[Dazzler]

Disagree, a 5 w tail light in daylight is next to useless. that's why fog light are 21 w to cater for diminished visibility.

I'm talking bleak or overcast conditions.. not so necessary on a bright day.. 

[Phil №❶]

How is this related to drl's, Phil?   

Ref YOUR reply #37

[CraigB]

You only have to turn on the park lights to get the benefit of rear lights as well which means that full driving lights don't need to be on.

And what is the advantage of drl's then, Craig? You may as well just turn your headlights on and be done with it... 

As mentioned previously DRL's are more noticeable in daylight, DRL's also use less current have a much longer lifespan than headlight bulbs which are expensive to replace so that's a very good reason to not want to use standard headlight during daylight hour.

[rustynutz]

How is this related to drl's, Phil?   

Ref YOUR reply #37

So how come you didn't quote reply #37? 

[rustynutz]

You only have to turn on the park lights to get the benefit of rear lights as well which means that full driving lights don't need to be on.

And what is the advantage of drl's then, Craig? You may as well just turn your headlights on and be done with it... 

As mentioned previously DRL's are more noticeable in daylight, DRL's also use less current have a much longer lifespan than headlight bulbs which are expensive to replace so that's a very good reason to not want to use standard headlight during daylight hour.

Me thinks it would be easier for manufacturers to just wire rear tail lights to come on with drl's... 

[CraigB]

Me thinks it would be easier for manufacturers to just wire rear tail lights to come on with drl's... 

That I agree with be much better if they also convert the rear lights to LED's at the same time to increase their lifespan if being used at all hours.

[Surferdude]

Bob Hudson - The Newcastle song (Full version) - YouTube

[CraigB]

I enjoyed that , thanks Trev

[bumpkin]

There is plenty of evidence of the effectiveness of DRLs. There's little proof it is flawed. Except in the arguments put forward by opponents.

Where is this "evidence", Trev?
There is much talk about this supposed evidence but there's very little of it forthcoming... 

And who do you suppose is gonna point out the flaws in the evidence other than these "opponents"... I'm sure the ones pushing for drl's aren't gonna shoot holes in their own "evidence"... lol

There is lots of evidence, a quick Google (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=drl+effectiveness+study&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=GLcjVYTLOoGusQHm64Bo) brings them up

BUT

As stated they are all NA or Northern European studies which I think is the point of this thread anyway, what is being argued is whether these studies readily translate to other locales, specifically the "different" lighting conditions experienced in Australia. 

What does it say about your own leadership and motoring organisations that they are prepared to stand back and accept the results of the existing studies without thinking "Hold on we have different light to them, perhaps we should fund a couple of studies of our own, cos we have a public who need that kind of reassurance before they will believe the result is truly transparent".

OR

They don't think there is ENOUGH difference in your lighting conditions to make any argument valid??  (Are there studies to show this or otherwise)??

NA and Europe have their opposition groups to the studies also, however basic paretto, if 80% of the studies are positive about the benefits and 20% are not then the arguments against become less effective.

Even looking at this thread, if we strip out the Southern Hemisphere members and look at what the opinions are we see more support for than against, even with the argument about lighting, perhaps the money which might be spent on studying DRL's would be better spent elsewhere?

[rustynutz]

There is plenty of evidence of the effectiveness of DRLs. There's little proof it is flawed. Except in the arguments put forward by opponents.

Where is this "evidence", Trev?
There is much talk about this supposed evidence but there's very little of it forthcoming... 

And who do you suppose is gonna point out the flaws in the evidence other than these "opponents"... I'm sure the ones pushing for drl's aren't gonna shoot holes in their own "evidence"... lol

There is lots of evidence, a quick Google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=drl+effectiveness+study&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=GLcjVYTLOoGusQHm64Bo) brings them up

BUT

As stated they are all NA or Northern European studies which I think is the point of this thread anyway, what is being argued is whether these studies readily translate to other locales, specifically the "different" lighting conditions experienced in Australia. 

What does it say about your own leadership and motoring organisations that they are prepared to stand back and accept the results of the existing studies without thinking "Hold on we have different light to them, perhaps we should fund a couple of studies of our own, cos we have a public who need that kind of reassurance before they will believe the result is truly transparent".

OR

They don't think there is ENOUGH difference in your lighting conditions to make any argument valid??  (Are there studies to show this or otherwise)??

NA and Europe have their opposition groups to the studies also, however basic paretto, if 80% of the studies are positive about the benefits and 20% are not then the arguments against become less effective.

Even looking at this thread, if we strip out the Southern Hemisphere members and look at what the opinions are we see more support for than against, even with the argument about lighting, perhaps the money which might be spent on studying DRL's would be better spent elsewhere?

Thanks Brian...

I checked out that list, I selected the first one and it seems to be saying that drl's make bugger all difference... 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811029.pdf

The analysis evaluates the effects of daytime running lights (DRLs) against three types of target crashes: (1) two-passenger vehicle crashes excluding rear-end crashes, (2)single-passenger-vehicle to pedestrians/cyclists crashes, and (3) singlepassenger-vehicle to motorcycle crashes.

