From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Mon Nov 27 09:15:45 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by mail (SMI-8.6/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA01624 for <kevina@clark.net>; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:15:38 -0500
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (SMI-8.6/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id OAA06372; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:14:56 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:14:56 GMT
Message-Id: <199511271414.OAA06372@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Richard Rogers" <RR2895@student.law.duke.edu>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: A

After reading the other posts here, and after driving my mom's new Volvo
850 this weekend, I have some new thoughts on DRLs.  First, Volvo's DRLs
use the low-beam headlights, they turn on the taillights, and they have
a little green light that lights up next to the headlight switch when
they are on--if it goes out, you need to replace a bulb.  The Volvo also
has a screw somewhere that you can turn to disable the DRLs; I have
noticed that most Volvo drivers don't do this, however, either because
they don't want to take the time or because of the benefits.  After
experiencing that car, I think that all DRLs need to be designed more
like Volvo's.

Second, I agree that sometimes when you see a car with DRLs in the 
distance in your rearview mirror, you watch more closely.  After all,
that could be a cop back there, right?  But hey, if the DRLs cause
you to pay more attention, that's a good thing, since you should be
doing it anyway!

Third, I cannot accept the arguments from the posters here that "if I
need DRLs, it is a situation where I will turn on my headlights anyway."
I cannot accept this because most people reading this page seem to be
more knowledgeable about driving than the general public.  The majority
of people out there do *not* know enough to turn on their lights on 
those two-lane roads.  I've had friends ask me why I turn them on.  Then
one day I passed someone, and my friend following me went to pass the
same guy and a car suddenly appeared going the other way; the car was
hard to see because it blended in (no lights on).  He promptly under-
stood why I do it, and turned on his lights!

Now, the downside of this is that I have found that if you drive on
the back roads with either your lights on or with DRLs, you are less
likely to get a speeding ticket than someone who is not using his
lights--the cops almost always pull over the guy who's not using them.
I don't really know why, but my guess is that they recognize that
you're being safety-conscious by turning them on.  DRLs *would* rob us
of this benefit--but then, I think the reduced chance of a wreck is
worth it.

Y'see, while you can see cars during the day, you can see them a whole
lot further away with the DRLs.  On two-lane roads, this is critical if
you are considering passing.  It is not as important on the interstates,
and I think that's one reason so many people are opposed to them: they 
drive almost only on interstates or other divided highways.  How-
ever, the majority of our roads are not interstates.

What's funny to me is that every time a new safety feature comes along,
people oppose it.  Seat belts were violently opposed.  Air bags were,
but not as widely so.  Now DRLs are.  The funny thing is that almost all
the automakers support DRLs; never before have they supported a safety
feature like that.  Perhaps this is a good sign for the future of auto
designing.  The other thing is, I notice little price difference between
DRL-equipped cars and non-DRL-equipped cars: all the carmaker has to do
is install a little gizmo to turn on the lights when the ignition goes
on.  That's why it doesn't cost extra.

(The other thing I wish all cars had was a headlight system that shuts
off when you shut the car off.  I know Volvo, for one, has had this for
years.  It's convenient for when you do turn your lights on during the
day, just in case you forget they're on.)

From kevina  Wed Oct 11 18:30:45 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id SAA23728; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 18:30:44 -0400
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 18:30:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kevin Atkinson <kevina@clark.net>
To: Kevin Atkinson <kevina@clark.net>
Subject: Do DRLs Really Work? The Truth Is Inside. (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951011183021.10771B-100000@clark.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Date: 10 Oct 1995 21:04:36 GMT
From: Matthew N. Kleiman <mkleiman@thymaster.interaccess.com>
Newgroups: rec.autos.driving, rec.autos.misc
Subject: Do DRLs Really Work? The Truth Is Inside.

     Since I have become so utterly disgusted with the surprisingly large
number of people who post anti-DRL messages in these groups, I decided to
conduct some actual research to back up my position that daytime running
lights are an effective and efficient automobile safety measure.  With the
exception of this paragraph, the conclusory paragraph at the end of this
message, and comments set off by the designation "*** Comment ***", every
word of this message is directly quoted from scientific source material,
for which I have included detailed citations.  I hope (but do not expect)
that any counter-response to this message will similarly include the
citations supporting the author's assertions.  Unfortunately, in the the
several weeks that I have monitored DRL discussions in these newsgroups,
no anti-DRL message has ever been backed by even a scintilla of scientific
evidence.  My research follows: 

*** Summary of Research: DRLs are Proven Effective ***

DRLs, at sufficient levels of intensity, increase visual contrast between
vehicles and their background. Various studies have shown that DRLs can
improve the noticeability and detectability of vehicles in the central and
peripheral fields of view.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May,
1995);  Allen, J. M., Strickland, J., Ward, B., and Siegel, A.: Daytime
headlights and position on the highway. Am J Optometry 46: 33--36 (1969);
Attwood, D. A.: Daytime running lights project, IV: Two-lane passing
performance as a function of headlight intensity and ambient illumination.
Technical Report RSU 76/1. Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental
Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1976; Attwood, D. A.: Daytime
running lights project, II: Vehicle detection as a function of headlight
use and ambient illumination. Technical Report RSU 75/2. Defense and Civil
Institute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1975;
Horberg, U.: Running light--twilight conspicuity and distance judgement. 
Report 215. Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1977;
Horberg, U., and Rumar, K.: Running lights--conspicuity and glare. Report
178. Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1975;
Kirkpatrick, M., Baker, C. C., and Heasly, C. C.: A study of daytime
running lights design factors. (DOT HS 807 193). National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1987.; Ziedman, K., Burger, W., and
Smith R.: Evaluation of the conspicuity of daytime running lights. (DOT HS
807 609). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC,
1990. 

*** International Studies ***

A study in Finland conducted between 1968 and 1974 found that DRLs, when
required on rural roads in the winter, were associated with a 21-percent
reduction in daytime multiparty crash events (involving more than one
motor vehicle or motor vehicles colliding with pedestrians or
pedalcyclists).  Andersson, K., Nilsson, G., and Salusjarvi, M.: The
effect of recommended and compulsory use of vehicle lights on road
accidents in Finland. Report 102A. National Road and Traffic Research
Institute, Linkoping, Sweden, 1976. 

In Sweden, a study based on 2 years of pre-law and 2 years of post-law
data reported and 11-percent reduction in multiparty daytime crashes
subsequent to the DRL law.  Andersson, K., and Nilsson, G.: The effect on
accidents of compulsory use of running lights during daylight hours in
Sweden. Report 208A. National Road and Traffic Research Institute,
Linkoping, Sweden, 1981. 

