day time lights

Page 10 of 11  
DRL do reduce accidents. It is proven and not just a personal oppion.
http://esvc000115.wic023u.server-web.com/speeches_Daytime%20running%20lights.htm
A study in the United States compared crash rates of specific GM, Volvo, SAAB and Volkswagen cars before and immediately after daylight running lights became standard equipment on these models. The results suggest a reduction in crashes between target vehicles and other vehicles in excess of 5 per cent and a reduction in vehicle and pedestrian collisions of about 9 per cent. A study in Texas in 2002 reported on a trial involving a campaign to encourage voluntary use of headlights during the day. Crash rates in the area where the campaign was run were compared with crash rates in neighbouring areas over the same period and showed a reduction of 58.7 per cent for fatal crashes and for serious injury crashes on major roads.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim wrote:

http://esvc000115.wic023u.server-web.com/speeches_Daytime%20running%20lights.htm
reduce collision rates, namely at dawn & dusk on two-lane roads with limited forward visibility due to curves and hills. The point I make over and over again is, how many accidents do DRLs CAUSE, thru (mainly) distraction and masking. Effectivity of DRLs should not be promoted or even condoned just for that narrow set of circumstances, since anyone that has a driver's license is supposed to know that you turn your headlights on during periods of limited visibility. Please cite the study source where it showed a reduction of 58.7 percent for fatal crashes and for serious injury crashes on major roads, since that number would seem incredible even for hardcore DRL-use believers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim wrote:

http://esvc000115.wic023u.server-web.com/speeches_Daytime%20running%20lights.htm
reduce collision rates, namely at dawn & dusk on two-lane roads with limited forward visibility due to curves and hills. The point I make over and over again is, how many accidents do DRLs CAUSE, thru (mainly) distraction and masking. Use of DRLs should not be promoted or even condoned just for that narrow set of circumstances, since anyone that has a driver's license is supposed to know that you turn your headlights on during periods of limited visibility. Please cite the study source where it showed a reduction of 58.7 percent for fatal crashes and for serious injury crashes on major roads, since that number would seem incredible even for hardcore DRL-use believers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is the second time you've posted this verbatim. Do you have a cite to support this claim?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Website: www.fema.ridersrights.org"
------------------- An additional study paper from FEMA
Review of the evidence for motorcycle and motorcar daytime lights
http://www.fema.ridersrights.org/docs/DL3331.PDF
--------------------
Study paper from CTC Uk National Cyclists Org (cites multiple resources in refuting Euro DRL studies)
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0611_AC_EC_DRL_con (v2).doc in HTML: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:45JCuKDrYsQJ:www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0611_AC_EC_DRL_con (v2).doc+study+drl+cause+glare&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=33&gl=us -------------------------------------------------------------- Plus more --------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dadrl.org.uk/DRLstudies.html
http://www.dadrl.org.uk/whatsnew.html
An interesting opinion piece
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/consultations/drl_20060727/drl_jcw_consulting.pdf
Why a car's daytime running lights are unsafe and should be eliminated
http://www.helium.com/tm/209820/daytime-running-lights-known
"A large scale U.S. study commissioned by the insurance industry showed that vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs. Furthermore, The NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) has found that DRLs do not increase highway safety."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry:
I've gotten through these to some degree. My apologies - my comprehension/attention span are greatly affected by the pain medication I'm on. I'm sure I could have done more justice to your collecting efforts last week, or even next week. I didn't want to put things off that long though.
Comments below.
-Mike-

