DRLs again

James C. Reeves wrote:
> "John S." > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> -nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/TRD.html
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> There has to be an answer. Just about everything in the physical world
> >> has one.
> >>
> >> We all have emotional opinions, but we need data.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> ...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.

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.

> Also the European motorcyclist union have some very negative
> statistics on what DRLs on automobiles are doing to death rates of their
> group.

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?


> The Motorist Association of America (I think it's called) has
> registered against them.

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.


> 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.

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.

> A possible benefit for some at the potential expense of others.

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.

> A moral dilemma, I would say.
> Who decides which group gets the benefit and which group gets the
> "dis-benefit"?

In article >,
says...
>
>
>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.

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

"ray" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> news:CFuIe.114619$5V4.36509@pd7tw3no...
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>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...
>>>www.mpi.mb.ca
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> 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.

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.

"John S." > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> James C. Reeves wrote:
>> "John S." > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> -nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/TRD.html
>> >> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> There has to be an answer. Just about everything in the physical
>> >> world
>> >> has one.
>> >>
>> >> We all have emotional opinions, but we need data.
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> ...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.
>
> 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.

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.

>> Also the European motorcyclist union have some very negative
>> statistics on what DRLs on automobiles are doing to death rates of their
>> group.
>
> Intuitively this doesn't seem to make sense to me.

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.

> I'm suspicious of
> another agenda hiding somewhere in their study.

Of course there is.

> Do you have any particulars?

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.

>> The Motorist Association of America (I think it's called) has
>> registered against them.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.

>> A possible benefit for some at the potential expense of others.
>
> 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.

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)

>> A moral dilemma, I would say.
>> Who decides which group gets the benefit and which group gets the
>> "dis-benefit"?
>

James C. Reeves wrote:

> 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

> wrote in message
news:j0WIe.126372$s54.98840@pd7tw2no...
> James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>> 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.

James C. Reeves wrote:
> > wrote in message
> news:j0WIe.126372$s54.98840@pd7tw2no...
>
>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
news:1123376193.86675ca09ffea6767366d87ef3b3ad90@t eranews...
> James C. Reeves wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> news:j0WIe.126372$s54.98840@pd7tw2no...
>>
>>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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? ;-)

James C. Reeves wrote:

> > wrote in message
> news:j0WIe.126372$s54.98840@pd7tw2no...
>
>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
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

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 06:28:19 GMT, lid wrote:

>James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> news:j0WIe.126372$s54.98840@pd7tw2no...
>>
>>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>I don't need an official explanation from anyone. DRL's are a good idea
>on non-divided highways.

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


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