A study in Norway published in Norwegian and reviewed by Koornstra found a
14-percent drop in multiparty crashes prior to the law, during the 1980-85
period when voluntary DRL use was climbing.  Vaaje, T.: Kjorelys om dagen
reducerer ulykkestallene. Arbetsdokument 15.8.1986. Transportokonomisk
institutt, Postboks 6110 Etterstad, N-0602 Oslo 6, Norway, 1986. 

A study in Norway, covering the period 1980 to 1990, examined the effect
of the country's DRL law, which applied to new cars in 1985 and to all
cars beginning in 1988. DRL use was estimated to be about 30-35 percent in
1980-81, 60-65 percent in 1984-85, and 90-95 percent in 1989-90, so, as in
the earlier Scandinavian studies, only partial implementation of DRLs was
assessed.  There was a statistically significant 10-percent decline in
daytime multiple-vehicle crashes associated with DRLs in this study,
excluding rear-end collisions, which increased by 20 percent. For all
daytime crashes involving multiple parties, there was a statistically
significant 15-percent reduction associated with DRLs in the summer but
not in the winter. No significant effects of DRLs were found for
collisions involving pedestrians or motorcyclists.  Elvik, R.: The effects
on accidents of compulsory use of daytime running lights for cars in
Norway. Accid Anal Prev 25: 383-398 (1993). 
 
Two studies evaluating Denmark's 1990 DRL law have been completed, one
that assessed short-term effects, the other looking at longer term
effects.  Results of these two studies were quite consistent. There was a
small reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes (7 percent) in the
first year and 3 months the law was in effect, with one type of
DRL-relevant crash (left turn in front of oncoming vehicle) reduced by 37
percent. In the second study, which covered 2 years and 9 months of the
law, there was a 6-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes,
and a 34-percent reduction in left-turn crashes. There was a small
reduction in motor vehicle-pedalcyclist collisions (4 percent) but a
statistically significant increase (16 percent) in motor
vehicle-pedestrian collisions.  Hansen, L. K.: Daytime running lights in
Denmark--Evaluation of the safety effect. Danish Council of Road Safety
Research, Copenhagen, 1993; Hansen, L. K.: Daytime running lights:
Experience with compulsory use in Denmark. Fersi Conference, Lille, 1994. 

*** North American Studies ***

*** Some DRL critics have attempted to undermine the unequivical results
of international studies on the grounds that driving conditions in
Scandinavian countries are not comparable to North American driving
conditions.  The following studies utterly refute this assertion. ***

In the United States, a small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s
found an 18-percent lower daytime, multiple-vehicle crash rate for
DRL-equipped vehicles.  Cantilli, E. J.: Accident experience with parking
lights as running lights. Highway Research Record Report No. 32. National
Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1970.  In
a much larger fleet study conducted in the 1980s, more than 2,000
passenger vehicles in three fleets were equipped with DRLs.  Stein, H. S.:
Fleet experience with daytime running lights in the United States.
Technical Paper 851239. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
1985.  One fleet operated in Connecticut, another in several States in the
Southwest, and the third operated throughout the United States. A
7-percent reduction was found in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes in the
DRL-equipped vehicles compared with control vehicles. 

In a study in Canada comparing 1990 model year vehicles (required to have
DRLs) with 1989 vehicles, a statistically significant 11-percent reduction
in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes other than rear-end impacts was
estimated. This estimate was adjusted to take into account the fact that
about 29 percent of 1989 vehicles were fitted with DRLs. Collisions
involving pedestrians, pedalcyclists, motorcyclists, and heavy trucks and
buses were not included in this study.  Aurora, H., et al.: Effectiveness
of daytime running lights in Canada. TP 12298 (E). Transport Canada,
Ottawa, 1994. 
 
In another Canadian study, crashes of vehicles with and without DRLs in a
government fleet in Saskatchewan were compared with a random sample of
crashes involving vehciles without DRLs. The estimated reduction in
daytime two-vehicle crashes was 15 percent. When the analysis was limited
to two-vehicle collisions most likely to be affected by DRLs--involving
vehicles approaching from the front or side--the estimated reduction was
28 percent.  Sparks, G. A., et al.: The effects of daytime running lights
on crashes between two vehicles in Saskatchewan: a study of a government
fleet. Accid Anal. Prev 25: 619-625 (1991). 

In 1994 Avis, Inc. announced the results of a traveler-safety study
analyzing the incidence and degree of damage to cars equipped with daytime
running lights; the study showed a significantly greater degree of damage
to those without daytime running lights (DRLs). Those equipped with DRLs
have their headlights on at all times and are more visible to other
drivers. During the day, they are on at an 80% power level; in the dark
they operate at 100%.  Society of Automotive Engineers Inc., Automotive
Engineering Vol. 102 ; No. 8 ; Pg. 35; ISSN: 0098-2571 (August, 1994). 
Damage severity in the non-DRL group (measured in terms of cost) was 69%
greater than that of the DRL-equipped fleet. Only the non-DRL vehicles
experienced damage in excess of $15,000. The Avis study involved 1500 cars
with DRLs, and 1500 without, representing approximately 29,000 rentals in
eight cities in Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and
Washington. 

*** Summary of the Studies ***

In summary, although the studies of DRLs have differed in design, analysis
techniques, and outcome measures, the later studies are largely in
accordance with the earlier ones, indicating that the overall effect of
DRLs on motor vehicle crashes is positive.  U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN:
0033-3549 (May, 1995). 

*** Duration of DRL Effects ***

*** An often-used anti-DRL argument is that the positive effects of DRLs
will erode over time as the public becomes accustomed to their use on the
roadways.  The following analysis proves this argument to be fallacious.
***
 
The early and later DRL studies have shed light on concerns about the
duration of DRL effects and the possibility of negative effects of DRLs on
some road users. It has been suggested that when DRLs are first introduced
into some part of the vehicle population, positive crash reduction effects
will be found only because DRLs are new and unique and the vehicles that
have them stand out from those that do not. Once people get used to seeing
vehicles with DRLs, it is conjectured, their effects will diminish, and,
if all vehicles have them, their noticeability will be reduced or drivers
will come to ignore the extra information. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN:
0033-3549 (May, 1995). 
 
All three of the early Scandinavian studies examined the effects of DRLs
over a period of several years when DRL use was increasing, and DRL
effects were estimated in Sweden and Finland when DRL use was nearly 100
percent. Thus to the extent that novelty or habitation effects occur, the
effects of DRLs in the early Scandinavian studies were still positive over
time and with close to 100 percent use.  The later studies also suggest
that the initial positive effects of DRLs do not dissipate over time. The
reductions in multiple-vehicle crashes found in the Denmark studies, based
on experience during the first 15 months of the law and then extended to
include the first 33 months, were very similar. This similarity led the
author to conclude that the effect was a permanent one and not due to the
novelty of DRLs.  In the study in Norway, the reduction in daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes was maintained during the 3 years in which DRLs
were required for all vehicles and use was close to 100 percent. 

