DRLs again

And it appears to reach no conclusion. One statistical technique says that DRL's make a difference, and another says that DRL's have a negative impact...actually causing accidents.

That study could be the material for the statisticians version of the old Abbott and Costello routine: Who's on First.

-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/TRD.html

There has to be an answer. Just about everything in the physical world has one.

We all have emotional opinions, but we need data.

You would need data where an accident or incident report was analysed to see which vehicle caused the accident.

In my area we have a section of highway with signs requesting voluntary use of headlights during the day. It seems that drivers who use this road regularly have learned to look for lights, not vehicles.

A British researcher (I believe he is a Brit, at any rate) has published a separate research paper (Ref Berkeley) where he says the overall positive contribution is 3.2%.

If true, that could be a pretty substantial savings in life and property.

Transportation Department, NHTSA, etc seem unready to take a strong and clear stand.

my insurance company doesn't think it's worth anything. DRL's in Canada became mandatory in 1990. Search for cars that are similar from 89-90-91 and I find the rates are the same...

Rereading it more carefully again they say the results from the second test should be discounted because they sometimes produce invalid results. So apparently DRLs do have a net positive benefit by reducing accidents according to this study.

I've heard this complaint about insurance companies lack of appreciation for DRL's. That they dont give discounts does not necessarily mean anything. They avoid discounts when they can, IMHO, and avoid paying claims if at all possible.

Then again, this is Texas, the worst state in the union where insurance is concerned.

...and 1997 HLDI study, 8% increase in accidents. Insurance "loss data" statistics indicate no statistical difference one way or the other. The Perot & Prowler reports have some interesting negative side data to them as well. Also the European motorcyclist union have some very negative statistics on what DRLs on automobiles are doing to death rates of their group. The Motorist Association of America (I think it's called) has registered against them. The only real conclusion that can come from almost

10 years of data from many studies and reports is that the conclusions are all over the map in both directions...so inconclusive. A possible benefit for some at the potential expense of others. A moral dilemma, I would say. Who decides which group gets the benefit and which group gets the "dis-benefit"?

Ok, but in Canada ALL cars had to have DRLs starting in 1990. If they won't give a discount for DRL equipped cars, you think they'd charge MORE for non-DRL equipped ones? Nope. Same price for 89-90-91. The current "fad" that they're offering "discounts" for is immobilizers. Now they're offering to pay for 1/2 the install and give you about $30 per year. (when I bought my TA in 2001 it was $20 per year discount for an immobilizer.)

So, no discount for DRL cars, but no surcharge either for NON-DRL equipped cars plus the phone conversations with mpi has convinced me that as far as insurance companies are concerned, DRLs mean squat.

It would be interesting to see what kind of statistical analysis was done of the data. As the NHTSA study shows you can come up with wildly different conclusions from the same data if change the methodology.

Intuitively this doesn't seem to make sense to me. I'm suspicious of another agenda hiding somewhere in their study. Do you have any particulars?

Not familiar with them, but there are LOTS of automotive informational organizations each with their own spin on whether a given issue is helpful for their group or not.

I agree that there are a lot of studies with widely varying conclusions. I tend to discount the results coming from the automotive informational organizations because they are usually speaking for (and to) their constituency. I think the governmental studies are probably a bit more reliable if much harder to read at a glance. The NHTSA and other governmental studies would seem to be the least influenced by hidden agendas. Several european governments seem to think they are a benefit.

So far I haven't seen studies that say DRLs actually harm some some groups of drivers. Assuming drivers are using them correctly (not at night) I would think they would be benign at worst and a benefit in some instances.

DRL's do nothing you can't already do without another stupid regulation on the books. It takes minimal effort to turn on your lights manually when you deem it necessary.

------------- Alex

That is because the "insurance loss data" shows no difference. It never has. Now in New York state (and a couple of other states, I think) there is a discount for DRLs. But it is not because of the data. It is because that state legislature mandated reduced insurance costs by law.

True. So given that, I might argue that the only thing left is what is happening in the real world on real roads. According to insurance loss statistics, DRLs equipped vehicles have identical "loss rates" to the non-DRL equipped vehicles. Now what does that really mean? It would seem to mean that there isn't any real benefit when all things are factored in.

Their arguement is basically the "where's Waldo syndrome". (If you're familiar with those children's books). In short, the drawn character "Waldo" is very hard to pick out in a crowd of other drawn characters in several scenes of these books. However, if one were to give Waldo a flashlight, Waldo would be very easy to pick out in those same crowds. Now give everyone in those crowds a flashlight (or even a fraction of the group) and Waldo is no longer easy to pick out any more. Motorcyclists seem to be saying that the "conspicuity advantage" they once had has been diminished (or completely eliminated), by giving everyone else on the roads lights now. They worry that mandatory DRLs will make the situation even worse. There seems to be data suggesting that may be something to this.

Of course there is.

There is a agenda to all of the studies. Personally, I'd throw them all out. Most of the government studies are GM sponsored, you may notice. Hardly "unbiased". Plus the NHTSA papers on the subject are written with a fairly strong pro-DRL bias. It's clear that the NHTSA is wanting to go there. The funny thing is that after 10+ years "studying" these things, they can't nail it down conclusively enough to justify passing the "final rule" mandating them (apparently), even thought they've been trying for a very long time to do so.

I think they got burned so badly with the air bag situation (effectively putting children and small females at higher risk of injury and death as a tradeoff to protect average size males). And now looking at the fact that ABS systems are not proving to make any difference at all (zero...nada) in reducing accidents either (from insurance loss data again), the realization is that things are typically not what one would intuitively expect they would be in the real world and real life aplications.

It would seem so. But then those governments have more of a socialist view of things, relatively speaking. (they believe thay know better what is best for everyone else). We all already know where that road eventually leads to.

The NHTSA published accident rate per mororcycle mile traveled has gone up significantly since the introduction of automobile DRL's. The motocyclists are all over that one. Look up Perot & Prowler's study (I think that is the one that covers this).

Another group with a unexplained accident rate anamoly are emergency vehicle group.

One type of accident that has a higher accident rate charistic on DRL equipped cars are rear end collisions (no explanation as to why though)

I know why. Because the guys (and gals) with DRLs like to drive in the rain and fog and dusk protected by their mighty DRLs while their rear end is dark and hard to see until you get too close. They confuse DRLs with automagic headlights. morons.

Ray

That is certainly one theory that is hard to argue with. But, I've not read anything official as to the reason.

Well I can say that I just saw THREE of those a-holes in about a 20 minute drive just now... they're gonna act all confused, no doubt, when someone creams them from behind...

nate

Only three? ;-)

I don't need an official explanation from anyone. DRL's are a good idea on non-divided highways. They are not required on divided highways and are completely useless in rush hour traffic. They should be paired with overrides and automatic headlight systems that are always on including parklights because people with DRL's seem to forget how to operate the headlight switch. I'm in Canada where they're mandatory and I'm an outlaw because I've disabled mine.

Ray

If you can't see oncoming traffic in daylight your license should be revoked.

They are not required on divided highways and