0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
How is this related to drl's, Phil?
Quote from: CraigB on April 07, 2015, 06:53:00You 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...
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.
Quote from: rustynutz on April 07, 2015, 11:13:53How is this related to drl's, Phil? Ref YOUR reply #37
Quote from: rustynutz on April 07, 2015, 11:13:53Quote from: CraigB on April 07, 2015, 06:53:00You 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...
Quote from: Surferdude on April 07, 2015, 06:45:09There 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 plenty of evidence of the effectiveness of DRLs. There's little proof it is flawed. Except in the arguments put forward by opponents.
Quote from: rustynutz on April 07, 2015, 11:13:53Quote from: Surferdude on April 07, 2015, 06:45:09There 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"... lolThere 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 upBUTAs 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".ORThey 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?
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.
however clicking on the second link reveals;
I wonder Rusty if you had the same opposition to high mount centre stop lights?
Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.
Nice new avatar, Trev. Are you doing a little bit of stirring?
Quote from: FatBoy on April 08, 2015, 07:06:59Remember 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.
Quote from: Doggie 1 on April 08, 2015, 09:54:37Quote from: FatBoy on April 08, 2015, 07:06:59Remember 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!!