup within a couple of weeks of
purchase. Simply took long enough time to figure out which fuse it was.
(Fuse is labled "fog/DRL", or some such thing.)
I hate the idea of the headlights coming on while everything is cold.
The glow plugs take a lot of power before you hit the starter. I don't
want the extra drain of the lights. Screw the feds.
BTW, they are federally mandated for '98 model year, says my salesman
when I griched about them. He could be wrong, but I would bet money that
all new cars sold in the US by 2000 will have them.
--
James Summers
microSumms Computing, Round Rock, TX
Wood working, travelling, other fun stuff, "old" space guy, and retired
IBMer
James Guimond
The vette uses modified parking lights to do the DRL's. They keep half
orange, and the other half is clear, like regular lights.
Joseph Gattafoni
SBA wrote:
> Where is "Canada"?
Right above the USA. Just look for our igloos :-)
Patrick Gattafoni
from the great white north, eh!
Bill Dwyer
In <4me0l3$i...@scramble.lm.com> "David M. Spera"
<sp...@telerama.lm.com> writes:
>
>ako...@aol.com (AKONOWE) wrote:
>>>I hate daytime driving lights so much that I bought a Ford product
>>>rather than a Bonneville, which was my first choice. Stick it GM.
>>
>>While I'm no big fan of GM either, I must point out that this tactic
will
>>only work for a couple more years until DRLs become mandatory
equipment,
>>just like the high-mounted brake light, airbags, etc.
>
>
killed if there were either airbags or possibly even daylight running
lights. She was rididng in a car with a stupid 18 yr old girl who
dropped her ice cream cone and did not notice she was veering into the
other lane. So why would we not want the running lights? Seat belts and
airbags were both resisted when first introduced............
M BLOOM
Joseph Jones <Jos...@softfarm.com> wrote:
JH>I work for a large transportation company, that had problems with DRL's.
for 25 years and was taught way back then to use the headlamps when
driving the highways. Said DLR's are only running at most 1/2 power.
When 'flashing' a semi that it's OK to move over, pulling back on the
stalk flashes a 'HIGH BEAM', DRL's are nowhere near the intensity. Your
drivers, are stupid if they can't discern the difference.
In Ontario, Canada we've had DRL's as Government mandated equipment
for new vehicles for the past four years. Back in the early seventies,
many cars used a center mounted DRL (after market accessory).
Daytime Running Lights SAVE LIVES. What this has to do with this
newsgroup, frankly I don't know.
* 1st 2.00 ~ "1stReader is so good it's taxable!"
xop...@ptd.net
sbal...@ix.netcom.com(SBA ) wrote:
>I hate daytime driving lights so much that I bought a Ford product
>rather than a Bonneville, which was my first choice. Stick it GM.
pull the "DRL" fuse
Joseph Gattafoni
P. J. Remner wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, how does the Corvette manage the DRL situation?
> I saw a '96 Grand Sport a couple months ago, and I don't remember it
> having any lights operating. It would suck to have the flip-up lights
> constantly flipped up while driving... so much for better aerodynamics
> and a cleaner look.
The Corvette, just like my 95 Trans Am, uses the parking lights as the DRLs so
that the pop ups will not be up during daylight hours. If one wanted to disable
the DRL they could pull the parking brake up one notch, however I wouldn't
recommend this due to the brakes possibly slightly dragging. We have had DRLs in
Canada since 90 and a friend of mine with a 91 Z28 use to do this trick to keep
his DRLs off too (I don't know if he had any brake troubles though).
Patrick Gattafoni
95 Trans Am
87 Mustang GT Paxton supercharged
whok...@escape.ca
aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (P. J. Remner) wrote:
>In a previous article, gra...@usit.net (Lorin Grable) says:
>Just out of curiosity, how does the Corvette manage the DRL situation?
>I saw a '96 Grand Sport a couple months ago, and I don't remember it
>having any lights operating. It would suck to have the flip-up lights
>constantly flipped up while driving... so much for better aerodynamics
>and a cleaner look.
Not sure about the Grand sport in particular but most cars with flip
up headlights have use the parking lights as the daytime running
lights. This includes the Firebirds and Corvettes etc.
Phil
David Goodhue
James Guimond (jgui...@uriacc.uri.edu) wrote:
: The vette uses modified parking lights to do the DRL's. They keep half
The 96 Vette doesn't have DRL's.
Dave
86 Vette Conv.
: > Just out of curiosity, how does the Corvette manage the DRL situation?
Scott Gaines
I recently had my alternator go out in the middle of the mountains of
Virginia on a Sunday. It was raining and at the time I had my lights
and wipers on. To extend the life of the battery until I could get to
civalization, I turned off my headlights. You may argue that this was a
dangerous thing to do, but I believe is was safer than walking along an
interstate highway in the rain. With all due respect to GM, I prefer
to make my own decisions about when it's appropriate to turn on my
headlights.
Regards,
Scott Gaines
=======================================================================
93 Nissan Altima |
87 Nissan 300 ZX Turbo | NMA member since it was the CRTL
72 Ford Pinto 2000 cc |
=======================================================================
He who controls the oil, controls the universe... The oil must flow.
=======================================================================
Yoshi Oribe
Hey Y'all,
If you don't like your DRL's so much, you can yank a fuse and forget
about it. Nevertheless, I like the DRL's on my 96 Beretta. They really
help when driving during overcast conditions, rain, twilight, and
heavily wooded areas when oncoming cars are camouflaged with their
surroundings. Cars with DRL's are much more visible in those conditions.
My Beretta also has a sensor in the dashboard which automatically turns
on all the lights (main headlights, tail lights, dashboard lights) when
it senses darkness.
Yoshi
whok...@escape.ca
sbal...@ix.netcom.com(SBA ) wrote:
>In <4mhpdv$r...@wpg-01.escape.ca> whok...@escape.ca writes:
>>
>>"David M. Spera" <sp...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There are no plans to make this feature mandatory.
>>
>>>--Dave
>>
>>>sp...@telerama.lm.com
>>
>>
Difficult to find sometimes... covered by lots of white stuff (not
dandruff).. usually in the Stanley cup..although not this year...
North of USA... but why look anywhere else than USA... Oh.. wait... I
got one for you.. THE PLACE THAT MAKES CAMAROS AND FIREBIRDS!!!
