|
|
The effects of daytime running lights upon Health - Glare and Distraction reports
|
 |
|||||||||
Views on DRL from:
Last updated 30 June 2008 © admin@dadrluk.orangehome.co.uk |
|||||||||||
|
Extracts from a US website on DRL distraction to drivers - warning long page! (this site was run for a limited period by the US government during 2000) Extract from the final report http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pdf/CrashAvoidance/FinalInternetForumReport.pdf (now pulled off the web) Approximately 16% of comments posted on the Internet Forum addressed Information and Entertainment systems as well as other technological or non-technological in-vehicle distractions. Distraction associated with loud and obnoxious car stereo systems, in-vehicle televisions, billboards, mobile billboards, and children were among the items discussed. Surprisingly, large numbers of comments posted in these areas addressed the use of Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs). Nearly all were negative comments relating to the practice. DRLs were perceived to needlessly draw attention away from the road, reduce the conspicuity of emergency vehicles and motorcycles, contribute to glare and driver fatigue, and cause other drivers to adapt their behavior in manners that may not be safe. The main concern appeared to be with the use of excessively bright lights. Calls for limits in brightness as well as research to document the effect of DRLs on crashes and the visibility of emergency vehicles were made by many participants.
This final category was meant to capture other perceived technological or non-technological in-vehicle distractions, and generated a large number of comments - second only to the cell phones page (92 postings representing 13% of the overall submissions). Surprisingly, 45% of the comments posted in this category addressed the use of Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs). Nearly all were negative comments relating to the practice. Some felt DRLs were the worst hazard on the road, or perhaps the most distracting element on the road today, or the most abhorrent obstacle to driving safety. Unlike many of the other technological devices discussed in the Forum, the distraction attributed to DRLs is unique in that it was perceived to induce distraction to other motorists and not to the equipped vehicle s driver. DRLs were perceived to needlessly draw attention away from the road to equipped vehicles, reduce the conspicuity of emergency vehicles and motorcycles, contribute to glare and driver fatigue, and cause other drivers to adapt their behaviour in manners that may not be safe. The main concern appeared to be with the use of excessively bright lights. Some participants were under the false impression that NHTSA mandated the use of these innovations, contributing to their widespread use. A number of participants called for limits in brightness as well as research to document the effect of DRLs on crashes and the visibility of emergency vehicles. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Typical Comments were: "The benefits of Daytime Running Lights are questionable, the hazards are clear. It's time for DRL to be eliminated." - Private Citizen
"Often I turned down the rear view mirror because the lights behind me [DRL] were so bright they were extremely annoying. How does this make driving any safer?" - Private Citizen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample comments (warning – a long list)
DRLs
= Biggest Classaction Lawsuit Coming in History 7/30/00 12:58:36
PM As an MD, PhD, and world renowned eye specialist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear I can assure you that I can see the future and that future is a multi billion dollar class action lawsuit against the auto companies and the NHSTA. Intense glare cause eye strain, degeneration and ultimately disease. I can now prove after having examined over 200 patients complaining of glare problems associated with DRL's that there are indeed medically verifiable problems directly associated with DRL's. I plan on initiating a nationwide research project which will prove these effects and people whose eyes have been damaged will collect hundreds of billions of dollars in damages dwarfing tobacco settlements in the years to come.
HELP
ME SOMEONE!!! DRL's Are Out of Control! 8/3/00 10:27:48 AM Just took the kids on a family vacation, the first driving one in many years. What the hell is going on. All the cars have their headlights on in the middle of the day and I'm going blind. Excuse my language, but we literally had to pull off the road a few times because I could not take it. I had no idea it was this bad. This was a drive from Ohio to the New Jersey shore with lots of stops along the way. It is brutal to have all these glaring headlights hitting hour from the front and rear on a bright summer day. Often I turned down the rear view mirror because the lights behind me were so bright they were extremely annoying. How does this make driving any safer. In my opinion it has never been more hazardous and I have been driving for 30 years
DRLs
& "In Your Face" Drivers 8/3/00 4:53:25 PM Daytime Running Lights are THE most abhorrent obstacle to driving safety I have ever seen in my life! The millions of moments of driver distraction they create every day is cause for real concern. In years past, a driver with his/her high beams on in daylight would have been labelled inconsiderate or stupid. Today, it is only a sign that you bought a recent GM car. Put Saturns in that category, for they are the absolute worst. Every purchaser of such a vehicle is unknowingly placed in the category of an "In Your Face Driver", displaying the worst kind of contempt for other drivers' rights and safety! There are many reasons validating the stupidity of DRLs. Driver training conducted by such notables as Skip Barber teach that in an emergency, you should look at where you want your car to end up because that is where it will typically end up. Do Not look at the thing you want to avoid! Yet DRLs attract our attention, actually increasing the chance of that driver becoming a target of a collision. Emergency vehicles have always attracted attention via their safety lighting. Ditto funeral processions and hard-to-see motorcyclists. I can no longer be sure I will not interrupt a funeral procession because they do not stand out. Pedestrians and bikers can be concealed by DRL glare. Drivers look away from this glare, creating unsafe conditions for everyone. Rear view mirrors are dipped, eliminating another avenue for clear vision. Just the other day I encountered 3 Saturns in a row on a 2-lane road and my gut tightened as I realised that this is what ALL our roads will look like if nobody acts to stop this! Who allowed Chevrolet, Pontiac, Toyota, Volvo, Volkswagen, Lexus, GMC, BMW, Buick, Cadillac, and others to inflict these monstrosities on the driving public!? Stop them, PLEASE! Bill
