DRLs again

In trying to find some documented data about DRL use, I went to the US
government websites.
This should avoid, to some extent, the Scandinavian opinion of these
systems.

You may find some BLOG type posts from both sides of the question.

The following link should take you to a report which I would have to assume
is unbiased. If you want to look at it, you will probably have to cut the
address
and paste it into your browser.

www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/TRD.html

wrote:
> In trying to find some documented data about DRL use, I went to the US
> government websites.
> This should avoid, to some extent, the Scandinavian opinion of these
> systems.
>
> You may find some BLOG type posts from both sides of the question.
>
> The following link should take you to a report which I would have to assume
> is unbiased. If you want to look at it, you will probably have to cut the
> address
> and paste it into your browser.
>
> www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/TRD.html

And it appears to reach no conclusion. One statistical technique says
that DRL's make a difference, and another says that DRL's have a
negative impact...actually causing accidents.

That study could be the material for the statisticians version of the
old Abbott and Costello routine: Who's on First.

-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/TRD.html
>
> And it appears to reach no conclusion. One statistical technique says
> that DRL's make a difference, and another says that DRL's have a
> negative impact...actually causing accidents.
>
> That study could be the material for the statisticians version of the
> old Abbott and Costello routine: Who's on First.

There has to be an answer. Just about everything in the physical world
has one.

We all have emotional opinions, but we need data.

wrote:
> -nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/TRD.html
> >
> > And it appears to reach no conclusion. One statistical technique says
> > that DRL's make a difference, and another says that DRL's have a
> > negative impact...actually causing accidents.
> >
> > That study could be the material for the statisticians version of the
> > old Abbott and Costello routine: Who's on First.
>
> There has to be an answer. Just about everything in the physical world
> has one.
>
> We all have emotional opinions, but we need data.

You would need data where an accident or incident report was analysed
to see which vehicle caused the accident.

In my area we have a section of highway with signs requesting voluntary
use of headlights during the day. It seems that drivers who use this
road regularly have learned to look for lights, not vehicles.

A British researcher (I believe he is a Brit, at any rate) has published a
separate research paper
(Ref Berkeley) where he says the overall positive contribution is 3.2%.

If true, that could be a pretty substantial savings in life and property.

Transportation Department, NHTSA, etc seem unready to take a strong and
clear stand.

wrote:

> A British researcher (I believe he is a Brit, at any rate) has published a
> separate research paper
> (Ref Berkeley) where he says the overall positive contribution is 3.2%.
>
> If true, that could be a pretty substantial savings in life and property.
>
> Transportation Department, NHTSA, etc seem unready to take a strong and
> clear stand.
>
>
my insurance company doesn't think it's worth anything.
DRL's in Canada became mandatory in 1990.
Search for cars that are similar from 89-90-91 and I find the rates are
the same...
www.mpi.mb.ca

wrote:
> -nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/TRD.html
> >
> > And it appears to reach no conclusion. One statistical technique says
> > that DRL's make a difference, and another says that DRL's have a
> > negative impact...actually causing accidents.
> >
> > That study could be the material for the statisticians version of the
> > old Abbott and Costello routine: Who's on First.
>
> There has to be an answer. Just about everything in the physical world
> has one.
>
> We all have emotional opinions, but we need data.

Rereading it more carefully again they say the results from the second
test should be discounted because they sometimes produce invalid
results. So apparently DRLs do have a net positive benefit by reducing
accidents according to this study.

> wrote in message
news:CFuIe.114619$5V4.36509@pd7tw3no...
> wrote:
>

> my insurance company doesn't think it's worth anything.
> DRL's in Canada became mandatory in 1990.
> Search for cars that are similar from 89-90-91 and I find the rates are
> the same...
> www.mpi.mb.ca

I've heard this complaint about insurance companies lack of appreciation for
DRL's.
That they dont give discounts does not necessarily mean anything. They
avoid
discounts when they can, IMHO, and avoid paying claims if at all possible.

Then again, this is Texas, the worst state in the union where insurance is
concerned.

"John S." > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> -nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-760/pages/TRD.html
>> >
>> > And it appears to reach no conclusion. One statistical technique says
>> > that DRL's make a difference, and another says that DRL's have a
>> > negative impact...actually causing accidents.
>> >
>> > That study could be the material for the statisticians version of the
>> > old Abbott and Costello routine: Who's on First.
>>
>> There has to be an answer. Just about everything in the physical world
>> has one.
>>
>> We all have emotional opinions, but we need data.
>
> Rereading it more carefully again they say the results from the second
> test should be discounted because they sometimes produce invalid
> results. So apparently DRLs do have a net positive benefit by reducing
> accidents according to this study.
>

....and 1997 HLDI study, 8% increase in accidents. Insurance "loss data"
statistics indicate no statistical difference one way or the other. The
Perot & Prowler reports have some interesting negative side data to them as
well. Also the European motorcyclist union have some very negative
statistics on what DRLs on automobiles are doing to death rates of their
group. The Motorist Association of America (I think it's called) has
registered against them. The only real conclusion that can come from almost
10 years of data from many studies and reports is that the conclusions are
all over the map in both directions...so inconclusive. A possible benefit
for some at the potential expense of others. A moral dilemma, I would say.
Who decides which group gets the benefit and which group gets the
"dis-benefit"?

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> news:CFuIe.114619$5V4.36509@pd7tw3no...
>
wrote:
>>
>
>
>>my insurance company doesn't think it's worth anything.
>>DRL's in Canada became mandatory in 1990.
>>Search for cars that are similar from 89-90-91 and I find the rates are
>>the same...
>>www.mpi.mb.ca
>
>
> I've heard this complaint about insurance companies lack of appreciation for
> DRL's.
> That they dont give discounts does not necessarily mean anything. They
> avoid
> discounts when they can, IMHO, and avoid paying claims if at all possible.
>
> Then again, this is Texas, the worst state in the union where insurance is
> concerned.
>
>

Ok, but in Canada ALL cars had to have DRLs starting in 1990. If they
won't give a discount for DRL equipped cars, you think they'd charge
MORE for non-DRL equipped ones? Nope. Same price for 89-90-91. The
current "fad" that they're offering "discounts" for is immobilizers.
Now they're offering to pay for 1/2 the install and give you about $30
per year. (when I bought my TA in 2001 it was $20 per year discount for
an immobilizer.)

So, no discount for DRL cars, but no surcharge either for NON-DRL
equipped cars plus the phone conversations with mpi has convinced me
that as far as insurance companies are concerned, DRLs mean squat.