Touchee
Phil
Paul Blakeslee
On May 06, 1996 17:17:58 in article <Re: Attention: General Motors>,
'dgoo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (David Goodhue)' wrote:
>: The vette uses modified parking lights to do the DRL's. They keep half
>: orange, and the other half is clear, like regular lights.
>
>The 96 Vette doesn't have DRL's.
Neither does the '54 vette.
PRB
Johnson Randall L
jsum...@bga.com (James Summers) writes:
>In article <4mhhvb$3...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, ssau...@ix.netcom.co
>says...
>>this can be disabled by removing one wire from the running light relay.
>>check the electrical to see which one.
>>Rick
>The DRL's "failed" on my '96 Chevy pickup within a couple of weeks of
>purchase. Simply took long enough time to figure out which fuse it was.
> (Fuse is labled "fog/DRL", or some such thing.)
>I hate the idea of the headlights coming on while everything is cold.
>The glow plugs take a lot of power before you hit the starter. I don't
>want the extra drain of the lights. Screw the feds.
I believe that GM DRL's don't come on until you take the vehicle out of park.
Randy
Johnson Randall L
Oto60 <Ot...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I'm tired of having to cater to incompetant dumbasses.
This is not what DRL's are for. DRL's are most usefull during driving
conditions where there are alternating conditions of shade and sunlight,
such as wooded or hilly conditions (haven't you seen the GM DRL
commercial?). Your eyes take a certain amount of time to adjust to these
conditions. They also help during severe glare conditions.
Randy
Karen Klamczynski
: |> Absolutely correct! This last point may be THE really useful
: |> reason for having DRLs. Way too many people are completely
: |> INVISIBLE during rain/snow conditions. --GNC
Why not just put a light sensor on the hood that beeps a warning to
turn your lights on? Those of us with a clue would just disengage that
wiring (because we don't need it) and everyone else would go "Oh! It
*is* getting hard to see, I'll put my lights on now."
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I could deal with daytime running
lights, but NOT daytime headlights. I don't believe that headlights
on bright sunny days would help me see cars any better. Dammit.
: With all due respect to GM, I prefer
: to make my own decisions about when it's appropriate to turn on my
: headlights.
: Scott Gaines
Here, here.
-Karen
Bob Morrow
Yoshi Oribe wrote:
> My Beretta also has a sensor in the dashboard which automatically turns
> on all the lights (main headlights, tail lights, dashboard lights) when
> it senses darkness.
>
Great. Now we don't need to think at all about lights. Next? Automatic
steering systems, brakes activated by radar, etc. Yes I know some of
that exists now.
All this DRL crap misses the point - technology can't fix stupid
drivers.
Sledge
In article <4mlb11$s...@cnn.exu.ericsson.se>, gai...@rmotrf1.ericsson.se (Scott Gaines) says:
>
>In article <318D05...@erols.com>, GNC <gcam...@erols.com> writes:
>|> Gerry Vahe wrote:
>|> >
>|> >
>|> > incompetant dumasses dont know where there light switch is when its
>|> > raining out. (Or snowing for that matter)
>|>
>|>
>|> having DRLs. Way too many people are completely INVISIBLE during
>|> rain/snow conditions. --GNC
>
>Virginia on a Sunday. It was raining and at the time I had my lights
>and wipers on. To extend the life of the battery until I could get to
>civalization, I turned off my headlights. You may argue that this was a
>dangerous thing to do, but I believe is was safer than walking along an
>to make my own decisions about when it's appropriate to turn on my
>headlights.
>
>
>Scott Gaines
Beyond this, a daytime headlight was about the only way a motorcyclist could
hope to be recognized as as motorcyclist. The DRLs will eventually cause motorists (at
least all the myopic, head-in-the-rectum, CD-changing, light-my-cigarette,
cellular-phone-talking, newspaper-reading, was-that-my-exit, fix-my-eye-shadow,
I-just-sit-here-behind-the-wheel, I-didn't-see-him-officer, stab-it-and-steer-it
drivers) to see a daytime headlight and think it is another car.
From Randy.... AKA "-ED" at the....
_______ _______ _______ _
( ____ \ ( ____ ) ( ____ \ ( ( /|
| ( \/ | ( )| | ( \/ | \ ( |
| (__ | (____)| | | | \ | |
| __) | __) | | | (\ \) |
| ( | (\ ( | | | | \ |
| ) _ | ) \ \__ _ | (____/\ _ | ) \ | _
|/ (_) |/ \__/ (_) (_______/ (_) |/ )_) (_)
Feather River Canyon News - "Fruit Of The Plume"
AKA 'That frcn paper' - Serving The Community Since 1986
"The opinions herein expressed must be those of the
management, because I own the paper, and I am the
management. Heck- I don't even HAVE any employees"
Abe L. Getchell
Karen Klamczynski wrote:
>
> : |> Absolutely correct! This last point may be THE really useful
> : |> reason for having DRLs. Way too many people are completely
> : |> INVISIBLE during rain/snow conditions. --GNC
>
> turn your lights on? Those of us with a clue would just disengage that
> wiring (because we don't need it) and everyone else would go "Oh! It
> *is* getting hard to see, I'll put my lights on now."
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to say that I could deal with daytime running
> lights, but NOT daytime headlights. I don't believe that headlights
> on bright sunny days would help me see cars any better. Dammit.
It's not so YOU can see people better, but so people can see YOU
better. Obviously you have noticed car with the DRLs on, so they are doing
what the manufactorer has claimed that they should do. They don't bother
me. I have them, and I have never had a problem with them.
> : With all due respect to GM, I prefer
> : to make my own decisions about when it's appropriate to turn on my
> : headlights.
> : Scott Gaines
>
> Here, here.
>
> -Karen
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Abe L. Getchell | Reality.sys not found - Universe Halted |
| University of Kentucky | --------------------------------------- |
| BDMC, Center on Aging | "Watcha need to do is delete the kernel" |
| (606)323-6040 | - Anonymous Technical Support |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oto60
Yoshi Oribe wrote:
> My Beretta also has a sensor in the dashboard which automatically turns
> on all the lights (main headlights, tail lights, dashboard lights) when
> it senses darkness.
In my car, the lights turn on when the driver senses darkness.
What next, steering that automatically avoids obstacles? Brakes that stop the
car when the computer says so?
How about "take the bus" if you can't operate your vehicle? It ain't that difficult!
Karl Fengler
dgoo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (David Goodhue) wrote:
>James Guimond (jgui...@uriacc.uri.edu) wrote:
>: The vette uses modified parking lights to do the DRL's. They keep half
>: orange, and the other half is clear, like regular lights.