*** Effect of DRLs on Motorcyles ***

*** Another anti-DRL argument is that their use in automobiles will negate
the positive effects of motorcycles operating with their lights on.  The
following studies indicate that this argument has little statistical
weight. ***

The effect of DRLs on motorcycle crashes has been studied in Denmark and
Norway, where daytime lights were required for motorcyclists prior to the
DRL law for passenger vehicles. In the study in Norway, a 4-percent
increase, not statistically significant, was found for motorcyclist
crashes. In Hansen's evaluation of Denmark's law, daytime multiple-vehicle
crashes involving motorcycles were unchanged, but nighttime and
single-vehicle daytime motorcycle crashes decreased over this period,
leading Hansen to conclude that there might be a "minor negative impact"
of DRLs on motorcycle crashes. 

*** Costs of DRLs ***

*** One the most foolish arguments raised against DRLs is that they are
expensive to implement and decrease fuel economy.  This argument is
summary dismissed by the facts cited below. ***

DRL costs are low, so even very modest crash reduction capabilities would
be cost effective. For example, according to General Motors, there is a
minimal wiring cost in converting to DRLs, and a fraction of a mile fuel
penalty (about $ 3 per year for the average driver). U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg.
233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). 

     In summation, my research indicates that the overwhelming conclusion
to be drawn from available scientific data is that DRLs are an effective
and efficient automobile safety device.  In the interests of public
information, I welcome constructive responses supported by appropriate
scientific citation.  Flames, personal attacks and unsupported rebuttals
carry no persuasive weight. 

- Matthew N. Kleiman
- mkleiman@interaccess.com
- October 1995


From thogard@soulcage.inmind.com  Wed Oct 11 17:01:39 1995
Received: from soulcage.inmind.com (soulcage.inmind.com [204.176.24.12]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA21642 for <kevina@clark.net>; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 17:01:33 -0400
Received: by soulcage.inmind.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1)
	id UAA11050; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 20:58:01 GMT
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 20:58:01 GMT
From: thogard@soulcage.inmind.com (Tim Hogard)
Message-Id: <199510112058.UAA11050@soulcage.inmind.com>
To: kevina@clark.net (Kevin Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Daytime Running Lights... The issue on my web site!
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,dc.driving,ca.driving
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Status: RO
X-Status: 

All the good studies that were done were very close to the artic circle.
The light conditions there are much different.

All hte safty studies in the US that I have seen tend to compare fleets safty
to fleet safty from years ago.  These are flawed because the roads are
safer now.

There are several tricks that can be done with tools as simple as a
flashlight to show you can't see as well.  You can see the headlights
better when they are on, but you can't see the car better.

-tim

In article <459875$lvg@clark.net> you wrote:
: Daytime running lights: Do they really save lives? Or they more
:   annoying than helpful?  Can they be worse than headlights?

: At my web site (http://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/) ... An open debate....

: Send me facts, statistics, arguments for or against DRLs.  I will compile
: all the data I get and I will turn it into a Web debate displaying both
: sides viewpoints.

: The idea here is to show all the Pros and Cons of DRLs with out a lot of
: chatter and flaming (like it is on Usenet).  Next time the issue comes
: up you can point them two my web site and all of there questions will be
: answered.  And it will hopefully avoid yet-another flame war on Usenet.

: Just don't send me flame like or highly emotional viewpoints.




: -- 
: * Kevin Atkinson, Clarknet I'net Serv., Maintainer of the Usenet Info Center *
: *     Finger usenet-i@clark.net for more info on Usenet Info Center.         *
: *    Or send mail to usenet-i@clark.net  with a subject line of HELP.        *
: *  This is in its beginning stages and I could use any help I could get!     *

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Mon Oct  9 22:55:56 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id WAA13035 for <kevina@clark.net>; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:55:03 -0400
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (5.x/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id AA03617; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:54:08 -0400
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:54:08 -0400
Message-Id: <9510100254.AA03617@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Ken Loyless" <KLoyless@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Daytime running lights:

I live northwest of Houston in the piney woods
accessed by 2 lane blacktops that are lined with
tall pine tress. This facilitates darkness a little
sooner. I turn my headlights on when I have trouble
seeing oncoming traffic or when I move to pass.

Here in Texas, out on the open Interstate, motorists
use thier headlights to warn each other of dangerous 
conditions or speed traps. Daytime running lights take 
away the contrast of safety that control of our own 
headlights give us. I think they are a bad idea and 
if my car had them I would "pull the fuse" or install 
a floor switch.

I like cars that have the ability to flash your brights
on with the flip of the stick. That serves as a better
warning than blowing your horn especially with today's
car radios. What if, all police cars and emergency vehicles
ran with thier bubblegums flashing all the time? We would
be less likely to notice them of course!

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Mon Oct  9 10:54:06 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA09044 for <kevina@clark.net>; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 10:54:05 -0400
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (5.x/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id AA16018; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 10:53:13 -0400
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 10:53:13 -0400
Message-Id: <9510091453.AA16018@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Eric L. Stewart" <estewart@magi.com>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Daytime Running Lights (DRLs) are, like any passive safety device, both a
bane and a boon.  They are a bane to persons who are prudent enough to turn
on their headlights anyway as conditions warrant. They are a boon to the
thoughtless majority who are not active participators in making their
driving as safe as possible.

In Canada, we have had mandatory DRLs since 1988.  Though the statistics as
to their safety benefit are inconclusive, I would offer some personal
observations:

	- First, DRLs are their most annoying after dark falls when drivers forget
to turn on their regular low beams.  Most DRLs use the high beams at a
fraction of maximum intensity, nevertheless, they are *high* beams and
annoying even at a fraction of full output.

	- Second, (and an extension of the first point), many drivers who forget
to turn on their low beams after dark are running the risk of being
rear-ended because the majority of DRL systems do not illuminate other
lights besides the headlights.

	- Third, many drivers, thinking that they are adequately protected by
their DRLs will drive in the fog or other inclimate conditions without the
rest of their lights illuminated. 

	- Fourth, and finally, I have used my headlights during the daytime on
two-lane highways and downtown streets in the broad daylight since I
started driving almost twenty years ago.  This has still not prevented my
being involved in a head-on collision by a sleeping young driver who had
had his license all of 6 months, or t-boned by a lady at 100 km/h who was
momentarily distracted by her screaming youngsters.  Both of these
situations illustrate the fact that many drivers are still fairly
un-involved in driving their cars, thus any device that makes them take
notice of you is to be proclaimed rather than condemned.

yours truly,


Eric Stewart
Ottawa, Canada

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Mon Oct  9 00:17:51 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id AAA25837 for <kevina@clark.net>; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 00:17:48 -0400
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (5.x/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id AA26834; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 00:16:54 -0400
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 00:16:54 -0400
Message-Id: <9510090416.AA26834@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@pond.com>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: A

DRLs are bad.

