If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
On 2014-12-11 22:04:50 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:17:10 -0800, Alan Baker > > wrote: > >> On 2014-12-11 02:34:19 +0000, Ashton Crusher said: >> >>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:40:24 -0800, Alan Baker > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2014-12-10 01:38:26 +0000, Ashton Crusher said: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 07:03:41 -0800, Alan Baker > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2014-12-07 20:06:29 +0000, Ashton Crusher said: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> After seeing a car without lights at night, it's a clear advantage to >>>>>>>>>> have the lights always on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It has happened to me. You sometimes forget to turn on the lights, and >>>>>>>>>> at least you have some lights on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The answer for drivers who are too stupid to turn on the lights when >>>>>>>>> it's dark is to stop them driving, not to make it easier for idiots to >>>>>>>>> drive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, we all know there are too many idiots driving anyway. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In this particular case, though, it seems this happens to anyone at one >>>>>>>> time or another. It's better to prevent the accident first and then >>>>>>>> take care of the idiots. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For every accident a DRL prevents it creates another one. There is NO >>>>>>> NET safety benefit to them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ummm... >>>>>> >>>>>> What accidents have daytime running lights EVER created? >>>>>> >>>>>> Name me one accident which was actually CAUSED by DRLs. >>>>> >>>>> Lots of them. Studies have been done and documented the effects. I >>>>> posted it all a couple years ago and I'm not going to bother doing the >>>>> research again for people who have already made up their minds. There >>>>> is a reason the US doesn't mandate them. It's not for lack of >>>>> lobbying to try and get them, it's because the research, taken in >>>>> total, does NOT support any NET benefit. If you don't believe it >>>>> that's fine, the facts remain what they are. >>>> >>>> Then find your post... >>>> >>>> ...because I think you're full of it. >>>> >>>> Just describe HOW an accident could be caused by DRLs for a starter. >>> >>> First, tell me, what kind of info would you have to see to change your >>> mind? >> >> Hmmm... >> >> Facts would be good. >> >>> Further, point to the studies you are relying on that included >>> CONTROLS and BEFORE AND AFTER analysis which showed a NET benefit to >>> DRL's. In addition, explain why an alleged safety benefit that >>> accrues when ONE car out of 100 has DRL's, and is therefore spotted by >>> EVERYONE as SPEICAL would be expected to still be there when ALL cars >>> have DRL's and none of them are special anymore and it's all just a >>> big sea of lights. >> >> I don't have to point to a study I'M relying on... >> >> ...because I'm no the one making a claim. >> >> My issue is with your claim that daytime running lights have caused accidents. >> >> Not only have you failed to give a single example, you've now even >> ducked out of attempting to describe HOW it would happen. > > > I didn't give examples because my theorizing means nothing. The proof > is in proper studies. Apparently you don't understand how science > works. You lack of theorizing means less than nothing... ....and the original request was for an example of an accident CREATED by DRLs. > > Here's a couple study summaries I still had on my hard drive. I > highlighted the key findings with ********. > > > > > 642646 DA > TITLE: DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS: A REVIEW OF THEORETICAL ISSUES AND > EVALUATION STUDIES > AUTHOR(S): Theeuwes, J; Riemersma, JBJ > CORPORATE SOURCE: Institute for Perception RVO-TNO; Kampweg 5, Postbus > 23; Soesterberg ; ID; 83401; Netherlands > REPORT NUMBER: IZF-1990-A-28;TD-90-1621 > JOURNAL: NTIS ALERT Pag: 46p > PUBLICATION DATE: 901210 PUBLICATION YEAR: 1990 > LANGUAGE: English SUBFILE: HRIS > ISSN: 01631527 > AVAILABILITY: National Technical Information Service; 5285 Port Royal > Road > ; Springfield; VA ; 22161 > ORDER NUMBER: PB93-188084/WTS > ABSTRACT: The study provides a review of the literature on the use of > daytime running lights (DRL) as a vehicle collision countermeasure. It > assists in the design of an accident study for military vehicles, once > DRL has become obligatory nationwide. In the first part of the study, > possible theoretical reasons for the supposed effectiveness of DRL are > discussed. The suggested influences of DRL on perception are primarily > based on theoretical considerations, and the relation between effects > on perception and driving are still hypothetical. In addition, the > section reviews some experimental results revealing relationships > between the use of DRL and some aspects of traffic behavior. The > second part of the study examines the available evidence for the > effectiveness of DRL as a measure to reduce accidents. Studies > evaluating changes in accident rates after the introduction of DRL at > a nationwide scale as well as studies evaluating changes in accident > rates after the introduction of DRL for specific groups are discussed. > The results of a study evaluating the effects of DRL implementation in > Sweden are examined in detail since the study was conducted at a > fairly large scale using a variety of accident data and applied new > statistical methods. The present review indicates that there is no > clear-cut account for the perceptual and behavioral processes > underlying DRL. In addition, ******* the available evidence in terms > of accident rates seems equivocal as well.******* Which says nothing about the subject under discussion: The CREATION of accidents by DRLs > > > > > > 639173 DA > TITLE: THE EFFECTS ON ACCIDENTS OF COMPULSORY USE OF DAYTIME RUNNING > LIGHTS FOR CARS IN NORWAY > AUTHOR(S): Elvik, R > CORPORATE SOURCE: Pergamon Press plc; Headington Hill Hall; Oxford OX3 > 0BW; England > JOURNAL: Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol: 25 Issue Number: 4 > Pag: pp 383-398 > PUBLICATION DATE: 930800 PUBLICATION YEAR: 1993 > LANGUAGE: English SUBFILE: HRIS > ISSN: 00014575 > BIBLIOGRAPHIC/DATA APPENDICES: 2 App. > AVAILABILITY: Pergamon Press, Incorporated; Maxwell House, Fairview > Park; > Elmsford ; NY ; 10523 > ORDER NUMBER: N/A > FIGURES: 1 Fig. TABLES: 17 Tab. > REFERENCES: Refs. > ABSTRACT: The use of daytime running lights was made mandatory for new > cars in Norway in 1985 and for all cars in 1988. This paper examines > the effectiveness of this regulation as an accident countermeasure. > The paper relies on the same study design and method of analysis as > previous studies of similar laws in Finland and Sweden. Four > hypotheses concerning the effects of daytime running lights are > tested. > ********* None of them was supported.************** > The total number of multiparty accidents in daylight was not reduced. > Pedestrian accidents and accidents during twiligt were not reduced. > The number of rear-end collisions increased by about 20%. Daytime > running lights appear to reduce daytime multiparty accidents only > during summer (by about 15%) and only for multivehicle accidents, > excluding rear-end collisions. The possibility that confounding > factors may have influenced study results is examined. It is concluded > that such an influence can not be ruled out. The discussion of the > results highlights the difficulties of reaching clear and defensible > conclusions in nonexperimental accident research of the kind reported > in this paper. > DESCRIPTORS: DAYTIME HEADLIGHT USE; RUNNING LIGHTS; NORWAY; > REGULATIONS; ACCIDENT REDUCTION; EFFECTIVENESS > SUBJECT HEADING: H51 SAFETY See above. Now, will you simply do what you should have done 4 or 5 posts ago, and retract your ridiculous claim? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:52:47 -0800, Alan Baker >