>The 96 Vette doesn't have DRL's.
I bet the Canadian Corrvette does!!! How do they do it...since
I'll be up there in a couple weeks I'll take a look!!!
>: > Just out of curiosity, how does the Corvette manage the DRL situation?
>: > I saw a '96 Grand Sport a couple months ago, and I don't remember it
>: > having any lights operating. It would suck to have the flip-up lights
>: > constantly flipped up while driving..
--
/ ____ - BRONCO 351 - * - XLH 1200 -
/ / _ _ /) (_/_ _ _ /) _ _ PH(208)396-3146 FX(208)396-4139
/ \ _(_|_/(_//_ __/ _(/_/)_(/_//_(/_/(_ : ka...@hpb18162.boi.hp.com
Karl Fengler _____________(/_________ Hewlett-Packard Co. Boise,ID.USA
-!! You Have Strayed Upon The Motorway To HELL !!-
James Summers
In article <4mltlj$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, rljo...@students.uiuc.edu
says...
>
>jsum...@bga.com (James Summers) writes:
>
>I believe that GM DRL's don't come on until you take the vehicle out of
park.
You're right, of course. But I don't set the "parking brake" on my PU
under "normal" circumstances. I was raised in a part of the country
where setting the parking brake during the winter was an invatation to
"frozen up", so didn't get in the habit. I'm too old now to learn new
tricks. :-)
The other comment about the DRL's being reduced wattage is one of the
things that didn't compute right on my truck. According to the
literature, they are supposed to be 40% of dim (or some such thing). As
near as I can tell, they are simply the "low-beam" headlights. Didn't
use a light meter, just my eyeballs. I can sure tell the difference in
low vs high, and these seemed about the same as low-beam.
Regarding there helping when its drizzly: the front end is not what I
worry about hitting, it's the back end of these idiots that are just
about stopped in the fog/drizzle with nothing on. Many of the new cars
have such small wattage tail lights that they can't be seen, whethere
they're on or not. There should be a mandated range of wattages for tail
lights. (The real bright ones are a bother, also. Can't tell the
difference between tail lights and brake lights.)
While I'm ranting about the back end: Have you noticed how many of the
center brake lights are burned out? Nobody seems to replace them. Saw
one of the "string of lights in the spoiler" the other night that had ONE
light working.
JBlessing
In article <318D6C...@wwonline.com>, jgat...@wwonline.com says...
--
It's up there where they build Ford trucks, hey man put a better paint job
on my Ranger next time!
Jordan Blessing L1 Master Tech
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, jble...@peganet.com (JBlessing) says:
>It's up there where they build Ford trucks, hey man put a better paint job
>on my Ranger next time!
>Jordan Blessing L1 Master Tech
Elyria, Ohio is in Canada? Wow.
At least, the Ford truck plant where my friend is a paint inspector
is in Elyria. It's either vans or F-series pickups, but he's picky.
He'll point things out to me that I can't see, even after I look for them.
I doubt that your Ranger went past him...
--
'72 429 Thunderbird: Because size *does* matter.
Chewy coffee is good coffee.
This post was not sent by P. J. Remner.
It was the result of sunspots, and is completely random.
Richard J Jones
In <318AAC...@cyberatl.net> Paul Lu <lup...@cyberatl.net> writes:
>AKONOWE wrote:
>>
>> >I hate daytime driving lights so much that I bought a Ford product
>> >rather than a Bonneville, which was my first choice. Stick it GM.
>>
will
>> only work for a couple more years until DRLs become mandatory
equipment,
>> just like the high-mounted brake light, airbags, etc.
>
>air bag. Aigbag was the goal, those cheap manufactures came up with
>mouse belt. The real goal for GM is to build real safe car and here
>DRL let them play the same game they did with the door mount belt.
>Where are the door mount belt? Waiting for DRL to join, hopefully.
>
>By the way, I need some police searching lights to put arround my
>car when I drive to Canada. Government there believe people need
>to have DRL to avoid accident. I'll follow their rule there; however,
>with those GM DRL setup on their high beam, I need the cop search
>lights in order not to be out powered. I also need that in every
direction
>some car might be hitting me - that is front, side and rear. I can do
>away with under and above. I WILL put emphasis in the back - I fear
>for the rear-end impact the most. Those who thinks DRL is the greatest
>thing and stand strong saying it is must, don't complaint when
following
>me. According to your theory, I am afraid that you can't see me under
>the bright day light.
>
>I don't think light is a problem; however, I see way too many examples
>people don't see.
>
>When the 55mph were golden rules, I took every chance doing 55mph in
>front of cop without aggrovating them. Just wait, if DRL go in effect
>as yet another silly law. I'm gona install those lights behind my
rear.
>
>Comes in really handy to take car of those tailgater in the night.
Big Brother is alive and well in Canada, its a step away from being a
Socialist country, where only 3 steps away unless we get rid of that
hillbilly from Arkasas.
Rick
Oto60
Sledge wrote:
> Beyond this, a daytime headlight was about the only way a motorcyclist could
> hope to be recognized as as motorcyclist. The DRLs will eventually cause motorists (at
> least all the myopic, head-in-the-rectum, CD-changing, light-my-cigarette,
> cellular-phone-talking, newspaper-reading, was-that-my-exit, fix-my-eye-shadow,
> I-just-sit-here-behind-the-wheel, I-didn't-see-him-officer, stab-it-and-steer-it
> drivers) to see a daytime headlight and think it is another car.
And soon, with everyone driving around with their lights on, it will become the norm.
Any visibility advantages will be null. In the meantime, the poor motorcyclist has
lost his advantage.
If you can't see other cars in broad daylight without them having to turn their
lights on, then it's time to get a bus pass.
Brian Evans
David Goodhue wrote:
>
> James Guimond (jgui...@uriacc.uri.edu) wrote:
> : The vette uses modified parking lights to do the DRL's. They keep half
> : orange, and the other half is clear, like regular lights.
>
> The 96 Vette doesn't have DRL's.
It, and all other cars and light trucks, have daytime lights in Canada.
Many cars use what seem to be high intensity running lights rather than
the headlights, so that cars with flip-up lights retain their good looks
during the day. Others use either the low or high beams at reduced power
and intensity. Yes, they do help visibility and improve safety, they
completely eliminate the problem of half-witted people who forget to turn
on their lights when it gets dark or is raining, and no they don't make
the lights burn out faster (at least enough to cause me to notice, and
I've been running DRL's for years)and no they don't cause oncoming
drivers to be dazzled in any way.
