DRL Aggression

[Fabia00]

Think the biggest issue is distracting attention from motorcycles who have their lights on all the time at the moment may be less noticeable; especially when every one has DRL's may mean they provide little benefit?

[alberg]

Back in Canada when they first came out, around 1990, everyone said it was a joke. It was only made for people to have to spend more money on cars because bateries and lamps would fail faster.

A couple years later if it did not have DRL it was not wanted by costumer. It´s also a fact that it reduced acidentes when it started to get dark due to all thode people who refused to turn on their lights.

It´s funny, motorcycles, buses, police, ambulances or fire trucks, kids school buses need their headlights on all the time. LEDs are great, last longer, it´s cool, more efective, brighter, less heat means less global worming.

Actually leds on traffic lights suck in places where there is snow and ice because the led cannot melt the ice or snow so the sign can be seen due to it´s less heat production.

[curleybar]

Okay, I'm replying to you but don't take it personally because there's other posts along the same mocking vein.

Hand on heart time for all you mockers (no, this isn't rhyming slang).

Did none of you, I repeat, NONE OF YOU, ever add wheelarch extensions to 'XR-ise' your Mk1 Fiesta or, to bring things more up to date, ask the garage to remove the '1.6' badge from your Ford Mondeo?

It's no different than sticking a Bentley badge on your Chrysler 300.

Errr No !

[Cauliflower]

Errr No !

Hate to mention this, but you may just be not normal.

[Cauliflower]

Back in Canada when they first came out, around 1990, everyone said it was a joke. It was only made for people to have to spend more money on cars because bateries and lamps would fail faster.

A couple years later if it did not have DRL it was not wanted by costumer. It´s also a fact that it reduced acidentes when it started to get dark due to all thode people who refused to turn on their lights.

It´s funny, motorcycles, buses, police, ambulances or fire trucks, kids school buses need their headlights on all the time. LEDs are great, last longer, it´s cool, more efective, brighter, less heat means less global worming.

Actually leds on traffic lights suck in places where there is snow and ice because the led cannot melt the ice or snow so the sign can be seen due to it´s less heat production.

I think where I'm coming from is that there is a seeming disconnect between the rhetoric on this subject and the bald facts. It's a bit like the GMT/BST/DST debate in the UK - everyone has an opinion on it, especially when the hour is actually changing, but the underlying statistics about the number of childrens' lives lost in each case are quite unambiguous. If the majority of studies show that DRLs improve safety and a minority of studies determine that at worst they do not impair safety, then it seems like a done deal to me.

[mannyo]

For the argument that DRLs will make cars safer at the expense of other road users without DRLs (cyclists etc):

Is this hypothesis reflected in the accident statistics of countries already using DRLs?

If it's not, what would be the reason(s) for this disconnect between hypothesis and recorded stats?

Yes,

Austria did a trial and made driving with lights compulsory, they have now reversed that and made the use of DRL's illegal in their country after accident rates increased dramatically following the trial introduction. Several other EU countries where DRLs are still legal have also seen increases recently with more cars having DRLs as standard.

[Dodgy]

People are saying there's evidence that DRLs have had an adverse effect on safety in certain countries, are there any sources to confirm this?

My instinct tells me that safety will improve for DRL'd cars, but worsen for those without - especially pedestrians and cyclists. But it's only my instinct, I've got nothing to prove it.

[Cauliflower]

Yes,

Austria did a trial and made driving with lights compulsory, they have now reversed that and made the use of DRL's illegal in their country after accident rates increased dramatically following the trial introduction. Several other EU countries where DRLs are still legal have also seen increases recently with more cars having DRLs as standard.

Hi there, can you give us a link to this evidence?

[mannyo]

Hi there, can you give us a link to this evidence?

Sure

http://www.dadrl.org.uk/docs/Voralberg%20Online%20%2011%20September%202007%20Lights%20off.pdf

Austria: since Daytime Running Lights were banned on 1 January 2008, less accidents for road users have been reported:

minus 5% fatalities

minus 25% biker-accidents

Weniger Verkehrsunfälle

Die Zahl der Unfälle, Verletzten und getöteten Verkehrsteilnehmer auf Österreichs Straßen war in den ersten neuen Monaten des Jahres 2006

geringer als im selben Zeitraum des Vorjahres. Die Statistik Austria verzeichnete um vier Prozent weniger Verkehrsunfälle (29.274) und um drei Prozent weniger Verletzte (38.130).

533 Verkehrsteilnehmer wurden getötet, das entspricht einem Minus von cht Prozent.

Den höchsten Rückgang meldete die oberösterreichische Polizei: 700 Unfälle und 900 Verletzte weniger wurden registriert. Auch im Burgenland, der Steiermark und Wien ging die Anzahl der Unfälle im Straßenverkehr zurück.

[PSM]

The graphs do not look that convincing to be honest as there seems to be a fair bit of noise in them. without knowing the context behind the drops it is har to see if the increase is just natural noise. There are increases in both graphs that are bigger than the so called DRL effect without any comment. would need to know if there were specific causes of these rises or again just natural variation. Accident stats are hardly stable systems as there will be a lot of things that feed into to it i.e. weather conditions during the year etc. Without all this normallised it is hard to tell if an 6-8% rise is significant. With stats/graphs you can really make them say what ever you want!!!!

