Jump to content
LegacyGT.com

Why do folks hate DRLs?


KartRacerBoy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

NO, you misunderstand.

 

I don't think 55 watt lights in the daytime do much of anything to save lives. Seatbelts save lives. Doctors and EMTs save lives. headlights in the daytime DON'T. Good drivers don't need them, and bad drivers won't be affected in a meaningful way by them.

 

Maybe when it was RARE to see some vehicle with lights on during the day, like a school bus, a motorcycle, or an ambulance, people would take notice. With lots of cars burning their lights all the time, it becomes something to take for granted. I ignore the damn lights, and pay attention to what traffic is actually DOING. And I have to pay extra attention for motorcycles, school busses, and emergency vehicles, because they now blend in more than they did.

 

I hear all this about DRLs saving lives, and being such a huge thing... burning lights during the day time so that morons can see other cars. I call BS.

 

And then I hear from similar people that I need to go out and spend a bunch of money to change all of my lights to compact flourescents, because regular lightbulbs use too much damned energy. I call Double BS.

 

Then they tell me that my car uses too much gas. It is just horrible how bad the fuel economy on these Legacy GTs are. Why don't they get 30 or 40 MPG, like a Prius??? Sound like any other threads around here?

"Americans are just too fuel hungry... we need to feel guilty about it. We need to go back to living in the 19th century, or something, where we don't use so much fuel." BS again. We do what we can, but I don't know of anyone who wants to go back to driving horses or oxen to save fuel, and I didn't buy a prius for a reason. I don't like them.

 

ALL OF THOSE PREMISES ARE STUPID, and in the grand scheme of things, mostly INCONSEQUENTIAL.

 

I wish people in general would STOP worrying about whether I have my FRAKKING HEADLIGHTS ON during the daytime, and what kind of light bulbs I have in my house, or what kind of mileage my car gets. IT IS HYPOCRITICAL, AND NOT YOUR AUTHORITY.

 

Call me stupid if you will, but if you don't understand my point to begin with, bosco, what does it say about you?

 

I didn't say that any of you had to agree with me. But the question was asked, and there are at least 4 pages here of back-and-forth reasoning.

Go ahead and burn your headlights in the daytime for the illusion of safety you've convinced yourselves of. Cut down your energy usage by a hundredth of a percent with CFLs because the guy on the radio says it is a good idea... drink the cool-aid you are fed, because you are told that it is good for you. Your headlights will save lives, and your CFLs and hybrid cars will save the environment. Don't you DARE tell me that I have to do so, only because you think I should be required to.

 

(and by "you" I mean the collective group of people who think they know better than everyone else on any number of issues and want to mandate things, not a specific person.)

 

Keep believing... Have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO, you misunderstand.

 

I don't think 55 watt lights in the daytime do much of anything to save lives. Seatbelts save lives. Doctors and EMTs save lives. headlights in the daytime DON'T. Good drivers don't need them, and bad drivers won't be affected in a meaningful way by them.

 

So, YOU don't think daytime lights help? Got any studies to back that up?

 

I found a report. It's a cost-benefit analysis of 5 alternatives of obligatory daytime lights of vehicles in the European Union.

A short summary is here: http://www.toi.no/article5483-8.html

 

Unfortunately it's in Norwegian. You can run it through an online translator, but this is the conclusion: Daytime lights reduce multipart-accidents by 5-10% in the daytime. The benefit of daytime lights outweighs the cost.

 

Here's another one (also in English) where they have tested if motorbikes using high-beams at daytime will blind oncoming traffic. The test is done because they want motorcycles to use high-beams during the day to reduce accidents caused by other motorists not seeing them.

http://www.nmcu.org/publ/toi_521_2001/index.html

 

I found another one that says the entire EU is evaluating obligatory use of daytime lights on all vehicle.

 

Please note that it isn't what the US call "Daytime running lights" where the tail-lights aren't lit, but regular low-beams, what you use during the night.

 

Maybe when it was RARE to see some vehicle with lights on during the day, like a school bus, a motorcycle, or an ambulance, people would take notice. With lots of cars burning their lights all the time, it becomes something to take for granted. I ignore the damn lights, and pay attention to what traffic is actually DOING. And I have to pay extra attention for motorcycles, school busses, and emergency vehicles, because they now blend in more than they did.

 

I hear all this about DRLs saving lives, and being such a huge thing... burning lights during the day time so that morons can see other cars. I call BS.

 

Sorry, no BS. See above studies.

 

And then I hear from similar people that I need to go out and spend a bunch of money to change all of my lights to compact flourescents, because regular lightbulbs use too much damned energy. I call Double BS.

 

Well, using LEDs for front and tail lights might be a good idea. They're more than bright enough, and more efficient than regular halogens.

LEDs last longer too.

 

Then they tell me that my car uses too much gas. It is just horrible how bad the fuel economy on these Legacy GTs are. Why don't they get 30 or 40 MPG, like a Prius??? Sound like any other threads around here?

"Americans are just too fuel hungry... we need to feel guilty about it. We need to go back to living in the 19th century, or something, where we don't use so much fuel." BS again. We do what we can, but I don't know of anyone who wants to go back to driving horses or oxen to save fuel, and I didn't buy a prius for a reason. I don't like them.

 

ALL OF THOSE PREMISES ARE STUPID, and in the grand scheme of things, mostly INCONSEQUENTIAL.

 

I don't want to drive a Prius either, but having more fuel efficient cars might be a necessity in the future. Let's just hope they can develop better bio-ethanol engines soon, or something similar.

 

I wish people in general would STOP worrying about whether I have my FRAKKING HEADLIGHTS ON during the daytime, and what kind of light bulbs I have in my house, or what kind of mileage my car gets. IT IS HYPOCRITICAL, AND NOT YOUR AUTHORITY.

 

I'm a huge supporter of individual privacy and freedom, but if people do something that affect the safety or health of me or my familiy, it's my business.

 

I didn't say that any of you had to agree with me. But the question was asked, and there are at least 4 pages here of back-and-forth reasoning.