There are NO drawbacks to DRL's and only positive results. I fail to
understand the "arguments" of anyone who thinks they are a bad idea.
> --
Brian Evans
Major Account Manager
Shaw FiberLink
(brian...@fiberlink.ca)
jim forest
Bob Morrow <bo...@msn.fullfeed.com> wrote:
snip
>Great. Now we don't need to think at all about lights. Next? Automatic
>steering systems, brakes activated by radar, etc. Yes I know some of
>that exists now.
>All this DRL crap misses the point - technology can't fix stupid
>drivers.
My two drachmas
While in Germany, I was working at base were the wing commander read
that increasing tire pressure would decrease tire friction and there
fore would increase gas milage. He ordered that all tires on military
vehicles be inflated to 45 lbs againist the advisement of the motor
pool, first winter storm with snow/ice the motor pool was swamped with
fender benders. No increase in gas milage was obsurbed.
This same character read that autos running with headlights on during
the daylight hours would decrease accidents. He ordered the same,
there was a mountain of dead batteries after the first year. The
safety office said statisticaly after the first year there was no
decrease in accidents due to daylight headlight running.
jim
Karl Fengler
Bob Morrow <bo...@msn.fullfeed.com> wrote:
>Yoshi Oribe wrote:
>> My Beretta also has a sensor in the dashboard which automatically turns
>> on all the lights (main headlights, tail lights, dashboard lights) when
>> it senses darkness.
>Great. Now we don't need to think at all about lights. Next? Automatic
>steering systems, brakes activated by radar, etc. Yes I know some of
>that exists now.
>All this DRL crap misses the point - technology can't fix stupid
>drivers.
You got it. To me it seems the more of this we get the worse
driving habits get. I'm amazed at the total ignorance of some
drivers, and the fact they just don't get the fact that there
are more than one person on the road. These are the types that
think DRL's, ABS, Traction Control, 4 wheel steering, AWD, etc
will make them invincable. If half the energy where put into
learning to drive, and think with some skill, then you would
see fewer accidents. That's something that will never happen,
too many people are proud of thier stupidity, and will defend
all these things because they FEEL safer...
Pumpkinsfreek
Bill Dwyer wrote:
>
> In <4me0l3$i...@scramble.lm.com> "David M. Spera"
> <sp...@telerama.lm.com> writes:
> >
> >ako...@aol.com (AKONOWE) wrote:
> >>>I hate daytime driving lights so much that I bought a Ford product
> >>>rather than a Bonneville, which was my first choice. Stick it GM.
> >>
> >>While I'm no big fan of GM either, I must point out that this tactic
> will
> >>only work for a couple more years until DRLs become mandatory
> equipment,
> >>just like the high-mounted brake light, airbags, etc.
> >
> >
> killed if there were either airbags or possibly even daylight running
> lights. She was rididng in a car with a stupid 18 yr old girl who
> dropped her ice cream cone and did not notice she was veering into the
> other lane. So why would we not want the running lights? Seat belts and
> airbags were both resisted when first introduced............
I agree...airbags might have helped. But DRLs? I know I wasn't there,
but if that stupid 18yr old girl veered into the other lane, somehow I
don't think running lights would have helped. The driver in the other
lane, just before impact, would have thought, "Oh shit! An oncoming car!
but I see it better because it has it's lights on!" <crash>. I mean no
disrespect, I have had relatives & myself in major accidents, so I know
its no laughing matter, but do you get my point?
Jason
Karl Fengler
whok...@escape.ca wrote:
>sbal...@ix.netcom.com(SBA ) wrote:
>Difficult to find sometimes... covered by lots of white stuff (not
>dandruff).. usually in the Stanley cup..although not this year...
>North of USA... but why look anywhere else than USA... Oh.. wait... I
>got one for you.. THE PLACE THAT MAKES CAMAROS AND FIREBIRDS!!!
>Touchee
>Phil
You mean the Camaros & Firebirds designed in the USA? The ones
GM set up a plant for in K'bec so you have some jobs? those
Camaros & Firebirds? That's not Canada... that's K'bec.
BTW, what is thid WHITE STUFF in the Stanley Cup that you're
refering to???
>>>They are mandatory here in canada
>>>Phil
>>Where is "Canada"?
>>Steve
Karl Fengler
ka...@landau.rice.edu (Karen Klamczynski) wrote:
>Why not just put a light sensor on the hood that beeps a warning to
>turn your lights on? Those of us with a clue would just disengage that
>wiring (because we don't need it) and everyone else would go "Oh! It
>*is* getting hard to see, I'll put my lights on now."
These people need a large flashing sign that warns the rest of
us that "STUPIDITY IS ON THE LOOSE".
>Anyway, I just wanted to say that I could deal with daytime running
>lights, but NOT daytime headlights. I don't believe that headlights
>on bright sunny days would help me see cars any better. Dammit.
>: With all due respect to GM, I prefer
>: to make my own decisions about when it's appropriate to turn on my
>: headlights.
>: Scott Gaines
>Here, here.
>-Karen
tw@thomas-white
DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS, JUST SOME MORE OF THE SAFETY
BULLSHIT WE ARE BEING FORCED TO EAT. I AGREE 100%>
firebug
In article <4mjepm$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Dwyer <txb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Listen guys, I have lost a 17 yr old neice that would have not been
>killed if there were either airbags or possibly even daylight running
>lights. She was rididng in a car with a stupid 18 yr old girl who
>dropped her ice cream cone and did not notice she was veering into the
>other lane. So why would we not want the running lights? Seat belts and
>airbags were both resisted when first introduced............
That's too bad, but I completely fail to see how you can be so certain that
DRLs or airbags would have helped. Perhaps you would care to explain.
> Seat belts and
>airbags were both resisted when first introduced............
Airbags are still resisted by those who realize that they pose serious
risks, are of questionable effectiveness, and cost money that might be
better spent elsewhere.
(followups trimmed)
Jerry Adams
Scott Gaines (gai...@rmotrf1.ericsson.se) wrote:
<snip>
: With all due respect to GM, I prefer
: to make my own decisions about when it's appropriate to turn on my
: headlights.
<snip>
Hear, hear! A perfect summary of my feelings on the matter.
