A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Daylight Running Lights



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 12th 14, 12:52 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,026
Default Daylight Running Lights

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?

Ads
  #12  
Old December 14th 14, 03:32 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Ashton Crusher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,874
Default Daylight Running Lights

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:52:47 -0800, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>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?


Nope. And you can take your head and shove it up your ass.
  #13  
Old December 14th 14, 03:48 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,026
Default Daylight Running Lights

On 2014-12-14 02:32:15 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:

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

>
> Nope. And you can take your head and shove it up your ass.


So you don't have the grace to admit you were talking bull****.

One last time:

Do you have anything to offer to support your claim that DRLs CAUSE accidents?

Anything?

No?

Right.

**** off then.

:-)

  #14  
Old December 14th 14, 04:53 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default Daylight Running Lights

I have never been in favor of DRLs, since they came out, and wish they, and this over-hashed-out thread would just GO AWAAAYYYY.
  #15  
Old December 14th 14, 05:54 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default Daylight Running Lights

11:16 AMWise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:

"Maybe we should all have flashing lights like the police. "

That'd be a hoot! lmao..


  #17  
Old December 14th 14, 11:56 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Ashton Crusher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,874
Default Daylight Running Lights

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 18:48:55 -0800, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>On 2014-12-14 02:32:15 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:
>
>>> Now, will you simply do what you should have done 4 or 5 posts ago, and
>>> retract your ridiculous claim?

>>
>> Nope. And you can take your head and shove it up your ass.

>
>So you don't have the grace to admit you were talking bull****.
>
>One last time:
>
>Do you have anything to offer to support your claim that DRLs CAUSE accidents?
>
>Anything?
>
>No?
>
>Right.
>
>**** off then.
>
>:-)


You can kiss this. Come back when you get a clue.


¸.-·~~~~¨¨~`·.¸
¸~¸,.¸ ¸,..¸ ~¸
|¸o~¸ ~ o~ __¸~.,,¸¸___
(¸ (_, )¸/~¸;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~·-.,¸
¨~\,¸.´| ¸--- ¸ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;¸
(_¸.·¸~;;;;;;;¸;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;-,¸
~¸;;;;;;; `¸ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;¸¸¸.··-··~~~~~·-.¸
~¸.·~~~ ¸;;;;;;;;~¸·~ ·¸ ~·¸
~¸ ~¸';;;¸,¸~ ~¸ ~¸
~, ~¸;;;;;| | |
~¸ \¯¯~¸ | ¸~¸
~¸ ~¸ ¸-~¸¸¸,,..---······~~~~~~~¨¨¨¯·¸
¸~ ,¸ ¸~·····~~¨¨···:::::::::::::::··~¨¸~
~· ¸` ~¸ ¸ ¯;¸ ´ ¸-·¨ ¸ ¯¸ ´ ¸~
¯¯ ~¸ `¨~~¨ ¯¸ ¨~~¨ ~¸
~·¸ ·~¸--¯ ~·.¸ ·~¸-·-·¸¨ ~¸
'¸ ¯ \¸ ~¸
¸.~__,..-..¸-·~__,..-.,,_\¸
(;;;;;;;;~;;;;;¸\¯\¸;;;;;;;;~~
¯¨~¨¨¨¨¨~~~''''¯ ¯¯¨~¨¨¯¨
  #20  
Old December 15th 14, 12:33 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default Daylight Running Lights

Alan Baker wrote:

"I'm not in FAVOUR of them myself...

....but I'm not particular against them, either.

What I AM ALWAYS against, however, is stupid.

And saying that daytime running lights cause accidents is stupid. "

I don't know if they have reduced or increased accidents, all I know is that the first 70 or so years of automotive history were fine without them.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2002 VUE - Daylight Running Lights [email protected] Saturn 2 November 24th 06 09:25 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 10:09 PM
Honda daylight running lights in Canada Veggie Honda 18 November 10th 04 04:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.