Lights on during the day very disturbing 7/27/00 11:34:41 AM Look, this is simple. Shining a bright light in other drivers' eyes doesn't do anything for safety or add to the enjoyment of auto travel. Worse, we're going to enter an escalation as these things become more common. Today some obviously think the brighter the better not only in DRL's, but in night time lights which might make sense for rural driving, but which are a misery in the city. I figured it was only a matter of time until we got as bright as we could and then we'd start to get strobes. Gosh, if I haven't seen this already on a motorcycle who might have felt his unique lights on during the daytime territory was now invaded so he upped the ante. Soon we'll get the cars arming themselves with strobes, and then what - rotating beacons? This is an area where the mfg's are caught up in the escalation and need an outside force (read government) to bail them (and US!!) out of this by outlawing these things and also enacting strong regs about the brightness of headlights in general. This has gone too far and the government hasn't done anything when the problem was small. Now that we have these things built into many vehicles, the problem is no longer small, but delay will only make things worse.
why
is the nhsta taking so long? 7/27/00 11:38:34 AM There must be strong political forces holding the NHSTA back here. I understand that GM wants these odious things on US cars because they have to have them on Canadian models. Thus they save $$ if they can make them universal. For some reason, the NHSTA and this admin is on GM's side but against the citizens of the US.
Who
pushed Canada 7/29/00 10:18:40 PM I wonder why Canada is the only country in the world to have made DRLs law? Gimmick Motors has more plants in Canada than any other automaker, hum? Did Canada listen to GM idiots, I mean researchers. And where did GM's researchers get their information? To my knowledge, there is no real scientific research. I think the closest there is, is in Sweden, and the result have varied everytime. I think the Swedes have done five tests. And the first test proved to be an increase in accidents. So NHSTA, if you continue to delay your vote, be ready for nastier letters. Because WE, the people, are not going to put up with it!
Who
initiated Daytime running lights? 7/27/00 3:32:04 AM Volvo started daytime running lights, people should boycott buying these dangerous vehicles. Unfortunately the NHTSA thinks they are wonderful.
Who
pushed Canada? 7/30/00 11:17:56 PM The reason they were pushed in Canada, is because of the location. In those parts of northern Canada where there is only a small amount of daylight for much of the year (same thing in Norway), they need the extra lights to make it easier to spot cars. Of course DRLs will cause more accidents then they prevent when used in areas where there is plenty of bright daylight most of the time. It's so bright in Texas, they would be of very little use most of the time. Most likely, they would keep drivers from signalling other drivers that they were driving after dark without regular headlights. I can picture very large jury awards being made by the families of people killed by someone driving at night with 'almost headlight'. DRLs
Indeed are a hazard 7/31/00 9:52:31 AM I was most happy to find this message board as for a long time I have wanted to talk about this. DRLs are a nuisance, unnecessary and worst of all they do hurt my eyes. I have spoken to many people who feel the same and it seems like the majority always keep quiet and are ignored. It is a damn shame when a country is ruined by a few who think they know what is best for us. Also some of the lights now are extremely irritating, extremely bright, almost blue that go right through you. I literally have to look away from all these lights which is very dangerous when driving. While there may be some special places in the world where they need these but not here in the US. Is there anyway we can stop this before it gets any worse.
NHTSA activities re DRLs 8/2/00 10:45:37 AM In as much as a number of people are commenting on the glare problems of DRL's and wondering about NHTSA's activities in this area, I thought I should post some relevant information. NHTSA does not mandate DRLs. Some motor vehicle manufacturers have voluntarily installed them. NHSTA does have a regulation that sets the maximum glare level that DRLs can have. Because of the many complaints we have received and the data from research studies on driver discomfort from certain DRL intensities, we are currently reassessing that maximum intensity level with the intent of drastically reducing it. Hopefully, we will make a decision on a final rule by the end of the year. We have a docket that describes the notice of this proposed rulemaking and that is also a place for people to send their comments on the proposal. The docket number is NHTSA-98-4124. The docket can be found at http://dms.dot.gov/ I will send any comments posted here to that docket. But people who have not already commented here about DRL's may wish to post their comments directly to that docket, rather than here. I recommend it, but it's up to you. Some people may also be interested in reading the recent NHTSA report titled, "A Preliminary Assessment of the Crash Reducing Benefits of DRLs" which can be found at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/DRL7_RPT.pdf
Bright Running Lights 7/14/00 9:12:04 PM Daytime running lights are a visual distraction and sensory overload! They cause an approaching driver to look away from oncoming cars to avoid the glare. They're visual garbage worse than booming sound systems are auditory trash.
