Daytime Running Lights ?

Canada and some other countries require various types of Daytime Running Lamps.

Daytime Running Lamps are permitted, but not required, by US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 (Lamps and Reflective Devices). If they are installed, they must conform to design and performance requirements contained in FMVSS 108. For the past several years, legitimate complaints have been lodged by the thousands with the DOT regarding negative issues (primarily glare) from presently-permitted DRL designs, such as reduced-voltage high beam headlamps. There is a pending rulemaking action to revise the technical standards to reduce or eliminate glare and other problems (turn signal masking, encouragement of improper driver use of lights) with DRLs, so many automakers are taking a wait-and-see approach.

There are no plans to mandate Daytime Running Lamps in the United States.

Well, yes, the idea seems good, but the real-world data are inconsistent and questionable. Some studies show large benefits, other studies show neither a benefit nor a drawback, and still other studies show a large DISbenefit to roadway safety from DRLs. As with most issues related to the interaction of humans with cars, the truth is frequently not in line with what may "seem like a good idea".

Unfortunately, as with many issues where science and politics collide, there are parties trying to make money (GM) and fame (DADRL) off the issue.

DS Member, National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board Visibility Committee

Amazing; you can see this on the DRL issue but not on the Amber turn signal issue.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, AZGuy wrote, right on cue:

The DRL principle *per se* has conflicting human-factors effects; the signal-colour issue does not. Also, research exists and is contradictory on DRLs; research doesn't yet exist on turn signal colour.

Those are critical key differences.

But thanks for not missing your cue!

DS

That's part of my point. Research doesn't even exist. And in the "real world" there may well be conflicting human factor effects of two rear colors for lights. But we don't know, the research in the "real world" doesn't exist.

Yes, they are, but not in support of your position.

4> Well, yes, the idea seems good, but the real-world data are 4> inconsistent and questionable. Some studies show large benefits, other 4> studies show neither a benefit nor a drawback, and still other studies 4> show a large DISbenefit to roadway safety from DRLs.

3> Amazing; you can see this on the DRL issue but not on the Amber turn

3> signal issue.

2> The DRL principle *per se* has conflicting human-factors effects; the

2> signal-colour issue does not. Also, research exists and is 2> contradictory on DRLs; research doesn't yet exist on turn signal 2> colour.

You're either being obtuse or you genuinely don't understand the difference at work here. I'll try one more time to explain it for you.

First off, it is not the case that "there may well be conflicting human factor effects of two rear colors for lights". This notion is not part of the body of thought on the subject. Nobody in any position to be discussing the matter meaningfully thinks this. None of the regulators, none of the researchers, none of the automakers. Therefore, your saying this is akin to saying "babies are delivered by the stork" or "zucchini tastes better than broccoli". At worst it's unsupportable babble, and at best it's a personal opinion that cannot be supported by any fact.

Now, with that out of the way, here again is the difference between the DRL situation and the rear turn signal color situation.

Red rear turn signals and, therefore perforce, their adjacent or reciprocally incorporated red brake lamps violate several fundamental human factors principles in the fields of visual event ambiguity and attention fanning. That is known. Amber rear turn signals present no such violations and no such ambiguity. That is known. In English: There are no opposing human factors effects at work here; it is known that a system of amber rear turn signals and red brake lights always conveys all possible messages immediately and without ambiguity, and it is known that systems of red brake lamps and red rear turn signals introduce several types of ambiguity and delay in message conveyance. What is not formally known because the research has not been done is the degree to which the critical point for these violations is within the range of attentional loading commonly found in the driving environment -- either directly or as a contributing factor to so-called "road rage" and its results.

With DRLs, there *are* opposing human factors effects at work, and the real-world data reflect this with conflicting study results -- even when politics is factored out.

