Subject: Re: Do DRLs Really Work? The Truth Is Inside.

From: [email-masked] (Mr. Fun)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 06:33:38 GMT

Bo Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Matthew,
>
>Good post--thanks for the info.  
>
>I have posted anti-DRL messages from time to time, but I have always been 
>opposed to them for a purely aesthetic reason--I think they're ugly.  I 
>was opposed to CHMSL's when they first appeared for the same reason.  
>Obviously my position is ultimately indefensible with so much evidence 
>that DRLs increase vehicular safety, so I'm sure I'll come around.
>
What evidence?  The "evidence" is on both sides of the issue.  Some studies
suggest a safety benefit and other studies suggest DRLs actually lead to an
overall increase in accidents.  Even the US Highway Safety Institute (forgot
the exact name) says that there is no reason to beleive DRLs will increase
safety overal.

>Just wanted you to know that I've had a pretty silly reason for opposing 
>them all along, and haven't pretended that DRLs are ineffective--just 
>ugly.  :)
>-- 
>Bo Williams - [email-masked]
>
>"In every age, in every time--a hero is born, as if by a grand design."
>                                                                - Kiss
>
>

DRLs are just more proof of the law of unintended consequences.  It appears
that for every accident they *maybe*  "avoid" they cause two other accidents
of a different kind.  Hard to think of that as a safety benefit.

---

From: Oliver Arnd Markwirth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 00:29:30 -0500

On 14 Oct 1995, Bob Morrow wrote:

> Those old, small-scale US studies remind me of the study for 
> the center brake light in the late 70's/early 80's.  They 
> put them on fleets and found the accident rate went down 
> considerably.  So they mandated them, expecting a 50% reduction 
> in rear-end accidents.  Now that everyone has them (or almost), 
> the reduction has been found to be on the order of 5%.  
> 
> Why?  I don't know, but I surmise that the "shock effect" of 
> the once-unusual center brake light has worn off.  When a few 
> cars have it, they stand out, when everyone has it, who 
> notices?  I think the same thing will happen with DRLs.  I 
> believe the only reason GM is foisting DRLs on us is to develop 
> common car lines for North America since Canada has them and we 
> don't, forcing them to make two versions of an otherwise 
> identical car.  IOW, their motive is financial, not safety, 
> though the "safety" provides a nice cover.

The bottom line is the drivers don't pay attention at all. No matter how 
much technology can we make our cars more visible, the drivers will 
continue to smash into each other. The insurance carriers blamed 80 per 
cent of accidents on inattentiveness. Don't you wonder why the fire 
brigades are painted vomit greenish yellow? Don't you wonder why the 
ambulances have millions of strobe lights, and some people still don't 
notice them? My neighbour who is a paramedic told me that many drivers 
take longer to notice the ambulances and move out of the way.

I assume that NHTSA is very relucant about rubber stamping the DRLs as 
mandate is that it had been critised in the 1970s about side running 
lights, dim sealed beam headlamps, ill-fated seat belt interlocking design, 
and the third brake light in 1986 afterwards. I think NHTSA is not taking any 
more chances with visibility mandate; it is easier to mandate the devices 
to protect the drivers and passengers from injuries in collision as the 
idiots will always smash into each other.

 Mr. Cc

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Hogard)
Date: 15 Oct 1995 02:40:51 GMT

Oliver Arnd Markwirth ([email-masked]) wrote:
: On 14 Oct 1995, Bob Morrow wrote:

: The bottom line is the drivers don't pay attention at all. No matter how 
: much technology can we make our cars more visible, the drivers will 
: continue to smash into each other. The insurance carriers blamed 80 per 
: cent of accidents on inattentiveness.
All the DRLs do is give the unattentive an excuse and an additional
crutch that that makes them feel better which is why these cars sell.
I suspect the real fact is that DRLs will increase accidents as they
become more popular since the guy the DRLs behind you blind the guy
thats off the left blind spot heading in your direction.  Without
the DRLs you might have seen the guy on the left, but with the DRLs
the other car is invisable.   This has happend to me.  A pickup
with the lights that are too high was stitting very close (This was
on I270 in St Louis) and while I looked back to the left to get
out of the lane and some bozo was headed into my lane.  Incidently
the bozo was driving a Saturn with the high beams on.  If I hadn't
turned arround at just the right time, I would have a dent in my
car.  I'll belive that DRLs are safer as soon as 

: brigades are painted vomit greenish yellow? Don't you wonder why the 
: ambulances have millions of strobe lights, and some people still don't 
: notice them? My neighbour who is a paramedic told me that many drivers 
: take longer to notice the ambulances and move out of the way.

: I assume that NHTSA is very relucant about rubber stamping the DRLs as 
: mandate is that it had been critised in the 1970s about side running 
: lights, dim sealed beam headlamps, ill-fated seat belt interlocking design, 
: and the third brake light in 1986 afterwards. I think NHTSA is not taking any 
: more chances with visibility mandate; it is easier to mandate the devices 
: to protect the drivers and passengers from injuries in collision as the 
: idiots will always smash into each other.

The same idiots that clam the mouse belts were safer also seem to be on
the "For DRLs" side.  Lets see.  The stats show that the number of head
injuries involving people wearing selt belts went up.  Its the only
stat that has gotten worse in the past decade and it went way up.  It
was tradeoff.  Safty of thouse that wore seat belts correctly was traded
for the safty of the bozos that didn't wear them at all.   Since I always
use a 3 point (or better) seat belt, I didn't like the trade off.

One real interesting point is that '89 VWs didn't even have a seat belt.
It had a door attached, no adjustable lap belt and lots of padding.  This
stupid idea was approved and people fell for it.  Its amazing how many
people buy the cars and not even relizse there is no seat belt.
If the accident rates weren't down because of safer roads, VW would
still be dealing with the law suits.

-tim
http://inmind.com/~thogard GPS, VW and Usenet topics.