1) I can see cars in the daytime.  DRLs are therefore unnecessary.

2) They are annoying.  When DRL-equipped cars are behind me on the
highway, they turn my rear-view mirror into a constant distraction.
Sometimes I deliberately maladjust the mirror so I can't see them, just so
I don't keep glancing into the mirror to see what the light is all about.

3) Sometimes they are blinding, depending on the height of the car.

4) When a car behind me on an uneven or hilly road is equipped behind
with DRLs, they go from annoying to extremely annoying and distracting.
Why?  Because every time the car changes angles, the light flashes directly
off my mirror into my eyes for an instant.  

5) They are also annoying on cars coming towards me, in the other lane.
I find myself looking away from them.  This is obviously not a safe
situation.  

Why don't these things happen at night?  Well, for 1), obviously
I can't see cars at night, so headlights are necessary.  For 2), 3), and
4),
I've got this thing called a "day/night mirror" which cuts glare from
lights behind me.  During the day, they can't be used that way. 
5) does happen at night, but I can see the light on the road without
looking into the headlights.

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Sun Oct  1 17:28:08 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA00773 for <kevina@clark.net>; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 17:28:05 -0400
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (5.x/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id AA00743; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 17:27:16 -0400
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 17:27:16 -0400
Message-Id: <9510012127.AA00743@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Eric B. Davis" <ebdavis@nr.infi.net>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: A

It was my initial impression that having your car lights on made you less
likely to 
be hit by another car during the day because having your lights on during
the day 
made your car stand out from the others. If all cars have lights on during
the day
your car will no longer be different. It won't stand out. You lose the
advantage. 

I realize there are situations may make running lights a good idea, but I
can simply
turn my lights on under these conditions.

I think running lights are a way for auto manufacturers and auto light
manufacturers
to hit the public for more money.

From bobm@msn.fullfeed.com  Sun Oct  1 15:07:27 1995
Received: from fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com (fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com [199.184.182.42]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA23847 for <kevina@clark.net>; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 15:07:26 -0400
Received: from msn.fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com by fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com (8.6.9/FF-1.1)
	id OAA28206; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 14:07:15 -0500
Message-Id: <199510011907.OAA28206@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com>
X-Sender: bobm@pop.msn.fullfeed.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 14:08:32 -0500
To: kevina@clark.net
From: bobm@msn.fullfeed.com (Bob Morrow)
Subject: drls
Status: RO
X-Status: A

If DRLs were low beams, I'd still object to them but maybe not as much.
IMO, there's no sense in turning on headlights (hi/lo) when it's a sunny
day.  OTOH, it is a good idea to do so when your back is to the sun at day's
end when the sun is just off the horizon. To the oncoming cars all you are
is a shadow.  With two white lights coming out of that shadow, they realize
you're a car.

I've often thought of hotwiring my headlights to come on when the wipers do.
I would not object to cars being equipped like that, there is generally a
need to have lights on when it's raining/snowing.  My electrical skills
notwithstanding, I'd probably fry the entire wiring harness so I'm not in
any hurry. ;-)
Bob Morrow
N7PTM
USAF Tops In Blue 1988

"Hey Beavis! Not that switc.."#R5\4#$%^D&   NO CARRIER

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Sat Sep 30 00:30:40 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id AAA16516 for <kevina@clark.net>; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 00:30:34 -0400
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (5.x/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id AA24320; Sat, 30 Sep 1995 00:29:44 -0400
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 00:29:44 -0400
Message-Id: <9509300429.AA24320@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Bob Morrow" <bobm@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Daytime running lights?  Gimme a break.  Trains have headlights and people
still run into them.  Motorcycles do too and people still pull out in front
of them.  I can't understand why someone would want a $50 option (or worse,

std. equipment) in the form of DRLs when they can get the same effects 
from an $0 headlight switch (you need it anyhow) and a brain.

The gov't and the IIHS predicted a 50% drop in rear-end accidents with the
center brake lights.  5+ years after they mandated them, the real drop was
more like 5%.  So, anytime someone says DRLs will work when everyone has
them,
remember that figure.

The only reason DRLs may find any kind of acceptance is that they do not
irritate the driver/owner of that car, unlike the motorized seat belts, or
the
interlocked seatbelts/starters of 1973.  So, in an attempt to rectify that
situation, I will flash my headlights at any car with DRLs.  They're easy
to spot-who in their right mind would turn on their high beams in the
middle
of the day?

I don't care what people say, the damn things are blinding if they're on a
truck and you're in a car in front of that truck.  Day or night, even the
reduced-intensity of high beams are still blinding.  That's safe?  What
about
being able to see turn signals in the day with the damn DRLs?  I wonder if
they've
ever studied if they've ha dmore accidents because people haven't been
able to see the turn signal?

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Thu Sep 28 20:45:50 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id UAA05632 for <kevina@clark.net>; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 20:45:48 -0400
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (5.x/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id AA14333; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 20:44:56 -0400
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 20:44:56 -0400
Message-Id: <9509290044.AA14333@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Ronald F. Opfell" <ropfell@sundial.net>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: A

I remember the lady in Congress who decided all vehicles must have rear
center
warning lights.  The first were installed in 1986.  They haven't helped
much.
The daytime driving light won't either.  This idea is from the Canadians, 
who have long periods of darkness and twilight and clouds.  They have a
reason
to have daytime running lights.  We in FL don't.  This is just another
congressional edict that costs us all and is unneeded.
I drive a van for the sole reason to see when it is advisabel to slow 
down so center rear lights and daytime lights are silly little notions of
the 
mentally lame do-gooders.
I would make a plea for more education.  Like how to turn into your own 
lane rather than changing lanes in the turn and many other annoying poor
habits of the untrained.
Thanks for your URL, I like it.

