Motorcycle deaths per mile driven have gone way up in the states that dropped their helmet laws. I've dealth with ABATE and other anti-helment organzations enough to know that they will have some other explanation for the increase in fatalities. There is no cost too high for the benefit of "looking cool".

It's a cruel form of cleansing the gene pool.

 

there is an open question about what is the boudary to state intervention into individuals free choices. Ususally, the state steps in when there is some greater harm to society, or where the individual can't act to protect thier own interests (like child safety laws).

In the case of MC helmets, it's true they save lives, but there should be a higher standard. We allow the use of cigarettes, alcohol, guns and lots and lots of other items with little or no restriction, why should helmets be mandated for MC riders? Can't they make informed choices? Like hanggliders, parachutests etc? So the fact that something saves lives isn't a high enough standard (in my mind) to justify state intervention. If I want to go to a race track and drive, I should be able to even though it's inhearnetly dangerous. I have the ability to choose.

As far as the comment about the cost of looking cool, we're all guilty here. If we wanted the safest car in terms on fatalities per mile driven, we'd all be in Toyota Camrys! So even you are paying a price for looking cool, or whatever other metric comes into your decision to drive a Mini instead of a Camry. The difference between driving a Mini instead of a Camry differs from the choice of riding a MC without a helmet only by degree.

Matt

 

When you think about this, it dont really matter. If your state requires them, then USE them or you run the risk of an equipment violation.

If your state don't require them, do what you want. Its your car, you life, but beaware that if, in fact, DRL saves lives, would you rather save a life or be the potential cause of one?

 

I disagree. A Mini has enough space around me that I can safely operate the controls. A Camry does not. The steering wheel touches my legs, my knees are in constant contact with the dash, and my head constantly brushes the roof. None of those happen in the Mini. In the case of a serious accident, I could easily lose my legs or break my neck in a camry. And with the superior driving mechanics and visibilty and comfort within the Mini, I contend that I am far less likely to be involved in an accident. As for shorter people having more to fear from accidents due to being close to the wheel, I'd like to point out that only 4 of the 18 current model year cars I sat in or test drove allowed me to reach to the stering wheel at a comfortable height and distance. Most wheels were down in my lap (altima, sonata, camry), too far from a properly adjusted seat (GTi), or so close to the center console that my leg gets wedged in and renders it completely undrivable. (The passable cars were the Mini, the Dodge Magnum/Charger, and Toyota Solara. My wingspan, height, and inseam, for the recard, are 6'6, 6'5, and 34", respectively)

Going back to the daytime running lamps, I noticed on the studies mentioned in Norway relating to the effect autmobile DRLs have on the relative visibility of motorcycle riders, a 4% increase in fatal accidents involving motorbikes was detected within their data, but deemed statisically insignificant. That begs the question of just how small their data set (and thus how large their extrapolation) must have been to lend such a large uncertainty to their findings. The US has somewhere around 4000 motorcycle fatalities, and a total of about 40000 highway fatalities. Of those 40000, about 17500 are alcohol related. Almost all of those will occur late at night. That leaves about 18500 automobile fatalities. I would expect a strong bias for them occurring in the dusk, nighttime, and dawn hours. I don't know where the breakdown occurs. I'll just assume an even distribution between daytime, nighttime, and rising/setting sun. That leads to about a 50/50 breakdown between when DRLs might have helped vs. when regular headlights would be on. That is a generous assumption toward the positive effects of DRLs. So that leaves us with about 9250 wrecks in which DRLs might have an effect. So now, 4% of 4000 is 160. And 160 is 1.8% of 9250.

That's a trade. That's a compromise. You have to prevent 1-2% of daytime accidents to break even with the expected increase of motorcycle fatalities. If DRLs prevent fewer than that, you placing a lower value on the lief of the motorcycle rider.

There are more fallacies on the pro-DRL link posted earlier, and I may look at more later.

 

DRLs are the least of my worries after a very fun run in the mucky backroads

 

That dog must have really had to pee to get it that far up the boot of you MINI.