Daytime running lights 7/15/00 5:05:19 PM Driver distraction is one the greatest cause of accidents. One of the newer distractions is this abomination called daytime running lights. Why anyone needs this distraction is beyond me. This ill advised innovation should be banned from use along with cell phones.
Bright lights day and night, a.k.a., DRLs, "highway lights", brights,
etc. 7/19/00 6:29:48 AM I have driven since 1961 and have seen the amount of light hitting the oncoming driver go up by a factor of 10 or more. With use of more lights, greater strength of the lights, tighter focusing of the lights, and blue-white spectrum lights instead of yellow spectrum lights, the result is momentary blindness, day, dusk or night. Further momentarily turning your head to try to get away from them is a clear safety problem. There needs to be a legal limit placed on manufacturers for the total amount a light a vehicle can cast into the eyes of the oncoming driver, a limit that is much lower than what is happening today. Prime offenders are 1) Pontiac Grand AM with "Highway Lights" that are brighter than the headlights on 1970 cars, 2) Ford F-x50 trucks with ultra wide headlights plus "Highway Lights" all raised higher that I sit in a car, and 3) new Audi and BMW vehicles with blue-white spectrum headlights (a spectrum long since dropped from use for shopping centre illumination due to adverse effect on the eye, but now being brought back in cars). This very real driving distraction affects every single driver, not just the ones with cell phones or other electronic toys, but it is being allowed to run wild.
WHY
IS THE NHSTA TAKING SO LONG? 7/25/00 11:02:45 AM The NHSTA was supposed to make a decision on the daytime running lights back in March. They postponed the vote till July. Yet I still have not heard any word, WHY? Does Gimick Motors have something on the NHSTA, from what I have read on the docket #4124, the vote should be to kill DRL's immediately! I ask that everyone continue to send letters to the NHSTA docket4124. And hopefully the NHSTA will speed up their ruling AGAINST "I AM STUPID LIGHTS". I thank you for your time.....brendan
Daytime Running Lights 7/26/00 7:16:46 AM I agree. DRLs are perhaps the most distracting element on the road today. A lot of talk centres around the use of cell phones while driving. I submit that blinding lights, whether in front of or behind you are worse, and more likely to cause an accident than prevent one. DRLs should be outlawed!
I
HATE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS 7/26/00 7:56:15 AM I am going blind what's with all these people driving with their headlights on. I look in the rear-view mirror and I am blinded I look forward and I am blinded. I am in my 20's and my parents and everyone else I know is going crazy. These obnoxious suvs, volkswagons and super cars and their bright headlights suck. Why don't you do something - pass a law outlawing DRLs - they are dangerous hazardous and extremely annoying. If you can't see a car coming at you or behind you in the middle of the day you not only should not be driving you are 100% blind. Lights are meant for the night not day. Wake up and start listening to the citizens and what they want not what a company tells you. WE DO NOT WANT DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS!
Daytime Running Lights are the worst hazard on the road 7/26/00
8:11:50 AM When you drive today especially in the city you are hit with all these headlights glaring at you. Often I even have to turn my rear-view mirror down and away from me the lights behind me are so bright and painfully glaring. You tend to focus on the lights and not anything else which is also dangerous. They should pass a law saying lights can only be turned on at night or special driving situations, not in the city where you are in bumper to bumper traffic and there are tons of glaring headlights all around you. Who is the moron that started this and who is the moron that lets it continue and is their anyone smart enough to say what the heck have we done here and put an end to it.
For
the MANY who find DRLs DANGEROUS please visit
www.lightsout.org 8/3/00 12:23:45 PM Referring to: HELP ME SOMEONE!!! DRL's Are Out of Control! Drivers Against Daytime Running Lights are actively opposing DRLs. Besides commenting here and on the www.dot.gov (click on DOT Dockets) (click on search, type 4124) docket which proposes to reduce the intensity (not ban DRLs)you can lend your support to a total ban by visiting www.lightsout.org.
DRLs
from a motorcyclist point of view 8/4/00 7:55:16 AM As a life long motorcyclist, (45 years) I must register my objection to the mandated usage of Daytime Running Lights (DRL) for automobiles, as they presently exist or are proposed in the future. Since 1980 I have been forced to operate my motorcycles with the headlight on in the daytime to supposedly increase my "conspicuity" to motorists. I am not entirely convinced that having them hard-wired on permanently is the best way to accomplish this. It takes away my ability to flash my headlight to signal a non-attentive motorist of my presence. I feel also that DRLs in a car have a similar handicap. There are numerous instances where the ability to flash one's headlights, on and off, are important. Flashing from low beam to high beam does not offer the same attention input as going from off to on. I also feel that any small advantage I may have in running my headlight in the daytime, on my motorcycles, will be completely cancelled out by DRLs on automobiles. The added visibility of a single headlight of a motorcycle is completely cancelled with a multitude of automotive headlights in the background. I also feel that there are no *proven* benefits to DRLs on cars and that they should stop being promoted as a "safety feature." I think that the time and energy being expended on the DRL issue could be better spent on improving driving skills in the form of better teaching practices and more stringent licensing requirements for motorists.
DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS (DRL'S) 8/4/00 8:08:02 AM HAVE READ MOST, IF NOT ALL COMMENTS REGARDING DRL'S POSTED HERE. IN SOMEWHAT VARYING DEGREES, ALL ARE NEGATIVE CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE OF DRL'S. DOESN'T THAT SAY SOMETHING? I HAVE EXERIENCED MOMENTARY BLINDNESS FROM THE GLARE OF ONCOMING DRL'S AND HAVE BEEN DISTRACTED BY THEM, AND THEN I GET ANNOYED BECAUSE THE BUREAUCRATS THAT HAVE LEGISLATED THEM INTO EXISTENCE DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE REAL WORLD AND HOW THIS AFFECTS PEOPLE WHO SPEND A MAJORITY OF THEIR TIME ON THE HIGHWAY TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING. THEY HAVE COWED TO THE AUTO MAKERS WHO HAVE TOUTED THIS AS A SAFETY STEP, WHEN IN REALITY, IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE A BIGGER PROFIT. DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE A FARCE, THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE EXCEPT TO PROPOGATE "LIGHT POLLUTION".
Daytime Running Lights - WHY? 8/4/00 8:28:27 AM I just can't see a benefit for Daytime Running lights as they currently exist. Their safety benefit does not exceed the hazards they create: Pros: Can see someone coming on a foggy two lane road more easily. Cons: Gives me headache from looking at all the bright lights all day long. Causes me to look away from the road to avoid getting blinded. Generally increases driver fatigue by increased visual confusion. Can't see motorcycles any more as the cars look the same. Uses up more fossil fuel because of increased load on alternator. If you agree with my pros and cons above it is clear DRL's should be eliminated. I imagine the reason touted for putting these things on cars in the first place was that people didn't turn their lights on in adverse weather so, lets just turn them on permanently! Oh by the way, bonus for automakers, who now don't need to segregate production for Canada vs. US! No wonder they like it. As another bonus, they can tout "safety" and fool the soccer moms into thinking they are buying a "safer" car! When in reality there are just as many reports showing the DRL's CAUSE accidents as those that show they reduce accidents. If we lived in Scandanavia where the lighting is low, perhaps we would need permanently wired lights on our car, but even they don't permanently hard wire super bright lights in the HIGH BEAM position like those on Saturns and GM SUV's! I would love to ?#%@ the brain trust who decided to put HIGH beams on as the DRL feature. DRL's are bad enough without the HIGH beam configurations that I think only GM is using. I will never buy another GM car until they stop this ridiculous practice. If we are a nation that can't remember to turn our lights in adverse conditions, why doesn't the government require permanently hardwired photo cells that turn the lights on when the lighting gets below a certain level and save us all a lot of headaches (and gas). Even better, you could have variable intensity headlights that get brighter as it gets darker. I remember in Europe the old concept of "city" lights. A headlight intensity lower than used on the open road to reduce glare while driving in the city at night. If we must have DRL's, at least make sure their intensity is a maximum of half that of normal headlights and also make sure they are in the LOW beam position.
Running lights from the rear. 8/4/00 12:32:10 PM While approaching bright running lights may sometimes be dazzling, my beef is with running lights from the rear. Specially buses, trucks and SUVs where the lights are high off the ground. When they get close one has either to shift one's head or flip the rearview mirror to the night-time mode to avoid the glare. Safety? I think not! The DRLs are NOT needed. John Pearson Please! Give us some relief from DRLs! 8/4/00 5:49:55 PM
Why
the delay? Had the original proposed changes been implemented, even with their inadequacies in controlling low beam DRL intensities (needs to apply to the entire beam pattern, not just the top half), high beam DRLs would have been gone by now. Unfortunately, each delay for the final rule means hundreds of thousands of vehicles hitting the road with DRLs producing unacceptable levels of glare. If the "satisfactory" intensity for DRLs is somewhere between 500 and 1000 cd (according the Kirkpatrick study cited in NHTSA's proposed rule change), why are drivers still forced to endure 7000+ cd on so many vehicles?
Effectiveness? DRLs
are a distraction!
The benefits are DRLs are questionable. DRLs
are a stupid idea. 8/4/00 6:57:08 PM We do not live in a high latitude area where noon looks like sunset. Motorcyclists have been forced to run their lights all the time in the supposed interest of safety to make them more visible. Daytime running lights remove any possibility of a motorcyclist's mandatory headlight doing him any good at all. Thirty years of DRLs on both cars and motorcycles show no benefit. Glaring lights in your mirror during the day, mainly from the stupid useless vehicles (SUV) are both a distraction and an annoyance.
