Madness on the road
Sep 16th 2011, 2:39 am
#61
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,771
Re: Madness on the road
My Dads Saab had some weird way of keeping the side lights on when the key was out, but I forget the details. His DRL were not the same as his low beams, they were less bright, like side lights. There was a noticable difference in intensity when the turned the low beams on.
Sep 16th 2011, 4:22 am
#63
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,771
Re: Madness on the road
Theres a lot more than one study.
Heres a link to the main european synopsis of the studies, including methodology. Its a bit dry.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsa...r_oct_2004.pdf
More easily digested it a recent executive summary from Minnesota, who are considering legislation:, it summarised several studies.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/govrel/re...011811_PDF.pdf
The following is a summary of the effect of canadian legislation:
The original scandinavian study found an 11% reduction in multivehicle accidents, but the methodology of that one is now being questioned by some: Overall though there is a weight of evidence in favour. Just like evolution, and global warming. Just not everyone wants to hear it.
Oh, and "Transport Canada estimates the extra annual fuel and bulb replacement costs to be $3-15 for systems using reduced-intensity headlights or other low-intensity lights and more than $40 a year for DRL systems using regular low-beam headlights."
Heres a link to the main european synopsis of the studies, including methodology. Its a bit dry.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsa...r_oct_2004.pdf
More easily digested it a recent executive summary from Minnesota, who are considering legislation:, it summarised several studies.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/govrel/re...011811_PDF.pdf
The following is a summary of the effect of canadian legislation:
The following two papers present additional perspectives on DRL use in Canada:
Tofflemire, Troy C., and Paul C. Whitehead. “An Evaluation of the Impact of Daytime Running Lights on Traffic
Safety in Canada,” Journal of Safety Research, Volume 28, Issue 4, Winter 1997, pages 257-272.
Abstract: Since December 1, 1989 all new cars sold in Canada were required to be equipped with DRLs. This policy was
expected to reduce angle and opposing collision involvement by 10% to 20% by making cars more conspicuous, thereby
increasing the window of opportunity within which drivers can react. A quasi-experimental comparative posttest design is
used in this study to evaluate the impact of DRL legislation on the incidence of angle and opposing collisions for 1989
cars and 1990 cars in the 1991 calendar year. The results show that the combined incidence of the two types of collisions
is reduced by 5.3% (p < .05), mainly due to a reduction in the incidence of opposing collisions (−15%; p < .05), rather than
angle collisions (−2.5%; NS). An examination of each province reveals that only two small provinces display a statistically
significant reduction in the incidence of opposing collisions and one province displays a statistically significant reduction in
the incidence of angle collisions. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of their relevance for DRL policy
theory, traffic safety, future research, and cost.
Sparks, Gordon A.; Russell D. Neudore, Anne E. Smith, Kenneth R. Wapman, and Paul L. Zador. “The Effects of
Daytime Running Lights on Crashes Between Two Vehicles in Saskatchewan: A Study of a Government Fleet,”
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1991, Vol. 25, pages 619-625.
From the abstract: Crashes of vehicles with and without DRLs owned by the Central Vehicle Agency of the Province of
Saskatchewan were compared to a random selection of crashes drawn from provincial crash files involving vehicles
without DRLs for the years 1982 through 1989. Daytime two-vehicle crashes involving vehicles approaching from the front
or side were reduced by about 28% for the daytime running-light equipped vehicles. A 28% reduction in daytime runninglight relevant daytime two-vehicle crashes corresponds to a 15% reduction in all daytime two-vehicle crashes.
Tofflemire, Troy C., and Paul C. Whitehead. “An Evaluation of the Impact of Daytime Running Lights on Traffic
Safety in Canada,” Journal of Safety Research, Volume 28, Issue 4, Winter 1997, pages 257-272.
