If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DRLs again
In trying to find some documented data about DRL use, I went to the US
government websites. This should avoid, to some extent, the Scandinavian opinion of these systems. You may find some BLOG type posts from both sides of the question. The following link should take you to a report which I would have to assume is unbiased. If you want to look at it, you will probably have to cut the address and paste it into your browser. www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/TRD.html |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
-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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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"? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The dangers of DRLs | 223rem | Driving | 399 | July 25th 05 11:28 PM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Pete | Technology | 41 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Daniel J. Stern | Driving | 3 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Why no rear lights with DRLs? | Don Stauffer | Technology | 26 | April 26th 05 04:16 AM |
Chevy Tahoe DRls? | BE | Driving | 0 | March 28th 05 03:45 PM |