DRLs
and risk to motorcyclists 8/4/00 11:03:22 PM I totally agree! Having ridden motorcycles for thirty some years and always being on the alert for aggressive automobile drivers it seems that everyone using DRLs is "pushing" you down the road or about to do something erratic. Riding a motorcycle requires a great deal more "focus" than driving an automobile. The distraction to a motorcyclist caused by DRLs is potentially far more dangerous than to the driver of an automobile. Turn the damn things off! Bob
Why
does GM get away with it? 8/5/00 2:28:22 PM The GM cars with high beam DRL systems that go full power when the parking lights are on! GM should have to recall these dangerous vehicles. A good example of a bureaucratic idea completely gone bag...almost as bad as air bags!
DRL
causes driver distractions on roadways 8/7/00 1:42:15 PM As more cars are getting daytime running lights, one can see that the intensity of the daytime running lights are getting brighter and brighter. Which creates major distractions for the other drivers on the road. This will only cause more accidents. The best solution is to stop using DRL, except for emergency vehicles. This will create a safer driving roadway.
Yes,
but... 8/8/00 10:31:05 PM After perusing the DOT article (A Preliminary Assessment of the Crash-Reducing Effectiveness of Passenger Car Daytime Running Lights) and examining the extensive bibliography, I'm struck by the fact that no apparent research has been taken to document the effect of DRLs on the visibility of emergency vehicles. Accidents continue to increase on a yearly basis to fire, paramedic, and police equipment due to driver distraction caused by cell phones, radios, crossword puzzles, and DRLs. I feel there is merit in "lights on" during low visibility situations (dusk, heavy rain or snow, etc.), but the public is becoming inured to a plethora of lights during the daytime ... which hinders the effectiveness of emergency vehicle lighting. THIS IS A RISK WHICH IS NOT BEING EVALUATED
DRLs, headlights, and highway lights using high powered, focused
beams 8/9/00 6:12:21 AM Too few people realise the biggest change in the last 30 years in the area of vehicular lights has been the power of the lights and the degree to which they can be focused. Today's headlights, DRLs, "highway lights", etc., can produce a calumniated beam capable of projecting a mile. This was not possible in the 1960/70s to any real degree. The result on other drivers is incredible. To sit across the intersection from a vehicle with headlights or DRLs while both of you are making a left turn is blinding in the middle of the day. To meet 2 or more vehicles coming on the inside of a curve while your are on the outside of a curve results in night blindness while you are trying to complete the curve safely. Any doubt of the effect that this has on driving today can be tested simply: at night try picking out 3 oncoming cars with old headlights and three with new headlights. The difference in incredible and a real hazard if you meet them in a construction area. No amount of refocusing or alignment can fix this problem. There must be a limit on these beams and a total limit on the vehicle.
NHTSA- -Preliminary Assessment- - - -DRLs 8/9/00 12:24:19 PM I read this very detailed document and have an observation to make. I did not see any analysis or comment regarding accidents caused by DRLs. Specifically if the driver of a non DRL equipped car is blinded/distracted by a DRL equipped car and has an accident as a result of this distraction, the accident is counted as "non DRL equipped car accident", and that statistic is used to justify the use DRLs, as the DRL equipped car was not in the accident.
Headlight glare getting out of control 8/9/00 9:31:53 PM Without question, the most widespread distraction on American highways is the overuse (and abuse) of new headlight technology. From blinding blue HID lights to annoyingly bright "highway" lamps (i.e. BMW,) the roads have become awash in glare. I’m sure that these trendy lamps are profitable to automakers, but they are not without a cost to the driving public. The NHTSA has already documented that glare affects drivers more and more as they age. So with the "baby-boom" population growing mature, this is clearly the wrong trend at the wrong time. Add to this the issues of SUV height and grand-scale headlight misalignment and we have a recipe for disaster. I personally think that congress should review the decisions made to date on these issues to see if there has been any questionable industry influence.
DRLs
in accident reports? 8/10/00 11:54:59 AM Question, how often do police include the fact that someone claims they were blinded by DRLs? Or do police just put driver was distracted? I did not think police include how the driver causing the accident was distract. If they did we would have a greater knowledge of how accidents are caused. And how many of the new Chevy fullsize vans have been rearend? Yet the person rearending this person is at fault, enough though the new van's tail lights are higher than those of a semi?
Ban
DRL's - the NHSTA Should Be Ashamed 8/10/00 4:12:38 PM It is easy to see where this road rage and damn the other driver mentality comes from with these obnoxious DRLs, double row headlights, ultra bright mid beams, high beam fog lights etc, all on, all the time. Headlights in the middle of the day are annoying, dangerous, distracting, and create a driving nightmare. I can site many studies that show glare is one of the main factors in increasing panic receptors. It is also a major cause of eye damage. It is taking a physical and psychological toll out on all of us to be hit with so much arrogant glare. What a shame that driving has become so unpleasant.