It seems to me that all of the posts objecting to the DRL's are about
CHOICE, not the fact that they are available. A simple switch on the
dashboard would keep everybody happy. Those that believe in DRL's could
leave the switch on all the time, those (like me) that want to have
control over when they are on could use the switch accordingly, and those
who hate them could just never turn the switch on.
However, the above is probably too simple a solution.....
Jerry Adams - jad...@west.net
--
***** Jerry Adams - jad...@west.net *****
GNC
James Summers wrote:
>
> While I'm ranting about the back end: Have you noticed how many of the
> center brake lights are burned out? Nobody seems to replace them. Saw
> one of the "string of lights in the spoiler" the other night that had ONE
> light working.
>
> --
> James Summers
> microSumms Computing, Round Rock, TX
> Wood working, travelling, other fun stuff, "old" space guy, and retired
> IBMer
Yes, Among the most frequently observed cars with the third brake light
burned out is the Toyota Corolla and Chev Nova (same car). Maybe this
no-brake-light-problem is the only good reason to keep some of those annual
state safety inspections. --GNC
Bert Grubbs
James Summers wrote:
>
> I hate the idea of the headlights coming on while everything is cold.
> The glow plugs take a lot of power before you hit the starter. I don't
> want the extra drain of the lights. Screw the feds.
If you use the emergency brake when you are parked the DRL
wouldn't come in until you released the brake to start drviing. No
strain at engine startup time....
I keep finding people who are SUPRISED that the engine can be
running and the DRL will be off when the parking brake is
engaged....do people just not use the emergency brake anymore when
they are parked?
--bert
Snowy
hi,
> I recently had my alternator go out in the middle of the mountains of
> Virginia on a Sunday. It was raining and at the time I had my lights
> and wipers on. To extend the life of the battery until I could get to
> civalization, I turned off my headlights. You may argue that this was a
> dangerous thing to do, but I believe is was safer than walking along an
> interstate highway in the rain. With all due respect to GM, I prefer
> to make my own decisions about when it's appropriate to turn on my
> headlights.
there is a difference between your survival in this adverse situation
and normal everyday driving conditions. maybe if there were 10 other
cars around you, you may have at least turned on your marker lights so
that they knew you were there. i am assuming that there were not a lot
of cars when you had to turn out your headlights.
-rs
Tony Anello
Or even at night, here on the expressways of Chicago!
Gerry Vahe (gv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > I'm tired of having to cater to incompetant dumbasses.
: Ill Tell you, I'm glad G.M is doing this. I cant believe how many
: incompetant dumasses dont know where there light switch is when its
: raining out. (Or snowing for that matter)
--
Tony Anello
ane...@wwa.com
Daryl Mark Krzewinski
Lorin Grable <gra...@usit.net> recently wrote the following:
>Unfortunately, daytime running lights will probably be federally mandated equipment
>for all new cars in the next few years. (I'm pretty sure that the law in on the
>books for compliance within the next few years). The automakers just don't decide
>that they are going to arbitrarily add safety equipment to cars-why would they want
>to drive the cost up. Canada already has a mandatory daytime running lights law.
>I can't say that that car car with its lights on during the day is a pretty site.
>But as a previous motorcycle rider, I always had my headlight on (of course it has
>manadatory equipment for M/C for many years). The point is that you are more
>visible to other people when you have headlights on during the day. Just thick
>about that when someone pulls out in front of you in your new car.
>Besides, what's the problem when you are in your car driving? You don't see the
>lights. Are you really that self conscious about your image in your car?
>Bottom line is don't get mad at GM, they are just trying to prepare for what will
>become law in a year or two. Its that or they don't get to make cars for the US.
>Complain to your congressman - he/she makes the laws,
Actually, there are absolutely no plans by any U.S. government
official to make DRL mandatory. The most recent info I read on the
subject was an interview with an NHTSA official last fall who stated
that they still aren't convinced that a DRL mandate would provide any
benefits whatsoever.
I do blame GM, because they are not "preparing" for any coming law, as
there is none coming. GM is only making DRL standard to save a few
pennies on manufacturing variability (same models between U.S. and
Canada), and as a marketing ploy to pass themselves off as the safety
conscious U.S. maker (much like what worked so well for Volvo).
Daryl
===============================================================================
Rockwell Automation
Allen-Bradley Company
A division of Rockwell International
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl M. Krzewinski
Distributed I/O Engineering
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control and Information Group E-mail: daryl.kr...@ab.com
Mayfield Heights, Ohio phone: 216-646-3960
===============================================================================
Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of A-B, myself, or anyone else
for that matter.
Kiirenza
> i believe rear-end accident stats have started to climb again...
That's probably due more to the fact that most DRLs do *not* include
tail lights, and some people with DRLs don't think to "turn on" their
headlights as it gets darker. Hence, they are driving around at twilight
(and sometimes at night) with no tailights, and so get rearended by people
who don't see them.
Karen Kraus
1996 Camaro Z28 1LE
russel osborne
Brian Evans <brian...@fiberlink.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>There are NO drawbacks to DRL's and only positive results. I fail to
>understand the "arguments" of anyone who thinks they are a bad idea.
>
>> --
>Brian Evans
>Major Account Manager
>Shaw FiberLink
>(brian...@fiberlink.ca)
Maybe it is because most of us don't like the attitude of our
government "Ve know vat iz best for you. Do not think for yourself" If
you haven't noticed a loss of life in your headlights you must be
lucky, or you change them more often. There is a limited amount of
life in any light bulb. the longer they are used, the quicker they
will wear out.
drl's won't help you if the person who hits you had his head up his
ass while driving.
Russ
Kiirenza
> All this DRL crap misses the point - technology can't fix stupid
drivers.
Pretty much all of these federally mandated "safety" features are a means
of backwards legislation. Lawmakers are looking to prevent injuries in an
accident, but not preventing the accident to start with. Why not invest
the money in better driver education? Why not invest the money in better
public transportation and make driving licenses the privilege it should
be, not the right it has become? Hell, if all these environmentalists were
smart, we wouldn't even have to worry about freaking emissions testing if
we could lower the number of cars on the roads. Easiest way to do that is
to get rid of the absolute idiots that are out there now -- people who
can't remember to turn on their headlights when other motorists may not be
able to see them as well (dusk, heavy rain/snow, fog); people who stop at
the end of a merge lane; people who talk on the phone, put on makeup, read
the newspaper, etc; people who just plain don't have the SKILLS necessary
to drive on the ROAD. How can they call a test of PARKING skills a DRIVING
test?