Go ahead and burn your headlights in the daytime for the illusion of safety you've convinced yourselves of. Cut down your energy usage by a hundredth of a percent with CFLs because the guy on the radio says it is a good idea... drink the cool-aid you are fed, because you are told that it is good for you. Your headlights will save lives, and your CFLs and hybrid cars will save the environment. Don't you DARE tell me that I have to do so, only because you think I should be required to.

 

You really are a stubborn one, aren't you? :-)

That's fair enough.

 

But if it was proven 100% that ONE life would be spared if everyone used their lights in the daytime, would you say that it was worth it?

 

 

By the way, what did you think of this example?

 

Imagine driving on a small, twisty 2-lane road (during daytime).

Then you come around a bend onto a straight, where you see two cars side by side, not very far ahead of you.

 

In what situation do you think you'll determine fastest if this is just two cars in each direction, or an idiot doing a dangerous overtaking?

With obligatory daytime lights or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, YOU don't think daytime lights help? Got any studies to back that up?

 

I found a report. It's a cost-benefit analysis of 5 alternatives of obligatory daytime lights of vehicles in the European Union.

A short summary is here: http://www.toi.no/article5483-8.html

 

Unfortunately it's in Norwegian. You can run it through an online translator, but this is the conclusion: Daytime lights reduce multipart-accidents by 5-10% in the daytime. The benefit of daytime lights outweighs the cost.

 

Here's another one (also in English) where they have tested if motorbikes using high-beams at daytime will blind oncoming traffic. The test is done because they want motorcycles to use high-beams during the day to reduce accidents caused by other motorists not seeing them.

http://www.nmcu.org/publ/toi_521_2001/index.html

 

I found another one that says the entire EU is evaluating obligatory use of daytime lights on all vehicle.

 

Please note that it isn't what the US call "Daytime running lights" where the tail-lights aren't lit, but regular low-beams, what you use during the night.

 

OK... so 5-10% of multipart accidents. How many individual incidents is that? What criteria were used to see if headlights were an effective deterrent?

 

I think it is ironic that you mention motorcycles brightening their headlights, again, to stand out. John and myself have mentioned motorcycle safety.

 

Have they measured whether incidents of motorcycle-involved accidents have gone up? More than car-car accidents have gone down? Has that study been done? They are obviously thinking about it, if they are studying whether or not Motorcyclists should blind other motorists with their high-beam headlights, which are usually mounted higher off the ground than most automobiles. (well above a 17" front wheel and tire, usually.)

 

People complain about glare all the time already, and motorcycles are supposed to one-up their lights, because cars are co-opting the headlights-on status?

 

Well, using LEDs for front and tail lights might be a good idea. They're more than bright enough, and more efficient than regular halogens.

LEDs last longer too.

 

I like LEDs for various technical reasons, including instant on binary flashing. I would still want the choice whether to turn on illumination, aside from indicators like turn signals and brake lights, which are activity dependent.

 

I'm a huge supporter of individual privacy and freedom, but if people do something that affect the safety or health of me or my familiy, it's my business.

 

You really are a stubborn one, aren't you? :-)

That's fair enough.

 

But if it was proven 100% that ONE life would be spared if everyone used their lights in the daytime, would you say that it was worth it?

 

You shouldn't have to qualify your statement in support of privacy and freedom. The minute one adds a "but" clause, it undermines the premise. And you go on to incinuate that you should be able to determine what other people do, if they come into any proximity of you or your family. I understand the sentiment, but that kind of control leads to bad things, not good ones.

 

It may be your business to be AWARE of what other people do in proximity to you, but it is also not your authority to control, or to ask the government to control what they do. Rest assured, it will come back to control you, and likely in ways you don't appreciate.

 

I find that comment on privacy and freedom interesting coming from a resident of a country and union with a more socialist system of government, where bureaucratic control is on the rise. I don't really find the qualifying addendum to that comment very suprising at all. "I want privacy and freedom, when convenient, but I want the government to abridge those tennents for others, in order to 'preserve' them for me." In that situation, privacy and freedom are only preserved for the governing bureacracy that enforces them on you, and everyone else like you.

 

How about just being responsible for yourself and your family, and doing whatever you can to ensure their safety, and allow others to do the same, according to their judgment, not yours, or an arbitrary judgement by "authorities" who aren't involved.

 

I am not talking about repealing criminal laws, here, folks. I am talking about avoiding needless over-regulation of non-criminal activities. DRLs may seem benign. They may actually BE benign. But where do you draw the line at what the government can and can't mandate? Where do you draw the line on privacy and freedom for yourself?

 

If you can prove one life can be saved by headlights in the daytime, I can likely prove that one more is taken, through loopholes like not having tail lights, or the increased tendency to ignore motorcyclists, or driver inattenion, or something.

 

People are never going to legislate a perfectly safe world. they will legislate you and everyone else into a white padded room for their attempt, though.

 

By the way, what did you think of this example?

 

Imagine driving on a small, twisty 2-lane road (during daytime).

Then you come around a bend onto a straight, where you see two cars side by side, not very far ahead of you.

 

In what situation do you think you'll determine fastest if this is just two cars in each direction, or an idiot doing a dangerous overtaking?

With obligatory daytime lights or not?

 

IF two cars are coming at you in daylight conditions, on a Left-hand drive system, you look at the right edge of the right most car, and see if they are to the left of a yellow lane division line, and you stay on the right of that yellow line, because it is two lanes.

 

You can also look at the road to see if there are two oncoming traffic lanes to your left, (or NOT!) or if the road configuration changes between you and the oncoming cars, like a right-side slow-traffic lane that ends...

 

I the right-most oncoming car is near a white shoulder line, and right shoulder of the road, you had better pucker up, and be prepared to take evasive action, because "he" is in your lane.

 

IF you can't tell what line it is, push to the right of that car, on the shoulder, or wherever, and pull your visual horn lever in a short burst (flash the brights.) to indicate an impending emergency situation. That is MUCH more noticeable and attention getting than solid burning low beams, and what that feature is for.

 

Brake or turn in succession, not both simultanously, in order not to break traction, and slide/spin into an accident with no control.

 

You have much more to look at than their headlights, and an oncoming situation, headlights aren't going to give you much information about closing speed over what you would otherwise see without DRLs, in a head-to-head encounter.