Effectiveness of DRL in Canada 8/11/00 9:15:32 AM Hello everyone. I’ve read with great interest the posts in this forum, particularly the ones pertaining to DRL. For the record, here is a summary of the Canadian research that was done by the Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate (Transport Canada) Working Group on the effectiveness of the Canadian DRL regulation in reducing daytime two-vehicle different-direction (i.e. "target") collisions involving light-duty vehicles (cars, light trucks and vans). It is not practical in a forum such as this to explain fully the method we used, but the basic logic of the research design was to compare target collision involvement for models fitted and not fitted with DRL: 1991s with 1990s (both models fitted with DRL); 1990 with 1989 (one fitted, one not fitted) and 1989 with 1988 (neither model fitted). If DRL were effective, there should be: (1) a reduction in target collisions for 1990 (DRL-fitted) models relative to 1989 (non-DRL-fitted) models; and (2) only those. Equivalent comparisons between two non-DRL-fitted models and two fitted models should yield ratios of about 1 (if DRL is the key) since neither model in those pairs differs with respect to DRL fitment. As predicted, the analysis did demonstrate a proportional reduction in target collisions for the DRL-fitted vehicles, calculated to be 8.3% (statistically significant at .05) for 1990 models relative to 1989 models - and only those. Supplementary analyses, for 1990 models versus 1988s; and 1990s versus 1987s (again, the key difference being that of DRL fitment) yielded similar (and significant) reductions for the DRL fitted vehicles. Moreover, an analysis of all equivalent model-year pairs in all eight years yielded no differences. As the extended analysis showed, when the definition of "daylight" conditions was restricted only to dawn/dusk, a (statistically significant) 16.6% reduction was observed for target collisions for the DRL-fitted vehicles. A very valid question has been raised in this forum regarding the measurement of "only" DRL fitted vehicles - that the reductions reported for DRL-fitted vehicles may be artifacts of (or offset by) a possible increase in collisions for non-fitted vehicles. This is a question the team considered at the time of the research (and is in fact "built in" to the ratio of odds ratios method) and I am able to report that this simply did not happen, as an examination of the absolute numbers (along with the relative ones) showed. Information on the effectiveness of daytime running lights in Canada is available in publications TP 12298 (70-page report) or Leaflet # CL 9805 (5-page summary which includes the findings of the analysis of DRL by angle of collision and light condition) . Both are obtainable by calling Transport Canada (1-800-333-0371).
Response to Transport Canada posting re DRLs 8/11/00 3:25:31 PM Transport Canada (TC) just doesn't get it. The only point they recognise is, "A very valid question has been raised in this forum regarding the measurement of 'only' DRL fitted vehicles ..." That's not the point. Let me make it crystal clear: the point is that DRLs in the US and Canada produce unacceptable levels of glare that is distracting and discomforting to other road users. Period. Do you understand? If not, please read the comments again. Unlike in Canada, US drivers are not going to put up, shut up, and give up when it comes to opposing this ill-conceived safety gimmick. Stop trying to ram your ideas of safety via high glare DRLs down our throats. Next, a look at your numbers. It should be noted that these are not independent numbers. They were compiled by TC for the purpose of justifying TC's mandate of DRLs. Government agencies and individuals in general do not like to be shown that their ideas may not work, so we have to seriously question how much of the data was "massaged" to give the desired results. Was the report externally reviewed by experts in safety and statistical analysis? Regarding year-to-year comparisons, it is not clear whether the degradation of the older vehicles is taken into account. I.e., are older vehicles involved in more daytime collisions due to worn brakes, tires, and suspension? Also, the odds-ratio technique may be questionable since it compares the ratio of multi-vehicle to single-vehicle collisions in the daytime to the same ratio at night. It may provide a satisfactory measure of DRL effectiveness if the ratio of multi-vehicle to single-vehicle collisions were constant through daytime and nightime. However, this is not necessarily the case, as the ratio rises and falls with changes in traffic density (Prower, 2000). Further, TC reports that a substantial decrease in multi-vehicle collisions in dusk/dawn conditions. What are the corresponding numbers in good daylight and why weren't these reported? Answer, because they did not look as dramatic, and this report is all about drama, isn't it? And there are more questions. . . Has TC considered the long term effects of DRLs? Once everyone has them, does the supposed effect wear off? That is, why did TC notice a decrease in multi-vehicle collisions for one year old cars built the first year after the mandate, followed by less of a decrease for brand new cars built in the second year after the mandate? Has road rage increased in Canada? Could increased driver anxiety be attributed to drivers facing bright lights at all times? What about collisions involving more than two vehicles? Have they increased or remained constant as was found in Sweden (Theeuwes and Riemersma, 1995)? Are motorcycle collisions on the rise? What about masking issues of other road users? These are all questions that are unanswered by TC's report as well as NHTSA's preliminary assessment, indicating a heavy bias in favour of DRLs to support their own mistaken rulings. It's pretty clear that NHTSA is in cahoots with TC. Did someone from NHTSA's Safety Performance Standards group invite TC to comment here? Will we need to make a FOIA request to find out?