To draw an analogy, saying amber rear turn signals are less ambiguous and clearer but haven't been *proved* better is directly comparable to saying yes, tobacco is addictive and contains carcinogens but cigarettes haven't been *proved* deadly, while the DRL debate would be more akin to a discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of, for instance, an all-meat diet as advocated by Atkins and scorned by the American Heart Association.

Do you understand the difference now?

DS National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board Visibility Committee

A "disbenefit???" You mean a *detriment?*

Christ in a Countach...

Geoff

A disbenefit, yes. It's one of those words used in the research and regulatory communities, like "conspicuity", that doesn't tend to show up much of anywhere else -- though, for what it's worth, "disbenefit" appears in Webster's Dictionary.

DS

Unlike "gullible" which does not.

"Disbenefit" sounds almost like something someone at Microsoft would come up with... say along the lines of calling the BSOD a "meditative moment screen saver".

: A "disbenefit???" You mean a *detriment?*

Oh, it works -- in the crude, rudimentary, lowest-common- denominator sense that people understand what you mean when you prepend any old word with "dis-," much like the way people understand what small children and the unschooled subliterate mean when they make up words, say things like "He don't got none," or otherwise mangle usage and syntax. But most lettered people try to aim a little higher than that, I find.

A word's appearing in a dictionary doesn't mean much anymore, since dictionaries nowadays have gone PC and nonjudgmental, and are "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive." The people who compile them wouldn't want to risk damaging anybody's precious self-esteem by implying that they might be

*wrong* in the way they use a word, you see. And so the more recent dictionaries have taken the "inclusive" approach of gracing even the most rancid lexical crotch-clabber with the respect of a definition.

The bottom line is that these once-useful and rock-ribbed tomes have been hobbled, having descended from laying down the law by saying what's by-Ghod correct and what isn't, to explaining what people mean when they use a word *incorrectly.*

Geoff

Amber turn signals would be much less ambiguous than red lights on a car with one brake light out. Sometimes it looks for a moment like the person ahead is changing lanes, when in fact he's stopping, and has a dead brake light.

Are you sure? Let's check by running "irregardless" through Webster.com.

Main Entry: ir=B7re=B7gard=B7less Function: adverb Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless Date: circa 1912 nonstandard : REGARDLESS

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early

20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

You clearly don't understand what I am saying. Just because isolated bits and pieces with different colors produce a certain result, in a lab, does not mean that when ALL those bits and pieces are combined in the REAL WORLD, the NET effect will be positive. If you think two rear colors for lights causes no conflict, then why not posit that 5 rear colors would be even better? Red for brakes, amber for left turns, blue for right turns, white for coasting/steady speed, green for accelerating. After all, I'm sure if you test each on SEPARATELY in the lab you'll find people are MUCH better at determining if a car is coasting/steady speed if there is a white light on when it's doing so. Ditto for the other colors. Under your line of thought that would mean we should just put all 5 colors on the back of all cars and PRESTO we have a better rear signaling system. Under a different line of thought, others might say multiple colors may produce confusion in some situations that outweigh the benefits expected.

Therefore, your saying

All I see from you on the subject of real world amber turns is personal opinion.

No, you are just regurgitating what you've read and synthesizing an outcome that has not been demonstrated in the real world for the specific comparison being made.

Yet you can produce no real world evidence to support your case. MILLIONS of people seem to handle this terrible situation with great alacrity every day. You also ignore the human factors effects of getting "all possible messages immediately". It may not always be a net plus; see below.

Plus you still have not address the issue I raised. Which produces the *safest* response by a following car to signals from the leading car when the leading car does this:

1)Simeltainous application of brakes and turn signals on a car with RED/RED 2) Simultaneous application of brakes and turn signals on a car with RED/AMBER

Second question the same except now it's:

1)Simeltainous application of brakes and turn signals on a car with RED/RED when only one side of the rear of the car is visible. 2) Simultaneous application of brakes and turn signals on a car with RED/AMBER when only one side of the rear of the car is visible.

A related question - which would you rather be following in heavy traffic, a car with working turn signals but no brake lights, or a car with working brake lights but no turn signals? And what relative value do you place on each system? 90% brakes, 10% turn? 50.50?

Nice try but you pretend we know the answer, just not the degree. We don't know the answer, much less the degree, in the REAL world.

IOW., for DRLs someone has actually done some real world research and there, despite the original claims that would likely be made by "experts", things didn't turn out as expected. Same thing happened with ABS. Lots of "experts", some lab work, then the authoritative pronouncements, then the "gee, according to the lab research we should have seen this but the REAL world seems to be producing something else that doesn't match our expectation at all..."

Worthless analogy re the ambers. See my comments above concerning DRLs and ABS. Those are appropriate analogies.

I've always understood the issues. It seems you are still in the dark, no pun intended.

IE dumbshit made it up.

But we're not talking about isolated bits and pieces with different colors in a lab. We're talking about real, assembled, whole cars with different signal systems.

You seem quite a learn-resistant individual.

Please don't put words in my mouth -- we hardly know each other.

Then you're not reading very closely. If you're anywhere near Troy, NY or Ann Arbor, MI, I encourage you to spend some quality time at one of the major automotive human factors research libraries. That, and my membership on the NAS Visibility Committee, is where my info comes from.

Not sure how you draw this from "What is not formally known" and "the research has not been done". Your reading comprehension seems...imaginative here.

Your disagreement with it does not render it worthless.

DS

But the "system" has no real world verification that it's any better then red/red. That remains the bottom line. All the rest is just conjecture.

Ad hominem snipped

Just taking your line of reasoning and using it. Don't blame me that you don't like where it leads. Why don't you explain why 2 colors is OK but 3 or more colors would not be OK?

Lab info insofar as the red/amber issue is concerned. And as always, you failed to respond to any actual issues, such as the clear failure of the "lab" results to work out in the REAL WORLD in regard to ABS, DRLs, etc. You are erudite but that's about it.

Your failure to respond to on-point questions is noted.

It's simple. You say the research to prove your assertion has not been done. They you proceed to state what that research would have concluded, i.e., you pretend to know the answer. If there's a comprehension problem it's on your end.

And your positing of it does not render it of value.

As I said, the red/red vs red/amber is entirely opinion as far as the net safety effects in the real world. As I also pointed out, "experts" made similar claims for ABS and DRLs as you do for red/amber. Those "experts" were proven wrong when real world studies were done.

Sorry, the "five colors" thing came off *your* keyboard -- never off mine. It is wholly unrelated to any argument I've ever used, your confabulated "line of reasoning" argument notwithstanding.

Because you're the only one who's argued for this "3 or more colors" business. It's not my job to support your fanciful notions.

You've not read it, so upon what basis do you make this assertion? ALL studies wind up on paper -- whether they're lab studies, real world studies, surveys, analyses of data...whatever -- they all wind up in the library.

I've never stated what research would conclude. I haven't got a crystal ball (red *or* amber) with which to do so.

It's regrettable you have such difficulty discerning when I'm stating personal opinions from when I'm reporting on the current state of formal knowledge in my field, but the problem seems to be on your end.

When I need a professional opinion *or* a report on the state of formal knowledge in *your* field, whatever that may be, I'll be sure to ask. Until then...done with you.

Regards and happy Exmas,

DS

To me the two mean different things:

"disbenefit" = of no improvement or not of any increased value to what had existed before (a nutral word) "detriment" = of negative value to what had existed before or a situation worse than before (a negative word)

Now, I haven't looked these up, it's just my intrepretation of the meanings. What does "webster" say they actually mean?

That isn't so. "Disbenefit" is not a neutral word. It, like "Detriment", is a negative word. The connotative difference is one of degree; something that is "detrimental to safety" is understood to be more serious than something that is "disbeneficial to safety". More than that, though, "disbeneficial" is a piece of jargon used by people who work with cost/benefit ratios.

DS