If by some strange reason, they are very bright, or mis-aimed, the dazzle effect could take a millisecond to overcome in determining their closing speed. (deer in the headlights effect). That uses up valuable time at 70-120mph closing speeds. (35-60 mph.)

 

At that close range, you had better be planning your escape, and starting to act on it, not worrying about whether they have headlights on. If you can't see the cars well enough at that close range, without the headlights, it is time to turn them on, anyway.

 

This would be an occaision where I would say traffic is too close and impending for DRLs to make a meaningful difference, and too many other factors need to be dealt with that are more important than their headlights. Early warning is not a factor if you come upon traffic the way you describe. You will see a 1-2 ton vehicle at that range, with or without headlights, instantly upon entering your feild of vision.

 

At night would be a different story, but everyone is supposed to use their headlights properly at night, dusk, and in low-light conditions, anyway, and DRLs are a moot point.

 

These are all reasons why training more competent drivers is much better than coddling incompetent ones by having everyone else burn our lights for them... if they are incompetent drivers, lights won't make a difference in this situation, as they won't know how to react.

 

A competent driver in this situation has already seen the cars, sized up the situation, and is thinking about 50 other things about how to get out of the situation than whether the oncoming cars have headlights or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the situation described, when the driver we are discussing comes around the curve, the driver sees the oncoming cars.

 

It is daylight, and the cars are at a close proximity, probably less than 200 yards, I am estimating. At 45mph (what most highway curves are rated for speed limit) that is 90 MILES per hour closing speed.

 

The limiting factor for being seen or not, are obstacles that make the curve blind to oncoming traffic, like trees or buildings, or something along the side of the road. Lights in this case, would make ZERO difference as to when you established visual contact with the oncoming vehicles. Geometry dictates line-of-sight in this example, as it was layed out.

 

At that point, lights or no lights is MOOT, and you had already better be reacting to evade.

 

We aren't talking about 1000 yards or more of range, where the cars come into view at long range, and lights might make an early warning difference. In that case, I ask, why bother, at more than 1000 yards, you have several seconds before that vehicle becomes a factor, and a lot can change in that time, and chances are the oncoming cars will have finished any overtaking maneuver, or you will have time to evaluate and react, AGAIN, regardless of DRL lighting.

 

At close contact, they are too superfluous; at long range, they are too meaningless to worry about.

 

By pete's sake, how did people survive driving all sorts of vehicles for the past century or more? You would think, listening to this, that DRLs are necessary for survival on the road. They are not. That is my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IWSS has waaaaay tooooo much time.

 

DRLs are good for seeing other cars, period.

 

The debate over wether or not they should be mandated is more of a politcal issue that will both sides into all eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if DRL only give you one second more advance notice of oncoming traffic that is one second more reaction time gained. DRL reduce vehicle to vehicle collisions and the stats bear it out.

 

I see what you are saying but I would fall on the side of the argument that says if missed the 3000+ lb vehicle you aren't going to a set of dim headlights.

 

When you are diving in traffic do you say to yourself, "look at all the cars on the road" or do you say, "wow, hell of a lot of headlights on the road today"?

 

The only time I notice DRL's is when a truck pulls up behind in the daytime or when some idiot is driving around at night with them on.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Special thanks to Kartboy for bringing this topic back to life! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you are saying but I would fall on the side of the argument that says if missed the 3000+ lb vehicle you aren't going to a set of dim headlights.

 

When you are diving in traffic do you say to yourself, "look at all the cars on the road" or do you say, "wow, hell of a lot of headlights on the road today"?

 

The only time I notice DRL's is when a truck pulls up behind in the daytime or when some idiot is driving around at night with them on.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Special thanks to Kartboy for bringing this topic back to life! :lol:

 

The stats indicate a reduction in vehicle to vehicle collisions when DLR systems are used. There's your proof. They don't prevent all collisions for occuring because some drivers just aren't that observant or aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to honk & flash my lights at some woman tonight who had on only DRLs. She was driving an all black lexus SUV & you couldn't see her at all. I finally got next to her & started honking like a madman till she rolled the window down & I told her that her lights weren't on. Good way too get rear-ended if you ask me
"Barack Obama, mothaf#%@a! Barack Obama! I'm the president...of hittin' the ass!" -this is not a political view it's merely a quote from a hilarious tv show.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know how much of a true test those "statistics" come from. For example, you can't just say "Cars with DRLs are involved in fewer accidents so DRLs must be beneficial." That's false logic.

 

Odds are just as likely that these same cars also have better brakes, better tires, better handling, fewer blind spots, etc., than older vehicles. Like I've said before: numbers can be made to prove anything you want them to.

 

As I also said before, if there are short term improvements in accident rates, who's to know if the trend will continue? After all, when there were only 2 cars every 100 miles, any car was noticed -- you couldn't miss 'em -- and yet they were required to walk ahead of the car with a lantern prior to each intersection to reduce the chance of an accident. We don't do that anymore, but there aren't piles of dead bodies at each intersection as a result.

 

And as far as the "white car in the snow" example, that driver should have .... turned his lights on! Inclement weather requires headlights - we already know that, and it's already the law.

 

Why don't we all drive with high beams on during the day? After all, if a little light is good, more must be better? I'm sure we can skew the statistics to show it that way!

 

Oh, and it's hilarious that every GM truck always has one of its DRL bulbs blown :D

 

I don't resist change itself. I resist change driven by weak pretenses and snap decisions. I won't do something just because someone else claims "it's for my own good." I want proof before anything is required by law, no matter how benign it may seem at the time. The argument that "other countries are doing it" doens't fly with me. I want more proof. Call me stubborn but I'll never be accused of being gullible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the whole report, actually. Here it is (still in Norwegian): http://tsh.toi.no/?22387

It's an analysis of 25 studies on DRL and cars, and 16 studies on DRL and motorcycles.

 

The studies are from all over the world, including Canada and USA.

They have statistics from before and after obligatory DRL have been introduced.

 

The short version is that most accidents decreased 5-24%, but rear-ending increased 7% and motorcycle-accidents increased 3%.

 

Rear-ending was people didn't see the difference between regular tail lights and brakelights. This was fixed by having a third brakelight.