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/consultations/drl_20060727/drl_elrod_perry.pdf
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/images/AssessmentofDRLs.pdf
Larry:
The above link strongly contradicts your position. Here is the coclusion from this document...
Conclusions
The effectiveness of daytime running lamps, based on the simple odds, was analyzed in the preceding sections using data from FARS and NASS/GES from calendar years 1995 to 2001. FARS and NASS/GES data show that during the period of the study 1995 to 2001, DRLs reduced daylight two passenger vehicle opposite-direction crashes by about 5 percent. DRLs have also been shown to reduce fatal opposite direction crashes between a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle by 23 percent. The results for two-vehicle daytime opposite-direction crashes are statistically significant at the p < 0.10 level, although one would prefer a statistical level of p < 0.05.
FARS data were also used to estimate the effectiveness, based on the simple odds, of DRLs in reducing pedestrian/cyclist fatalities in single-vehicle fatal crashes. The analysis shows that DRLs reduced pedestrian/cyclist fatalities by more than 12 percent. These results are highly significant at a statistical level of p = 0.002.
This analysis is based on US historical data and does not reflect what will happen in the future.
The techniques used do not predict the crash reducing effectiveness of DRLs if the entire fleet is equipped with DRLs nor if drivers become habituated to DRLs. These are limitations of historical crash data.
As additional data become available it may be appropriate to further investigate the effectiveness of DRLs in a variety of crash configurations including pedestrian and motorcycle crashes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.fema.ridersrights.org/docs/positionpaper_drl_consultation_nov2006.pdf This one I pretty much read completely. On one hand it was what I expected from an anti-DRL group. Lots of opinions - and I'm fine with opinions if they're expressed as such. A good amount of FUD as well. FUD bothers me because it's really a distraction technique. I find that FUD dilutes an otherwise good, albeit weak point. Not all points wrth consideration are built upon rock solid foundations of empiracle data. Finally - it did a good job of presenting some numbers which conflict with other reports from pro groups. Like I said before, I've looked at these arguments a lot over the years and neither side has been able to put up solid evidence for their position, so statistics with sources that contradict biased stastics (as is generally the case with politicians pretending to "study" something), (actually, the thought of politicians studying anything is kind of amusing) is well in order, in my opinion. So - in conclusion, I didn't find anything new and revealing in this one. That's not a bad thing - I really don't believe either side has enough going for their argument to be terribly persuasive.

This is the kind of finding that is disturbing. "In darkness", the car will have its lights on - not DRL's. This is a distraction point.

I happen to agree with this. You've never seen my position in other related threads, where I suggest that drivers simply need to practice attentive driving, and that gizmo's like DRL's are a poorly conceived attempt to treat the symptom, and not the problem. It's a social issue and doing away with DRL's isn't going to fix the underlying problem.

I think we have a lot more room in our finite capacity before we reach overload though. IMHO, where we can more readilly address the very real issue of overload, is by getting rid of 2/3 of the "do this - don't do that" signs that conspire to make the very act of breathing in a car illegal, and certainly cause confusion on the road.

And that decision is fine by me.

As one who drives a lot, I have to say that this one is lost on me. I've seen all of the overused pictures of the bike in front of the car, and I've never found it difficult to see a bike in a sea of DRL's. The pictures make it seem like more of a problem than it is because it's a staged, static shot. In the real world, our eyes and our brains respond to more than what can be captured in a photo.
------------------- An additional study paper from FEMA
Review of the evidence for motorcycle and motorcar daytime lights
http://www.fema.ridersrights.org/docs/DL3331.PDF
--------------------
Study paper from CTC Uk National Cyclists Org (cites multiple resources in refuting Euro DRL studies)
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0611_AC_EC_DRL_con (v2).doc in HTML: http://64.233.167.104/search?q che:45JCuKDrYsQJ:www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0611_AC_EC_DRL_con(v2).doc+study+drl+cause+glare&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd3&gl=us -------------------------------------------------------------- Plus more --------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dadrl.org.uk/DRLstudies.html
http://www.dadrl.org.uk/whatsnew.html
An interesting opinion piece
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/consultations/drl_20060727/drl_jcw_consulting.pdf
Why a car's daytime running lights are unsafe and should be eliminated
http://www.helium.com/tm/209820/daytime-running-lights-known
"A large scale U.S. study commissioned by the insurance industry showed that vehicles equipped with DRLs were involved in more accidents than similar vehicles without DRLs. Furthermore, The NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) has found that DRLs do not increase highway safety."
I had to bail out of the rest of these Larry. Believe it or not, it takes too much work to read right now. We can pick this up based on the comments I have already included if you wish.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry to hear about the pain :(.

