"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:OdQCe.184979$xm3.29392@attbi_s21...
>
> "Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> > news:4VNCe.184420$xm3.115004@attbi_s21...
> >>
> >> "marx404" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > The idea is not so YOU can see, the idea is OTHERS can see you.
Simply
> >> > put,
> >> > it is a proven fact that having some form of DRL's (any kind) helps
to
> >> > prevent accidents by aiding other drivers to see you, (ex: oncoming
> >> > drivers
> >> > and at intersections).
> >>
> >> Care to share the "proof." All the studies I've seen that show a
safety
> >> advantage were in far northern counties (like Finland, Norway, Sweden)
> >> and
> >> even then they were often flawed. Data from more southernly climates is
> > not
> >> conclusive. Since GM (and some others) have been installing DRLs on
cars
> > in
> >> the US for sometime while Ford, Chrysler, and others have not, it
should
> > be
> >> possible to collect good data for US conditions (DRLs vs no DRLs). I
have
> >> not seem a complete study that does this. But maybe you have.
> >>
> >> http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm - old data (nothing as
new
> > as
> >> 1995)
> >>
> >
http://www.autointell-news.com/News-...r-29-03-p7.htm
> >> (this is a GM study. They only included crashes in the study where DRLs
> >> might be beneficial. They ignored the possibility that other sorts of
> >> accidents might be increased as a result of DRLs.
> >
> > How could having lights on in the daytime cause an accident? I'm not
> > trying
> > to be a smartass but I can't concieve of any situation where a low
> > intesity
> > light during daylight hours could cause an accident.
>
> Distractions. Your eyes are drawn towards the DRLs and away from other
> items. They also tend to hide motorcycles. Glare. Inconsistent
> implementation. Yada, Yada, Yada. Look through the other references,
> particualrly the ones form the anti-DRL sites. The NHTSA reference (last
> one) actaully showed an 8% INCREASE in some types of accidents related to
> DRLs (like the decreases associated with DRLs, this increase was not
> considerdd statistically significant). I have not seen a single study that
> was based on US condiutions that showed DRL provided a significant
positive
> benefit. If there is one, I'd like to see it. I am tiresd of being saddled
> with useless "safety devices" (ABS) or dangerous "safety devices" (air
bags)
> becasue Joan Claybrook, Clarence Ditlow and their ilk whine aboiut
> automotove safety. If road safety is the true goal, then there are plenty
of
> better ways to spend the "safety dollar" than some of the "safety devices"
> promoted by self appointed safety experts. What relly tees me off is that
> even when safety devices can be shown to be of dubious value ( air bags,
> high mounted brake lights), the requirements for these devices are not
> removed. I particualrly hate air bags since for people who atually use
seat
> belts, they are at best marginally useful and at worst dangerous (not to
> mention expensive).
>
> Ed
>
"Distractions" If you aren't any smarter than a fish (attention drawn solely
to shiny objects) or if you have tunnel vision then you have no business
behind the wheel of a car.
As far as I know this isn't a US only group. Here in Canada where the sun
spends a lot of the winter at a low angle I see a big advantage to DRLs.
As for people driving at night with no headlight, people did that before
DRLs and they will continue to do it as long as there is a switch for them.
I'll admit I did it once when I was in high school, out with my friend on a
well lit street downtown, a little distracted. I only went about half a
block before a nice police officer pulled up beside me and reminded me to
turn em on. :-)
Good talking to ya.

> >
> >> It is essentially a study
> >> designed by GM to "prove" DRL are good).
> >> http://www.motorists.com/issues/drl/DRL_petition.html (Rabid anti-DRL
> > group)
> >> http://www.lightsout.org/studies.html (more rabid anti-DRL information)
> >>
> >
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...pages/TRD.html
> >> (check out the line that says "None of these results were statistically
> >> significant" - the actual study is in the next reference)
> >> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...0/DRL7_RPT.pdf -
> >> This
> >> the best study I can find and it does not make a good case for DRLs.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>