I have not read the aussie article so this may be better ut I am always a little secpitcal of stats.

[Raglits]

Those graphs don't show if there was a corresponding increase in traffic on the roads either. How do we know that there wasn't 6-8% increase in accidents but a 20% increase in the number of vehicles on the road meaning that in percentage terms the number of accidents actually reduced?

Stats can be used to "prove" pretty much anything you like and without seeing all of the figures and the methodology of the study I don't trust anything like that. Sorry

[alberg]

Those graphs don't show if there was a corresponding increase in traffic on the roads either. How do we know that there wasn't 6-8% increase in accidents but a 20% increase in the number of vehicles on the road meaning that in percentage terms the number of accidents actually reduced?

Stats can be used to "prove" pretty much anything you like and without seeing all of the figures and the methodology of the study I don't trust anything like that. Sorry

One thing is certain, VOLVO was first to introduce seatbelts as standard and everyone laughted about it. Every car has it now. Then they came out, in europe, with their lights being turn on on always em AUTO. Now it ´s becoming standart equip.

Like said before the highter numbers does not mean it was due to the DRL.

Here in Portugal the number has dropped a bit because people started to go slower due to the fine being alot. Ex. seatbelt 125€, over 30km/h 250€. You may say that´s not alot of €€€ but the min. wage is less than 500€.

[Cauliflower]

Sure

http://www.dadrl.org.uk/docs/Voralberg%20Online%20%2011%20September%202007%20Lights%20off.pdf

Manny, help me out here, because I've just spent a few minutes in the site you provided a pdf from, looking at the volumetric information underpinning the Polish graph and they clearly show precisely the opposite position to that asserted by the graph. As Raglits and Alberg pointed out, the number of vehicles on the road is crucial factor and the supporting information shows that, prior to the April 2007 introduction, both the no. of vehicles and and the no. of accidents were on an upwards trend. The critical statistic showing the no. of accidents pro rata by vehicle shows a reduction in the number of accidents upon the introduction of DRLs.The Bulgaria graph also shows an upward trend in accidents prior to their DRL introduction but unfortunately the crucial statistic on the no. of vehicles on the road isn't included.

Folks, go look at this yourself using the address below. Am I reading this information incorrectly?

http://www.dadrl.org.uk/whatsnew.html

Edited 17 May, 2010 by Cauliflower

[Raglits]

Manny, help me out here, because I've just spent a few minutes in the site you provided a pdf from, looking at the volumetric information underpinning the Polish graph and they clearly show precisely the opposite position to that asserted by the graph. As Raglits and Alberg pointed out, the number of vehicles on the road is crucial factor and the supporting information shows that, prior to the April 2007 introduction, both the no. of vehicles and and the no. of accidents were on an upwards trend. The critical statistic showing the no. of accidents pro rata by vehicle shows a reduction in the number of accidents upon the introduction of DRLs.The Bulgaria graph also shows an upward trend in accidents prior to their DRL introduction but unfortunately the crucial statistic on the no. of vehicles on the road isn't included.

Folks, go look at this yourself using the address below. Am I reading this information incorrectly?

http://www.dadrl.org.uk/whatsnew.html

That is a site that is against DRL so they are hardly likely to show the research in favour of them. However, the Poland Graph actually shows a reduction in the number of accidents per 1000 cars even though (unfortunately) there was an increase in the number of fatal accidents.

There are press clippings "proving" their case on that site, but no corresponding clippings for DRLs. Are they really saying that there is no research in favour of DRLs? Hardly a balance view is it?

Like I said earlier, unless you can get all of the information from a study you can't really believe anything that is statistical as it is possible to "cherry pick" the figures used to prove your point even if it's against the main trend that has been observed. I recommend reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre for some wonderful examples of this (or check the website www.badscience.net )

Edit, just notice they do have some pro studies on another section. If I get bored I might start reading some of them (on both sides)

Edited 17 May, 2010 by Raglits

[Cauliflower]

That is a site that is against DRL so they are hardly likely to show the research in favour of them. However, the Poland Graph actually shows a reduction in the number of accidents per 1000 cars even though (unfortunately) there was an increase in the number of fatal accidents.

There are press clippings "proving" their case on that site, but no corresponding clippings for DRLs. Are they really saying that there is no research in favour of DRLs? Hardly a balance view is it?

Like I said earlier, unless you can get all of the information from a study you can't really believe anything that is statistical as it is possible to "cherry pick" the figures used to prove your point even if it's against the main trend that has been observed. I recommend reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre for some wonderful examples of this (or check the website www.badscience.net )

Edit, just notice they do have some pro studies on another section. If I get bored I might start reading some of them (on both sides)

I must be so-ooo naive, for I've now had a further look at the DADRL site and every assertion is a professionally presented but complete farrago of spin. It scares the bejasus out of me that there are folk peddling this nonsense. Bring the DRLs on now!

Mannyo, since you provided the link, have you any comment ?

Edited 18 May, 2010 by Cauliflower