day time lights

First thing to note, they studied specific vehicles, but I don't see that they studied non-DRL vehicles during the same time frame as a control group. Without that, the results are certainly skewed. As have been noted before, there are studies with opposite conclusions to this.

I too am very curious about the 58.7% figure. I am from Texas and remember well the small areas of lights on for safety. One of those roads had the signs taken down years ago and I haven't seen any signs like that in a long time. If we were saving lives on that mass of a scale, then I do believe that the signs would have stayed up and it would have been big news down here. But, they don't exist anywhere that I know of. Oh, also, comparing the rates of a completely different road to a road with lights on is not valid, as it doesn't take into account the differences between the two different routes. It would have been better to compare the before and after rates of that very same route. I question the validity of that figure, if that study result does actually exist.

Since you are citing the information in one "Speech", one only has to look at these sites and see the organizations that are partnered against DRLs to see that one "speech" is not the only opinion out there.

- 9 additional groups are listed as partnerorganizations in getting rid of DRLs - NMA and Edmund's are listed withnegative opinions of the devices Now, in reference to the five percent figures. Below is what I posted earlier that reveals the following:

1. Ron Zarella from GM says that "there s very little real world data,"
2. Sara Tatchio from Ford says that "the company was waiting for the results of federal glare studies before taking a definitive position on the issue"
3. Chrysler is "awaiting more federal research before deciding whether to mandate them"
4. Tyson calls the "research limited so far and said further study was needed."

Oh yes, there is also the issue where GM says that somehow it has figured out that 423 lives have been saved over 10 years by DRLs. OUt of the millions of vehicles and miles driven, how significant is this? How many lives were taken because of DRLs, during that same time frame?

So, the citing of studies stating a 5 percent success rate is not reliable on the basis of Pro, Con and indifferent perspectives that cannot reference these studies as an actual basis for decision making. Even the fact that GM is verifiably pro-DRL and they can't even truly trust in the figures. There is simply not enough real world data to back that up reliably.

-----------------------------------

Ron Zarella from GM:

"The automaker now offers daytime running lights, or DRLs, in all vehicles sold in the U.S. and Canada. While Zarrella acknowledged "there s very little real world data," he said there s enough evidence to suggest DRLs "have reduced relevant crashes by 5 percent, or 15,000 crashes" in the U.S. alone."

Comment: No real world data but he can "suggest" the result?

-----------------------------------

"(Detroit-AP, Dec. 20, 2001) _ General Motors Corp. has asked the federal government to require daytime running lights on all vehicles sold in the United States, the company said Thursday."

" Ford Motor Co. does not install the lights on its U.S. products, spokeswoman Sara Tatchio said. She said the company was waiting for the results of federal glare studies before taking a definitive position on the issue.

The Chrysler Group of DaimlerChrysler AG installs the lights in some U.S. fleet vehicles and all Canadian vehicles, spokeswoman Angela Ford said. The company was awaiting more federal research before deciding whether to mandate them, she said."

" Referring to federal studies, Lange said the lights have reduced daytime collisions by 5 percent, and daytime, single-vehicle pedestrian fatalities by 28 percent.

Tyson called the research limited so far and said further study was needed."

-----------------------------------

Rise in Motorcycle and Pedestrian Deaths Led to Increase in Overall Highway Fatality Rate in 2005

-----------------------------------

The only thing lame is the people (like yourself) taking this whole argument so serious with half baked facts. Save your passions and emotions for things that matter in life.

It is serious, so it will lend itself to an actual conversation.

Your comments are oh so important, hmmm ;).

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

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

Many Arizona highways require headlights at all times.

It IS safer !

The main driving distraction seems to be CELL PHONES. They should be disabled when the ignition is ( probably the next required safety feature )

This information presents some more study analysis and opinions on glare, etc....