From kevina  Thu Oct 12 22:19:52 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA00111 for kevina; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 22:19:51 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!simtel!news.kei.com!newshost.marcam.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!mujibur.inmind.com!thogard
From: thogard@inmind.com (Tim Hogard)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc
Subject: Re: Do DRLs Really Work? The Truth Is Inside.
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.misc
Date: 12 Oct 1995 18:15:23 GMT
Organization: In Mind, Inc.
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <45jlvr$3md@mujibur.inmind.com>
References: <45en54$15f@nntp.interaccess.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soulcage.inmind.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:90161 rec.autos.misc:64595
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 6770
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: O
X-Status: F

In article <45en54$15f@nntp.interaccess.com> you wrote:
:      Since I have become so utterly disgusted with the surprisingly large
: number of people who post anti-DRL messages in these groups, I decided to
: conduct some actual research to back up my position that daytime running
: lights are an effective and efficient automobile safety measure.  With the
So are you biased?  Author bias shows in many of the articles you quote.  
: no anti-DRL message has ever been backed by even a scintilla of scientific
: evidence.  My research follows: 
Ok, I'll use yours (I don't have a good library nearby)

: DRLs, at sufficient levels of intensity, increase visual contrast between
: vehicles and their background. Various studies have shown that DRLs can
: improve the noticeability and detectability of vehicles in the central and
: peripheral fields of view. 
Most of the listed studies do not cover peripheral viewing at all.  Some of
them also simply claim that their results of cone related vision works
for rod related vision as well which is not true.

: A study in Norway, covering the period 1980 to 1990, examined the effect
: of the country's DRL law, which applied to new cars in 1985 and to all
: ...
: and a 34-percent reduction in left-turn crashes. There was a small
: reduction in motor vehicle-pedalcyclist collisions (4 percent) but a
: statistically significant increase (16 percent) in motor
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: vehicle-pedestrian collisions. 
16% increase in vehicle-pedestrian collisions?  What does this show?
Personally I'll take an increased risk of auto-auto accidents if we can
reduce auto-pedestrian wrecks.  A car that hits me while I'm in my
car isn't going to kill me.  A car that hits me while I cross the street
might.

: In the United States, a small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s
: found an 18-percent lower daytime, multiple-vehicle crash rate for
: DRL-equipped vehicles.  Cantilli, E. J.: Accident experience with parking
: lights as running lights. Highway Research Record Report No. 32. National
These are not DRLs as we know them today.  This study lead to the requirement
of Running Lights (aka Parking Lights) on all cars.  They provide the same
benefits as the dim headlights without any problems that they cause.

: In 1994 Avis, Inc. announced the results of a traveler-safety study
: analyzing the incidence and degree of damage to cars equipped with daytime
They ignored many cars in this study.  Any car that had "unknown" DRL 
status was put into the group "Did not have DRLs" even though every car of
that model had DRLs.  There was also there cars with headlights on during
accidents that went into the "Did not have DRLs" group.  It is an obvious
case where someone was playing with the number to prove their point if
this is the same report I read. 

: The early and later DRL studies have shed light on concerns about the
: duration of DRL effects and the possibility of negative effects of DRLs on
: some road users. It has been suggested that when DRLs are first introduced
: into some part of the vehicle population, positive crash reduction effects
: will be found only because DRLs are new and unique and the vehicles that
: have them stand out from those that do not. Once people get used to seeing
: vehicles with DRLs, it is conjectured, their effects will diminish, and,
: if all vehicles have them, their noticeability will be reduced or drivers
: will come to ignore the extra information. U.S. Department of Health and
: Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN:
: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). 
The assumption here is that ALL cars will have them and this is not and will
not every be true in the US.

: The effect of DRLs on motorcycle crashes has been studied in Denmark and
: Norway, where daytime lights were required for motorcyclists prior to the
: DRL law for passenger vehicles. In the study in Norway, a 4-percent
: increase, not statistically significant, was found for motorcyclist
: crashes. In Hansen's evaluation of Denmark's law, daytime multiple-vehicle
: crashes involving motorcycles were unchanged, but nighttime and
: single-vehicle daytime motorcycle crashes decreased over this period,
: leading Hansen to conclude that there might be a "minor negative impact"
: of DRLs on motorcycle crashes. 
Hansens conclusion here is wrong.  Single vehicle daytime crashes have 
nothing to do with DRLs.  It does show that there was a change in motor
cycle driver behavior which should be considered in other tests.  I.e.
he found motorcycle drivers were slightly safer there for any other study
that shows a "slight" decrease in motor-cycle/auto accidents must take
this into account.

: DRL costs are low, so even very modest crash reduction capabilities would
: be cost effective. For example, according to General Motors, there is a
: minimal wiring cost in converting to DRLs, and a fraction of a mile fuel
: penalty (about $ 3 per year for the average driver). U.S. Department of
: Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg.
: 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). 
Once again the point is incorrectly represented.  While the cost of running
the lights is about us$3 the cost of the bulb is about $1.  The cost of the
extra hardware is about $2/year ($40 over 20 years)  The study has
an error of 100%.  I do agree that this point is one of the most stupid
points in this debate.

:      In summation, my research indicates that the overwhelming conclusion
: to be drawn from available scientific data is that DRLs are an effective
: and efficient automobile safety device.  In the interests of public
Only in relationship of auto to auto accidents.   Now look at the whole
picture.

Take a look at FAA reports showing that pilots that are exposed to 
landing lights during night takeoffs show a remarkable lack of being able
to spot other aircraft in the sky for up to a half hour after having 
a landing light pointed in their eyes.

Look at the studies about eye strain due to bright lights. 

Take a look at studies of how bright lights effect color blind people (A
larger number of males are color blind)

Take a look at the accident rates on wider roads (3 lanes or more) in the
cities since DRLs have become more popular (ok so its a lame conjecture
but no worse than many that you cited)

Also consider that traffic accidents have been going down over the last
decade and attributing them to DRLs is wishful thinking.  Accident rates
are dropping world wide, not just in countries where DRLs were required.
Cars have better brakes, better control and weigh less and are smaller --
all factors in reducing the number of accidents.  Also the number of miles
driver world wide has increased.

-tim


From kevina  Thu Oct 12 22:18:59 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA29747 for kevina; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 22:18:58 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.texas.net!newshost.comco.com!news1.cris.com!cdc2.cdc.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.ingr.com!inn23b.b23b.ingr.com!news
From: Bo Williams <wrwillia@ingr.com>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: The REAL burning DRL issues...
Date: 11 Oct 1995 16:02:02 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Corporation
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <45gppr$fqb@inn23b.edaal.ingr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: beast.b23a.ingr.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 32bit)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 1408
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

All,

Okay, so GM has said that all of its '97 American-market vehicles will 
have DRLs.  This coincides nicely with the reported release date of the 
next-generation Corvette.  Will GM go to exposed headlamps on the 'Vette, 
breaking a 33-year tradition of hidden headlamps?  Will the headlamps 
remain hidden, but also function as DRLs, so that the only time they're 
hidden is when the car is parked?  Or will there be auxiliary lights that 
function as DRLs?  Canadian readers:  are there currently DRL-equipped 
'Vettes in Canada?  If so, what do they do now?

