On 2014-12-11 22:04:50 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:17:10 -0800, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-12-11 02:34:19 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:40:24 -0800, Alan Baker >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-12-10 01:38:26 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 07:03:41 -0800, Alan Baker >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014-12-07 20:06:29 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After seeing a car without lights at night, it's a clear advantage to
>>>>>>>>>> have the lights always on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It has happened to me. You sometimes forget to turn on the lights, and
>>>>>>>>>> at least you have some lights on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The answer for drivers who are too stupid to turn on the lights when
>>>>>>>>> it's dark is to stop them driving, not to make it easier for idiots to
>>>>>>>>> drive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, we all know there are too many idiots driving anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this particular case, though, it seems this happens to anyone at one
>>>>>>>> time or another. It's better to prevent the accident first and then
>>>>>>>> take care of the idiots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For every accident a DRL prevents it creates another one. There is NO
>>>>>>> NET safety benefit to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ummm...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What accidents have daytime running lights EVER created?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Name me one accident which was actually CAUSED by DRLs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of them. Studies have been done and documented the effects. I
>>>>> posted it all a couple years ago and I'm not going to bother doing the
>>>>> research again for people who have already made up their minds. There
>>>>> is a reason the US doesn't mandate them. It's not for lack of
>>>>> lobbying to try and get them, it's because the research, taken in
>>>>> total, does NOT support any NET benefit. If you don't believe it
>>>>> that's fine, the facts remain what they are.
>>>>
>>>> Then find your post...
>>>>
>>>> ...because I think you're full of it.
>>>>
>>>> Just describe HOW an accident could be caused by DRLs for a starter.
>>>
>>> First, tell me, what kind of info would you have to see to change your
>>> mind?
>>
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> Facts would be good.
>>
>>> Further, point to the studies you are relying on that included
>>> CONTROLS and BEFORE AND AFTER analysis which showed a NET benefit to
>>> DRL's. In addition, explain why an alleged safety benefit that
>>> accrues when ONE car out of 100 has DRL's, and is therefore spotted by
>>> EVERYONE as SPEICAL would be expected to still be there when ALL cars
>>> have DRL's and none of them are special anymore and it's all just a
>>> big sea of lights.
>>
>> I don't have to point to a study I'M relying on...
>>
>> ...because I'm no the one making a claim.
>>
>> My issue is with your claim that daytime running lights have caused accidents.
>>
>> Not only have you failed to give a single example, you've now even
>> ducked out of attempting to describe HOW it would happen.
>
>
> I didn't give examples because my theorizing means nothing. The proof
> is in proper studies. Apparently you don't understand how science
> works.

You lack of theorizing means less than nothing...

....and the original request was for an example of an accident CREATED by DRLs.

>
> Here's a couple study summaries I still had on my hard drive. I
> highlighted the key findings with ********.
>
>
>
>
> 642646 DA
> TITLE: DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS: A REVIEW OF THEORETICAL ISSUES AND
> EVALUATION STUDIES
> AUTHOR(S): Theeuwes, J; Riemersma, JBJ
> CORPORATE SOURCE: Institute for Perception RVO-TNO; Kampweg 5, Postbus
> 23; Soesterberg ; ID; 83401; Netherlands
> REPORT NUMBER: IZF-1990-A-28;TD-90-1621
> JOURNAL: NTIS ALERT Pag: 46p
> PUBLICATION DATE: 901210 PUBLICATION YEAR: 1990
> LANGUAGE: English SUBFILE: HRIS
> ISSN: 01631527
> AVAILABILITY: National Technical Information Service; 5285 Port Royal
> Road
> ; Springfield; VA ; 22161
> ORDER NUMBER: PB93-188084/WTS
> ABSTRACT: The study provides a review of the literature on the use of
> daytime running lights (DRL) as a vehicle collision countermeasure. It
> assists in the design of an accident study for military vehicles, once
> DRL has become obligatory nationwide. In the first part of the study,
> possible theoretical reasons for the supposed effectiveness of DRL are
> discussed. The suggested influences of DRL on perception are primarily
> based on theoretical considerations, and the relation between effects
> on perception and driving are still hypothetical. In addition, the
> section reviews some experimental results revealing relationships
> between the use of DRL and some aspects of traffic behavior. The
> second part of the study examines the available evidence for the
> effectiveness of DRL as a measure to reduce accidents. Studies
> evaluating changes in accident rates after the introduction of DRL at
> a nationwide scale as well as studies evaluating changes in accident
> rates after the introduction of DRL for specific groups are discussed.
> The results of a study evaluating the effects of DRL implementation in
> Sweden are examined in detail since the study was conducted at a
> fairly large scale using a variety of accident data and applied new
> statistical methods. The present review indicates that there is no
> clear-cut account for the perceptual and behavioral processes
> underlying DRL. In addition, ******* the available evidence in terms
> of accident rates seems equivocal as well.*******

Which says nothing about the subject under discussion:

The CREATION of accidents by DRLs

>
>
>
>
>
> 639173 DA
> TITLE: THE EFFECTS ON ACCIDENTS OF COMPULSORY USE OF DAYTIME RUNNING
> LIGHTS FOR CARS IN NORWAY
> AUTHOR(S): Elvik, R
> CORPORATE SOURCE: Pergamon Press plc; Headington Hill Hall; Oxford OX3
> 0BW; England
> JOURNAL: Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol: 25 Issue Number: 4
> Pag: pp 383-398
> PUBLICATION DATE: 930800 PUBLICATION YEAR: 1993
> LANGUAGE: English SUBFILE: HRIS
> ISSN: 00014575
> BIBLIOGRAPHIC/DATA APPENDICES: 2 App.
> AVAILABILITY: Pergamon Press, Incorporated; Maxwell House, Fairview
> Park;
> Elmsford ; NY ; 10523
> ORDER NUMBER: N/A
> FIGURES: 1 Fig. TABLES: 17 Tab.
> REFERENCES: Refs.
> ABSTRACT: The use of daytime running lights was made mandatory for new
> cars in Norway in 1985 and for all cars in 1988. This paper examines
> the effectiveness of this regulation as an accident countermeasure.
> The paper relies on the same study design and method of analysis as
> previous studies of similar laws in Finland and Sweden. Four
> hypotheses concerning the effects of daytime running lights are
> tested.
> ********* None of them was supported.**************
> The total number of multiparty accidents in daylight was not reduced.
> Pedestrian accidents and accidents during twiligt were not reduced.
> The number of rear-end collisions increased by about 20%. Daytime
> running lights appear to reduce daytime multiparty accidents only
> during summer (by about 15%) and only for multivehicle accidents,
> excluding rear-end collisions. The possibility that confounding
> factors may have influenced study results is examined. It is concluded
> that such an influence can not be ruled out. The discussion of the
> results highlights the difficulties of reaching clear and defensible
> conclusions in nonexperimental accident research of the kind reported
> in this paper.
> DESCRIPTORS: DAYTIME HEADLIGHT USE; RUNNING LIGHTS; NORWAY;
> REGULATIONS; ACCIDENT REDUCTION; EFFECTIVENESS
> SUBJECT HEADING: H51 SAFETY

See above.

Now, will you simply do what you should have done 4 or 5 posts ago, and
retract your ridiculous claim?