wrote: >On 2014-12-11 22:04:50 +0000, Ashton Crusher said: > >> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:17:10 -0800, Alan Baker > >> wrote: >> >>> On 2014-12-11 02:34:19 +0000, Ashton Crusher said: >>> >>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:40:24 -0800, Alan Baker > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2014-12-10 01:38:26 +0000, Ashton Crusher said: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 07:03:41 -0800, Alan Baker > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2014-12-07 20:06:29 +0000, Ashton Crusher said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> After seeing a car without lights at night, it's a clear advantage to >>>>>>>>>>> have the lights always on. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It has happened to me. You sometimes forget to turn on the lights, and >>>>>>>>>>> at least you have some lights on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The answer for drivers who are too stupid to turn on the lights when >>>>>>>>>> it's dark is to stop them driving, not to make it easier for idiots to >>>>>>>>>> drive. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, we all know there are too many idiots driving anyway. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In this particular case, though, it seems this happens to anyone at one >>>>>>>>> time or another. It's better to prevent the accident first and then >>>>>>>>> take care of the idiots. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For every accident a DRL prevents it creates another one. There is NO >>>>>>>> NET safety benefit to them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ummm... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What accidents have daytime running lights EVER created? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Name me one accident which was actually CAUSED by DRLs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lots of them. Studies have been done and documented the effects. I >>>>>> posted it all a couple years ago and I'm not going to bother doing the >>>>>> research again for people who have already made up their minds. There >>>>>> is a reason the US doesn't mandate them. It's not for lack of >>>>>> lobbying to try and get them, it's because the research, taken in >>>>>> total, does NOT support any NET benefit. If you don't believe it >>>>>> that's fine, the facts remain what they are. >>>>> >>>>> Then find your post... >>>>> >>>>> ...because I think you're full of it. >>>>> >>>>> Just describe HOW an accident could be caused by DRLs for a starter. >>>> >>>> First, tell me, what kind of info would you have to see to change your >>>> mind? >>> >>> Hmmm... >>> >>> Facts would be good. >>> >>>> Further, point to the studies you are relying on that included >>>> CONTROLS and BEFORE AND AFTER analysis which showed a NET benefit to >>>> DRL's. In addition, explain why an alleged safety benefit that >>>> accrues when ONE car out of 100 has DRL's, and is therefore spotted by >>>> EVERYONE as SPEICAL would be expected to still be there when ALL cars >>>> have DRL's and none of them are special anymore and it's all just a >>>> big sea of lights. >>> >>> I don't have to point to a study I'M relying on... >>> >>> ...because I'm no the one making a claim. >>> >>> My issue is with your claim that daytime running lights have caused accidents. >>> >>> Not only have you failed to give a single example, you've now even >>> ducked out of attempting to describe HOW it would happen. >> >> >> I didn't give examples because my theorizing means nothing. The proof >> is in proper studies. Apparently you don't understand how science >> works. > >You lack of theorizing means less than nothing... > >...and the original request was for an example of an accident CREATED by DRLs. > >> >> Here's a couple study summaries I still had on my hard drive. I >> highlighted the key findings with ********. >> >> >> >> >> 642646 DA >> TITLE: DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS: A REVIEW OF THEORETICAL ISSUES AND >> EVALUATION STUDIES >> AUTHOR(S): Theeuwes, J; Riemersma, JBJ >> CORPORATE SOURCE: Institute for Perception RVO-TNO; Kampweg 5, Postbus >> 23; Soesterberg ; ID; 83401; Netherlands >> REPORT NUMBER: IZF-1990-A-28;TD-90-1621 >> JOURNAL: NTIS ALERT Pag: 46p >> PUBLICATION DATE: 901210 PUBLICATION YEAR: 1990 >> LANGUAGE: English SUBFILE: HRIS >> ISSN: 01631527 >> AVAILABILITY: National Technical Information Service; 5285 Port Royal >> Road >> ; Springfield; VA ; 22161 >> ORDER