DRL,
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 8/11/00 4:03:20 PM Subj: DRLs Mr. Bill Howkins, I read your Web page and concur with your opinion. These are ideas I have pondered for some time: 1 - If Canada claims (un-supported by evidence) that 100 - 200 lives are saved each year with headlights on, maybe someone can estimate how many people die each year for the same reason. Canada is one of the several northerly (cold and icy/snowy) countries with that law. I ask: How many people could have driven to safety but a weak charging system or battery left them to die of hypothermia each winter because their headlights had to remain on by law? With the headlights on, lights drain a battery more rapidly to a level that would not support ignition. To determine an answer, one could turn to the makers and re-manufacturers of auto repair parts. They know the approximate number of voltage regulators, alternators, batteries, and power cables sold in their industry each year. Compare this against police reports of stranded motorists' deaths from hypothermia (exposure,) and some idea of the lethality of such laws can be determined base upon FACTS instead of political correctness. 2 - During conditions of daytime snow, or fog at anytime, how many accidents occur because the headlights' glow was both reflected and refracted by water (or ice) particles making the accurate position of other vehicles less easily determined or causing on-coming drivers to squint or blink to avoid the glare (thus making them less able to control their vehicles)? Such problems are especially acute for persons with astigmatism. Please excuse the "Nom de Plume" and this virtually anonymous email. I use it because I am in the transportation industry. Although I'm not a ranking individual, anonymity may prove to be prudent, over time. More power to you, Amel
DRLs
a menace and anyone who believes they are not is very misguided
8/11/00 4:08:42 PM I was so happy to find this board as I have been trying to voice my frustration to anyone that will listen. It seems I am not alone as finally others here also find glaring headlights in the middle of the day the dumbest and most dangerous creation I have ever witnessed. I suggest all GM et all and government employees go and watch what is considered the most famous of all corporate training videos - The Abileen Paradox. In this video someone comes up with what they think is a bright idea and they try to convince others to think so also. However the more they get into it they begin to realise hey maybe this was a dumb idea after all. But by then it is too late. So they begin making up all kinds of reasons and "studies" "proving" why it is a good idea. But, of course in the end everyone must admit that it was the darn stupidest idea there ever was and in fact going down this path of the wrong decision has now caused a host of problems that were not there in the first place. I believe this is exactly what has happened here. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that a parade of blinding headlights in the middle of the day is not a benefit to safety. I don't need a "study" where the "results" are already in the can to tell me they are of any benefit - except of course to some greedy auto manufacturer and whoever they paid off. So we the American driver must endure eye strain, increased possibility of accidents from having our rear mirrors drawn up to avoid the glare. And, worst, having our eyes drawn to the bright lights like some helpless dear while not seeing anything else - this has happened to both me and my husband. Now we have some imbecile with a "study" telling me it is for your own good. Well for your own good why don't you admit the truth that it was a dumb idea, that you created a monster, that you were in cahoots with the big auto companies and that yes, we should end this insanity. If you do not you will go the way of Phillip Morris et al who for years laughed off any suggestion that cigarettes were dangerous and who would dare sue us over something as silly as smoking and if they did, why, they would be laughed out of court. Well they sure aren't laughing now and neither will the NHTSA and the auto companies when someday their day of reckoning comes.
Very
Informative Posts Regarding DRLS 8/11/00 4:34:40 PM I enjoyed reading the posts at this site but I found the ones on DRLs the most interesting. It seems this is a hot issue. I do not like them myself. I just wanted to say that I recently rented a car and not used to having DRLs kept trying to figure out how to shut the lights off! Anyway later fining out you could not shut them off I felt like a total idiot. But I did not like having the option of turning them off and if I buy a new car I will be sure to get one where you can turn the headlights off.