Actually, I wasn't citing the study contained by NHTSA. Only that NHSTA referenced the IIHS study from 1997. Just showing evidence that the IIHS study does exist.
Now, you have referenced NHTSA's conclusions, so I will comment on that below.

This is the same data that GM, Ford, Chrysler and other groups (see my other post with references) have not found to be reliable enough to fully stand on. If NHTSA was fully satisfied with these conclusions, DRL would be the law of the land (in my opinion).

They are unsure if this trend will continue. I don't see this as a full notice that they see that history will repeat itself with further improvements.

If all cars have DRLs and if drivers get to used to them then they cannot predict what the result would be. They don't sound too sure that it will work on a mass scale. Same thing that we have been noting that if all cars had them, then any "advantage" would be lost.

Further research is needed.

FEMA is not a anti-DRL group. They are the Federation of European Motorcyclist' Associations. You can easily see this by checking their main web site: http://www.fema.ridersrights.org /. This group is a generalist group supporting cycle riders, they are not choosing sides for the sake of politics and are not a "political" group (grassroots is a better term, although I am sure that they do lobby on behalf of their members).
Look, this was a well written paper by an independent group that has DRLs as but one of a multitude of concerns. They did a strong job of putting together the information, but you ignore it. When you critiqued the NHTSA report, you didn't claim politics, weak point or anything other than "look at the conclusion". I am not understanding how you find the NHTSA findings "rock solid" but you discard this report?

Yes, however, with the regular lights on, the masking affect would be greater. I agree that checking that kind of thing in darkness probably does not have much bearing on the sunny daytime :).

I agree, good point. Doing away with them will stop irritating folks (in the U.S. specifically) :).

I understand what you are saying, but as you are referencing with the number of signs causing confusion, having additional stimulas with DRL lights in the eyes certainly would not help with the confusion.

Cool :). Of course this is a country that rejected them outright (you knew I would point that out :).

I understand what your thought is on that, however here is a country that found it to be serious enough of an issue to ban them and think long and hard about any implementation. So, add Japan to France, plus the big three U.S. automakers, NHTSA, various other groups who all can't fully verify that DRLS work and we have a malaise here folks.
<snip>

I understand, it takes awhile to research, read them and post them. I have snipped them but we have them in the previous post record for reference. Sounds fine.
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ignore it???? What in the world are you talking about?

I did not critique the NHTSA report in any way Larry. I took no stand on it. I merely pointed out that it was not supportive of you position. I pasted in the conclusion to demonstrate that.

Rock solid??? I made no such statements.

Then you see my point - this becomes a distraction. A tactic to distract from a losing argument. Cars with head lights on at night present no correlation to cars with DRL's on. As a distraction, this tactic is dispicable.

But - there is not an overwhelming voice crying out that they are irritated in the US. That makes the anti platform more noise than anything else,

As a driver, I would not say that DRL's have ever contributed to visual clutter for me. I cannot be used a evidence if US dislike for DRL. I spoke only of road signs and I do not find DRL's to add to the visual clutter presented by signs. Driving a car requires a certain amount of active awareness on the part of the driver - an acceptance of visual stimuli, I'm actually fine with visual stimuli.

Which pretty much places us where I've been all along on this matter. Some like 'em, some don't. The evidence on either side has never been compelling enough to convince a majority across a larger stage. Attempting to make a larger case out of weak evidence does not work. So in the end, so go one way and some go another. Does not matter to me. It's just not one of the bigger battles in life.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ignore might not be the correct word. It is correct that you didn't ignore the paper, as you did comment on it. "Discount the information" might be a better take. Essentially you threw out their paper as politically motivated weak arguments and when it came to the NHTSA paper, you pointed to their conclusions. Anyway, I just noticed that you treated the different papers in a different manner.

