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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I responded to your post in with my response to C. E. White. To
further add to that, at least if they have DRLs other people can see them from the front and avoid a head on collision. If you come up behind them and they have no rear markers then you should at least be able to see the reflection/refraction from the tailights. I realise it isn't as bright as when the lights are on but it should be enough to prevent you from hitting the other car unless you are travelling a lot faster than the other car. Apparently around here we have a law that states your right tires can't be more than 18 inches from the right side curb when parked on a two way street. An officer informed me of this and he said the reason was that the tailights act as reflectors even when the lights aren't on. "Bob Shuman" > wrote in message ... > The biggest safety issue I've seen with DRLs is that some vehicle drivers > don't realize they don't have their headlights on at dusk since they have > the DRLs and think they have the lights on, but do not. I've even seen some > idiots driving in full darkness with only DRLs and no side markers or tail > lights. You would think they would figure it out since they have no dash > lights, but that does not appear to be the case. > > I personally prefer to make the decision on whether to use the headlights or > not myself and not take the decision away from the driver. I also think the > added energy cost should be a factor in the decision. > > Bob > > "Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message > ... > > How could having lights on in the daytime cause an accident? I'm not > trying > > to be a smartass but I can't concieve of any situation where a low > intesity > > light during daylight hours could cause an accident. > > |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message ... > As far as I know this isn't a US only group. Here in Canada where the sun > spends a lot of the winter at a low angle I see a big advantage to DRLs. In an earlier post I thought I made it clear I was only grumbling about US requirements. I have no problem with the people in Canada doing something different. Just becasue something works in a far northernly climate doesn't mean it is appropriate for everyone in the world. The US NHTSA conducted a semi-reasonable study of DRLs and found no statistically valid safety advantaege for DRLs in the US (and in fact some types of accidents increased for cars with DRLs). The IIHS website does reference a Candian Study of DRLs, but I can't find a copy on line (Arora, H.; Collard, D.; Robbins, G.; Welbourne, E.R.; and White, J.G. 1994. Effectiveness of daytime running lights in Canada. Report no. TP-12298. Ottawa, Ontario: Transport Canada). The IIHS claimed this study showed an 11 percent reduction in some sorts of accidents. However, there was no mention of the effect on the overall accident rate (i.e., if other sorts of accidents increased). The NHTSA Report (available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...4/809760.pdfda ) make interesting reading. You might also wat to read an earlier NHTSA report which conflicts somewhat with this report (available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...0/DRL7_RPT.pdf ). In the US depending on how you spin the data you can show a significant reduction in accidents, no net reduction, or an increase in certain type of accidents. Results from other studies are also referenced. Best I can tell, the people conductiong these studies (for the most part) were out to prove DRLs were effective and analysed the data in the most favorable light. Not good science. - This site (a pro-DRL site) summarizes some studies (with a positive spin) - http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm - Good pro-DRL Europena site (results probably apply to Canada, but not necessarily the US) - http://www.swov.nl/en/swovschrift/09...ing_lights.htm They estimate a cost benefit ratio for DRLs, but since it is based on northernly countries, it is possible (even likely) the cost benefit ration for the US would not be attractive (less than 1). - This site has a summary of pro and con arguements (well some of them) - http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/argumnts.htm - Rabid anti-DRL Site - http://www.lightsout.org/ - Another anti-DRL Site - http://www.motorists.com/issues/drl/saturnboycott.html another anti-DRL Site - http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/ - An Autoweek Fourm on DRLs - http://forums.autoweek.com/thread.js...13387&tstart=0 - Other references: http://www.drivers.com/article/000000322 ; http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/mpaine/drl.html I don't have any compalints about Canada requiring DRLs. I think they are not as effective in the US, particualrly in the Southern US, and I don't want the US government making them a requirement. Ed |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I was not making a statement FOR or AGAINST the use of one's head lamps to
alert other driver's of their presence. I think there are valid reasons for using the lights during appropriate situations. I was stating the simple fact that DRLs consume fuel and can remove the need to think (this can be a dangerous thing). In my opinion this should be left to the driver to decide and that is just one more reason I do not generally purchase GM products. (My son's Saturn is why I am in this newsgroup, and it has provided wonderful service and has been an excellent vehicle - I am not bashing GM or Saturn so please no flames!) Bob "Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message ... > I guess I responded to your post in with my response to C. E. White. To > further add to that, at least if they have DRLs other people can see them > from the front and avoid a head on collision. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I was not making a statement FOR or AGAINST the use of one's head lamps to
alert other driver's of their presence. I think there are valid reasons for using the lights during appropriate situations. I was stating the simple fact that DRLs consume fuel and can remove the need to think (this can be a dangerous thing). In my opinion this should be left to the driver to decide and that is just one more reason I do not generally purchase GM products. (My son's Saturn is why I am in this newsgroup, and it has provided wonderful service and has been an excellent vehicle - I am not bashing GM or Saturn so please no flames!) Bob "Roy" <crawroy @ nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message ... > I guess I responded to your post in with my response to C. E. White. To > further add to that, at least if they have DRLs other people can see them > from the front and avoid a head on collision. |
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 | 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 |
"Saturn's VUE new, improved" | Mike | Saturn | 2 | May 28th 04 12:34 AM |