 

The increase in motorcycle accidents might be because the bikes blend in more, the report doesn't say. I guess that's why new studies are being done regarding high-beams in bikes.

 

The direct costs of DRL (both front- and tail-lights) is calculated to about $20 per year (Source: European Transport Safety Council, 2003).

 

The benefit of the avoided accidents is 2.5 times higher than the costs.

This is in Norway, a small country (4.5 million people).

 

OK... so 5-10% of multipart accidents. How many individual incidents is that? What criteria were used to see if headlights were an effective deterrent?

 

In Norway, there are about 4.300 daylight multipart-accidents per year (reported to the police).

 

The criteria used was that DRL helps spotting other vehicles because the human eye reacts to contrasts and change in contrasts in the field of vision.

This is especially helpful in difficult conditions like dusk, rain, fog and strong counterlight when the sun is low on the horizon.

 

I think it is ironic that you mention motorcycles brightening their headlights, again, to stand out. John and myself have mentioned motorcycle safety.

 

Have they measured whether incidents of motorcycle-involved accidents have gone up? More than car-car accidents have gone down? Has that study been done? They are obviously thinking about it, if they are studying whether or not Motorcyclists should blind other motorists with their high-beam headlights, which are usually mounted higher off the ground than most automobiles. (well above a 17" front wheel and tire, usually.)

 

People complain about glare all the time already, and motorcycles are supposed to one-up their lights, because cars are co-opting the headlights-on status?

 

Sure, it's a valid point, as bike accidents did increase when DRL use was increased from 35% to 80%.

However, the benefit of the decrease in car accidents outweighs the 3% increase in bike accidents.

 

And, another study shows that bikes using high-beams during the day won't create glare for oncoming traffic.

 

You shouldn't have to qualify your statement in support of privacy and freedom. The minute one adds a "but" clause, it undermines the premise. And you go on to incinuate that you should be able to determine what other people do, if they come into any proximity of you or your family. I understand the sentiment, but that kind of control leads to bad things, not good ones.

 

It may be your business to be AWARE of what other people do in proximity to you, but it is also not your authority to control, or to ask the government to control what they do. Rest assured, it will come back to control you, and likely in ways you don't appreciate.

 

If it's proven that having lights in during the day, makes driving safer for all, and some idiots won't use'em because they don't feel like it, they should be forced by the government.

 

Some idiots say that others shouldn't care if they use the seatbelt or not, as it only affect them.

NO IT DOESN'T. If they don't use the seatbelt, and get killed or seriously injured in a crash where they might have lived or gotten less injured have they used seatbelts, we all have to pay for their idiocy through higher taxes and insurance.

 

I find that comment on privacy and freedom interesting coming from a resident of a country and union with a more socialist system of government, where bureaucratic control is on the rise. I don't really find the qualifying addendum to that comment very suprising at all. "I want privacy and freedom, when convenient, but I want the government to abridge those tennents for others, in order to 'preserve' them for me." In that situation, privacy and freedom are only preserved for the governing bureacracy that enforces them on you, and everyone else like you.

 

Do you mean European Union with "Union"? Well, Norway isn't a member.

 

Are you claiming that the USA is less bureaucratic?

 

How about just being responsible for yourself and your family, and doing whatever you can to ensure their safety, and allow others to do the same, according to their judgment, not yours, or an arbitrary judgement by "authorities" who aren't involved.

 

There is a place just like this, it's called Utopia. :-)

 

Unfortunately, the real world isn't like this. Some people are idiots, some are incompetent, some are evil, some are liars, some can't drive....etc.

 

Unless you want to wipe out all these people, they need to be controlled by someone.

 

I am not talking about repealing criminal laws, here, folks. I am talking about avoiding needless over-regulation of non-criminal activities. DRLs may seem benign. They may actually BE benign. But where do you draw the line at what the government can and can't mandate? Where do you draw the line on privacy and freedom for yourself?

 

I agree, needless over-regulation is bad, but in this case it isn't needless. It actually helps.

 

If you can prove one life can be saved by headlights in the daytime, I can likely prove that one more is taken, through loopholes like not having tail lights, or the increased tendency to ignore motorcyclists, or driver inattenion, or something.

 

To a degree, it's already proven that DRL might cause some accidents too, but the total benefit is way higher.

 

People are never going to legislate a perfectly safe world. they will legislate you and everyone else into a white padded room for their attempt, though.

 

Until we reach Utopia, we need legislation. That's just how it works, for now. If someone try to put us all in padded room, we'll choose another government. :-)

 

IF two cars are coming at you in daylight conditions, on a Left-hand drive system, you look at the right edge of the right most car, and see if they are to the left of a yellow lane div...(cut lot's of descriptions of complicated driving stuff...)

 

So, you're actually saying that it is easier to do all the stuff you just wrote, instead of:

- Ah, a pair of white lights to the left and a pair of red lights to the right. Everything is just fine. Let's concentrate on other traffic.

- DAMN, two pairs of white lights! Let's find a way to avoid colliding with the idiot.

 

I think I might have to disagree. :-)

 

This would be an occaision where I would say traffic is too close and impending for DRLs to make a meaningful difference, and too many other factors need to be dealt with that are more important than their headlights. Early warning is not a factor if you come upon traffic the way you describe. You will see a 1-2 ton vehicle at that range, with or without headlights, instantly upon entering your feild of vision.

 

Sure, you'll see the two vehicles quite quickly, but are you really serious when you say that lights won't matter at all?

It takes fractions of a second to determine which way the cars are going , because the headlights are white, and the tail-lights are red. You don't even have to think about it, you just react.

 

When not turned on, the tail-lights can look red, or white if some kid has bought those cool Lexux-lights.

 

At night would be a different story, but everyone is supposed to use their headlights properly at night, dusk, and in low-light conditions, anyway, and DRLs are a moot point.

 

Exactly, supposed to... Again, we're not living in Utopia, and someone are bound to forget their lights when dusk sets in, or any other situation when lights is needed.

Isn't i better to have the lights turn on automatically whenever you start the car? No one have to forget. :-)

 

These are all reasons why training more competent drivers is much better than coddling incompetent ones by having everyone else burn our lights for them... if they are incompetent drivers, lights won't make a difference in this situation, as they won't know how to react.