Critique = review and comment. You pointed to the conclusion of the report to refute what I had mentioned. You let it stand and did not say anything bad about their information like you did with the FEMA information.

You did not call their data into question, you endorsed their conclusion directly as a refute to me. Yes, you didn't say "rock solid" specifically there, I pulled that from your other comment to emphasize that you were looking for "rock solid" data and your lack of negative comments about the NHTSA paper did imply that you considered it to be a strong paper, thus the "rock solid" comment.

Absolutely, yes, I don't see the point with them doing any analysis at night, in reference to DRLs.

But, that is not true. There are multi thousands of comments on the NHTSA dockets. We are having this conversation here and folks do talk about this. The main reason that GM hasn't been able to push through DRLs involves the instance that the facts just aren't there to support DRLs and that a vast and varied group of citizens have complained about them. I can't tell you the percentage of the population, but it isn't just a few people.

I understand your point on this. I was simply noting that the signs, lights and other items in your field of view all add up to more "data" for your eyes to process at any given time. I just don't see how it can be good to add more "data" that you have to process in order to make timely driving decisions or reactions.

I appreciate your even keeled concept here. Obviously, I don't see the "weak evidence" on the anti side ;). But, I appreciate how you are trying to approach this.
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oye! I'm getting a headache dealing with you interpretation of things Larry. I explained to you that it seemed odd that you would post aink that was contrary to your position, provided the conclusion as evidence of my thoughts, and you're going off on some tangent about this. Unreal.

I quit Larry. You see yourself as such a victim in this world - it's no wonder thw assault of DRL's is such a big thing for you. You sir are going to find your walk through life to be one attack upon you after another. What a shame.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mike,
I have appreciated talking with you, it has been a pleasure, seriously. I am sorry that you still think that I am somehow a "victim", that is not the case. Yes things bother me, that is correct, but as a Christian I know that God is in control and the travails of this life are really no big deal. Seriously, I am sorry that you have a wrong impression of me.
Nevertheless, thanks for the conversation. You truly did back up your position as neutral and unlike others you did work to having a conversation instead of a school yard brawl.
God bless and thanks again,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

I've posted that fact maybe 50 times since this DRL crap started (but not just this current thread). I've posted a number of references over several years of time regarding the distraction factor for any REASONED correspondent to click and read, but I've come to believe you are the type of person that would disregard ANY citations and argue in the negative even if there was a large amount of statistical evidence proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, so I will no longer be bothered to post the references for your convenience. In other words, look up your own stuff! The matter of masking is well known, and is one of the reasons that NHTSA hasn't moved toward making DRLs mandatory. Masking was also the cause of my accident back in '00, when a motorist turned left and plowed into the driver side of my car in broad daylight and told the investigating police that "I didn't see the car", even though I had my headlights on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your loss Sharon. I could not care less on this matter, so I have no reason not to acknowledge factual information. What I do disregard as a matter of practice are claims from either side of a discussion that are unsubstantiated, yet presented as if they were valid. When you make an assertion that is questioned it is your obligation to substantiate it - not the obligation of the other party. Attacking me and using a poorly crafted portrayal of me as the other side only serves to further discredit you.
What both you and Larry have missed is that I'm not on either side of this argument. I've called your claims when they were baseless and contrived, and I'm in the very process of looking at some info Larry provided links to yesterday. It goes slow now because I broke my wrist this week and typing is now a much more complicated effort - when I can even type. I've got some really good drugs for this break, but they make it hard to stay awake long enough to engage things, and even harder to follow a train of thought. You see Sharon, contrary to your attempted maligning of me, I am indeed a man of character and integrity I will give Larry's links their due and I will review them on their own merit. I am not afraid of encountering something new, or something contrary, even. But - I won't do your work for you. If you don't want to post cites, that's fine. It's just a further display of your lack of creditability.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mike, In all fairness, the reality is that I don't remember you, or the other side, presenting as much information as we have presented. You keep saying you don't care, but obviously you do because you attack us and don't attack people that are pro-DRL. You accept what is said on that side and don't combat them. So, if you are truly neutral, then I would love to see you bash the other side.
Thanks for checking the links, it took a while to research.
Oh, I did a cursory Google search on the military convoy lights on issue. I didn't find any hard links to it. However, they do use lights on in convoys in the war zone, just watch the news reports. If daytime lights make your car stand out so much, then why would the military insist on using lights during war? Even without direct information resources on this subject, it is logical that if the lights would make it easier for the enemy to spot them, they wouldn't have their lights on. Maybe Sharon has a link to it, but I am not concerned if she doesn't as the use of lights in war is a known fact even without information links, it stands on its own. Logically, I am assuming that the military uses the lights to conceal, instead of stand out.
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are correct in that Larry, but that is because I don't have any accumulated information. That's sort of the nature of no having a dog in the fight. I'm not arguing against your opinion or your stand - I have only stated when I thought certain arguments were weak, or when pot-kettle-black was at work. At this point I can't... and I don't care to argue against your stand. Really... I'd rather see you present a more credible stand for the simple sake of aell presented argument. You may have done so wth the links you provided, but as I said, I have not been able to give them their due as yet. Maybe today...