 

I should have said the average driver should drive a camry (least fatalities per mile driven) instead of a Mini using safety only a critirion.

Tons of assumptions in your break down, could be a bottemless pit of discussion, but still comes down to arguing about how many are saved. (you came out at about 1/10th of my estimate). I personally would argue some of your assumptions (like all drunk driving would happen at night, and the 50/50 breakdown of when they'd be used. That assumes that sleep is randomly spaced in the 24 hour period). Those two allown would up your estimate by 3-4.

Also, you're only taking one result, that is quoted as statistically insignificant, when there are other results (in the 2004 national highway repoort), that show in the US a 23% reduction in fatal auto-MC accidents with a greater than 99% confidence level. It is indeed an interesting question as to why these two numbers differ so.

Matt

 

I've been there too lot15!! Not as dirty as yours..

 

DRLs for me forever

 

i probably posted earlier that i run DRL's on my MCS and i still do.

my 06 civic came with DRL's...on that car, i turned it off because of
appearance. (pull a fuse, done!... so easy).

 

I'm a big fan of DRLs. When I drive a car without them I always turn on the headlights day or night, so it just saves me the hassle. We also get a slight discount on our car insurance for having the feature.

 

DRLs again?

Here are the facts ... they save lives

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm

 

i wish i can rewire the DRLs to fog, and retrofit hid fog on! thats my ideal setup

 

Lame.

But of course I told my Insurance Co that they are enabled!

And I switch my headlights on when the weather or situation demand it.

regards,
Red

 

HA! Thw day after I had my DRL's activated I got my first speeding ticket since '92. Still, I love the extra visibility factor, so count me in as "good." JB

 

Thanks for feeding my fear! DRL's still off for me.

 

I hate DRL's. It is one of the few things in life I am rather strongly opposed to.

Why? Exactly the reason DrDiff posted earlier: because they detract form vehicles that really NEED to stand out. Motorcycles, EM vehicles, etc.

So... if (and that's a big IF) DRL's might save a life now because thier DRL vehicle stands out amoung the non-DRL folks, how many lives would be lost later if all vehicles had DRL's - we're back to square one. I'm sorry, but it's a short-sighted arguement that sacrifices the future for the present.

 

And nothing in these studies address my concerns.

 

Lame.

Haven't examined the studies close enough to comprehend them fully, but it seems they all refer to 'multiple vehicle accidents' - DRLs would only be a factor in head-ons, no? Unless you happen to be looking in the rear view mirror as the guy with DRLs rams you in traffic...

 

Based on past experience, I would be a lot safer if:

DRL's seem to address a problem I'm not having.

 

I see no need for them. Way back when, I learned how to turn my lights on when conditions demand them. I see many people driving in rain, fog & at night with just DRL on. No tail lights with DRL's. What's next wipers that turn themselves on for those who don't recognize rain? Oops we have that. Cars that try to drive around corners for the driver? Oops, we have that too.

 

What it comes down to is that practically every study showed that they are benificial. While it's true they have no effect on rear enders or the like, enabling them will save lives overall. Oh well, life goes on.....

Matt

 

Why keep beating a dead horse? I have DRL's enabled in both of my MINIs and I believe they add safety as we make ourselves be more visible to other vehicles on the road. They don't bother me at all and so far all the other "Against-DRL" responses so far seem to me as lame as the debate itself. All I can gather from folks that don't like them is about "looks" and "Power-control" mental issues.

It is just headlights for crying out loud!

If you don't like them that is fine!

For the rest of us, thumbs up for having them enabled and make the road safer one MINI at a time.

 

A flashing mars light on the roof would be even safer. Maybe the horn honking every few seconds would also be beneficial.

 

Which is easier to see? http://www.motiontrends.com/2006csm/...a/lights.shtml

The fact is that some people don't like the laws or safety items. Some don't like seat belts, some don't like the seat belt buzzers, some hate the noise laws most every state has, some hate the CATS required by federal law, etc. etc. etc.

The studies show it saves lives. That's good enuff for me.

Since there is no US law mandating them (unlike Canada), then don't use them ... your choice.