Peter wrote:
Because driving with full headlamps in daylight is stupid.
It’s not. The number of (daylight) accidents went down after Sweden introduced this requirement. I know you don’t think very highly of authorities, but what would be the point with this requirement if not safety? No one will make money or jobs out of it. (Well, possibly light bulb manufacturers, but I don’t think they have a very strong lobby.)
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
It isn’t a Volvo trademark – it’s a nordic country trademark (something to do with longer nights at higher latitudes).
Hmm, it’s equally longer days at higher latitudes half the year 
It’s just a safety thing, cars with lights on are seen (much) more easily, simple as that. Similar to beacons on airplanes.
something to do with longer nights at higher latitudes
or longer twilight?
And back to the original subject: I find the whole story horrifying. Would the engineers have applied their own implementation of vague instructions from above, or would product management explicitly have requierd this “functionality”?
Either case would be a reason for me to not buy that make of car – I am driving a Fiat currently! – but it must be feared that this kind of horror is going to spread all over the market, not limited to automobiles. One more reason for me to cling to a very very basic aeroplane!
Jan, you do know that Jeep is owned by Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, right? 8-)
Yes I do, that’s precisely what so upsets me!
Meanwhile, I heard in the radio news that Chrysler got seriously fined over the whole affair.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Meanwhile, I heard in the radio news that Chrysler got seriously fined over the whole affair.
Not over this affair, if I understand the news correctly, but over the steering issues of some models and unsafe fuel tanks of another model. They even offered to buy back 500,000 cars for several 100 Million Dollars.
BTW: I too drive a Fiat, but mine is 16 years old (and nearly 350,000km) and can not be controlled from anywhere but the pilot’s seat