No - I don't attack you guys. Look at the dynamics of what's taken place. I typically question something that just does't smell right and the result is either you or Sharon stating you're convinced I'm against your position, and accusation about what my motives are. The attacks come from you guys. I've simply asked for cites (Sharon's have failed her miserably), or pointed out where some of the claims have been a big stretch of the imagination. A good position does not need those kinds of tactics.

it. I'll offer my cooments afterwards. Trust me Larry - this is not a battleground for me - if there is something noteworthy in those links, I'm not afraid to acknowledge it. My own opinions and ego aren't the end-all of the world I live in.

I have no idea how things work these days, but when I was in, convoys used lights specifically to alert civilian traffic - to make the convoy stand out better. I'm not sure they uses them in the combat zone. It used to be that they blacked them out with shields that reduced their range. I certainly don't believe it's safe at all to assume they are using the lights for any sort of camouflage.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

Hey Marlow, Of course they used blackouts to reduce their visibility range (actually, it was to minimize the OVERHEAD image from enemy spotter planes), but that was at NIGHT, not daytime. Lights were used in the first Gulf war on tanks - no, NOT automotive DRLs - but lights of significantly greater intensity than that - to OBSCURE the position of the tanks on the desert in the shimmer of the summer heat. As I indicated before, I don't believe that you're to attempting to determine anything about the pros or cons of DRLs (or anything else for that matter), but you join these discussions merely to harass and belittle people that take anything seriously. Therefore, I believe that you've occupied enough of my time for the rest of my life, so I'm filtering you out, as of now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No Cooke - I made my comments to in order to call attention to the ludicrous claims you threw on the table. The shameful behavior here is yours - you attempt to hide behind what you consider to be a badge of honor (this DRL battleground), while you do nothing but throw out wild and outlandish claims, or equally outlandish, irrelevant references like the tanks, above. We all know there is no correlation between DRL's and the tank lights you speak of here, but you throw it out there as diversion. I believe Larry to be sincere in his position, but you are nothing but a shit-stirrer. You are classic in that regard Cooke, and it gives me pleasure to call you on it. What a shame that people like you give a bad name to movements.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When you argue so strongly against methodologies specifically on one side of the argument, it is extremely hard to see that you do not have a stake in fighting for one side against the other. Even though I know you are neutral, it becomes hard to continue to see that. I know you understand and I appreciate your above insight.
Thanks again for checking the information.

