PS: In case its not clear, what I meant by my remark about cell phones is that a study 10 years old would not have that or other newer items factored in as the cause, or prevention, for an accident - that sort of thing. Even improved brakes, tires, etc would play a role; there are a lot of variables. How can one be sure how much of a role DRLs play in one scenario or another unless a real controlled experiment were done in circumstances/conditions that are akin to what your are applying them to.

Whatever - I must feel long winded tonight

TGIF!

 

I think DRL's and Automatic lights are a natural combination. We've all seen people with DRL's riding around at dusk or in town with only the DRL's on. They apparantly have no idea they have no taillights. Automatic lights would solve this problem. Maybe they should be required with DRL's.

I'm still going about it the old-fashioned way: I turn on my headlights myself when visibility is limited. I use foglights only when it's foggy. I use high beams only when No other drivers are approaching. This is because I think this is the only right way to do it...

...and because I don't want the police to see me speeding

 

And how did you come to this opinion? Devine guidance? Sure it CAN be an act of willful manipulation, but how do you know that it is often, rarely, always or never? I find it funny that the only way to support this position is to do RESEARCH on the frequecy of abuse of statistics.
this is all true, but none of it is hidden. The summaries of the data are there to read, along with the citations if you want the full text of the studies.
Once again, if you READ THEM, many of the questions you ask are answered! FYI, one of the more interesting studies was done by AVIS, in which they compared the use of DLR cars in about five cities with non DLR cars. Frequency of accidents down, and severity of accidents down.
Good questions, and how would one go about figuring out the correlated effects of these things? Prayer isn't the answer, GOOD research is.
Um, studies like the AVIS one would have these effects in the data, and a benefit was still observed.
while this may all be fine and true, head ons are much more sever than rear-enders, at least for one of the parties! And once again, effects like these would contribute to the net difference in accident frequency for a study conducted in areas that had these weather conditions.
no argument here, but has nothing to do with the efficacy of DLRs.

once again, here we have someone posting what are believed to be "common sense" positions on a topic. (and eVal, you're much less of an abuser than previous posters). Once again, the only way to know is an objective evaluation of a significant body of data.

So, some basic points.

1) Just because some do junk science does not mean all science is junk.

2) In this particular case, the site I listed is OPEN, containing both the studies for and against, investigates the the arguments against openly, and even quotes a study that shows slight negative effects. So it would be better to actually look at and read the sources instead of just pontificating about whether people do bad science or not.

3) In the case of DrDiffs pure crap quoted earlier, it would seem that either the research done in college wasn't good, or the techniques for good science were forgotten, or there is some significant bee up a bonnet on this issue.

4) relying on "common sense" isn't a good idea, as this is just a surrogate for saying "my unsupported beliefe". This could be common sense like "the area around me looks flat, so the world is flat, makes sense, right?" or the common sense like "since Iraq has so much oil, it's obvious that the war and reconstruction won't cost the US anything because the Iraqi oil production will soar once Saddam is gone (Rumsfled testimony to Congress pre war)"

5) All the posters who have crapped on the idea of using reseach to answer questions have failed to offer any better way of finding out answers to questions other than decree, devine guidance or the like. So if you don't like method A, and can't offer a better method, A is it for now. Suck it up and get used to it.

6) Blowing off the scientific method is pretty hypocritical. The computer chips in the boxes that you type on to post here weren't made by guesswork. Optimization through analysis of manufacturing data sure had a lot to do with it. Basic science on the properties of materials had a lot to do with it etc. While there are abuses like Vioxx data manipulation (which the company will pay dearly for, for sure) does exist, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

7) It's pretty obvious that independant of what opinion one has on an issue, the idea of a logically sound position is lost on many of us with opinions on subjects. While I don't reccomend studiing logic to get dates, it sure can help one create a defendable position, find weaknesses in argument STRUCTURE before content is even evaluated.

Hope this helps some figure out when they themselves are guilty of pushing unsupported opinion, as opposed to statistally sound conclusions. I found the symbolic logic courses I studied helped me greatly in interpretation of claim and the like. The next best help was a wonderful little book called "how to lie with statistics" that is surely an eye opener, and aids one in spotting the manipulation, and the quality studies.