 

Lights in daytime helps everyone, even ultra-competent supermen.

 

A competent driver in this situation has already seen the cars, sized up the situation, and is thinking about 50 other things about how to get out of the situation than whether the oncoming cars have headlights or not.

 

Sure, and the compentent driver in a country that got obligatory DRL, got a little more time to react, and a better chance to escape the accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snippage -

The short version is that most accidents decreased 5-24%, but rear-ending increased 7% and motorcycle-accidents increased 3%.

 

Rear-ending was people didn't see the difference between regular tail lights and brakelights. This was fixed by having a third brakelight.

 

The increase in motorcycle accidents might be because the bikes blend in more, the report doesn't say. I guess that's why new studies are being done regarding high-beams in bikes.

 

So... it sounds like, if the US were to mandate DRLs, I would be trading slight safety in my car for slighly more danger on my motorcycle, where I am MUCH more vulnerable.

 

Thanks, but, NO DEAL.

 

And, another study shows that bikes using high-beams during the day won't create glare for oncoming traffic.

 

I am sure Unclemat will agree with that one. NOT.

 

How does a headlight on a motorcycle, which uses similar, and sometimes the same bulbs as car headlights, and newer bikes have efficient reflectors or projectors, just like cars do, but are probably as high off the ground as most high-ride-height SUVs, and probably 12-16 inches higher than my Legacy's headlights, not create glare?

 

 

If it's proven that having lights in during the day, makes driving safer for all, and some idiots won't use'em because they don't feel like it, they should be forced by the government.

 

Some idiots say that others shouldn't care if they use the seatbelt or not, as it only affect them.

NO IT DOESN'T. If they don't use the seatbelt, and get killed or seriously injured in a crash where they might have lived or gotten less injured have they used seatbelts, we all have to pay for their idiocy through higher taxes and insurance.

 

Are you calling me an idiot, too, just because I disagree and can back it up with common sense? This is the kind of thing that pisses me off, and destroys meaningful discussion. And you are not the first one in this thread to call me so, yet I have been the one making my case at length.

 

YOU'VE ALREADY SAID IT DOESN'T MAKE DRIVING SAFER FOR EVERYONE! Motorcyclists and others are NOT SAFER. I AM A MOTORCYCLIST, as well as a car driver.

 

WHEN WILL YOU GET IT OUT OF YOUR HEAD ABOUT SEATBELTS. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SEATBELTS. THE MERITS OF SEATBELTS ARE NOT THE TOPIC HERE.

 

People get hurt when they wear seatbelts, too you know... Are they a tax burden as well? I thought universal healthcare through taxation was a big boon in europe and scandanavian countries, as well as canada... You can have it, because that is one more way that government control lets the people down, but that is not the topic here, either.

 

"They should be forced by the government" THAT STATEMENT RIGHT THERE IS MY PROBLEM. Who are you to say that?, about ANY topic? Just because you think so?

 

Are you claiming that the USA is less bureaucratic?

 

No. Not less bureaucratic, but so far, we are still less socialist. And I rail this hard or harder against US bureaucracy as it is, let alone adding more meaningless crap to the regulatory craziness that goes on.

 

There is a place just like this, it's called Utopia. :-)

 

No. Utopia, especially the way Thomas Moore wrote it, tends toward communism, which doesn't work.

 

Not everyone is the same, but everyone should have the same freedom to do as they wish, within a wide berth, without behaving in a criminal manner. Driving without headlights in the daytime is hardly criminal. But if you think the government should handle it, they'll probably make it so.

 

 

Unfortunately, the real world isn't like this. Some people are idiots, some are incompetent, some are evil, some are liars, some can't drive....etc.

 

Unless you want to wipe out all these people, they need to be controlled by someone.

 

I agree, needless over-regulation is bad, but in this case it isn't needless. It actually helps.

 

Sure. That is what I mean when I say that not everyone is the same. But since when should the capable have to kneel and bow to the incapable, because the government says so?

 

I certainly don't want people eliminated, but who is to control them??? You? What qualifications do you have?

 

People are best suited to control themselves, if given the tools to do so, and a real set of consequences for NOT doing so.

The rule of man over other men tends not to work so well. I would think a european would be well aware of that sort of history for the last few millenia.

 

How about helping those people control themselves. Bureaucratic control through non-criminal regulation is not the answer. But then again, you live in a socialist country, so I can see where you would think it to be a good idea.

 

Keep telling yourself that any little thing that makes even the slightest statistical difference in any way is worth legislating. When you are so over-regulated that you can't leave your house without infringing some sort of regulation, then don't complain about it.

 

To a degree, it's already proven that DRL might cause some accidents too, but the total benefit is way higher.

 

Until we reach Utopia, we need legislation. That's just how it works, for now. If someone try to put us all in padded room, we'll choose another government. :-)

 

I am sure that is what the germans said when hitler rose to power... if we don't like it, we'll just re-do it. Until Hitler made himself untouchable. Putin is doing the same thing now in Russia. The socialist governments of europe, as well as the two political parties in the US, and the governments in most other countries have hedged themselves into power, and aren't so easy to remove.

 

The more power they weild over you, the less likely you will be able to choose an alternative government.

 

Why do we need such minute legislation? (again, I am not talking about criminal laws, but non-criminal regulations) To make sure that the legislators have something to appear to be doing, while they hedge their power, and make very little real difference?

 

So, you're actually saying that it is easier to do all the stuff you just wrote, instead of:

- Ah, a pair of white lights to the left and a pair of red lights to the right. Everything is just fine. Let's concentrate on other traffic.

- DAMN, two pairs of white lights! Let's find a way to avoid colliding with the idiot.

 

I think I might have to disagree. :-)

 

Sure, you'll see the two vehicles quite quickly, but are you really serious when you say that lights won't matter at all?

It takes fractions of a second to determine which way the cars are going , because the headlights are white, and the tail-lights are red. You don't even have to think about it, you just react.

 

When not turned on, the tail-lights can look red, or white if some kid has bought those cool Lexux-lights.

 

 

 

Exactly, supposed to... Again, we're not living in Utopia, and someone are bound to forget their lights when dusk sets in, or any other situation when lights is needed.