Well, normally the other side comes up with their own citations that are used to convince the other side. Whereas, Sharon and myself have tried to raise those kinds of cites, you keep shooting them down. But, the other side hasn't done much and you have not attacked them. I realize you are not seeing it, but having a strong position and desire on an issue does not translate into people attacking you. Again, if you are truly neutral, you would not continue to attack us.
I am glad to have provided more information than I felt necessary, but I am unsure if I will do it again. You have frustrated this conversation and I am unsure as to why you keep calling us miserable failures, it just doesn't make sense to continue badmouthing us, our information and our methodologies while not doing so to the other side. I will continue to try to engage you in intellectual conversations, but that can't happen when you keep badmouthing what we do (you considerations on the cites as posted have not been ignored, by the way).

Thanks for checking it out, no problem.

I understand what you are saying here.
Cheers,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually the only real cite was provided by Sharon, and several people pointed out that the numbers were clearly the opposit of what she was saing. She then accused everyone of cherry picking because we looked at the entire data set - and then proceeded to tell us that only a subset of those numbers were valid. Now, I ask you Larry - who is cherry picking?

For that very reason Larry. No one was making claims in favor of DRL. Most of us here were simply replying to the posts from you and Sharron. That's the way dialog goes.

Questioning and poining out weak arguments is not an attack.

I have never called you a miserable failure. Perhaps this is an indication of why you feel so persecuted...

With respect to the only information that was posted - Sharon's cite - it condemed her, not anyone here.

Larry - you have to understand that everyone is not going to always agree with you. If you consider that disagreement is a problem, then life is going to frustrate you. You have whinned about being attacked enough. No one here has attacked you. Grow some skin Larry.
I would say that could be argued that Cooke has probably been more unpleasant and anti-social than the sum total of respondents in this thread. Time to let go of the whinning.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<not getting involved in the cherry picking discussion, sorry>

Below is what I have found to be comments in favor of DRL, from this actual thread. Mike M., your comment from 9/4 is included as a matter of fairness, however I have not seen any evidence that you have been fighting for the pro or con position. True to your word, you are actually pushing for explanations and not taking a stand on the issue (still irritating to those being pushed, but nevertheless you are not actually arguing for or against DRLs :).
------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:01:26 -0500
"I have a 96 Buick LeSabre and would like to add daytime running lights."
------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:57:12 -0500
"I believe that '96 was the year that year that GM started putting DRLs on ALL it's vehicles, so your car probably has them, but they were disabled by a previous owner. If not, GM will be happy to sell you a DRL lighting module for $50 or so."
------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:23:10 -0400
"Here in Canada, the DRL's have been used for years, and no one I know has a problem with them. I am curious to know how the accident you were in was caused by the DRL's. Care to share?"
------------------------------------

