[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Daytime running lights



tfoottit@chat.carleton.ca (Tom Foottit) wrote:

->> I was asked to repost the following info concerning Daytime Running
Lights.
->> Last time I posted this it resulted in a thread of over 100 articles, most
of
->> them trying to dispute the research results thru the recitation of
antecdotal
->> reports.

->Oh goody, here we go again.

-><some crap snipped>
->> expected benefits.  The studies that did turn up some benefit were, for
->> example, from Canada, where DRLs are still in the novelty stage as far as
the
->> number of cars so equiped.

->Yeah, the novelty stage. DRLs have been mandatory here for 5 years. GM
->started selling DRL-equipped cars here since 1989. 

->>  It's not suprising that when only a very few cars
->> have DRLS that  such cars get noticed and don't get hit.  That effect can
be
->> expected to disappear in future years as DRLs appear on all cars and my
->> expectatin would be that they will wind up with the same results as
Norway.

->You tool. If I have to repeat this argument one more time...

->1) DRIVE on a Canadian highway. What are all those cars doing with
->their lights on? DRLs are mandatory. Trying to dismiss the Canadian
->study because "DRLS are a novelty" only makes you look like a fool.

->2) DRLs increase visibility. All you have to do is drive on a 2-lane
->highway in Canada to prove this. I just completed a 1000km journey
->this past weekend on Ontario 2-lane highways. Odd how you can see
->those DRL-equipped cars coming from farther away.

->3) DRLs cost practically nothing. They do not interfere with your
->driving pleasure. You won't even notice they are there. I will.

->All I hear is Americans bitching about something they know nothing
->about. 
->Stop quoting obscure Norwiegan studies and get on the road. You'll
->discover the difference soon enough.

Nice of you to complelety miss the point.  You are just like all the other
mindless DRL supporters.  Never mind if it works you say; who cares what the
studies show, it seems like a good idea so it must be one!!!

Just how far away can another car be from you for you to still be able to
smash into it???  Why is it some safety advantage that you can see a car with
DRLs 6000 feet away from you while only being able to see one without DRLs
when it's 4000 feet away??  Are your reaction times that slow that you need a
4000 foot advance warning??  Or to put it another way, how close does another
car have to be to you before it is within range of being a hazard?  300 feet??
Do you REALLY need a car to have it's lights on in daytime to see it when it's
300 feet away??  What has been the accident invovlement rate of motorcyles now
that they are lost in a sea of DRLs?  What has been Canada's expericance in
terms of ALL accidents, including rear-enders caused by people who's eyes were
focused on that car 3000 feet away with the pretty DRLs while they smashed
into the back of the car stopping in front of them??

The bottom line remains, DRLs have NOT be demonstrated to be of any long term
benefit.  Conversely, there IS evidence to suggest that the use of DRLs, while
not significantly lowering any accident rates actaully INCREASE the rate of
rear end collisions.

But go ahead and ignore the EVIDENCE and be guided by your intutition if that
makes you feel good.



Follow-Ups: References: