OT Idiot lights-out drivers

[Mr Macaw]

So people who use the emergency/hand/parking brake at junctions will make their lights go on and off, that's really stupid.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Saving a buck not putting the module in is more important than extra visibility.

[Ed Pawlowski]

How would you know you have not seen an unlit car?

[Mr Macaw]

Because I would have hit it.

Or a serious answer, they're as easy to see as pedestrians, which are almost always unlit.

Or stating the obvious, cars reflect light, like any object does, so the streetlamps or your own lights make it visible.

[Andy]

I do not like cars with forced lights.

Shortens lifespan of expensive bulbs.

Andy

[Micky]

I already own the car and I own the headlights that are in it. There is no room for a second set of headlights. So that won't work.

[Mr Macaw]

My newsreader says that isn't a word, sounds cool though.

Won't she hear the engine?

Huh? All cars have headlights. Operate the headlight switch. The headlights come on. Nothing to do with the car being running or not.

[Ed Pawlowski]

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 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.

[Percival P. Cassidy]

I am reminded of some drivers in the UK 60 years ago (when I don't think the law yet prescribed *what* lights were to be used after "lighting up time") who insisted on driving on unlit roads with only parking lights on and said, "If you can't see with parking lights on, you shouldn't be driving."

Perce

[Ed Pawlowski]

On;y a compete idiot woult not notice the instrument panel is dark too. DRL do not really give you much to see by. The purpose it to be seen under certain circumstances.

[thekmanrocks]

On;y a compete idiot woult not notice the instrument panel is dark too. DRL do not really give you much to see by. The purpose it to be seen under certain circumstances. "

I guess people are just that distracted nowadays. Life is that hectic - folks working harder and longer for less money, relative to a decades costs of living.

[DerbyDad03]

That depends on the vehicle. I just checked the 2 cars that are home.

The 03 Element's dash is dark until the lights are turned on.

The 06 Ody's dash is lit whenever the car is running and actually gets dimmer when the headlights are turned on.

I'm not sure about the 07 Civic or the 05 Taurus. They're both away from home getting their Master's degrees at this time. :-)

[Ed Pawlowski]

But will you see it in time?

[rbowman]

It may be a law in some states although I think in most of those the law is the lights must be on if the wipers are active. The NHTSA is neutral but shot down a GM proposal to make them mandatory in 2009.

My 2007 Toyota had them, the 2011 does not. I had a cop stop me one evening at dusk. I came out of work and the DRL were bright enough in the dusk that I didn't think to turn the headlights on. He saw the headlights and no tail lights and concluded my tail lights were out. I'd had a couple of people tell me the tail lights were out in similar circumstances. Same deal, light enough that lights weren't required but they'd see the head lights on and assume the tail lights were broken.

NHTSA's reluctance to take a stand stems from the lack of conclusive studies that show DRL's to decrease accidents. Most bikes for the last

20 or more years have always on headlights, the theory being the light would make the bike stand out in traffic. If it's just another headlight in a sea of headlights any advantage goes away. Idiot cagers don't see bikes anyway so I ride like I'm invisible.

[Ed Pawlowski]

How much have you spent on bulbs in recent years? Last one I bought was for my '91 Regal and it was not a "forced" light. I don't see it as a burden, but your experience may be different.

[rbowman]

Yes, but you're in Canada. I don't know when DRL's became mandatory in Canada but they are not in the US. Some manufacturers installed them, some did not. My 2007 Toyota had them; my 2011 does not. Go figure. Since they are not illegal in the US I'm surprised they are not installed across the board.

[rbowman]

Been there, done that, and had a hard time explaining to the cop that headlights with no tail lights did not mean the tail lights were defective. That I had to explain how it worked speaks to the relatively few vehicles with DRL's here.

[rbowman]

Um, in my Toyota the instrument panel is ALWAYS illuminated. When you turn the headlights on it goes through the dimmer so my instrument panel is actually darker when the lights are on.

[rbowman]

It does have its drawbacks. My Toyota with DRL's did that and it was a manual transmission. When I come home at night I stop at the cluster mailbox to get the mail. If it's dusk or full dark, I sort through my keys in front of the headlight. With that feature, I'd shift into neutral, put the handbrake on, and my light source would go off.

[rbowman]

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.