And please, don't make the logically undefendable claim that I'm saying all scienentific reseach is sound. This is surely not the case.

Matt

 

Here in Canada all cars must have DRL. Personally I think its very nice to have DRLs especially in the winter months:

1. The sun is always quite low on the sky here in the great white north, so its always near the angle where it could blind you
2. Snow is white, white makes it hard to see stuff
3. Snow splashed onto the windshield makes visibility a LOT lower

I find it extremely easy to see another car in the above situations when they have headlights/DRL on

Do I have a scientific paper to back me up? nope, but I can tell you it works (almost sounds like a snake oil commercial, haha)

 

I have no problem with someone not wanting their DRLs on, just don't get them activated. I haven't seen any augument for not having them on that makes sense, except, "I don't want them".

Some of the arguments like, "people that have them on don't turn their headlights on a dusk", are downright funny. People who don't have DRLs on don't turn their headlights on at dusk either, with the result being no lights instead of DRLs....hardly safer IMO.

 

My xenons are way brighter, and have a much wider spread than the DRLs, the difference is much more than minimal.

The DRLs have nothing to do with you being able to see, and everything with being able to be seen.

 

Dr. Obnxs -
In your attempt to defend your position and eviscerate mine you took my points out of context and therefore did nothing to really address the heart of what I was saying. The fact remains that those studies/summaries you posted, http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm, are not current, not necessarily relevant to my living conditions (San Francisco 2005) or the population here, they do not describe all of the information behind the before/after statistics (comparative weather conditions, road conditions, types of cars involved, auto equipment, and other circumstances related to what causes an accident and the multiple reasons why an accident was possibly avoided/less severe), and that current DRLs are not well implemented and can actually be dangerously blinding.

I do not have the time to go through each detail I take issue with, however I do think your comments about what I stated about statistics was childish and rude: "....Devine guidance?..." You do not know me and those sort of remarks are not called for. This is about my opinion and I have my reasons for it. Its funny, you don't even counter it, just pretty much accuse me of being ignorant. I never said research was bad, I made a blanket statement that "statistics and research quoted sans the context of all the details is often manipulative information, used to make/support a point, at best", and contrary to your assertion that "All the posters who have crapped on the idea of using reseach to answer questions have failed to offer any better way of finding out answers to questions other than decree, devine guidance or the like. So if you don't like method A, and can't offer a better method, A is it for now. Suck it up and get used to it." I did suggest that a true controlled (modern) experiment might be more accurate and relevant to the conditions/populations you are applying the information to.

#4 is funny however, although I referred to common sense I did not endorse it as something to rely on, rather I implied it was often lacking - seems like you were the one guilty of not really reading through something and was so busy pushing your POV that you ignored what I was really saying, which actually was not a dismissal of all benefits of DRLs but rather that "I'm not convinced as a whole that it is necessary for everyone or close to being implemented correctly*" (and as you know I use my regular headlights all of the time instead, so I am clearly no saying there is no merit to having lights on). That said, although many people lack common sense I do not want to live in a world designed to remove autonomy to cover for them - rather make good laws, dispense the tickets and help people learn to do better as they did with seat belts.

Oh and to go back to the subject of this thread, which is about opinions "Opinion on DRLs: Cool/Good/Bad/Lame" I'll add that after seeing a Mini with the DRLs yesterday I have to say they certainly did not look 'cool' - it looked more cross-eyed then I remembered.

 

One thing few people consider with DRLs is the extra gas required. This is a really small amount for one car. But if all cars were required to have them it would add up to quite a bit. From the "How Stuff Works" site, it is estimated that in the USA over 400 million gallons of gas would be required just to run the DRLs. This is a little hard to believe, so check it out yourself at: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm

I don't want DRLs for myself... nothing to do with the gas usage though.

 

You are right in many of your points, and I wasn't right to blast you based on the lack of logic used by others. So sorry for that. But the basics points are still on topic, and the summary at the end of the post still has valid information.

so sorry for blasting with poor aim, I'll try to be better in the future. Also, sarcasm gets morphed into blatent insults in posts, and this is an act that I've been guilty of before, and while I try to be better, I still slip into it every now and then heavier than I should. I'm not in a 12 step program for that, but maybe I should be.

While the site listed does have older results, it seems that most of the studies were conducted in the 80s and 90s. I went deeper in the liturature, and found sitations up to 2002 still citing reductions in accidents. One of the earlier studies found a whopping 37% decrease in left turn accidents! (I guess they mean turning left accross on coming traffic). In the US, DLRs are allowed to be over 4 times brighter than in Europe (7000 vs 1500 candela) and while there is proposed legislation on the matter here to limit brightness, no action has been done. (This bares on you comments about the Saturns).

some other usefull references..
http://www.hwysafety.org/research/qanda/drl.html

This one has a nice summary, also mentions the brightness of US vs Europe, and cites GM estimates of cost per car of ~$3 per year in gas (probably up to $5/yr with higher gas prices). (Note, while this will slightly increase overall gas use , say 2 gal/car-year, one would also have to factor in the decreased energy use as a result of not having to roll emergency equipment, create more plastic body panals for replace ment etc to figure out the NET impact on oil useage. The increase in automotive gas use is a negative, but I would guess (subject to verification ) that there are many positive effects that go into the mix as well.)

Here are the conclusions of a Sept 2004 report (entire report can be found here)

"Conclusions

The effectiveness of daytime running lamps, based on the simple odds, was analyzed in the preceding sections using data from FARS and NASS/GES from calendar years 1995 to 2001. FARS and NASS/GES data show that during the period of the study 1995 to 2001, DRLs reduced daylight two passenger vehicle opposite-direction crashes by about 5 percent. DRLs have also been shown to reduce fatal opposite direction crashes between a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle by 23 percent. The results for two-vehicle daytime opposite-direction crashes are statistically significant at the p < 0.10 level, although one would prefer a statistical level of p < 0.05.

FARS data were also used to estimate the effectiveness, based on the simple odds, of DRLs in reducing pedestrian/cyclist fatalities in single-vehicle fatal crashes. The analysis shows that DRLs reduced pedestrian/cyclist fatalities by more than 12 percent. These results are highly significant at a statistical level of p = 0.002.

This analysis is based on US historical data and does not reflect what will happen in the future. The techniques used do not predict the crash reducing effectiveness of DRLs if the entire fleet is equipped with DRLs nor if drivers become habituated to DRLs. These are limitations of historical crash data.

As additional data become available it may be appropriate to further investigate the effectiveness of DRLs in a variety of crash configurations including pedestrian and motorcycle crashes."

What this means is that there is a 90% confidence level that if you enable your DRLs in todays fleet you will benefit from the additional benefits listed in the first paragraph.

So eVal, you are 100% correct, some of my tone was inappropriate, and for that I apologize.
You were also correct, that the first citation was earlier data, but that was also my fault, for only chooseing to post one (admittedly rather complete) summary reference, corrected here.
And you are also correct in the fact that the thread asked for opinions, and it is my hope that by citing informed sources, that opinion can be swayed.

Matt

 

This is a lot like some of the arguments I've seem concerning wearing a helmet when motorcycling. Many of those who don't want to wear them come up with lots of reasons why they aren't good. Every statistical look at wearing a helmet shows that, yes, they do save lives. Some folks think they look nerdy with a helmet on, (uncool). Of course, there is no guarantee that you won't die in an accident, helmet or no helmet. Earnhart died with a helmet on, albeit an open-faced one.

I like it a lot better when they just say, "I'm not wearing a helmet because I'm an adult and no one can make me."

It's refreshing to have them skip the BS part.

 

After having them on for 2 days, I like em... especially in the drizzle weather of raining season here in Hawaii... I am glad I had the initially programmed....

 

I don't have DRL's but when ever I'm on the highway in less than bright weather I put my headlights on.

If you look in the rear view mirror for a split second, the cars with lights always stand out more. That's reason enough for me to have my lights on.

 

I really don't see any needs for arguments about this topic, other people will see you better, and you'll have an easier time seeing other cars, what is wrong with that?

