Lethal seatbelts? Hardly! Any study of belted occupants I've seen in the last TWENTY years or so clearly indicates that a properly belted (lap AND shoulder) occupant is almost indestructible at 'real-world' collision speeds. You may be thinking of SRS air bags; the jury is still out on those, even including the new lower velocity deployment ones. In any event, comparing something that only protects the occupants of a vehicle in the event of a collision to DRLs that can CAUSE accidents is ludicrous.
The seat belt study cited really doesn't focus on how effective seat & shoulder harness alone is, merely how effective seat belts are when used with SRS airbags. Also note the detailed warnings associated with the SRS airbags. BTW, I survive a high speed crash, falling down an embankment, and a rollover wearing just a seat/shoulder harness. The car itself was totaled, but I didn't have a mark on me.
The DRL study summary LOOKS convincing, but you'll notice that most of the studies cited were in far northern countries. Since about 95% of the USA population lives below 45º N. Latitude, and has abundant lighting in the daytime most of the year (unlike say, Canada), that study really has little relevance to us folks living down here. Here's a site for you to check out, explaining how the government and GM studies about DRLs were 'created', with many links to source data:
Everyone is biased. The difference betweeen "non-biased" and "biased" sources is simply that the non-biased sources aren't revealing their bias. The biased sources are honest about where they are coming from. In fact the first step to trying to become less biased is to understand your own biases, and be completely upfront about them. Otherwise if you don't know what your own biases are, how can you try to avoid them?
If you want the truth then read the biased sources on ALL sides of the issues and use your brain to analyze the arguments and rebuttels and figure out which is consistent and which isn't. And of course, remember that some issues (like abortion) have no right answer because they cannot be decided on any logical basis.
The biggest problems with most of these "studies" I've seen is they fail to make their raw data available along with their conclusions, so it can be subject to someone else's interpretation. That is one of the basic premises of the Scientific Method, and if the study doesen't do that, it can be immediately rejected and discounted as nothing more than a propaganda piece.
Unfortunately very few people understand this. I've been in company meetings where a "research firm" has been in trying to pitch a marketing study, and asked the firm if they provide the raw survey data the study was based on, and been told that this was against their company policy. And right next to me there's people sitting who after hearing this are still campaigning to spend the $10K or so to buy the study.
You thought wrong. In Pennsylvania, the state referenced, the fine is distributed equally between the jurisdiction and the Commonwealth to be used for highways. The "other" costs over and about the fine(s), like the CAT fund fee go to the state to be used for those person being treated from the fund that were eligible before the fund was eliminated, as do the EMS fee(s) to be distributed to the local EMS service provider(s).
The Pa Constitution requires taxes and fees be dedicated to the intent of the law for which they were enacted. The fine portion of the costs to the person in violation of the 'use of headlamps' section of the code is only $25, as is the case for they majority of moving violations in PA, the balance of the $136 levy is as stated and for District court costs. Appeals to the next higher court(s) add an addition filing fee of $35. All of which is returned, IF the County Court sustains one appeal.
The information can be found on line at the PA web site in Title #75, the PA Vehicle code as well as the portion covered under the PA criminal code I E Death by motor vehicle while intoxicated etc..
So your original claim about $136 going to the state treasury is incorrect.
URL, please.
You said for ages that the VIN has something to do with content without referencing a URL, referencing the commerce department web site. For any credibility, you need an exact URL.
No, you were simply wrong once again. You have this ongoing tendency to comment on subjects about which you obviously have little or no knowledge, just so you can be heard on most every subject posted in your favorite NGs. That is your privilege but perhaps you would be better served by first saying in my opinion, rather than attacking those with whom you so often disagree.
The District Court makes monthly submissions, of all fines and fees collected, to the Commonwealth treasury. The State Treasurer retains half of the fines, its portion of the costs and distributes the balance quarterly to the County Courts, the jurisdictions and the EMS providers etc. The CAT Fund receipts are retained and administered by the commonwealth to the various providers, under the old law.
In review of where I told you to look for fines and fees.
" The information can be found on line at the PA web site in Title #75, the PA Vehicle code as well as the portion covered under the PA criminal code I E Death by motor vehicle while intoxicated etc.."
You do not need to spend a dime, your vehicle already has DRL capability. Turn the headlamp switch to "on," if you want to be seen during hours of daylight. At sunset you will not need to remember to turn you headlamps on to be seen as well and you will be all set for when it gets dark, as well ;)
Whenever I take a long drive on the interstate, say longer than 30 minutes or so, that's what I do. It also has the advantage that the taillights are on, which is helpful when going through the Lehigh Tunnel going to or from Philadelphia (for example, if I want to read the Philadelphia Inquirer).
Volvo's do illuminate the tail lights during the day. However, the brake lamps on Volvo's are housed in separate units, or separate section of the single unit. Some studies on file at the NHTSA seem to indicate that *daytime* illumination of tail lights, when the same unit also serves as the brake light, reduces the reaction times to brake lights of those people following the vehicle. Apparently the hard "off-on" is a better setup in daylight situations than "dim-bright" setups commonly used at night. So Volvo fixed that issue by having the separate always on tail light from the Brake light (the separation of the two functions which is a required configuration in Europe, BTW)
A comment on DRLs' The NHTSA has been "studying DRL's for 12 or more years years now. Apparently they haven't proved their usefulness as they've yet to make the final rule on the matter (that was due many, many years ago).
I typically use the example of "Where's Waldo" when discussing DRL's
For those unfamiliar with the childhood books "Where's Waldo", the books have several pages of "busy" cartoon scenes of people, including the main Waldo character. The task then is for children to learn to scan the scene to locate the Waldo character. Waldo is difficult to find in the crowd, no doubt. Often he is partly hidden' etc. However, if one were to give Waldo a flashlight, one could pick him out of the crowd immediately. Now if we give everyone (or just half the people) in the scene a flashlight, Waldo would be even more difficult to find than he was before the introduction of any flashlight. The resulting glare on the human eye of the hundreds of flashlights obscures the finer detail of the the overall scene. One sees many lights, but also sees less detail of the objects themselves.
What does that tell us? DRL's are excellent devices for adding conspicuity to a single entity "hidden" among many entities. But, DRL's proliferating into a "sea of light" causes, as with the "Where's Waldo" example, relative obfuscation of the overall road scene that would be normally lit (and be normally/naturally visible in greater detail) by natural/ambient light. The human eye/brain also has difficulty with the task of tying an individual point of light to specific objects as well.
The NHTSA has been studying DRL's for over 12 years now. They've yet to make a final DRL rule. I believe it is due to the apparent complexity of the overall dynamics that DRS's add to the driving environment. Many studies show benefit, other show none. Still others show DRLs actually contribute to increase in collision for certain road users (motorcycles, pedestrians, etc. are some losers few dispute). So, in the end, the final DRL rule in the USA (if there is one) will come down to some winners and some losers. I'd hate to be the one deciding for everyone!
Yes, lights have been used by the military since WWII as one of many masking techniques. Under certain common daytime lighting/backlighting conditions, lighting an object can make an object nearly imperceptible to the human eye.
The problem is that lighting in daytime situations is so changeable and variable (often changeable second-by-second). One second a DRL may be useful, the next second it may be detrimental.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.