Secondly, anyone who owns a classic piece of GM iron:  please don't have 
DRLs installed.  The Bel Air and the GTO (particularly the GTO, because 
of its quad lamps) in the current "we'll put DRLs on anything" print ad 
from GM both look ridiculous.  My father seems to have the only '67 
Riviera left with a working hidden-headlamp assembly, and I already have 
his assurance that he won't be trucking down to the Buick store to make 
his car "safer."

Third--the second-generation Saturns have ridiculously wide light 
clusters, I'm assuming because of DRLs.  The width of the clusters on the 
previous car was perfect.  The first-generation Saturn was distinctive, 
with its roofline and front and rear light treatments; now it's generic 
small-car all over with a healthy dose of ugly in the front.  Pity.

Bo Williams
wrwillia@ingr.com


From kevina  Thu Oct 12 21:21:27 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id VAA06871 for kevina; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 21:21:25 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.jaguNET.com!Pracerx
From: racerx@jagunet.com (John Latrobe)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,dc.driving,ca.driving
Subject: Re: Daytime Running Lights... The issue on my web site!
Date: 12 Oct 1995 16:01:34 GMT
Organization: jaguNET Access Services
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <45je4u$cgv@skydiver.jaguNET.com>
References: <459875$lvg@clark.net> <Pine.SOL.3.91.951009003842.7468A-100000@osiris>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dlup-aa.jagunet.com
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:90132 dc.driving:4206 ca.driving:20891
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1771
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: F

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951009003842.7468A-100000@osiris>,
   Nick Bassett <nbassett@osiris> wrote:
>
>Here are the PROs and CONs
>
>PRO
>- people don't have to remember to turn on their headlights everytime it 
>gets dark.

What about the tail lights, marker lights and instrument lights? If drivers 
can't be trusted to turn on their headlights when it gets dark, then why trust 
in them to turn on the rest?

>- no danger of people trying to save their bulbs by driving with just 
>their parking lights on at dusk.
>- lower insurance rates.
>
>CON
>- drunk drivers will no longer be characterized by cars travelling in the 
>dark.
>- people who STILL think they can save bulbs will diffuse their DRL system 
>and possibly forget to put the fuse back in at night.
>- if you do all your driving in bright, sunny conditions, the only effect 
>on you will be having to change your headlights more often!
>- undermines common sense.
>- if mandated, insurance bonuses will come to an end anyway.

The local Drive-In has posted a sign saying you are not allowed in unless you 
can turn off your headlights.  It is very ANNOYING when someone drives around 
during the movie with their lights on.  If you think Drive-Ins are scarce now, 
just wait.

>
>IMO the PROs outweigh the CONs, but that in itself is not sufficient 
>reason to MANDATE the lights. So I'd say leave it up to the manufacturer.
>
>
>ks
>

John Latrobe
'96 Impala SS, DRL-less.

            _                  _                         _
  /\       | |              \_|_)                       | |
 |  |  __  | |     _  _       |     __,  _|_  ,_    __  | |   _
 |  | /  \_|/ \   / |/ |     _|    /  |   |  /  |  /  \_|/ \_|/
  \_|/\__/ |   |_/  |  |_/  (/\___/\_/|_/ |_/   |_/\__/  \_/ |__/
   /|
   \|



From kevina  Mon Oct  9 12:38:22 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA10684 for kevina; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 12:38:21 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,dc.driving,ca.driving
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!news.erinet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!newshost.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!wotan
From: wotan@netcom.com (Wotan)
Subject: Re: Daytime Running Lights... The issue on my web site!
Message-ID: <wotanDG6Koy.124@netcom.com>
Sender: wotan@netcom11.netcom.com
Organization: Hades
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99b.112
References: <459875$lvg@clark.net> <Pine.SOL.3.91.951009003842.7468A-100000@osiris>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:17:35 GMT
Lines: 48
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:89742 dc.driving:4192 ca.driving:20839
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1519
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: FA

Nick Bassett <nbassett@osiris> wrote:

:
:Here are the PROs and CONs
:
:PRO
:- people don't have to remember to turn on their headlights everytime it 
:gets dark.
:- no danger of people trying to save their bulbs by driving with just 
:their parking lights on at dusk.
:- lower insurance rates.
Easier to see oncoming vehicles.



:CON
:- drunk drivers will no longer be characterized by cars travelling in the 
:dark.

They are still rather easy to spot.  Like the guy doing 30 in the 55
zone at 2am is a good bet for DWI.

:- people who STILL think they can save bulbs will diffuse their DRL system 
:and possibly forget to put the fuse back in at night.
:- if you do all your driving in bright, sunny conditions, the only effect 
:on you will be having to change your headlights more often!

Spent a couple of weeks in Arizona, and found that cars with lights on
were much easier to spot even in the bright sunlight.

:- undermines common sense.
:- if mandated, insurance bonuses will come to an end anyway.
:
:IMO the PROs outweigh the CONs, but that in itself is not sufficient 
:reason to MANDATE the lights. So I'd say leave it up to the manufacturer.

No mandates!  Thats enough reason for anyone to actively work to
defeat the auto light on.


--

...So-called "netiquette" is a set of constantly-changing, self-imposed 
rules.  However, the people who harp the loudest about "netiquette" are 
often the most hypocritical when it comes to abiding by it.  
	-Timothy D Fay <fayxx001@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:



From kevina  Mon Oct  9 12:37:56 1995
Received: (kevina@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA10542 for kevina; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 12:37:53 -0400
Path: news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul.net!a2i!news.erinet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!newshost.marcam.com!usc!news.cerf.net!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!osiris!nbassett
From: Nick Bassett <nbassett@osiris.clark.net>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,dc.driving,ca.driving
Subject: Re: Daytime Running Lights... The issue on my web site!
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 00:52:55 -0700
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951009003842.7468A-100000@osiris>
References: <459875$lvg@clark.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: osiris.ac.hmc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <459875$lvg@clark.net> 
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.driving:89733 dc.driving:4190 ca.driving:20838
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 837
Apparently-To: kevina
Status: RO
X-Status: FA


Here are the PROs and CONs

PRO
- people don't have to remember to turn on their headlights everytime it 
gets dark.
- no danger of people trying to save their bulbs by driving with just 
their parking lights on at dusk.
- lower insurance rates.

CON
- drunk drivers will no longer be characterized by cars travelling in the 
dark.
- people who STILL think they can save bulbs will diffuse their DRL system 
and possibly forget to put the fuse back in at night.
- if you do all your driving in bright, sunny conditions, the only effect 
on you will be having to change your headlights more often!
- undermines common sense.
- if mandated, insurance bonuses will come to an end anyway.