 

I did some more digging. In 2003, about 43,000 people died in car accidents. The odds of a death by accident type are about 75% that it happens in a head on collision. That means that just short over 31,000 people died in head on collisions. If one takes the result from the 2004 study that a 5% reduction in head on collisions is a good estimate, then about 1550 people wouldn't have died if DLRs were used.

Now there are some weaknesses with this estimate. There isn't any data that shows how the US numbers would be affected by having all cars have DLR, or if there's saturation in the effect. so this is a guide for the eye, not an absolute fact. It also doesn't account for the fact that some of the autos already have them, so this may overestimate the effect a bit because of that as well...

But this also doesn't take into account the amount of lives saved in other types of accidents. The 2004 gov study shows that there's a 23% decrease in car-motorcycle fatal accidents with DRLs....

So, do you want to help save over 1500 auto drivers? and about a fourth of the MC accident victems that die in auto-MC collisions? If so, get the DLRs turned on. If you ride a motor cycle, you ought to write your congress person to get them mandated.

Just putting some (more) numbers into the discussion...

Matt

 

But..But, DRLs make my MINI look cross-eyed.!!

Geez, now my car is cross-eyed and a gay car that mostly girls drive.

That's OK, I still love it.

 

im all for DRL, i think they really make the car stand out..

that said, up here in Canada.. ive seen all too many luxurious cars (acura TSX, Acura RLs) with their DRLs on AT NIGHT!!!! (so only halogens running low wattage, no taillights) and most of those vehicles are black, taking up the fast lanes.... once i did a turn on the highway, only to find a black TSX with no tail-lights on about halfway thru the curve... of course i manage to switch lanes promptly, but thanks to DRL, some people do not turn on their headlights or tail-lights at night.. and then it really becomes dangerous...

my canadian version runs on drl, only when i turn on the parking lights then i get the rear taillights...

 

I feel there is no saturation in the fact that I can see an oncoming car with DRLs, or head lights.

I have been driving for over 35 years, some cars have had DRLs for over the last 15years. I can see them way easier, than the old beaters that do not have them. I don't care about the studies, and graphs, I can see an oncoming car better if some form of light is on.

And if my car looks crossed eyed,so be it at least it is seen.

And if your worried about radar, slow down, don't whine about getting a ticket.

 

but there just isn't enough data to prove it, nor enough cars on the road in the US to persuade the skeptics that claim the increased amount of daylight in winter months decrease the effect of the lights as you get closer to the equator.

But like I mentioned before, I spent quite a while talking to a failure analysis expert who studied train-car accidents at railroad crossings without gates (and there is a very large number of them). He was pointing out that there were a disproportionate amount of accidents at these locations because the brain assumes that the train is at rest if it stays at a constant angle in the drivers field of vision, something in the wiring of our brain that says we don't have to worry as much when presented with this situation. While I'd believe the same effect allows us to recognize light sources as something worthy of attention, I haven't seen studies in my brief searches that cover this issue. So for me, this is still in the hypothosis catagory, but it seems to be a good one based on my experience too.

If anyone knows of GOOD references on this, or finds recent studies in the countries that have DRLs mandated by law, the issue of driver perception saturation would be pretty much settled.

Matt

 

FWIW, there are some fairly interesting research documents from some insurance watchdog agencies showing sharp increases in accidents after new safety devices like seatbelts and helmets are mandated. The conclusion was that some people became more willing to drive beyond their limits because of the presumed increas in safety.

There have also been a lot of good articles recently by the Hurt group and others regarding the specs required for motorcycle helmets, and whether the direction they're going (particularly with the Snell ratings) is truly safer than softer, less robust helmets.

My own beef with the auto safety standards is that they're designed for the middle 95% in terms of size and weight standards. It sounds good until you consider that the maximum height/weight required for testing is somewhere around 6'1 and 240 pounds. I passed both of those in eigth grade, and have often worried about whether the safety devices will work, not work, or worst of all, cause more problems. Like I mentioned in another thread, when I test drove the Mazda 6, my shoulder was in direct contact with the B pillar. Side airbags might be nice when there's space for them to expand and fill, but what happens when during an accident, the driver's body is already in contact with the panel holding the airbag? You get hit by the impact PLUS an explosive charge. No thank you, sir. So now this new soon-to-be-mandatory 'safety' feature will cut me out from almost every car under 35,000. And if I want a car I can trust for space, I get hit by extra taxes and/or bad mileage, and/or poor performance, etc.