Sorry, but I get a little annoyed right after dealing with commuter
traffic on the way home... :)
Allen Wisbey
Brian Evans <brian...@fiberlink.ca> wrote:
>
>Many cars use what seem to be high intensity running lights rather than
>the headlights, so that cars with flip-up lights retain their good looks
>during the day. Others use either the low or high beams at reduced power
>and intensity.
>
>There are NO drawbacks to DRL's and only positive results. I fail to
>understand the "arguments" of anyone who thinks they are a bad idea.
>
>
Just the one problem, the high intensity running lights are annoying
as hell, and the reduced intensity high beams are usually not that
reduced. It should not be necessary to put my rearview mirror in the
night position during the daytime.
Allen Wisbey
gan...@southwind.net
Allen Wisbey (N0SCK)
gan...@southwind.net
Sam
*snip*
>I agree...airbags might have helped. But DRLs? I know I wasn't there,
>but if that stupid 18yr old girl veered into the other lane, somehow I
>don't think running lights would have helped. The driver in the other
>disrespect, I have had relatives & myself in major accidents, so I know
>its no laughing matter, but do you get my point?
>
>
>Jason
I just read a little bit through this and thought I would give my two cents
worth. Again, it is unfortunate that people have died in car crashes where
airbags, passive restraint systems, and DRLs *MIGHT* have helped.
About the DRL's... DRLs discribed in the example above, "but I see it better
because it has it's lights on! *CRASH* " doesn't really show you the true impact
that DRL can have on avoiding an accident. Here in So. Cal. there are areas that
require you have your lights on evening during daylight (this was well before DRL
existed). DRLs work best during the rain (when 50% of the people DON'T turn on
their head lights), in foggy/smoggy/dusty conditions, and when driving with the
sun setting or rising behind you. The whole idea is not so you can see
better, but so that other's can see you. *See and be Seen* During the
fog/rain...what do you see first? The car or the headlights??? When
facing the sun (sunset or sunrise) what do you see first, dark objects
or bright objects???
Anyway, I drive 40-50000 miles each year and have encountered
enough people not driving with their headlights on when they should,
people without seat belts, etc. etc... Though each of these safety
devices cannot guarrantee that you can survive a crash, in most cases
its all you have, so use them.
What REALLY gets me steamed are parents that don't put their kids
in CAR SEATS, or CARRY their kids on their laps, while they are
strapped in.
Sam...
Steven E. Eyrse
As I came in late on this ... I guess it is about some driving lites that
will be on when you turn the key on.. or so.. Now a street rod builder
that I knew in the early 70's put that into his wiring for his 32.. So
when it started the head lights came on. For a while .. six years or
so.. I thought that was dumb... OH.. his name is Ron Benson. some where
in Ca. I guess, now,.. But as I drove more and more in the Seattle
area, I started keeping my lights on.. both for the '29 street rod...
(1929 Dodge milk truck w/360... in Street Rodder mag. under $2,000
challenge...and as 100,000 miles of trucking.) And on the '35 Buick
(stock) Right now I'm trying to build a BIG lite bar , that will sit
under the doors on the rear of the '29 and use say five to seven haligon
backup lites for a "blinking" breaklight .... over the normal two that I
have. So I have no problem with a law that would make lites stay on
durring daytime.. They really do help.
If you ever question ask a BIKER...
Steve..
Dick Brewster
Allen Wisbey wrote:
>
> Brian Evans <brian...@fiberlink.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >Many cars use what seem to be high intensity running lights rather than
> >the headlights, so that cars with flip-up lights retain their good looks
> >during the day. Others use either the low or high beams at reduced power
> >and intensity.
> >
> >There are NO drawbacks to DRL's and only positive results. I fail to
> >understand the "arguments" of anyone who thinks they are a bad idea.
> >
> >
> Just the one problem, the high intensity running lights are annoying
> as hell, and the reduced intensity high beams are usually not that
> reduced. It should not be necessary to put my rearview mirror in the
> night position during the daytime.
>
I wish you wouldn't have said that, no we are going to see a bunch of
posts from whinging Canadians saying you shouldn't be driving if Dork
Running Light glare bothers you.
James Summers
In article <318F9F...@csc.cxo.dec.com>, gru...@csc.cxo.dec.com
says...
>If you use the emergency brake when you are parked the DRL
>wouldn't come in until you released the brake to start drviing. No
>strain at engine startup time....
>
>I keep finding people who are SUPRISED that the engine can be
>running and the DRL will be off when the parking brake is
>engaged....do people just not use the emergency brake anymore when
>they are parked?
Where I grew up (and learned to drive), if you set the parking brake in
the winter time the car was there (with the brakes frozen) until the
spring thaw. Was taught, "don't use it except when you have to".
Like a lot of the other folks, I dislike having anyone, GM or feds, make
me operate a specific way. The stuff inside my head works just fine, let
me use it!
Oh, by the way, anyone that doesn't know the parking brake turns off the
DRLs hasn't read the owner's manual very well. They probably don't use
the insides of their heads for anything other than keeping their ears
apart so that can hear in stereo!
dand...@digex.net
In <318F92...@erols.com>, GNC <gcam...@erols.com> writes:
>James Summers wrote:
>>
>> While I'm ranting about the back end: Have you noticed how many of the
>> center brake lights are burned out? Nobody seems to replace them. Saw
>> one of the "string of lights in the spoiler" the other night that had ONE
>> light working.
>>
>> James Summers
>> microSumms Computing, Round Rock, TX
>> Wood working, travelling, other fun stuff, "old" space guy, and retired
>> IBMer
>
>
>burned out is the Toyota Corolla and Chev Nova (same car). Maybe this
>no-brake-light-problem is the only good reason to keep some of those annual
>state safety inspections. --GNC
You know what bothers me is having a Third High Mounted light, when it is
at the level of the regular taillights (i.e. the Corvette), or worse
if the "High" mounted light is BELOW the Taillights. (I can't remember
if it was the Trans Sport, or the Volvo wagon).
----Steve
Stephen Amadei
Director of MIS
Dandy Connections, Inc.
Atlantic City, NJ
John M. Gedde
My 96 Pontiac has DRLs. I was ambivolent to them until my insurance
company offered me a discount becuase I have them! Hey, money talks!