"As far as hard data goes, it's not possible to prove causality

I dont know, but this is not proof, nor really even well developed evidence. It may become evidence or even proof, but it is too soon to say for sure. "
------------------------------------
Hobo 8/29 8:09PM
"That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. You are saying that in broad daylight, DRLs can cause someone else to be so blinded by glare that they can't see what's on the road (what about sunlight reflecting off of the windows and shiny surfaces of other vehicles - doesn't that cause a problem?). I've only been driving for 48 years, in Canada, the USA and Europe and I have never seen, nor heard, of such a thing. Sounds to me like a piddly assed excuse for driver inattention "
------------------------------------
Hobo 8/29 8:11PM
"Duhhhh, it's not for you to see, it's for others to see you. Do much two lane highway driving?"
-------------------------------------
Tim 8/29 10:13PM
"I think they make it easier to see on coming traffic. I base that on my eyes. I did do a little research and found the Postal Service reduced accidents by 35% with vehicles that have DRL. And we all know school bus's run with lights on."
-------------------------------------
PerfectReign 8/29 9:48PM
"Mine be amber!
http://www.perfectreign.com/files/images/av_ambers_800x600_0.jpg
I personally really like DRLs. They help out a lot in attracting attention to others. "
-------------------------------------
Tim 8/29 11:18PM
Posted the contents of http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/ . Full discourse in showing pro and con comments.
-------------------------------------
Scott Buchanan 8/30 12:42AM
"What are the hazards presented by DRL's?
The only problem that I know of is when one approaches a military guard post they want you to turn off your head lights. "
-------------------------------------
80 Knight 8/30 1:17AM
"Like I said, here in Canada, they have been used for many years, and I never hear anyone complaining. "
-------------------------------------
Lee Richardson 8/30 7:55AM
"And therein lies part of the problem. Supposedly knowledgeable and experienced drivers do not always have their lights on when they should, and no automatic system is capable of doing so. For example, many people and automatic systems would assume the lights are only needed at night, or in heavy rain, fog, or other conditions where visibility is limited. But the sad fact is they are needed on even the clearest, brightest days. For example, on a sunny day, -your- car, or worse yet, motorcycle, can be hard to see if it is in an area shaded by trees, buildings or other obstructions.
Let's take an example of someone trying to pass a car travelling west on a typical 2 lane state road on a sunny afternoon. Let's say we are approaching these two cars head on, travelling east. If the section of roadway we are on is shaded for any reason, the oncoming cars may not be able to see us, resulting in a dangerous situation. Meanwhile, with the sun to our backs, we wonder why the "idiot" trying to pass did not see us, since we have no trouble seeing him at all.
Sceptics can prove the value of DRLs to themselves, even if their cars are not equipped. Try driving for 1 week with the headlights on at all times, low beams are fine. If you are like the typical driver, you may well notice less people pulling out in front of you all the time when driving. In my own experience, idiots will still occaisionally pull out, but it seems to reduce the frequency of it happening.
I for one do not like more governmental intrusion into personal lives. For example, I do not believe in seat belt laws, helmet laws, prohibition from riding in the open beds of pickup trucks, etc. But just because I do not believe they should be forced on us by governments or manufacturers does not mean that some of them are not good ideas. In a perfect world, more folks would know the difference on their own without being forced."
-------------------------------------
Tim 8/31 11:06 and 11:12AM
"Glare? from a reduced voltage head lamp you better get your eyes checked "
"You did not read down about the good points of DRL. "
--------------------------------------
Sudy Nim 8/31 1:38PM
"Personally I would rather see all cars with DRLs rather than not see one coming at me out of a rainstorm, a fog or from around a sharp two-lane highway curve in overcast without any lights, which they "forgot" to turn on! I can send you a copy of the accident and hospital reports to verify the results if you would like? "
--------------------------------------
Tim 8/31 3:41PM
"I feel DRL are safer and I could give a S*** less what others feel. Of course I also feel seatbelts and helmet safe lives and have always used them. "
---------------------------------------
Edwin Pawlowski 8/31 6:50PM
"Could be, but I've never been distracted by them, harmed by them or any other bad thing. Nor have I seen a "mountain of bodies" on the road since they became standard of GM cars. "
-----------------------------------------
80 Knight 9/3 4:42AM
"I have seen no evidence that my use of DRL's affect's other drivers. No one I know of has complained about them, and (as I have stated, here in Canada, they are mandatory), I see them every day, and also have no complaints about them. "