So you'll have to excuse me if I take a cynical attitude toward things like daytime running lights. They might make sense out in the boonies but in a metopolitan area, I honestly can't fathom that they'd be all that useful. It really ought to be up to the discretion of the driver.

 

there are many that take data from cities as well.

on the helmet area, there is interesting data as well. While it is pretty much true that having a helmet on a MC makes the chance of sever head injury less, that's not enough of a reason to mandate helmets. If this were the case, hang gliding would be illegal. Here in California, we got a helmet law. In the debates in congress, two studies were cited stating that the cost of unhelmeted MC riders increased state health care costs, and because this placed a burdon on the rest of society, the state had the right to step in and mandate hemets. The authors of both studies said thier results had been misinterpreted, and there was pretty much no increase in state costs (due to the fact that more riders died). The sponsor of the bill was quoted as saying something like "I don't care what the numbers say, MC riders should wear helmets!" To me that reeks of limiting freedoms when there is no reason to do so, and just sucks.

But about side curtain air bags, what do you expect? To have all small cars be compatible with the extremes of human dimension isn't really cost effective. I'm sure you've found that finding shoes is harder because of your size, and while that's a hassle, why should all the shoe stores stock stuff that almost no one will buy? I feel for you, but at least your not one of the really short people that get hit by the standard air bag to ill effect because they are so close to the steering wheel.

Go ahead and be skeptical, but please take the time to find out for sure. I found all the citation I listed in less than 20 min work, and there's real good information there. It's out there if you're willing to look (like you did on the helmet stuff). Also, boxing head injuries went up with the use of gloves. While it saves the hands, it allows the boxer to strike with a force that would have broken the fist before. So there's precident for safety features not being as effective as anticipated. But for all the studies I've looked at (and this covers about 20 summaries and a few in detail), there are no statistically significant negative impact of their implementation, and many, many statistically significant results that show benefit (even in cities).

Matt

 

The motorcycle helmet law is a great point. There was a lady here in Florida who led the charge to have the helmet law repealed. Her group was successful two years ago+ and then three months later she died from a head injury in a motorcycle accident.

I am very conscious of switching from DRLs to headlights at dusk so I don't blind anyone. Personally, I think xenons are more blinding than a DRL....(puts flame suit on)...remember, this is MY opinion

 

Thank you for the apology Dr Obnxs. My hope on forums is that if people reply to me directly they really read what I am saying (and its clear you are not the only one guilty of losing sight of what a person says vs what you want to reply), and overall to be treated appropriately. I can see that you were caught up with other replies and the general obsessive ferver of the subject for you - its all h2o under the bridge now :smile:

 

I have to be able to admit mistakes. That's part of being a grown-up!

Matt

 

I have my DRLs enabled and I don't think I'm driving beyond my limits because of it. I don't really think about it. I don't necessarily feel safer with them and I still expect people to pull out in front of me whether they see me or not. It's just like the brakelight mod, if someone isn't paying attention they'll still run in to me. But like vitamins, I guess it's a bit of insurance. I'm not convinced they help, but they might.
Many people in large vehicles do seem to drive beyond their limits because of the presumed increase in safety.

 

I use my DRL option because it keeps my father happy. He's been rigging his cars to operate with DRLs since way back before DRLs were offered as options because he feels they're safer. Truth is that I would have opted for DRLs even without his input. A VR/B MINI is dark enough that it can easily disappear into the roadway under poor lighting conditions (multiple coats of Zaino not withstanding), and I figure a car as small as mine needs all the visibility assist it can get in a world of oversized passenger trucks, SUVs and hummers. (The time I spent in an Opel GT left me a little sensitive to the whole question of vehicle visibility!)

I do sometimes forget to turn off my headlights at night because it looks like they're already on, but I usually correct myself pretty quickly when I catch sight of the unlit instrument panel. But you guys have got me to thinking.... maybe I should get the auto on lights in my next MINI!