OT Idiot lights-out drivers



Daytime running lights ore on by default. They can be turned off by request at the dealer. I imagine if the dealer can do it the owner could as well if they investigated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/12/16 12:55 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:

On my Toyota RAV4 (2013), there is a position on the light switch "below" the "DRL" position (daytime running lights) that turns ALL the lights off.
No lights at all (just like the old days) ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-5, Mark Storkamp wrote:

The light pollution problem is not a thing of the past.
The oil boom in Texas is a bust for some astronomers.
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/30/mcdonald-observatorys-plea-drillers-cut-lights/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2016 02:56 PM, Mark Storkamp wrote:

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...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:55:39 -0600, Gordon Shumway

Requires specialized body computer programming device to reprogam the BCM - and in Canada it's illegat to defeat them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/12/2016 12:25 PM, trader_4 wrote:

Not yet in the US, It is in Canada. Still a lot of cars without, but they have been gaining.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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%.
--
If you believe in telepathy, raise my hand.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/12/2016 6:30 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Austria is not mentioned, but overall, accidents are reduced.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811029.pdf
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 European Studies 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 would reduce daytime crashes by 11 percent, pedestrian/cyclist crashes by 17 percent, and bicycle/moped 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 statistically significant. Two studies in 1993 and 1995 evaluating Denmark's 1990 DRL law showed consistent results. 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.15 16
Canadian Studies 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 opposite direction
U.S. Studies 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 crashes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

are

If

't

ere

2%.

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.

as

aw

t,

e

e

s

ly

d

e,

-- What does a Polish woman do after she sucks a cock? Spits out the feathers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No wonder, for as much as you've posted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do grow up.
--
"You, you, and you ... Panic. The rest of you, come with me."
- U.S. Marine Corp Gunnery Sgt.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wasn't referring to Canada and the USA, I was referring to the so called statistics about DRLs increasing safety, when it's bloody obvious they don't. Read this (DaDRL is a worldwide voluntary group of experienced motorists including Scientists, Engineers, Mathematicians, Lawyers and Ophthalmological experts who are supported by the leading Pedestrian, Cyclist and Motorcyclist organisations): http://www.dadrl.org.uk
--
Flabbergasted (adj.), appalled over how much weight you have gained.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Obvious to your small mind perhaps. The insurance companies definitely feel differently about it than you do. And so do many other motoring safety groups In 5 minutes I could likely find 10 or more studies showing there is a safety advantage to counter every one of yours stating there is not.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.dadrl.org.uk
--
Create instant designer stubble by sucking a magnet and dipping your chin in a bowl of iron fillings.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/13/2016 8:48 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

A NHTSA study in 2004 entitled "An Assessment of the Crash-Reducing Effectiveness of Passenger Vehicle Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs)" found the followinng:
DRLs reduced opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by –6.3 percent that is DRLs increase opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by 6.3 percent.
DRLs reduced opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal crashes by –7.9 percent that is DRLs increase opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal crashes by 7.9 percent.
DRLs reduced non-motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, daytime fatalities in single-vehicle crashes by 3.8 percent.
DRLs reduced daytime opposite direction fatal crashes of a passenger vehicle with a motorcycle by 26 percent.
Definitely mixed results, but not unexpected.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

d

percent

7.9

al

es

They're increasing accidents in the very area they're meant to help in - seeing another car coming the other way. And helping where I'd expect worse crashes - distracting you from seeing an unlit pedestrian. Perhaps they remind pedestrians to look before crossing (do we care about morons who don't look?). The main problem is they dazzle other motorists so you they can't judge where the edge of your car is. This is documented on websites complaining about DRLs, where the people complaining are professional optometrists etc who know what they're talking about.
-- There is a big controversy on the Jewish view of when life begins. In Jewish tradition, the foetus is not considered viable until it graduates from law school.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/12/2016 04:30 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Absolutely. Running daytime lights on a bike probably doesn't buy you much in terms of people seeing you but it's at least a little edge. When everyone's lights are on that little edge goes away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.