IMO the PROs outweigh the CONs, but that in itself is not sufficient 
reason to MANDATE the lights. So I'd say leave it up to the manufacturer.


ks


From jwalz@rsg1.er.usgs.gov  Fri Oct 13 09:58:12 1995
Received: from rsg1.er.usgs.gov (rsg1.er.usgs.gov [130.11.54.30]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA09301 for <kevina@clark.net>; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:58:10 -0400
Received: by rsg1.er.usgs.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA16594; Fri, 13 Oct 95 09:58:04 EDT
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 09:58:04 EDT
From: jwalz@rsg1.er.usgs.gov (Janet Walz)
Message-Id: <9510131358.AA16594@rsg1.er.usgs.gov>
To: kevina@clark.net
Subject: Re: Daytime Running Lights... The issue on my web site!
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,dc.driving,ca.driving
In-Reply-To: <459875$lvg@clark.net>
Organization: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston VA
Cc: jwalz@rsg1.er.usgs.gov
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <459875$lvg@clark.net> you write:
>Daytime running lights: Do they really save lives? Or they more
>  annoying than helpful?  Can they be worse than headlights?
>
>At my web site (http://www.clark.net/pub/kevina/sl/) ... An open debate....
>
>Send me facts, statistics, arguments for or against DRLs.  I will compile
>all the data I get and I will turn it into a Web debate displaying both
>sides viewpoints.

While I don't want to be acknowledged on the Web page (especially since
I won't be here long), I still haven't seen the first thought that came
to my mind addressed.  Namely, it would appear that daytime running lights
make public astronomy presentations basically impossible.

In the case I'm most familiar with, telescopes are set up on a given
evening in an area separated by a 1/4 mile straight private driveway
from a lesser-traveled road.  People all arrive around the beginning of
the stated observing time, drive down the driveway, park their cars,
adjust to the darkness, and leave one by one when they've had enough,
rolling out the driveway very slowly with dark-adapted eyes and headlights
off until they reach the road, where they will no longer blind everyone
who's left.  (These are regular attendees that you can train to do that.)

It takes about 15 minutes of darkness initially for people's eyes to adjust
so that they can see what you are trying to show them.  Nearby headlights,
or a flash of daytime running lights as the car starts (even if the driver
can turn the daytime running lights off afterwards), means that everybody
left gets to wait 10 minutes before they can see again.  Given a couple
dozen parties leaving over a few hours, that could easily be most of the
observing time spent waiting to be able to see.

Other options?  Have everybody park on the road, and walk down a dark
deserted driveway alone to reach their cars?  Should really encourage
women to attend.  Make everybody stay for the whole slated time?  I'm
sure families with small children always want to stay up past 11.  Make
everybody leaving make a loud announcement and pack all remaining people
behind a building or make them all put on blindfolds?  Possible...  Make
everybody make red covers for their headlights (all flashlights for
observing are red-covered since that affects the eyes much less)?  Horrible
for safety, as no one on the roads will know whether the car's coming or
going.

I *think* the cigarette-lighter-powered astronomy accessories (dew preventers
and such) for more serious observing would be ok, as at least some daytime
running lights won't come on when the car is only on "accessory".

Basically, no one has mentioned that there are times when you just
desperately DON'T WANT LIGHT.

From erik@smart.net  Sat Oct 14 12:00:00 1995
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Erik Velapoldi" <erik@smart.net>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: A

I am overwhelmingly in support of DRL's.  Every day I drive
I am jolted by the sudden appearance of a car from my
blind spot, from around a shady blind corner, from behind me,
etc

 DRL's seem to work for several reasons:  

	1.  being "lights" they are easier to see than, say
a dark colored car.

	2.  they grab your attention faster than a car without
DRL's, and thus you have a few split seconds more to react, 
adjust, etc.  Split seconds make the difference in dangerous
situations.

	3.  It is easier to spot cars in glare, shade, dusk, 
etc. with them.  


Overall, they have been mandatory in several European countries, but
studies have remained inconclusive as to any attendant reduction in
accidents.  Until someone says they're dangerous, I'll use them.

From hughj@lemond.sps.mot.com  Sat Oct 14 12:00:00 1995
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Hugh Johnson" <hughj@lemond.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: A

I think DRL's are, especially if required everywhere on every vehicle, a
poor idea.  It is understandable why Canada would want them to be
required -- it's dark and cold and rainy there most of the year (a broad
generalization, I know).  Especially here in sunny central Texas, DRL's
do nothing but make my rearview mirror useless during the day.  I've
noticed that some new cars with DRL's -- most notably Chevy Corsicas and
new Saturn SL's -- have *extremely* bright DRL's which are more distracting
than eye-catching, especially when behind you.  When they're oncoming, they
don't make me notice them any sooner than a car whose headlamps are dark.

If my next car has DRL's and they haven't been made federally required by
then, I will certainly buy a kit or do-it-myself to disable them.

-- Hugh Johnso
From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Sun Nov 12 17:05:49 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA14744 for <kevina@clark.net>; Sun, 12 Nov 1995 17:05:42 -0500
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (SMI-8.6/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id WAA03264; Sun, 12 Nov 1995 22:04:48 GMT
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 22:04:48 GMT
Message-Id: <199511122204.WAA03264@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Mike Smith" <Gravyman@bcl.net>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I'm a truck driver and I can tell you from first hand experience
that there are a lot of people that don't know when to turn on their
headlights. Most states have a law that requires that if you need to
use your windshield wwipers that you must turn on your headlights. There
is a good reason for this. Even if just a light mist is coming down
visibility is reduced and headlights help to overcome this. I wish I 
could get a picture of what a car that's about to pass me looks like
in my driver's side mirror when it's misting. I think that if people knew
how hard they were to see they would turn on their headlights.

What I hate are the motorcycles that have a wig-wag sort of circuit in
them that flashes their headlight from high to low beams. Yeah they get 
your attention but so does a heartattack. I feel that they are going too 
far! Those blinking lights are a distraction and I would like to see the
reports on how many accidents they have caused.

Thanks for taking the time to read my rantings........

Mike Smith......Gravyman@bcl.net

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Sat Oct 21 14:21:40 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA06862 for <kevina@clark.net>; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 14:21:32 -0400
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (SMI-8.6/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id OAA28477; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 14:20:39 -0400
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 14:20:39 -0400
Message-Id: <199510211820.OAA28477@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Richard Rogers" <RR2895@student.law.duke.edu>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I kinda like DRLs because I do a lot of driving on back roads where 
passing over the center line is the norm, and I've found that it's a
lot easier to pick out other cars at a distance--and thus pass safely--
with lights on. But then, I drive a silver Acura that is harder to 
spot at a distance because it blends into the pavement/the horizon 
if I don't turn on my lights (I don't have DRLs), so maybe I'm 
sensitive to this.