John
Bob Goudreau
Sledge (fr...@quiknet.com) wrote:
: Beyond this, a daytime headlight was about the only way a
: motorcyclist could hope to be recognized as as motorcyclist. The
: DRLs will eventually cause motorists (at least all the myopic,
: head-in-the-rectum, CD-changing, light-my-cigarette,
: cellular-phone-talking, newspaper-reading, was-that-my-exit,
: fix-my-eye-shadow, I-just-sit-here-behind-the-wheel,
: I-didn't-see-him-officer, stab-it-and-steer-it drivers) to see a
: daytime headlight and think it is another car.
And is that supposed to be a *bad* thing? As far as I knew, the
main visibility problems that motorcyclists have in the daytime
is that some cagers have trouble noticing them *at all* -- the
"I-didn't-see-him-officer" problem you alluded to. The point of
motorcycle DRLs isn't to make motorcycles stand out against other
vehicles so much as it is to make them stand out against the
*background* (sky, road, trees, etc.), into which they might
otherwise blend visually. Not surprisingly, this is also the
point of DRLs for larger vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Thomas Storey
In article <4mi47s$9...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> sbal...@ix.netcom.com(SBA ) writes:
>From: sbal...@ix.netcom.com(SBA )
>Subject: Re: Attention: General Motors
>Date: 5 May 1996 11:42:52 GMT
>In <4mhpdv$r...@wpg-01.escape.ca> whok...@escape.ca writes:
>>
>>"David M. Spera" <sp...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There are no plans to make this feature mandatory.
>>
>>>--Dave
>>
>>>sp...@telerama.lm.com
>>
>>
>>They are mandatory here in canada
>>
>>Phil
>>
>Where is "Canada"?
>Steve
>>
On top of you
Thomas Storey
In article <318BE3...@ix.netcom.com> Gerry Vahe <gv...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>From: Gerry Vahe <gv...@ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Attention: General Motors
>> I'm tired of having to cater to incompetant dumbasses.
>Ill Tell you, I'm glad G.M is doing this. I cant believe how many
>incompetant dumasses dont know where there light switch is when its
>raining out. (Or snowing for that matter)
Or not light yet!
Pete Jorgensen
In article <4moajr$m...@acme.sb.west.net>, jad...@west.net (Jerry Adams) writes:
>
> Scott Gaines (gai...@rmotrf1.ericsson.se) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> : to make my own decisions about when it's appropriate to turn on my
> : headlights.
>
>
> Hear, hear! A perfect summary of my feelings on the matter.
>
> It seems to me that all of the posts objecting to the DRL's are about
> CHOICE, not the fact that they are available. A simple switch on the
> dashboard would keep everybody happy. Those that believe in DRL's could
> leave the switch on all the time, those (like me) that want to have
> control over when they are on could use the switch accordingly, and those
> who hate them could just never turn the switch on.
>
> However, the above is probably too simple a solution.....
They've been making those for decades. It's called a headlight switch.
...Pete
--
% Pete Jorgensen: pet...@newbridge.com or pet...@intertel.net %
Pete Jorgensen
That I will never understand cuz most of the DRL systems that I know of in
Canada do NOT turn on the dash lights. I don't know about you but I find it
really hard to read the speedo or how much gas I have left when the inside of
the car is completely dark. ;-)
...Pete
--
% Pete Jorgensen: pet...@newbridge.com or pet...@intertel.net %
% Newbridge Networks Corp., Kanata, Ontario, CANADA %
Bill Glass
No joke time
I have a 56 Studebaker Golden Hawk, and about three weeks ago I accidentaly
hit the headlight toggle switch with my knee. We were driving around a bit
and at a light I pulled up a long side soem guy and he thought it was neat
that our "new car" came with DRL's. He had no idea it was a 38 year old car
and actually wanted to know if it was German or Swedish. When we said it
was a Studebaker he looked puzzled and asked if that was a German Car
company.
May daughter finally said yes it was a German car company andthey use dto
make covered wagons.
So ......if people don't even know how to tell a 30 year old car from a new
one, how you gonna get them to turn off the DRL's at night?
Oto60
Jerry Adams wrote:
> It seems to me that all of the posts objecting to the DRL's are about
> CHOICE, not the fact that they are available. A simple switch on the
> dashboard would keep everybody happy. Those that believe in DRL's could
> leave the switch on all the time, those (like me) that want to have
> control over when they are on could use the switch accordingly, and those
> who hate them could just never turn the switch on.
You already DO have this switch--it's called the headlight switch.
Oto60
Sam wrote:
> Here in So. Cal. there are areas that
> require you have your lights on evening during daylight (this was well before DRL
> existed). DRLs work best during the rain (when 50% of the people DON'T turn on
> their head lights), in foggy/smoggy/dusty conditions, and when driving with the
> sun setting or rising behind you. The whole idea is not so you can see
> better, but so that other's can see you. *See and be Seen* During the
> fog/rain...what do you see first? The car or the headlights??? When
> facing the sun (sunset or sunrise) what do you see first, dark objects
> or bright objects???
>
Fine. In fact, here in Illinois, it is law to put your headlights on in the rain.
If we all think that is a good idea, than let's start enforcing the law.
In our society, we would rather make new laws than enforce the old ones.
Jim Stoltz
And we pass laws because of 50% of the population that is too stupid to turn
their headlights on in the fog or rain or at night. I don't need the
government or GM to protect me from myself. We all have to tool around with
annoying DRLs because a handful of idiots can't remember to turn their
lights on in inclement weather. I have no rational reason for it, but I
find DRLs extremely annoying and am glad that companies are now making kits
for GM cars to disable them. What's wrong with a relay that turns the
lights on with the wipers? What about sensors that turn them on at night?
No, we'd rather have the lights on in broad daylight like a bunch of idiots,
it screams "we're all too stupid to do it ourselves, so the government (or
GM) is doing it for us". Pretty soon all cars will be covered with
bright yellow bumpers, flashing beacons, impact warning radar, will
steer themselves away from perceived danger, have anti-tailgating speed
correction devices, speed limiters at speeds determined by signals sent
by the gov't on state highways, and the like. Plus, those Saturn DRLs
are damn bright, very annoying. Next, we'll have NRLs for people that
drive at Night with just their DRLs because they're too stupid to
realize thier "real" headlights aren't on. And what about FRLs, for
the Fog - RRLs for the Rain. It really pisses me off, too, that my car
locks it's doors when I put it in gear. If I want to be car-jacked,
I'll be car-jacked dammit - if I want my kid to open the door and
tumble out on the highway, that's my decision to make. And, since it's
a 5-speed, it's not smart enough to UNLOCK them when I park. I'm always
fighting the thing to get out and when I pick people up. And don't get
me started on passive restraints - if I want to hurl my body at 60 MPH
through some blue-tinted, tempered glass, then dammit I want to have
that option.