First, there is a study released by IIHS in 1997 that notes a 3% increase (as noted on other sites, such as

the helium.com reference below) in accidents for DRL equipped carsas compared to non-DRL equipped cars. I have been unable to track downthat specific study, but I did find a reference to it on page 7 of aNHSTA release on DRLs from 2004.

"IIHS' Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) in 199713 released findings from a study of the personal injury claims for vehicles that added DRLs as a standard feature in 1995 and 1996, compared to the claim frequencies for the same makes and models prior to adding DRL. The number of relative claims was found to have increased slightly after DRLs were introduced."

"13Highway Loss Data Institute Bulletin Volume 15, Number 1, December

1997."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you go, you will want to read this entire paper (in addition to the below info, look at pages 11-14 for information studies the differences between DRL and non DRL countries, it is revealing):

Excerpt:

"The EC consultation paper does not take into account the research that has shown that DRL make no contribution to safety and may have negative effects for vulnerable road user3:

a) A study conducted in 1975 by H=F6rberg & Rumar4 found that persons are capable of detecting a motorcar not using DRL in clear sight on an airfield at distances of over

3000 metres. It is therefore unlikely that drivers' central vision might be inadequate to detect vehicles not using DRL at the distances where failure to detect a vehicle causes accidents. The same study found that under streetlights in darkness, the DRL of a stationary motorcar masked the presence of an obstacle in the roadway beside it from oncoming drivers. Therefore, DRL would mask not just the presence of obstacles in the roadway and other vehicles not using DRL, but also the presence of pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motorcyclists.

b) Two studies conducted in the eighties by Fulton5 and Donne & Fulton6 found that the effect of DRL diminishes once they lose their initial novelty effect upon drivers.

c) The perceptual capacity of persons is finite. DRL will add to the driver's perceptual load the need to constantly adjust his vision to contrasting levels of illumination. DRL will attract the road user's attention, detrimentally distracting him from vulnerable road users.

d) On the basis of Koornstra's work, France's INRETS7 decided in 1999 to conduct a study in the Landes department8 in order to verify through road experimentation whether DRL are effective. The study, according to the French authorities, has failed to determine a positive contribution of DRL to road safety, particularly on country roads, where most of the accidents take place, that the results were not significant. As a result, the French parliament rejected DRL.

e) A study carried out in Austria in 2000 by Pfleger & Linauer9 used a test track and view recording electronic devices in order to investigate whether DRL made a contribution to safety. Whilst it failed to identify any direct danger or any benefit for vulnerable road users, it nevertheless underlined that DRL as such do not make any contribution to road safety. The conclusions of the study are that DRL may be valid for sub areas only, and that therefore no recommendation for a general obligation to use DRL can be expressed10. The decision of the BMfV (Austrian Transport Ministry) and the National Parliament to promote the use, but not to support a mandatory implementation of DRL, essentially moves the self-responsibility and self-evaluation of the driver into the foreground.

f) The Japanese Government commissioned its own motorcycle masking studies, Morita et al 2001 and JASIC 2003. JASIC 2003, in particular, found, against motorcar daytime running lights, that the daytime headlight of a motorcycle could be masked by the daytime headlights of a following motorcar. As a result, the Japanese Government prohibits motorcar daytime running lights of over 400 candlepower in Japan, and wishes to retain the discretion under international agreements to prohibit motorcar daytime running lights, as well as mandate them (communicated to UN/ECE GRE2 before its meeting in June 2004).