NUMBER: PB93-188084/WTS >> ABSTRACT: The study provides a review of the literature on the use of >> daytime running lights (DRL) as a vehicle collision countermeasure. It >> assists in the design of an accident study for military vehicles, once >> DRL has become obligatory nationwide. In the first part of the study, >> possible theoretical reasons for the supposed effectiveness of DRL are >> discussed. The suggested influences of DRL on perception are primarily >> based on theoretical considerations, and the relation between effects >> on perception and driving are still hypothetical. In addition, the >> section reviews some experimental results revealing relationships >> between the use of DRL and some aspects of traffic behavior. The >> second part of the study examines the available evidence for the >> effectiveness of DRL as a measure to reduce accidents. Studies >> evaluating changes in accident rates after the introduction of DRL at >> a nationwide scale as well as studies evaluating changes in accident >> rates after the introduction of DRL for specific groups are discussed. >> The results of a study evaluating the effects of DRL implementation in >> Sweden are examined in detail since the study was conducted at a >> fairly large scale using a variety of accident data and applied new >> statistical methods. The present review indicates that there is no >> clear-cut account for the perceptual and behavioral processes >> underlying DRL. In addition, ******* the available evidence in terms >> of accident rates seems equivocal as well.******* > >Which says nothing about the subject under discussion: > >The CREATION of accidents by DRLs > >> >> >> >> >> >> 639173 DA >> TITLE: THE EFFECTS ON ACCIDENTS OF COMPULSORY USE OF DAYTIME RUNNING >> LIGHTS FOR CARS IN NORWAY >> AUTHOR(S): Elvik, R >> CORPORATE SOURCE: Pergamon Press plc; Headington Hill Hall; Oxford OX3 >> 0BW; England >> JOURNAL: Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol: 25 Issue Number: 4 >> Pag: pp 383-398 >> PUBLICATION DATE: 930800 PUBLICATION YEAR: 1993 >> LANGUAGE: English SUBFILE: HRIS >> ISSN: 00014575 >> BIBLIOGRAPHIC/DATA APPENDICES: 2 App. >> AVAILABILITY: Pergamon Press, Incorporated; Maxwell House, Fairview >> Park; >> Elmsford ; NY ; 10523 >> ORDER NUMBER: N/A >> FIGURES: 1 Fig. TABLES: 17 Tab. >> REFERENCES: Refs. >> ABSTRACT: The use of daytime running lights was made mandatory for new >> cars in Norway in 1985 and for all cars in 1988. This paper examines >> the effectiveness of this regulation as an accident countermeasure. >> The paper relies on the same study design and method of analysis as >> previous studies of similar laws in Finland and Sweden. Four >> hypotheses concerning the effects of daytime running lights are >> tested. >> ********* None of them was supported.************** >> The total number of multiparty accidents in daylight was not reduced. >> Pedestrian accidents and accidents during twiligt were not reduced. >> The number of rear-end collisions increased by about 20%. Daytime >> running lights appear to reduce daytime multiparty accidents only >> during summer (by about 15%) and only for multivehicle accidents, >> excluding rear-end collisions. The possibility that confounding >> factors may have influenced study results is examined. It is concluded >> that such an influence can not be ruled out. The discussion of the >> results highlights the difficulties of reaching clear and defensible >> conclusions in nonexperimental accident research of the kind reported >> in this paper. >> DESCRIPTORS: DAYTIME HEADLIGHT USE; RUNNING LIGHTS; NORWAY; >> REGULATIONS; ACCIDENT REDUCTION; EFFECTIVENESS >> SUBJECT HEADING: H51 SAFETY > >See above. > >Now, will you simply do what you should have done 4 or 5 posts ago, and >retract your ridiculous claim? Nope. And you can take your head and shove it up your ass. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
On 2014-12-14 02:32:15 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:
>> Now, will you simply do what you should have done 4 or 5 posts ago, and >> retract your ridiculous claim? > > Nope. And you can take your head and shove it up your ass. So you don't have the grace to admit you were talking bull****. One last time: Do you have anything to offer to support your claim that DRLs CAUSE accidents? Anything? No? Right. **** off then. :-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
