View Single Post
  #5  
Old July 18th 05, 04:51 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

>
>> 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
>>
>>

>
>



Ads