-----------------------------------------
80 Knight 9/4 12:15AM
"If my "glare" you mean someone shining a flood-light into your eyes, then I totally agree. However, the glare from a DRL equipped car is very minimal. "
"I can see quite fine, even on a 4-lane highway, full of cars with DRL's. Nothing is masked. "
------------------------------------------
80 Knight 9/4 12:11AM
"If DRL's are so dangerous, why do some States, and Canada use them?"
------------------------------------------
80 Knight 9/4 12:16AM
"If DRL's are so unsafe, why hasn't the US Government outlawed them, like you want? "
---------------------------------------------
80 Knight 9/4 12:21AM
"The problem is, not everyone is bothered by this "glare"."
---------------------------------------------
80 Knight 9/4 11:08AM
"All of the DRL's I have encountered are low-powered, even the ones using the high beam lights. "
"Having been driving for many years, I disagree. The DRL's are honestly not that bright. "
"All I have is your claim saying people can't. I can see them fine. "
"I thought we had already discussed the gas issue? DRL's aren't going to bring a person's gas bill up. Certainly not more then A/C, driving with the windows open, not properly inflating tires, and so forth. "
Posted IIHS page citing Pro DRL stance: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html
-----------------------------------------------
Mike Marlow 9/4 3:20PM
"I'm not with you on the DRL issue, but I am on the state's rights issue. "
-----------------------------------------------
Indrek Aavisto 9/4 3:25PM
"DRL's work effectively and are well received in Canada, where 90% of the population lives within 200 miles of the US border. "
"These instances are then seized upon to support the notion that the initiatives should be abandoned despite ample evidence of their effectiveness in most situations. "
-----------------------------------------------
Tim 9/4 7:34PM
"THIS thread started with a question can I hook up the DRL on my 96 Buick. "
------------------------------------------------
80 Knight 9/5 3:44AM
"You say you see glare from DRL's. I say I don't. "
"A car headlight, even on full brightness uses *much* less gasoline then running the A/C. If you want to get to basics, even using your radio could change your mileage. "
"DRL's are safety equipment. "
"Who are you to say "cars were not designed to have them (lights) on all day"?"
"If motorcycles are so dangerous without lights on, surely the government would mandate this. "
"However, the *fact* is in Canada, as well as several other countries, and some US States, DRL's are mandatory. Why would they be if they are not needed, or worse, are dangerous? "
"If that were the case, then it would make sense for DRL's to be mandatory on all vehicles. "
------------------------------------------------
Tim 9/8 8:20AM
"DRL do reduce accidents. It is proven and not just a personal oppion.
http://esvc000115.wic023u.server-web.com/speeches_Daytime%20running%2 ...
A study in the United States compared crash rates of specific GM, Volvo, SAAB and Volkswagen cars before and immediately after daylight running lights became standard equipment on these models. The results suggest a reduction in crashes between target vehicles and other vehicles in excess of 5 per cent and a reduction in vehicle and pedestrian collisions of about 9 per cent. A study in Texas in 2002 reported on a trial involving a campaign to encourage voluntary use of headlights during the day. Crash rates in the area where the campaign was run were compared with crash rates in neighbouring areas over the same period and showed a reduction of 58.7 per cent for fatal crashes and for serious injury crashes on major roads. "
----------------------------------------------------
<RJ> 9/8 3:47PM "Arizona has many 2-lane highways. Some, arrow-straight, with some dips and rises.
The oncoming view is often distorted by heatwaves, but there's no mistaking an approaching vehicle with headlights <ON>
Many Arizona highways require headlights <ON> at all times.
It IS safer ! "
-----------------------------------------------------

It can be perceived as such by those on the receiving end. Of course what each person determines to be a weak argument is subjective.

Thanks, I don't feel persecuted, just a perception of being attacked. Obviously, I believe in what I am saying and when prodded I will be compelled to respond.

I understand what you are saying here. In re-reading the threads, I did note that you did focus in on that.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. I didn't respond to every post that was positive for DRLs, I know that people have different opinions. The difference is when people engage with questions or direct pot shots, then there will be a further discussion. I am not here to change everyones minds (that is not realistic), just allow for more thoughtful consideration of the issue in total.

I can't concur, obviously :). I don't want to attack Sharon, as I understand where you and others are coming from, however I did not see any reason to be so harsh with her. I obviously agreed with her in many areas and I appreciate her being bold enough to speak her mind on the subject. I know you disagree with me on this, but I won't be negative in her direction.
Thanks,
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.