Isn't i better to have the lights turn on automatically whenever you start the car? No one have to forget. :-)

 

Lights in daytime helps everyone, even ultra-competent supermen.

 

Sure, and the compentent driver in a country that got obligatory DRL, got a little more time to react, and a better chance to escape the accident.

 

So now you are saying that your example could have been two cars ahead of the driver, on the road, and the car to the right is actually NOT ONCOMING??? RED LIGHTS, as in TAIL LIGHTS??? You didn't say that before. You said two cars ahead of you, and asked about an overtaking maneuver.

 

If the car to the right is not oncoming, but preceding the driver... then the situation is different. Chances are, a preceeding car was seen by the driver before the curve in question, and the driver already knows about the preceding car. If the car just turned into the lane of traffic, then there have been signs saying that there is a blind intersection, and the driver should be ready for merging traffic.

 

And as a driver, one should be able to tell the difference between the front and the back of a CAR! WITHOUT LIGHTS, IN THE DAYTIME.

 

And seeing if an oncoming car is on the right or left side of the yellow dividing line doesn't take long. It takes longer for your eyes to un-dialate to process white lights oncoming.

 

I can see cars at 200 yards and much further than that, in the daytime, without lights, and tell which end of the car I am looking at.

 

What kind of argument is this, where you introduce an example, and after I adopt it, and react, you change the circumstances.

you said nothing about one of the cars not being oncoming, and your questions lead to establishing that they were both oncoming. Oh, well. Responding to a preceding car is even easier, and still doesn't require daytime running lights.

 

You know... now, after this insane interchange... I see cars the same way as I always have. I see the car first. After that, I notice whether the lights are on or not, and I NOW think to myself.... "Oh, that car has those STUPID lights that folks on the subaru forum think are so great.... Stupid headlights in the daytime!!!"

 

Next time try not calling people idiots who are discussing the topic, and try not to change your example's premise after the fact.

 

Oh, and BTW to the one who asked... if it is overcast enough to be somewhat dark... YES, I DO turn on my headlights. A flick of the switch, at my discretion. I am more than capable of making that judgment, as is nearly every other driver on the road. Otherwise they shouldn't be ON the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

two reasons:

 

1) I dont want any car manufacturer, or lawmaker, telling me I have to have lights, seatbelts (although I do) telling me I have have them on. I like choice.

 

2) the bulb only runs at 50%, designed to run at 100%, therefore they blow often when you use the DRLs. Since I have shut em off, have not lost one single bulb.

 

Stupid feature if you ask me, particularly because Subaru did't take certain things into consideration. Unless you give one a choice to use them or not, I think it's crapola.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stats indicate a reduction in collision accidents with DRL use. The anti-DRL crowd it just barking up the wrong tree. Turn signals fall into the same category. Hand signaling used to be the norm and still is legal but all cars must be equipped with signalling devices as far as I know. Same thing with side mounted running lights which help maintain awareness of car position at night. DRL are an extension of the same principle and are proven to be effective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turn signals are an activity based indicator, and are not the same as DRLs.

 

DRLs are not activity dependent, but "continuous use for preventative measure". I argue that they are a meager measure at preventing anything, as implemented, and cause as many problems as they potentially 'help' solve, and are just a boon to the people whose business is telling others what to do for the sake of 'safety', which makes those people harder to contradict without seeming "anti-safety".

 

Amazing how that works, as I have been accused by people in this thread of being anti-safety, when in reality, I am not. I am anti-over-regulation, and pro-personal-responsibility. Personal responsibility for driving safely will do FAR more than lights of any kind, every time it is tried. I don't have, or even need statistics to realize that.

 

Side mounted running lights come on with the headlights, and NOT with the DRLs, so obviously they are not extensions of DRLs. Markers are nice, and very valid in low light, or darkness. in daylight they mean very little, as do DRLs. markers are usually 20 watts or less, and are even less likely to be apparent in daylight than DRLs.

 

Not all lights are the same, nor used for the same purpose, so to equate them or associate them is a feeble defense of your assertion.

 

Otherwise people would drive down the road with every bulb on their car flashing at random, to improve their visibility. (and no one would be able to tell what the hell is going on... :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, as I posted above, my past 2 DRL equipped cars (which I always ran on low-beam anyway during the day) never blew bulbs as fast as my new Outback. I have gone through 9 low-beam headlamps in the past 2 years in the XT. I didn't burn up one in my last car.

 

Thre are other possible causes for our repeat failures of headlamp bulbs including too small of a housing (too much heat), small surge to the bulbs on startup, etc...

 

 

You're right...Could also have to do with a certain bulb manufacturer, a bad lot etc...But who cares, dumb feature regardless. Which is my opinion, and why I think giving people a choice to use them or not is the key.

 

For those who think they are useful, knock yourself out and turn em on for continuous use. For those of us who don't, keep em off. Just don't force me use them, thats crapola.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... it sounds like, if the US were to mandate DRLs, I would be trading slight safety in my car for slighly more danger on my motorcycle, where I am MUCH more vulnerable.

 

Thanks, but, NO DEAL.

 

So if DRLs avoids 1000 car accidents, and causes 10 bike accidents (just an example), you'll ban DRL just because YOU ride a bike sometimes?

 

That's the spirit.

 

I am sure Unclemat will agree with that one. NOT.

 

Let him answer for himself.

 

How does a headlight on a motorcycle, which uses similar, and sometimes the same bulbs as car headlights, and newer bikes have efficient reflectors or projectors, just like cars do, but are probably as high off the ground as most high-ride-height SUVs, and probably 12-16 inches higher than my Legacy's headlights, not create glare?

 

The recent study showed that bikes using high-beams during the day, could be annoying, but they didn't decrease the test-persons ability to see obstacles or other things along the road.

The annoying part also means they're easier to spot, which is the idea.

 

Are you calling me an idiot, too, just because I disagree and can back it up with common sense? This is the kind of thing that pisses me off, and destroys meaningful discussion. And you are not the first one in this thread to call me so, yet I have been the one making my case at length.

 

No, it wasn't my intention to call you an idiot, but I see that it could be interpreted that way. With English not being my native language, it's easy to miss some nuances.

Sorry about that.

