On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:25:21 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
It doesn't have to be "much of a problem" to still be a problem when
I wonder if "vast majority" is true. I've got high-trim level 2006 Honda
Odyssey. Lot's of "fancy electronics" and features for the time. No day
time running lights or automatic headlights though. (I always drive with
my lights on , so I usually just leave them on since they go out by
themselves 30 seconds after I park.)
Since the average age of cars on the road these days is about 11.4 years (roughly where my Ody lands) is it safe to say that the "vast majority"
of cars on the road now have daytime running lights? I don't know...just
"Average age of automobiles: The R.L. Polk Co., Average Age of Vehicles on the Road Remains Steady at 11.4 years, According to IHS Automotive, available at http://press.ihs.com/news_releases/automotive as of May 26, 2015."
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 6:04:43 PM UTC-5, Sam E wrote:
I'm just on this side of the average - 4 vehicles averaging 10.75 years old,
but one of them is on the far side.
SWMBO picked up this beauty last July.
2003 AWD Honda Element EX
69K miles (no, I didn't drop the 1)
Single owner (retired engineer)
Sweet! (No DRL)
Not a lot in this state. My 2007 Toyota had DRLs, but the 2011 of the
same model doesn't. I imagine in 2007 they were covering their butt to
see how GM's petition to make them mandatory came out. When the NHTSA
denied the petition in 2009 they figured it was safe to drop them.
There was a time if you wanted to get lynched, just drive into an
astronomy star party with your lights on. Or let your dome light come
on. Older cars were easier to make dark, but now you've got to learn all
the right fuses to pull.
I used to like to run dark on moonlit nights and turn the lights on when
someone was approaching. It was amusing in a car but it was a real blast
with an 18 wheeler that suddenly appeared lit up like a Christmas tree.
Not that I would do anything that foolish anymore...
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:56:44 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
Perhaps if the owner had the computer that the dealer had.
Even some of the newer remote start units have to be programmed by the
installer using a computer. No more using key-fob sequences to set the
horn or run time options like in the "old days".
Those stupid things should be banned, they're a distraction. Lights are to inform you of.... someone making a turn, an ambulance, etc, etc. If everybody has lights, you no longer notice things you should, you don't see unlit things like pedestrians, etc. In countries like Austria where they did proper surveys, they found that they INCREASE accidents by 12%.
Austria is not mentioned, but overall, accidents are reduced.
A majority of the European studies consistently found that a DRL law was
associated with a
reduction in crashes. The effects varied from 4 percent to 27 percent
depending on crash type,
crash severity, season, roadway conditions, and light conditions. The
DRL effects found in the
U.S. studies were less consistent and more uncertain
A 1976 study in Finland found that DRLs would reduce daytime
multi-vehicle crashes and
pedestrian/pedalcyclist crashes on rural roads by 21 percent.12 A 1981
study in Sweden based on
two years pre-law and two years post-law data concluded that the DRL law
daytime crashes by 11 percent, pedestrian/cyclist crashes by 17 percent,
crashes by 21 percent.13 In Norway, a 1993 study by Elvik14
found that DRLs would reduce
daytime multi-vehicle crashes by 15 percent in the summer. However, the
same study found that
DRLs had no effects on multi-vehicle crashes in the winter. Also, there
was no effect on crashes
involving pedestrians or motorcyclists. None of the results were
Two studies in 1993 and 1995 evaluating Denmark's 1990 DRL law showed
These studies concluded that two years after enactment of the law, DRLs
multiple-vehicle crashes by 6 to 7 percent, and reduced
motor-vehicle-to-pedalcyclist crashes by
4 percent. However, the second study also showed that DRLs significantly
vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes by 16 percent.15 16
Sparks’ 1993 study20
which examined Canadian government fleet data found that DRLs reduced
twilight, two-vehicle crashes by 15 percent. The effect was
statistically significant. Two reports
produced by Transport Canada also showed positive DRL effects. Of these,
Arora et al.21
concluded in 1994 that DRLs significantly reduced daytime two-vehicle
In contrast, DRL effects from U.S. studies were less consistent. DRLs
are not required in the
United States, thus all studies in the United States were
vehicle-fleet-based analyses. In 2000,
NHTSA conducted a preliminary study23
to evaluate the effects of DRLs. The estimated effects
ranged from -8 to 2 percent for fatal two-vehicle opposite-direction
crashes, 5 to 7 percent for
non-fatal crashes, and 28-29 percent for single-vehicle-to-pedestrian
crashes. The range of
effects primarily resulted from two different statistics. In 2005, the
agency reexamined the
effectiveness of DRLs using the same statistical techniques as in the
2000 report but used a
different set of crash data.24
Conclusions from this updated study were similar to those in the
earlier study: -7.9 to 5 percent for daytime two-vehicle opposite and
angle crashes, 3.8 to 12
percent for single-vehicle-to-pedestrian/cyclist crashes, and 23 to 26
percent for single-vehicleto-motorcycle
I smell bullshit. Just like global warming.
Look at this part of what you wrote below:
These studies concluded that two years after enactment of the law, DRLs reduced daytime
multiple-vehicle crashes by 6 to 7 percent, and reduced motor-vehicle-to-pedalcyclist crashes by
4 percent. However, the second study also showed that DRLs significantly increased motor
vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes by 16 percent.
Which is what I was saying, light up one thing and you see the other less. What next? DRLs compulsory on pedestrians?
The simple fact remains that the human eye doesn't just see direct light, it sees REFLECTED light, in fact that's what it's designed to see. All objects reflect light during daylight hours. Adding light sources on them is beyond stupid.
What does a Polish woman do after she sucks a cock?
Spits out the feathers.
You seem to to have an opinion that everything done by the auto
companies in Canada and the USA, and the laws controlling what is done
are stupid, just because it's different than what is done in the UK.
You have strong opinions not supportable by facts.
You are entitled to your opinions - but you have to be ready to be
called on them when you keep spouting them off. You say you smell BS -
I tell you where it is coming from.
You don't like it? Too bad...
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.