Abstract: Since December 1, 1989 all new cars sold in Canada were required to be equipped with DRLs. This policy was
expected to reduce angle and opposing collision involvement by 10% to 20% by making cars more conspicuous, thereby
increasing the window of opportunity within which drivers can react. A quasi-experimental comparative posttest design is
used in this study to evaluate the impact of DRL legislation on the incidence of angle and opposing collisions for 1989
cars and 1990 cars in the 1991 calendar year. The results show that the combined incidence of the two types of collisions
is reduced by 5.3% (p < .05), mainly due to a reduction in the incidence of opposing collisions (−15%; p < .05), rather than
angle collisions (−2.5%; NS). An examination of each province reveals that only two small provinces display a statistically
significant reduction in the incidence of opposing collisions and one province displays a statistically significant reduction in
the incidence of angle collisions. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of their relevance for DRL policy
theory, traffic safety, future research, and cost.
Sparks, Gordon A.; Russell D. Neudore, Anne E. Smith, Kenneth R. Wapman, and Paul L. Zador. “The Effects of
Daytime Running Lights on Crashes Between Two Vehicles in Saskatchewan: A Study of a Government Fleet,”
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1991, Vol. 25, pages 619-625.
From the abstract: Crashes of vehicles with and without DRLs owned by the Central Vehicle Agency of the Province of
Saskatchewan were compared to a random selection of crashes drawn from provincial crash files involving vehicles
without DRLs for the years 1982 through 1989. Daytime two-vehicle crashes involving vehicles approaching from the front
or side were reduced by about 28% for the daytime running-light equipped vehicles. A 28% reduction in daytime runninglight relevant daytime two-vehicle crashes corresponds to a 15% reduction in all daytime two-vehicle crashes.
Early Studies of Effectiveness
Andersson, K.; G. Nilsson; and M. Salusjarvi. The Effect of Recommended and Compulsory Use of Vehicle Lights
on Road Accidents in Finland, 1976, Report 102A, National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden.
Andersson, K., and G. Nilsson. The Effect on Accidents of Compulsory Use of Running Lights During Daylight
Hours in Sweden, 1981, Report 208A, National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden.
The following study re-examines the data in Andersson and Nilsson (1981):
Theeuwes, J., and J. Riemersma. ―Daytime Running Lights as a Vehicle Collision Countermeasure: The
Swedish Evidence Reconsidered,‖ Accident Analysis and Prevention, October 1995, Vol. 27, No. 5, pages
633-542. TNO Human Factors Research Institute, Soesterberg, The Netherlands.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
Abstract: In Sweden the use of DRLs was made mandatory on 1 October 1977 for all motor vehicles at
once, during all seasons and for all areas. According to a study conducted by Andersson and Nilsson (1981)
[Andersson and Nilsson. VTI Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute, Report No. 208A; 1981] the
introduction of DRL resulted in a reduction of 11% of multiple accidents during daytime. In many discussions
on the effectiveness of DRL, these findings have been considered as the strongest evidence that the use of
DRL is an effective vehicle collision countermeasure. The present study reexamines this evidence and
shows that the reported 11% effect of DRL in the Swedish study is spurious. The effect is mainly the result
of the application of a model that shows selective effects of DRL through modeling of unexplained changes
in the number of single accidents. It is concluded that the Swedish data fail to show a clear effect of DRL.
Andersson, K.; G. Nilsson; and M. Salusjarvi. The Effect of Recommended and Compulsory Use of Vehicle Lights
on Road Accidents in Finland, 1976, Report 102A, National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden.
Andersson, K., and G. Nilsson. The Effect on Accidents of Compulsory Use of Running Lights During Daylight
Hours in Sweden, 1981, Report 208A, National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden.