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Tue Oct 24 09:36:12 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA05060 for <kevina@clark.net>; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 09:36:09 -0400
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (SMI-8.6/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id JAA04434; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 09:33:48 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 09:33:48 -0400
Message-Id: <199510241333.JAA04434@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "James Sikorski" <jss167@email.psu.edu>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I think that daytime lights are quite distracting when someone behind
you has them on.  In bad weather most people will automatically turn on
their lights anyway.  During the day when visibility is at it's peak we
don't need lights on.  This is another example of companies and the govt
digging into our pockets for $$$.

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Tue Oct 24 19:58:24 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA18018 for <kevina@clark.net>; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 19:58:17 -0400
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (SMI-8.6/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id TAA01159; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 19:56:41 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 19:56:41 -0400
Message-Id: <199510242356.TAA01159@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Marlin James Bailor" <mjb174@email.psu.edu>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: 

DRLs on automobiles negate the effect of motorcycle and emergency vehicle 
(school buses, ambulances, police) DRLs.  Motorcycles need all the help 
they can get, as not being seen is one of the leading causes of 
motorcycle accidents.

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Wed Oct 25 10:44:55 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (sunsite.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA18188 for <kevina@clark.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:44:53 -0400
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (SMI-8.6/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id KAA09178; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:43:57 -0400
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:43:57 -0400
Message-Id: <199510251443.KAA09178@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Glenn Bunston" <umbunsto@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I have to laugh at the absurdity of many of the arguements against DRL.
I live in Canada and I'm not sure what one of the respondants was 
referring to when he said DRL are only useful in Canada because of 
shorter days, extended twilight hours and increased clouds.  I wasn't 
aware that Canada is cloudier than the US.  Infact, in the summer the
sun doesn't usually set until 9:30 or 10:00 pm because of our lattitude.
Even on completely cloudless days DRL are effective.  When passing a
car on an undivided highway they enable you to tell if a car in the 
far distance is coming toward you or away, this is most beneficial on 
hilly roads.  As for being blinded by DRL on hilly roads, I don't know
where this point comes from.  Most cars in Canada have DRL and I have
NEVER been blinded by them.  Are you trying to tell me that you think 
that DRL's are bright enough to blind you in daylight, even on a cloudy
day?  DRL's are usually 50% of the brightness of normal driving lights, 
not toned down high beams.  As for the arguement that DRL's are merely
a ploy by light manufacturers to sell more bulbs I can't even take that
seriously.  DRL's are an effective tool to reduce accidents, but 
Americans are so concerned with their "own civil liberties" that they
are unwilling to adopt a safety policy that might restrict their own
freedom.  I have to laugh.
  

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Mon Nov 20 13:54:26 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (sunsite.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by mail (SMI-8.6/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA29735 for <kevina@clark.net>; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:54:23 -0500
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (SMI-8.6/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id SAA17863; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 18:53:49 GMT
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 18:53:49 GMT
Message-Id: <199511201853.SAA17863@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "MATTHEW HAMMAR" <TX2274_152@sunsite.unc.edu>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Drivers who use their headlights in the daytime are easily visible to me
becaue when I see a driving with his or her headlight on, I look at the
headlights and make a judgement on how wide the car is.  The point is that
driving in the daytime with headlight on is safe on city streets and even
safer on the highgway, then one knows that there is a car behind or in
front of one.

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Tue Nov 21 20:31:57 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by mail (SMI-8.6/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA26077 for <kevina@clark.net>; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 20:31:48 -0500
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (SMI-8.6/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id BAA06082; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:31:04 GMT
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:31:04 GMT
Message-Id: <199511220131.BAA06082@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Carl R. T. Chaboyer" <crtchabo@ice.lakeheadu.ca>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: F

PRO:

Everyone involved in the con side of the debate seems to be misled; DRL's
as they were meant to be involve a little more thought than most people 
think.   GM and Chrysler wouldn't know a DRL if it hit them over the 
head; full wattage low beam headlights are silly, reduced wattage high 
beams or always-on park lights are the way to go.

DRL's are not for those of us interested in the debate, they are for 
those who do not enjoy driving and hence, do it poorly.   These are the 
people who we need to be seen by.

From nobody@sunsite.unc.edu  Fri Dec  8 16:01:50 1995
Received: from sunsite.oit.unc.edu (calypso-2.oit.unc.edu [198.86.40.81]) by mail.Clark.Net (8.7.3/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA03633 for <kevina@clark.net>; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 16:01:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sunsite.oit.unc.edu (SMI-8.6/TAS/11-16-88/Jones Hack)
	id VAA14865; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 21:03:12 GMT
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 21:03:12 GMT
Message-Id: <199512082103.VAA14865@sunsite.oit.unc.edu>
To: kevina@clark.net
From: "Yuri Machkasov" <yurka@aol.com>
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input
Status: RO
X-Status: F

1. Everybody seems to be missing the point. The attention of the driver
needs to be directed WHERE HE IS GOING, not distracted by what he/she 
sees in the oncoming lane or in the rearview mirror. Have anybody tried
to gather statistics of how many more cars ended up in ditches in Canada
since DRLs became mandatory?
2. All you Volvo-driving environmentalists out there: where do you think
the energy comes from to wastefully illuminate the world in bright
sunshine? From your car's gas tank, of course! This means that that much
more gas gets burned and pollutes your beloved atmosphere. You should be
against DRLs, not for it!
 (For all you reasonable-minded people: pollution aside, does anyone know
what is the price of DRLs that you pay every time at the pump? I know
that gas is cheaper than bottled water, but I'd be surprised if you don't
see a reduction of gas mileage by 1-2 mpg).)

From jfc@macatawa.com Tue Jul 30 16:44:12 1996
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:32:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Chiodo <jfc@macatawa.com>
To: kevina@clark.net
Subject: Daytime Running Lights: my input

just felt i had to respond.  I don't know about the slightly dimmer DRLs, 
but have been using my regular, low beam headlights for several years.  I 
have them on all the time.  I could care less about annoying someone else.
There are a heck of a lot of more annoying behaviors out there, like having
to climb on the brakes because some idiot pulled out of a side street, 
parking lot, or whatever into my path.

I find it incomprehensible that drivers in conditions from fog to snow wil
not turn on their lights and are practically invisible, but back to 
daylight conditions.  I can attest through two years of driving that
my state of mind is more relaxed arriving at work since turning on my
lights all time.  

The great majority of drivers are lazy,  Looking before pulling out is 
often reduced to a quick glance.  Add dirty windows, sun glasses and the 
glance is a fraction of a second.  If a great big yellow school bus 
visibility is increased by turning on lights, than any car, any color will 
benifit from the same.

You can use all or part of my thoughts in your pro/con argument.