 

YOU'VE ALREADY SAID IT DOESN'T MAKE DRIVING SAFER FOR EVERYONE! Motorcyclists and others are NOT SAFER. I AM A MOTORCYCLIST, as well as a car driver.

 

WHEN WILL YOU GET IT OUT OF YOUR HEAD ABOUT SEATBELTS. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SEATBELTS. THE MERITS OF SEATBELTS ARE NOT THE TOPIC HERE.

 

No, it doesn't make it safer for everyone, but for a majority.

 

The seatbelt-situation is comparable, but it's easier to understand.

 

People get hurt when they wear seatbelts, too you know... Are they a tax burden as well? I thought universal healthcare through taxation was a big boon in europe and scandanavian countries, as well as canada... You can have it, because that is one more way that government control lets the people down, but that is not the topic here, either.

 

Everyone getting hurt in traffic, are a tax burden. If you are wearing seatbelts, the tax burden is less.

I hope you're not going to argue about that.

 

"They should be forced by the government" THAT STATEMENT RIGHT THERE IS MY PROBLEM. Who are you to say that?, about ANY topic? Just because you think so?

 

If 1% of people goes against what everyone else thinks is common sense, and makes everyone else unsafe, they need to be forced.

 

If they do insane things, but doesn't put anyone else in danger, by all means, let them go nuts.

 

No. Not less bureaucratic, but so far, we are still less socialist. And I rail this hard or harder against US bureaucracy as it is, let alone adding more meaningless crap to the regulatory craziness that goes on.

 

Fair enough. Bureaucracy rarely needs adding to it, but adding automatic lights to cars to save lives, is worth it.

I don't think it adds much work for the bureaucrats anyway.

 

 

Not everyone is the same, but everyone should have the same freedom to do as they wish, within a wide berth, without behaving in a criminal manner. Driving without headlights in the daytime is hardly criminal. But if you think the government should handle it, they'll probably make it so.

 

11 countries in Europe got obligatory DRL in some way or other. The Dutch are introducing it these day, with lots of people complaining about horrible fuel consumption. Change is scary, apparently.

 

Sure. That is what I mean when I say that not everyone is the same. But since when should the capable have to kneel and bow to the incapable, because the government says so?

 

So, you're not willing to help the needy? :-)

 

I certainly don't want people eliminated, but who is to control them??? You? What qualifications do you have? People are best suited to control themselves, if given the tools to do so. The rule of man over other men tends not to work so well. I would think a european would be well aware of that sort of history for the last few millenia.

 

Well, we've got a nice example of this in Iraq.

 

What society in recent time haven't needed some sort of control to survive?

 

How about helping those people control themselves. Bureaucratic control through non-criminal regulation is not the answer. But then again, you live in a socialist country, so I can see where you would think it to be a good idea.

 

Sure, those people can be helped to help themselves. By adding automatic lights to their cars. They don't have to think about it, and everyone is safer.

 

Keep telling yourself that any little thing that makes even the slightest statistical difference in any way is worth legislating. When you are so over-regulated that you can't leave your house without infringing some sort of regulation, then don't complain about it.

 

I think you're stretching the over-regulation thing now.

 

I am sure that is what the germans said when hitler rose to power... if we don't like it, we'll just re-do it. Until Hitler made himself untouchable. Putin is doing the same thing now in Russia. The socialist governments of europe, as well as the two political parties in the US, and the governments in most other countries have hedged themselves into power, and aren't so easy to remove.

 

The more power they weild over you, the less likely you will be able to choose an alternative government.

 

Why do we need such minute legislation? (again, I am not talking about criminal laws, but non-criminal regulations) To make sure that the legislators have something to appear to be doing, while they hedge their power, and make very little real difference?

 

Heh...from DRL til Hitler and Putin.

I'd better not reply to this.

 

So now you are saying that your example could have been two cars ahead of the driver, on the road, and the car to the right is actually NOT ONCOMING??? RED LIGHTS, as in TAIL LIGHTS??? You didn't say that before. You said two cars ahead of you, and asked about an overtaking maneuver.

 

What I meant with the example, was that it is easier to determine if the car in your lane is coming towards you, or driving in the same direction (on a road with one lane in each direction), with the lights on (front and tail).

The cars would be side by side.

Two pairs of white lights: One is overtaking the other. A bad thing.

One pair of white lights in the left lane and one pair of red lights in your lane: No problem, every is driving in the direction they should.

 

And as a driver, one should be able to tell the difference between the front and the back of a CAR! WITHOUT LIGHTS, IN THE DAYTIME.

 

I don't argue with that, but with lights it's quicker to process the information.

 

And seeing if an oncoming car is on the right or left side of the yellow dividing line doesn't take long. It takes longer for your eyes to un-dialate to process white lights oncoming.

 

Eyes reacts to change in contrast, therefore making it faster to pick up the lit cars.

 

 

What kind of argument is this, where you introduce an example, and after I adopt it, and react, you change the circumstances.

 

Maybe the example wasn't well enough described, but I didn't change it. When mentioning the left and right cars, I was talking about the two in front, not cars coming from the sides in an intersection.

 

You know... now, after this insane interchange... I see cars the same way as I always have. I see the car first. After that, I notice whether the lights are on or not, and I NOW think to myself.... "Oh, that car has those STUPID lights that folks on the subaru forum think are so great.... Stupid headlights in the daytime!!!"

 

Whatever floats you boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if DRLs avoids 1000 car accidents, and causes 10 bike accidents (just an example), you'll ban DRL just because YOU ride a bike sometimes?

 

Again -- false logic. Let's say DRLs did prevent 1000 car accidents and caused 10 motorcycle accidents. What you're overlooking is that the motorcycle accidents are very likely to be fatal with virtually any impact while all but the most serious auto-to-auto collisions are survivable.

 

So, you may have saved some dented vehicles but you've killed 10 people. The exact numbers are still in question too; we have percentages but don't know the numbers that go along with them.

 

The short version is that most accidents decreased 5-24%, but rear-ending increased 7% and motorcycle-accidents increased 3%.

 

Using your own figures, the best case is that there was an overall net improvement of 10% when comparing increased rear-enders and motorcycle collisions vs. the most-improved category of collisions in the report. Again, since we're dealing with percentages, it's just as likely to have caused 1000 accidents while preventing six car-vs.-ice cream truck collisions; we don't know the categories!