Whew. I needed that.
Jim
Jim Stoltz
Bingo. The point is that because of people too stupid to use the
headlight switch, we all have to drive around with our lights on.
I think it's neat, too, that you can turn off the passenger side airbag
in Explorers with a dash switch. It's made for baby seats, but hey, if
you got someone that really likes to live on the edge, he can throw
caution into the wind and not buckle-up OR use the air bag.
Jim
Oto60
Jim Stoltz wrote:
> And don't get
> me started on passive restraints - if I want to hurl my body at 60 MPH
> through some blue-tinted, tempered glass, then dammit I want to have
> that option.
Here's one--mandatory motorcycle helmets.
When I rode, I like my helmet. It was comfy, kept the bugs out of my nose. But if
you don't want to wear a helmet, that's your choice! What difference does it make
to Joe Citizen if Spike the Hell's Angel dashes his brains out against a fire
hydrant?
The only time the gov't shoud make helmets the law of the land is when it can be
proven that the decapitated heads of motorcyclists roll out into traffic and cause
more accidents.
Oto60
Bob Goudreau wrote:
> And is that supposed to be a *bad* thing? As far as I knew, the
> main visibility problems that motorcyclists have in the daytime
> is that some cagers have trouble noticing them *at all* -- the
> "I-didn't-see-him-officer" problem you alluded to. The point of
> motorcycle DRLs isn't to make motorcycles stand out against other
> vehicles so much as it is to make them stand out against the
> *background* (sky, road, trees, etc.), into which they might
> otherwise blend visually. Not surprisingly, this is also the
> point of DRLs for larger vehicles.
What's the point? NO ONE is going to stand out if we all have lights on! Least of
all the bike! That was his advantage!
Bikers are already worried enough of the incompetant ass behind the wheel--that light
was his advantage (hell, I rode with my bright on during the day) and now you wanna
take it away!
I don't ride anymore simply because of all the dumb-fuck drivers out there. How about
we start pulling drivers licenses instead of adding lights?
Oto60
Bill Glass wrote:
>
> No joke time
>
> I have a 56 Studebaker Golden Hawk, and about three weeks ago I accidentaly
> hit the headlight toggle switch with my knee. We were driving around a bit
> and at a light I pulled up a long side soem guy and he thought it was neat
> that our "new car" came with DRL's. He had no idea it was a 38 year old car
> and actually wanted to know if it was German or Swedish. When we said it
> was a Studebaker he looked puzzled and asked if that was a German Car
> company.
>
> May daughter finally said yes it was a German car company andthey use dto
> make covered wagons.
The car companies were thinking of guys like that when they came up with DRL's.
Dick Brewster
SBA wrote:
>
> In <Thomas_Store...@mindlink.bc.ca>
> Thomas...@mindlink.bc.ca (Thomas Storey) writes:
> >
> >In article <4mi47s$9...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
> sbal...@ix.netcom.com(SBA ) writes:
> >>From: sbal...@ix.netcom.com(SBA )
> >
> >>In <4mhpdv$r...@wpg-01.escape.ca> whok...@escape.ca writes:
> >>>
> >>>"David M. Spera" <sp...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>There are no plans to make this feature mandatory.
> >>>
> >>>>--Dave
> >>>
> >>>>sp...@telerama.lm.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>They are mandatory here in canada
> >>>
> >>>Phil
> >>>
> >>Where is "Canada"?
> >
> >>Steve
> >>>
> >
> >On top of you
>
>
> Canada then is a brand of toupee?
>
> SteveIn Mexico it is a brand of shoes.
Dick Brewster
Eugene Slater wrote:
delitia ------
>
> rite on Jim, and what happens when drl are so common that motorcycles
> and funerals loose their 'edge', just blend into the already annoying
> crowd? lites under special circumstances are for special vehicles,
> ambulances, etc. contrast makes it safeer for them, why does anyone
> think they are red/orange/yellow? drl is a stupid probably swedish geek
> kind of idea, you know trying to outdoo volvo at being geeky.... gene
DRLs started in the dimly lit socialist countrys of Nordica. DRLs have
since become a source of national pride in the country whose citizens
primarily identify theirselves as "not Americans" and tell stories about
American tourists pretending to be from their dimly lit socialist country.
They are also know to praise theirselves about how "nice" they are until
innocent bystanders actually vomit.
John P. Curcio
In article <4mltf4$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, rljo...@students.uiuc.edu (Johnson Randall L) writes:
|> >I'm tired of having to cater to incompetant dumbasses.
|> This is not what DRL's are for.
Yes, it is....
|> DRL's are most usefull during driving
|> conditions where there are alternating conditions of shade and sunlight,
|> such as wooded or hilly conditions (haven't you seen the GM DRL
|> commercial?). Your eyes take a certain amount of time to adjust to these
|> conditions. They also help during severe glare conditions.
I think you made a type there in the last line--- you should have said, "They
also help create severe glare conditions." Witness any GM implemetation.
QED.
-JPC
--
=============================================================================
John P. Curcio j...@philabs.philips.com Philips Labs Briarcliff Manor, NY
"FOSTERS: Australian for Bud, mate!!"
"No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'" -BH
Marc
>fighting the thing to get out and when I pick people up. And don't get
>me started on passive restraints - if I want to hurl my body at 60 MPH
>through some blue-tinted, tempered glass, then dammit I want to have
>that option.
>
>Whew. I needed that.
>
>Jim
Jim,
i understand your point about all the possible and already present
safety features that GM uses or has but take it easy. I admit, DRLs
are kind of stupid, but so what....Do you really think that GM will
have all those silly gadgets on there cars someday? You have to
admit, GM and Ford, as well as Chrysler have all contributed to lives
being saved. Was it 1966 the first year that padded dashes were in
every car? How about seat belts? or even air bags for that
matter..... Let's face it, we are driving around in tin cans that
need all the safety features they can get. Unibody construction means
the end to that safe (feels like a '50 Merc) feeling that we used to
get with cars.
-marc