Each crash type was examined at three crash severity levels–fatal, injury, and all severity.
 The basic approach is a control-comparison analysis of real-world crash involvements for DRL-equipped vehicles and non-DRL vehicles.
 Ratio of odds ratios were used to derive the DRL effects.  A 95-percent confidence interval was used to infer statistically significant conclusions.
 The Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the State Data System were the crash data sources used for this analysis.
 
The analysis found that DRLs have no statistically significant overall effects on the three target crashes. When combining these three target crashes into one target crash, the DRL effects were also not statistically significant.  When examined separately for passenger cars and light trucks/vans (LTVs), DRLs in LTVs significantly reduced LTVs’ involvements in the target two-vehicle crashes by 5.7 percent.  However, the remaining DRL effects on these three target crashes were not statistically significant.  Although not statistically significant, DRLs might have unintended consequences for pedestrians and motorcyclists.  Particularly, the estimated negative effects for LTVs were relatively large and cannot be completely ignored.

[Surferdude]

Maxine Nightingale - Right Back Where We Started From - YouTube

[CraigB]

 

[Wingerdave]

 

[bumpkin]

If you are classing "not statistically significant" as "bugger all difference" then perhaps you are correct, however clicking on the second link reveals;

"This study estimates the effectiveness of passenger vehicle daytime running lights in reducing two-vehicle opposite direction crashes, pedestrian/bicycle crashes, and motorcycle crashes. The authors chose the generalized simple odds, a conventional statistical technique, to analyze the data.

Results based on simple odds indicate that from 1995 to 2001:
•DRLs reduced opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by 5 percent.
•DRLs reduced opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal crashes by 5 percent.
•DRLs reduced non-motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, daytime fatalities in single-vehicle crashes by 12 percent.
•DRLs reduced daytime opposite direction fatal crashes of a passenger vehicle with a motorcycle by 23 percent.

Reviewers of this paper required the inclusion of results using the odds ratio technique.  The estimated the effect of DRLs are
–6.3 percent, –7.9 percent, 3.8 percent, and 26 percent, respectively.  None of these results were statistically significant. "

I think we would agree that whilst "None of these results were statistically significant", there are data sets proving reduction available.

Further down those links we find http://mpainesyd.com/idisk/Public/carsafety/paine_drl_nrma_racv.pdf

In this document there are specific sections dedicated to Australia stating;

"The Best Type of DRLs for Australian Conditions

If any modifications are to be conducted to a vehicle (either on the production line or by retrofit) then dedicated DRLs offer the best all-round performance under the range of lighting and road conditions typically encountered in Australia. This is because they direct the light in the most appropriate direction and are therefore much more energy efficient than headlights.

In 1993 an expert working group of Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) made a strong recommendation for dedicated DRLs and pointed out why alternatives such as low beam headlights and dimmed high beam headlights are less desirable.

Issues with introducing dedicated DRLs in Australia

Several issues need to be addressed before motorists (and vehicle manufacturers) are encouraged to fit dedicated DRLs:
a)  The maximum permitted intensity specified in ADR76 (actually ECE Regulation 87) needs to be reviewed. An intensity of 1200cd for a universal system (bright day to dusk) is considered appropriate, based on scientific recommendations and signal range theory for road conditions generally encountered in Australia. For example, on cloudy days (or early dusk) such lights could be expected to be highly effective for overtaking situations on 100km/h roads whereas 800cd lights are likely to be marginally effective.
b)  A light sensor should be used to automatically switch from DRLs to headlights at dusk. This would eliminate concerns about DRLs being left on at dusk and producing undue glare. There could also be provision for increased intensity (beyond 1200cd) where a light sensor is provided to detect bright ambient lighting conditions. 
c)  The minimum area of illumination required by ADR76/ECE87 should be reviewed to provide for the possible use of new technology such as LEDs
d)  Dedicated DRLs should have priority over fog lights as a purchase decision.

Some of these issues are currently being discussed in Europe as part of a review of ECE Regulation 87.

Conclusion

Daytime running lights have been proven to make an effective contribution to the reduction of daylight accidents and overall road safety. Pending the introduction of suitable dedicated DRLs for Australian vehicles, it is considered that the voluntary (manual) use of headlights during the day should continue to be encouraged.  "

Is it also fair to suggest that since these articles date from 2004 and 2003, that also advancements in LED technology and their placement may also have improved the incident/accident reductions?

This of course is something which has also not been mentioned, whilst analysis of accidents can be measured, it is less easy to measure incident reduction, probably otherwise known as "realising that adrenaline is brown moments".

[rustynutz]

however clicking on the second link reveals;

A report by the same Government agency as the first one that was produced 4 years earlier...
How can they get such differing results when analysing the same "evidence"?

This seems to be the issue with "so called" proof, it all depends on the modelling method.
Not getting the answer you want? Hey, lets change to another modelling method and see if we now get the "proof" we're seeking... 

For an example, check this out: http://www.lightsout.org/docs/30yrs.pdf

I see the author of http://mpainesyd.com/idisk/Public/carsafety/paine_drl_nrma_racv.pdf quotes "a study" by General Motors USA....This has been discredited here: DADRL - News Releases & here: DADRL - Studies

He also makes much of the "evidence" here: Daytime running lights | Australasian College of Road Safety

I could go on but figure that's enough of an example to bring into question reviews of the so called evidence and also to point out the danger of continuing to quote this "evidence" as proof that drl's are a worthwhile safety measure....

Oh, and I notice these reports are big on using words like "potential"....so to me, when studies say that, that suggests to me there is no conclusive proof....am I wrong??? 

[rustynutz]

I wonder Rusty if you had the same opposition to high mount centre stop lights?

I find them of benefit as you can usually see cars in front braking before the actual vehicle that you are behind applies the brakes...
In my opinion this "benefit" has been erroded to a certain extent due to the popularity of SUV's etc and the increasingly smaller rear windows of modern cars.

In saying all that though, have these high mounted stop lights actually reduced the number of rear end crashes???
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the most common car crash on Australian roads (and probably elsewhere) is the nose-to-tail... 

Hmm, a topic for another time, perhaps??? 

[FatBoy]

Nice new avatar, Trev.  Are you doing a little bit of stirring?

Can we all just agree that some of us like DRLs, others of us don't, some think they make a difference, other think that they don't.  Everybody has an opinion.

Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.

[bumpkin]

Rusty, I would have thought that by now you would know that the whole point of statistics is to make the numbers eventually say whatever it is you want to say

Problem with measuring accidents and trying to attribute causes/preventions/cures is that any analysis cannot take into consideration the definition of accident ie something going wrong when you least expect it to, there are to many contributors to the definition for absolute understanding, which is where the "surely if it saves one person it is worth doing" comes from.

I would take issue with you being worried about potential, if we don't examine and push potential we would still be driving Model T's.  Good or bad thing?

Anyway, safety - perhaps the elf and safety police have numbed us all, and perhaps we are too wrapped up, if I was in charge I would ensure that idiot accidents would be eradicated by replacing the airbag in the steering wheel with a big metal spike, if that doesn't make you think twice about speeding / tailgating then Paterson's Theory of Natural Selection will make the world a safer place.

[Wingerdave]

Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.

Actually, i do care about other peoples opinions (not their rear-ends). Some can be intimidating, others down-right dangerous, while a few are very uplifting and inspiring.

As long as opinions are formed in a responsible manner, according to verifiable, empirical facts, they can be usefull talking points.

Unfortunately, some people forget that Google is not a synonym for research, and the hits at the top of the list probably paid to get there.

[Surferdude]

Nice new avatar, Trev.  Are you doing a little bit of stirring?

Not me , Jamie. 
Just doing research. You noticed,  so DRLs must work. 

[Dazzler]

@ Brian, I love the spike idea..  It makes some others impale into insignificance :-)

[Doggie 1]

Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.

I care, Jamie, I care.
I would have thought that from our brief catch up in Perth a while ago you would have known that I do care about rear ends. 

[bumpkin]

@Rusty

The points you make about the same body using evidence which suits in order to promote a standpoint is well made, however you should recognise that the same can be said in the opposite direction, the various studies trying to prove the alternative (which you have pointed to yourself) are also written with an agenda, this is why discussion takes place, the very idea you are against which is that we all accept what we are being told without question also applies to the alternative which you are promoting, why should we blindly accept that?

We don't, it forms a basis for discussion and as you point out separate studies 4 years apart may be at odds with each other, that is about discussion and further analysis allowing people to change their minds which is the very basis of why a discussion takes place, however we need to recognise that there may still be an agenda from either "side".

With regard to this particular topic then if we become really blunt, why do we care?  Is it worth worrying about?  It doesn't add cost to the customer, it might or might not be of benefit, but it is there. 

Real world problems.

[FatBoy]

Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.

I care, Jamie, I care.
I would have thought that from our brief catch up in Perth a while ago you would have known that I do care about rear ends. 

And they were quite some rear ends too!!  I didn't see any DRLs, but I did see a few high beams!!

[Doggie 1]

Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.

I care, Jamie, I care.
I would have thought that from our brief catch up in Perth a while ago you would have known that I do care about rear ends. 

And they were quite some rear ends too!!  I didn't see any DRLs, but I did see a few high beams!!

A few cracks in tail lights too!

[tohis]

In countries where DRLs or headlights are mandatory, people are used to see cars with lights on when driving, so they are more likely to miss a car moving without lights, so having lights always on is considered very important for safety.

In countries where DRLs or headlights are not mandatory for daytime and hence not widely used, these people are better about seeing cars without lights on, so they may not see the benefits of DRLs same way. Now if DRLs become more common, it will eventually lead to people getting used to them and not spotting 'dark' cars as good as earlier.

[Phil №❶]

I think your logic is somewhat flawed 

[Dazzler]

I thought tohis made a good point.. 

[Phil №❶]

Paragraph 1 is ok, but #2 requires a substantial assumption, without any factual evidence IMO.

[eye30]

Any safety feature is good in my mind.

To me vehicles with drl's stand out more than those without.
Just like bikes with headlights on stand out more than those without.