|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| Ads |
|
#2
December 7th 14, 08:05 PM
posted to rec.autos.driving
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 16:13:09 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Humble Philosopher" > wrote: >On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:33:12 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:01:27 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most >> Humble Philosopher" > wrote: >> >> >On Monday, November 24, 2014 2:49:34 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote: >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 07:45:18 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most >> >> Humble Philosopher" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Friday, November 21, 2014 9:47:54 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:43:37 AM UTC-5, Love wrote: >> >> >> > In article >, says... >> >> >> > >On 11/20/2014 4:59 AM, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> If you are on a bicycle/scooter/motorcycle, the law may not matter as your >> >> >> > >> first accident may be your last. You may be dead wrong or right and dead. What >> >> >> > >> matters --and this is the first law of the revolution-- is PREVENTION. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> By the way, my GF's Lexus was broadsided yesterday --totaled-- but the gods >> >> >> > >> smiled on us and she's only hurting. Now we will feed some of the greatest >> >> >> > >> industries in America: the accident industry. Do you think anyone is trying to >> >> >> > >> prevent accidents seriously in America? How would the lawyers get rich? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> How would the revolution approach prevention? Some rules and regulation are >> >> >> > >> just common sense. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >Clearly we need the guiding hand of our Great Father in Washington to >> >> >> > >tell us what to do. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Or to facillitate the massive amount of negotiation >> >> >> > required of any set of wide-ranging public standards >> >> >> > like road regulations entails. >> >> >> >> >> >> Some don't even require regulation, just enforcing. The passing lane (aka "fast lane") is vaguely understood but never enforced. >> >> >> >> >> >> Others require regulation like the daylight running lights, already standard in the civilized world (Canada & Europe). My vehicle has a different light setup for Canada, better I would say. Kind of common sense. >> >> > >> >> >Nobody seems to have a good reason NOT to have daylight running lights: >> >> > >> >> >Advantages >> >> > >> >> > Automobile manufacturers and proponents of daytime running lights claim that having the headlamps illuminated at all times increases the vehicle's visibility to other drivers. With increased visibility, automobile accidents are less likely to occur as drivers will be more alert and aware of other vehicles on the roadway. >> >> > >> >> >Disadvantages >> >> > >> >> > Opponents of daytime running lights claim that the lights make for a more cluttered and distracting roadway. Drivers are more likely to be distracted by the illuminated headlamps of oncoming vehicles. Also, when the majority of cars in a dense traffic situation are utilizing daytime running lights, glare from the lights can create driver visibility issues, especially on a sunny day. >> >> > >> >> >Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8071521_day...ng-lights.html >> >> > >> >> >*** >> >> > >> >> >That's silly, isn't it? The lights PREVENT accidents. Period. "Distraction," "glare," "visibility issues"... What issues? It must have been thought by a lawyer. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >--------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >> >> >"The jungle has never been this much fun!" >> >> > >> >> >https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> >> >> There is plenty of evidence of the safety problems of DRL's. I posted >> >> reams of it a few years back. There are increases in several types of >> >> accidents. The bottom line was that putting all the research together >> >> of teh pros and cons of DRL's there was no demonstrable NET safety >> >> benefit. So why would you implement something that at the least >> >> irritates many oncoming drivers with needless glare when you can't >> >> show any NET benefit? >> >> >> >> Hopefully you understand the meaning of NET. >> > >> >Then the Germans must be idiots. And GM, Toyota and others too. >> >> Yup >> >> > >> >But I can tell you right off hand that I can spot a car much quicker with the lights on. >> >> No, you can spot it farther away. As to quicker, that may not be the >> case. In a sea of cars all with the headlights on you may never even >> notice the one about to run into you. >> >> Are you often surprised by cars that you never noticed till they were >> within 1500 feet of you? If so you should turn in your drivers >> license as you are not physically capable of safe driving. You can >> see all cars during the day when they are within 3000 feet of you even >> if they have no lights on. > >After seen a car without lights at night, it's a clear advantage to have the some lights always on. > >It has happened to me. You sometimes forget to turn on the lights, and at least you have some lights on. Did you notice the word DAYTIME in the phrase "Daytime running lights". No one is arguing lights aren't needed at night. No one is arguing automatic systems to turn on the headlights at night are useful. I will repeat what I said, in normal daytime, if you can't see a car without lights on WELL before it's close enough to hit you, you should not be driving. The fact that DRLs let you see cars a mile away adds nothing to your safety. What else do you want to put lights on so you can see it *a mile away* while driving? Every guardrail end? Every stop sign? every driveway? Every beginning of a curve? DRLs are light pollution, hiding as many hazards as they illuminate. Distracting you from real dangers as much as alerting you to others. Even with all that, I'd be fine with them if they were GLARING into my eyes. And yes, one out of 100 would be livable, 99 out of 100 is just a huge amount of needless glare they way many of them are implemented on the high beams. 