I have never been in favor of DRLs, since they came out, and wish they, and this over-hashed-out thread would just GO AWAAAYYYY.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
11:16 AMWise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
"Maybe we should all have flashing lights like the police. " That'd be a hoot! lmao.. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 18:48:55 -0800, Alan Baker >
wrote: >On 2014-12-14 02:32:15 +0000, Ashton Crusher said: > >>> Now, will you simply do what you should have done 4 or 5 posts ago, and >>> retract your ridiculous claim? >> >> Nope. And you can take your head and shove it up your ass. > >So you don't have the grace to admit you were talking bull****. > >One last time: > >Do you have anything to offer to support your claim that DRLs CAUSE accidents? > >Anything? > >No? > >Right. > >**** off then. > >:-) You can kiss this. Come back when you get a clue. ¸.-·~~~~¨¨~`·.¸ ¸~¸,.¸ ¸,..¸ ~¸ |¸o~¸ ~ o~ __¸~.,,¸¸___ (¸ (_, )¸/~¸;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~·-.,¸ ¨~\,¸.´| ¸--- ¸ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;¸ (_¸.·¸~;;;;;;;¸;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;-,¸ ~¸;;;;;;; `¸ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;¸¸¸.··-··~~~~~·-.¸ ~¸.·~~~ ¸;;;;;;;;~¸·~ ·¸ ~·¸ ~¸ ~¸';;;¸,¸~ ~¸ ~¸ ~, ~¸;;;;;| | | ~¸ \¯¯~¸ | ¸~¸ ~¸ ~¸ ¸-~¸¸¸,,..---······~~~~~~~¨¨¨¯·¸ ¸~ ,¸ ¸~·····~~¨¨···:::::::::::::::··~¨¸~ ~· ¸` ~¸ ¸ ¯;¸ ´ ¸-·¨ ¸ ¯¸ ´ ¸~ ¯¯ ~¸ `¨~~¨ ¯¸ ¨~~¨ ~¸ ~·¸ ·~¸--¯ ~·.¸ ·~¸-·-·¸¨ ~¸ '¸ ¯ \¸ ~¸ ¸.~__,..-..¸-·~__,..-.,,_\¸ (;;;;;;;;~;;;;;¸\¯\¸;;;;;;;;~~ ¯¨~¨¨¨¨¨~~~''''¯ ¯¯¨~¨¨¯¨ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 11:30:57 -0800, Alan Baker >
wrote: >On 2014-12-14 15:53:26 +0000, said: > >> I have never been in favor of DRLs, since they came out, and wish they, >> and this over-hashed-out thread would just GO AWAAAYYYY. > >I'm not in FAVOUR of them myself... > >...but I'm not particular against them, either. > >What I AM ALWAYS against, however, is stupid. Then you should shoot yourself and relieve the world of your moronic presence. > >And saying that daytime running lights cause accidents is stupid. I just report what the reports I PROVIDED you with say. You apparently are too stupid to read them. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
On 2014-12-14 22:58:30 +0000, Ashton Crusher said:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 11:30:57 -0800, Alan Baker > > wrote: > >> On 2014-12-14 15:53:26 +0000, said: >> >>> I have never been in favor of DRLs, since they came out, and wish they, >>> and this over-hashed-out thread would just GO AWAAAYYYY. >> >> I'm not in FAVOUR of them myself... >> >> ...but I'm not particular against them, either. >> >> What I AM ALWAYS against, however, is stupid. > > Then you should shoot yourself and relieve the world of your moronic > presence. > >> >> And saying that daytime running lights cause accidents is stupid. > > > I just report what the reports I PROVIDED you with say. You > apparently are too stupid to read them. The report (singular) you provided said no such thing. There is NOT ONE WORD about DRLs CAUSING accidents. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Daylight Running Lights
Alan Baker wrote:
"I'm not in FAVOUR of them myself... ....but I'm not particular against them, either. What I AM ALWAYS against, however, is stupid. And saying that daytime running lights cause accidents is stupid. " I don't know if they have reduced or increased accidents, all I know is that the first 70 or so years of automotive history were fine without them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2002 VUE - Daylight Running Lights | [email protected] | Saturn | 2 | November 24th 06 08:25 PM |
1994 LHS headlight daylight sensor does not work, lights always on | random electron | Chrysler | 4 | June 17th 06 05:09 AM |
96 Honda Accord daylight running lights problem | me | Honda | 2 | February 18th 05 09:09 PM |
Honda daylight running lights in Canada | Veggie | Honda | 18 | November 10th 04 03:15 PM |