 

Again -- the same statistics can be made to support any view. It's all in the presentation. Government employees have been doing it for centuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if DRLs avoids 1000 car accidents, and causes 10 bike accidents (just an example), you'll ban DRL just because YOU ride a bike sometimes?

 

John said it... I don't need to re-state it.

 

If 1% of people goes against what everyone else thinks is common sense, and makes everyone else unsafe, they need to be forced.

 

If they do insane things, but doesn't put anyone else in danger, by all means, let them go nuts.

 

Driving without lights in the daytime doesn't put anyone in danger. your argument is that it is basically that DRLs are "extra insurance". so should I be forced, or not? just because you think it is an insane thing to drive around in the daytime without lights on...

 

and since when does the "rule of the majority" apply to forcing minorities to do whatever everyone else thinks is right? what implications does that have for freedoms in regard to race, religion, and sexual preference? 1%? why not 10%? or 49.9%

 

Fair enough. Bureaucracy rarely needs adding to it, but adding automatic lights to cars to save lives, is worth it.

I don't think it adds much work for the bureaucrats anyway.

 

Again, no one has proven that DRLs save lives. your quoted stats say they "help prevent" accidents, but can potentially cause negative side effects. I see no quantified net change illustrated, in terms of numbers of lives.

 

And you are wrong about bureaucrats. This is just the kind of inane busywork that they get by on every day, by and large.

 

Things that sound good on the surface, clothed in topics like "safety" or being "for the children" or "to help the disadvantaged" or some other clause that is hard to defend against, but in the end makes very little difference in the grand scheme. It would be better if they trained safer drivers, let parents decide what is best for children, and lowered the tax and regulatory burden on the disadvantaged, and allowed them more opportunity to do well for themselves.

 

 

So, you're not willing to help the needy? :-)

 

I know you are trying to make a joke, but that is a pathetic joke, and it is a pointed comment that I don't appreciate. You have no idea what I do for charitable causes. More than my tax dollars do, though.

 

Well, we've got a nice example of this in Iraq.

What society in recent time haven't needed some sort of control to survive?

 

The UN, The US, UK, and everyone else who have fought for the lives of the iraqi people can't control the iraqi people if they won't control themselves. And that is why they have come out to vote for their own government in percentages that embarrass most other democracies.

 

Iraq is a rough situation, to be sure, but they won't be controlled until they control themselves, and the people themselves stop killing each other, when the consequences become too great to continue that.

 

Certainly better than a madman and his crazy sons mass-murdering whoever they want to, on their whims.

 

Sure, those people can be helped to help themselves. By adding automatic lights to their cars. They don't have to think about it, and everyone is safer.

I think you're stretching the over-regulation thing now.

 

Heh...from DRL til Hitler and Putin.

I'd better not reply to this.

 

Sure... because having people not think about it is the way to encourage them to be responsible. People have to be responsible, they can't be forced to be by the law. they will just break the law, if they aren't taught and encouraged to be responsible, and held to it.

 

Was hitler not a dictator? did he not make it nearly impossible for anyone to do anything contrary to his will? did it not take a WORLD WAR to stop him? It isn't as easy as you think to "just get a new government."

 

Putin has been rolling back democracy for years, and his underlings are now spreading nuclear material all over London, while trying to poison someone who contradicted the Russian leadership. He did the same to a russian female investigating journalist, who was murdered in an elevator in Moscow, which the victim in London was in turn investigating. yeah, he'll go quietly if the russians want a new government... sure.

 

 

That has very little to do with DRLs... but governments tend to do little things like mandate DRLs and other meaningless things, outwardly, to keep their people under the impression that they are looking out for 'safety', while in the background, they tend to be hedging their power, regardless of what is in the public's best interest. That goes for just about every government.

 

That is why I don't want government doing anything it doesn't have a real unoquivical mandate to do, like provide for the common defense, facilitating public infrastructure that private enterprise can't encompass, and establish a just legal system for the people. The rest is just entitlements and power-hedging.

 

Ask yourself... what is your government doing for itself while they peddle DRLs on you, for safety's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again -- false logic. Let's say DRLs did prevent 1000 car accidents and caused 10 motorcycle accidents. What you're overlooking is that the motorcycle accidents are very likely to be fatal with virtually any impact while all but the most serious auto-to-auto collisions are survivable.

 

So, you may have saved some dented vehicles but you've killed 10 people. The exact numbers are still in question too; we have percentages but don't know the numbers that go along with them.

 

In 2005, there were 1332 recorded motorcycle accidents in Norway, just about every two-wheel vehicle with an engine is included. There were about 14.000 traffic accidents in total.

 

35 accidents were fatal.

61 bikers were unharmed.

1032 were lightly injured.

 

However, I think it's a dead end discussing statistics or studies with you. You don't trust them anyway.

 

Using your own figures, the best case is that there was an overall net improvement of 10% when comparing increased rear-enders and motorcycle collisions vs. the most-improved category of collisions in the report. Again, since we're dealing with percentages, it's just as likely to have caused 1000 accidents while preventing six car-vs.-ice cream truck collisions; we don't know the categories!

 

Again -- the same statistics can be made to support any view. It's all in the presentation. Government employees have been doing it for centuries.

 

The rear-enders happened before third brakelights became common. Of course, rear-enders still happen, but to a lesser degree.

 

If bikes gets to use high-beam in daylight, maybe there'll be less accidents, and maybe not.

Not all bike accidents include other vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before third brake lights became common?

 

As in, the early to mid 1980s? Most cars since the mid 1980s have had third brake lights. Third brake lights make sense, especially, as you say, to differentiate brake lights from tail lights.

 

how are they the same thing as DRLs that are on all the time during daylight?

 

When did DRLs become something installed on even a fraction of private cars? mid to late 1990s....

 

how are those statistics correlated then?

 

I don't automatically trust statistics either, and agree with John. They can be used in slanted and even dishonest ways, in how they are figured and portrayed.

 

Statistics have to be well proven to me before I will give them heed by themselves, without corroborating evidence and common sense that is more than skin deep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use