3 More details in annex 1 4 Horberg, U., and Rumar, K.: Running lights, conspicuity and glare. Report 178. Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1975 5 1980 6 1985 7 Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur S.curit. 8 The campaign =AB En Plein Jour Roulez Eclair =BB 9 Pfleger, E., Linauer, M., Untersuchung von Sehdefiziten bei unfallbeteiligten Lenkern einspuriger Fahrzeuge, Radfahrer und Fussg=E4nger im Ortsgebiet und Freiland - Fahren mit Licht am Tag Universit=E4t f=FCr Bodenkultur, Institut f=FCr Verkehrswesen, Wien 2000 10 FEMA - Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations Rue des Champs 62, Brussels, Belgium T. +32 (0)2 736 9047 F. +32 (0)2 736 9401 Email: snipped-for-privacy@chello.be Website: "

------------------- An additional study paper from FEMA

Review of the evidence for motorcycle and motorcar daytime lights

--------------------

Study paper from CTC Uk National Cyclists Org (cites multiple resources in refuting Euro DRL studies)

HTML: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=3Dcache:45JCuKDrYsQJ:

-------------------------------------------------------------- Plus more

--------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting opinion piece

Why a car's daytime running lights are unsafe and should be eliminated

"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."

Cell phones and people hardwiring their GPS systems so they can "navigate" while driving are potential killers for sure, and States and cities are busy passing legislation against these abuses. As far as DRLs in AZ are concerned, I spent almost a year in Nogales (notrh sides) and never had any trouble seeing vehicles a long distance off in the daylight, no matter what the temperature. BTW, the US military in IRAQ used forward lighting to mask the actual loaction of Army TANKS when fighting out on the desert in 140º F weather, so dont be certain the premise yo stated above is correct.

Cell phones and people hardwiring their GPS systems so they can "navigate" while driving are potential killers for sure, and States and cities are busy passing legislation against these abuses. As far as DRLs in AZ are concerned, I spent almost a year in Nogales (both sides) and never had any trouble seeing vehicles a long distance off in the daylight, no matter what the temperature. BTW, the US military in IRAQ (Kuwait war) used forward lighting to mask the actual locations of Army TANKS when fighting out on the desert in 140º F weather, so don't be certain the premise you stated above is correct, since there is evidence to the contrary.

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.

I suspect you didn't realize what you weren't seeng then Sharon. The effects of heat waves rising up from a road bed are well understood. I don't believe there is necessarily a correlation between DRL discussions and this effect, but to deny the effect brings you claims/experiences into question.

I did a half-hearted (as opposed to an exhaustive) search for this and found nothing. What background info do you have on this? I suspect such things as light intensity, height, and other factors will prove to make this an unqualified ruse. Somehow I have a hard time believing there are standard automotive DRL's mounted on Abrams tanks over there.

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, 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

You are so right. My head is usually in "reality", unlike yours. Perhaps you should give it a try, you may like it.

Oh, I don't know. Does the phrase "A MOUNTAIN OF DEAD BODIES" ring a bell?

No, you are the one who believes motor vehicles having there lights on in broad daylight makes them *harder* to see. Sorry, Sharon. The game is over. You have lost. Your pitiful attempt to convince people based on lies, and unproven (or even sensible) information, has failed. Good night, and as Larry says, God Bless.

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.

I appreciate that effort and hope to be alert enough today to get through 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.

Larry:

I should have included this with my previous reply, but I missed id. FTR, I have not seen any significant amount of pro-DRL posts in this thread. My experience in conversations about DRL's is that neither side has presented any convincing arguments. I would treat pro statements the same way that I've treated yours and Sharon's. I'd expect credible evidence to back up claims, or I'd expect opinions expressed as just that- opinions, and not as fact. From my perspective this has been more of a discussion about the way you presented your argument, than about DRL's themselves. That's what I see in 80 Knight's comments as well. He's not really pro, he's holding your claims up to the light of scrutiny.

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.

That is an extremely unkind and inaccurate thing to say. Please don't allow this to be a reflection of your character :(.

You weren't paying attention, obviously.

I thought you were done posting, but you are back?

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

You are correct, there are less, but they are there. I would have expected you and Knight to have been fighting their "opinions" just as strongly, but that did not happen. Anyway?

The discussion should have never been about how a person was presenting it. The discussion should have been about the subject at hand, not personalities or critiquing people.

I would rather talk about the issue and not about myself, thanks.