The following study re-examines the data in Andersson and Nilsson (1981):
Theeuwes, J., and J. Riemersma. ―Daytime Running Lights as a Vehicle Collision Countermeasure: The
Swedish Evidence Reconsidered,‖ Accident Analysis and Prevention, October 1995, Vol. 27, No. 5, pages
633-542. TNO Human Factors Research Institute, Soesterberg, The Netherlands.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
Abstract: In Sweden the use of DRLs was made mandatory on 1 October 1977 for all motor vehicles at
once, during all seasons and for all areas. According to a study conducted by Andersson and Nilsson (1981)
[Andersson and Nilsson. VTI Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute, Report No. 208A; 1981] the
introduction of DRL resulted in a reduction of 11% of multiple accidents during daytime. In many discussions
on the effectiveness of DRL, these findings have been considered as the strongest evidence that the use of
DRL is an effective vehicle collision countermeasure. The present study reexamines this evidence and
shows that the reported 11% effect of DRL in the Swedish study is spurious. The effect is mainly the result
of the application of a model that shows selective effects of DRL through modeling of unexplained changes
in the number of single accidents. It is concluded that the Swedish data fail to show a clear effect of DRL.
Last edited by iaink; Sep 16th 2011 at 4:38 am.
Sep 16th 2011, 4:32 am
#65
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,023
Re: Madness on the road
Come to that, what formula have you used to rank the relative severity of accidents caused by the introduction of daytime headlight use with those you argue are prevented by the use of headlights in the day?
Sep 16th 2011, 4:35 am
#66
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,023
Re: Madness on the road
And then, there's vehicle type. The government turned the lights on on their cars and compared the crashed ones to crashed cars in general. Since they were government cars we can reasonably suppose they were LTDs. LTD, lights on.... "filth" is what the public would think. That's not scientifically comparable to unleashing illuminated Yarii.
Sep 16th 2011, 4:43 am
#67
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,771
Re: Madness on the road
^^^ Feel free to read the european synopsis, its pretty comprehensive. There are many studies, all more or less point to the same thing. Even the auto industry ones find the same thing, and they are notoriously resistant to any change that will increase their costs.
Sep 16th 2011, 7:47 am
#68
BE Site Lead
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,176
Re: Madness on the road
Sure, there are dumb people, but that's covered under reckless driving and getting pulled over.
This being required goes under jay walking laws.
And the driving light is just as likely to dazzle someones eyes during the day than the windscreen and cause that accident you said would be prevented.
This being required goes under jay walking laws.
And the driving light is just as likely to dazzle someones eyes during the day than the windscreen and cause that accident you said would be prevented.
Sep 16th 2011, 7:48 am
#69
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 15,883
Re: Madness on the road
Sure, there are dumb people, but that's covered under reckless driving and getting pulled over.
This being required goes under jay walking laws.
And the driving light is just as likely to dazzle someones eyes during the day than the windscreen and cause that accident you said would be prevented.
This being required goes under jay walking laws.
And the driving light is just as likely to dazzle someones eyes during the day than the windscreen and cause that accident you said would be prevented.
Sep 16th 2011, 7:52 am
#70
BE Site Lead
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,176
Re: Madness on the road
Thats a parking light issue not a DRL issue isnt it? My Dads Saab had some weird way of keeping the side lights on when the key was out, but I forget the details. His DRL were not the same as his low beams, they were less bright, like side lights. There was a noticable difference in intensity when the turned the low beams on.
My Dads Saab had some weird way of keeping the side lights on when the key was out, but I forget the details. His DRL were not the same as his low beams, they were less bright, like side lights. There was a noticable difference in intensity when the turned the low beams on.When the driving light fuse is in, the headlights are on as they are the driving lights, on the 95 Aero's at least and the 9000CS before hand. They come on when you start the car, those lights only go out when you yank the key.
There is a side light which is dim, and the high beam.
The brightness isn't the issue though, nor the negligible waste in petrol.
The issue was having to jump start the stupid car in the middle of winter...that's why I yanked the fuse the next day and did the same in our current car.
Sep 16th 2011, 8:02 am
#72
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Sep 16th 2011, 3:41 pm
#75
BE Site Lead
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,176
Re: Madness on the road
Doesn't stop some being daft though.
Sensible people using headlights when visibility is impaired, wouldn't think that would need government hand holding though. Clearly, some do.