|
|
#3
December 7th 14, 08:06 PM
posted to rec.autos.driving
|
|||
|
|||
|
Daylight Running Lights
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:20:06 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Humble Philosopher" > wrote: >On Friday, December 5, 2014 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Phil W Lee wrote: >> "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher" >> > considered Thu, 4 Dec 2014 23:46:53 -0800 >> (PST) the perfect time to write: >> >> >On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:33:12 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote: >> >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:01:27 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most >> >> Humble Philosopher" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Monday, November 24, 2014 2:49:34 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 07:45:18 -0800 (PST), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most >> >> >> Humble Philosopher" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Friday, November 21, 2014 9:47:54 PM UTC-5, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:43:37 AM UTC-5, Love wrote: >> >> >> >> > In article >, says... >> >> >> >> > >On 11/20/2014 4:59 AM, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> If you are on a bicycle/scooter/motorcycle, the law may not matter as your >> >> >> >> > >> first accident may be your last. You may be dead wrong or right and dead. What >> >> >> >> > >> matters --and this is the first law of the revolution-- is PREVENTION. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> By the way, my GF's Lexus was broadsided yesterday --totaled-- but the gods >> >> >> >> > >> smiled on us and she's only hurting. Now we will feed some of the greatest >> >> >> >> > >> industries in America: the accident industry. Do you think anyone is trying to >> >> >> >> > >> prevent accidents seriously in America? How would the lawyers get rich? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> How would the revolution approach prevention? Some rules and regulation are >> >> >> >> > >> just common sense. >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >Clearly we need the guiding hand of our Great Father in Washington to >> >> >> >> > >tell us what to do. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Or to facillitate the massive amount of negotiation >> >> >> >> > required of any set of wide-ranging public standards >> >> >> >> > like road regulations entails. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Some don't even require regulation, just enforcing. The passing lane (aka "fast lane") is vaguely understood but never enforced. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Others require regulation like the daylight running lights, already standard in the civilized world (Canada & Europe). My vehicle has a different light setup for Canada, better I would say. Kind of common sense. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Nobody seems to have a good reason NOT to have daylight running lights: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Advantages >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Automobile manufacturers and proponents of daytime running lights claim that having the headlamps illuminated at all times increases the vehicle's visibility to other drivers. With increased visibility, automobile accidents are less likely to occur as drivers will be more alert and aware of other vehicles on the roadway. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Disadvantages >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Opponents of daytime running lights claim that the lights make for a more cluttered and distracting roadway. Drivers are more likely to be distracted by the illuminated headlamps of oncoming vehicles. Also, when the majority of cars in a dense traffic situation are utilizing daytime running lights, glare from the lights can create driver visibility issues, especially on a sunny day. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8071521_day...ng-lights.html >> >> >> > >> >> >> >*** >> >> >> > >> >> >> >That's silly, isn't it? The lights PREVENT accidents. Period. "Distraction," "glare," "visibility issues"... What issues? It must have been thought by a lawyer. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >--------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > >> >> >> >"The jungle has never been this much fun!" >> >> >> > >> >> >> >https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There is plenty of evidence of the safety problems of DRL's. I posted >> >> >> reams of it a few years back. There are increases in several types of >> >> >> accidents. The bottom line was that putting all the research together >> >> >> of teh pros and cons of DRL's there was no demonstrable NET safety >> >> >> benefit. So why would you implement something that at the least >> >> >> irritates many oncoming drivers with needless glare when you can't >> >> >> show any NET benefit? >> >> >> >> >> >> Hopefully you understand the meaning of NET. >> >> > >> >> >Then the Germans must be idiots. And GM, Toyota and others too. >> >> >> >> Yup >> >> >> >> > >> >> >But I can tell you right off hand that I can spot a car much quicker with the lights on. >> >> >> >> No, you can spot it farther away. As to quicker, that may not be the >> >> case. In a sea of cars all with the headlights on you may never even >> >> notice the one about to run into you. >> >> >> >> Are you often surprised by cars that you never noticed till they were >> >> within 1500 feet of you? If so you should turn in your drivers >> >> license as you are not physically capable of safe driving. You can >> >> see all cars during the day when they are within 3000 feet of you even >> >> if they have no lights on. >> > >> > >> >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.
|
|
#4
December 7th 14, 09:22 PM
posted to rec.autos.driving
|
|||
|
|||
|
Daylight Running Lights
On 12/07/2014 03:05 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> Even with all that, I'd be fine with [DRLs] if they were GLARING into my > eyes. And yes, one out of 100 would be livable, 99 out of 100 is just > a huge amount of needless glare they way many of them are implemented > on the high beams. I agree. The NHTSA should require automakers to have dedicated lights to serve as DRLs and ban dual use of existing lights (high beams, turn signals, fog lamps, etc) as DRLs. I suspect having such a requirement would quickly eliminate DRLs on most vehicles other than those that already have dedicated lights for that purpose.
|
|
#5
December 8th 14, 03:03 PM
posted to rec.autos.driving
|
|||
|
|||
|
Daylight Running Lights
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.
|
|
#6
December 10th 14, 01:38 AM
posted to rec.autos.driving
|
|||
|
|||
|
Daylight Running Lights
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.
|
|
#7
December 10th 14, 07:40 AM
posted to rec.autos.driving
|
|||
|
|||
|
Daylight Running Lights
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.
|
|
#8
December 11th 14, 02:34 AM
posted to rec.autos.driving
|
|||
|
|||
|
Daylight Running Lights
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? 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.
|
|
#9
December 11th 14, 05:17 AM
posted to rec.autos.driving
|
|||
|
|||
|
Daylight Running Lights
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.
|
|
#10
December 11th 14, 10:04 PM
posted to rec.autos.driving
|
|||
|
|||
|
Daylight Running Lights
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. 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.******* 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
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2002 VUE - Daylight Running Lights | [email protected] | Saturn | 2 | November 24th 06 08:25 PM |
| 1994 LHS headlight daylight sensor does not work, lights always on | random electron | Chrysler | 4 | June 17th 06 05:09 AM |
| 96 Honda Accord daylight running lights problem | me | Honda | 2 | February 18th 05 09:09 PM |
| Honda daylight running lights in Canada | Veggie | Honda | 18 | November 10th 04 03:15 PM |
Linear Mode