Transport Canada rebuttal 8/11/00 4:56:14 PM The problem with the studies you guys post on the benefits of DRLs has been spoken of numerous times yet you never care to address that issue . Essentially all the studies use aggregate data and assumptions in the odds ratio test which disqualifies the results from being any guide to the truth . I enclose an anonymous e-mail I received a while ago from someone who purports to work for Transport Canada and is sceptical of the methods used to support DRLs . It is a shame that this person is afraid to make his opinion known to the Canadian authorities for fear of reprisals for his being against the party line . I wonder how many others in Canada feel the same way but are too afraid to speak up . Thank goodness there are still people in the world who want freedom ,truth and are not afraid to speak their minds . To follow is the letter : I read your web page and concur with your opinion. These are ideas I have pondered for some time : 1 - If Canada claims( un-supported by evidence) that 100-200 lives are saved each year with headlights on , maybe someone can estimate how many people die each year for the same reason. Canada is one of several northerly ( cold and icy/snowy ) countries with that law .I ask : how many people could have driven to safety but a weak charging system or battery left them to die of hypothermia each winter because their headlights had to remain on by law ? With the headlights on , lights drain a battery more rapidly to a level that would not support ignition. To determine an answer , one could turn to the makers and re-manufacturers of auto repair parts . They know the approximate number of voltage regulators , alternators, batteries and power cables sold in their industry each year .Compare this against police reports of stranded motorists ' deaths from hypothermia and some idea of the lethality of such laws can be determined based upon the FACTS instead of political correctness. 2 - During conditions of daytime snow or fog at anytime , how many accidents occur because the headlights glow was both reflected and refracted by water ( ice ) particles making the accurate position of other vehicles less easily determined or causing on-coming drivers to squint or blink to avoid the glare ( thus making them less able to control their vehicles)? Such problems are especially acute for persons with astigmatism. Please excuse the nom de plume and this virtually anonymous e-mail . I use it because I am in the transportation industry . Although I'm not a ranking individual , anonymity may prove to be prudent , over time . Too bad this individual is not a ranking member of Transport Canada Keep
Your Stupid DRLs in Canada Then 8/11/00 5:38:36 PM I live in Houston, Texas and was happy to see some discussion on these day time lights. When did this all start. I can remember not too long ago if I saw someone driving with their lights on in the day I would blink my lights and the other drive would be thankful and shut them off. It is bright enough here in the day without some jackass with his high beams on in the middle of the day. I'm always squinting and rubbing my yes now because the glare hurts my eyes. I think I am now more likely to have an accident now because of the DRLs than I was before. This is foolishness. If they want to have them in Canada I don't care but they are an outright nuisance for me here.
It's
the GLARE 8/11/00 6:51:18 PM I can’t help but question the overall significance of the Canadian DRL study that Ms. Collard has put forth. That particular research looked at reducing daytime two-vehicle "different-direction" collisions at a time before DRLs were commonplace. It may be true that the human eye will "fix" on bright light, and therefore be attracted to a vehicle that is DRL-equipped, but is this a reaction on which we want drivers to depend? I’ve noticed that some new motorcycles now have flashing strobe-like headlamps. What’s next? When the highway is replete with DRL-equipped vehicles will a driver’s eyes be saturated by "light pollution?" At that point, shall we consider putting running lights on pedestrians and bicycles to keep them from disappearing in the glare? How will emergency vehicles stand out in this beaming maze? Please stop this trend now! Anything that inhibits the driver’s eyes from performing their natural scanning process is an impediment to safety. This applies to excessive luminescence from HID lamps, "auxiliary" highway lamps or any other glaring distraction. The many voices of concern sampled in this forum are not listed by coincidence. I hope that individuals in our own government will hear them.
CHICAGO (AP) In the Danbury New-Times Jan 29, 01
""Passing Drivers Pose Big Threat in Emergencies""
Speeding toward a disabled car on a Chicago expressway, state trooper Mike Carpinsky points to a motorists cutting in front of him, apparently oblivious to his cruiser's flashing emergency lights and blaring siren.
"Drivers are much more in a hurry and much more self-centered. And they're driving 3,000 pound home entertainment centers with cell phones." James Joyce, Chicago fire commissioner
One of the biggest factors is that daytime lights have had the effect of numbing everyone to all that is around them. Used to be someone had their hi-beams on and everyone would flash, now on one even notices. Even emergency vehicles are running around with headlights on themselves when NOT ON A CALL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 8, 2001 CONTACT: Eric Skrum, Communications Director 608-849-6000 or nma@motorists.org SATURN BOYCOTT The National Motorists Association, in cooperation with Drivers Against Daytime Running Lights and LightsOut.Org, is asking its members and the public at large to boycott General Motors’ Saturn products. The purpose of the boycott is to protest G.M.’s practice of equipping its vehicles with high-glare, daytime running lights (DRLs). The NMA and the anti-DRL organizations believe that widespread or universal use of daytime running lights reduces highway safety. Very bright DRLs like those on Saturns enrage motorists who must share the road with vehicles so equipped, and the dazzling glare can impair other road users’ vision and depth perception, especially if they adjust their mirrors to try to avoid having to stare at the glare. Since 1997, the NMA has opposed the trend towards equipping cars and trucks with bright DRLs—often based on high-beam headlamps—that are turned on whenever the engine is running. The daytime running lights (DRLs) cannot be turned off by the vehicle operator. General Motors (required like all carmakers to install DRLs on vehicles sold in Canada) repeatedly lobbied the Federal Government to allow GM to install Canadian-style DRLs on its US cars in order to save the costs of producing separate wiring for Canadian and American cars. The Department of Transportation finally bowed to GM pressure in 1995, and overrode numerous state laws that prohibited the use of these lights. Saturn automobiles use the “high beam” or “bright” element of the headlights for daytime running lights. Even though the DRLs are operated with lower voltages, the light is reflected directly into the eyes and the rear view mirrors of other motorists. The NMA petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking, among other things, that the Saturn products be recalled and that these lights either be disconnected or modified to reduce the glare problem. (See www.motorists.org/issues/drl/ DRL_petition.html for the petition.) NHTSA accepted the petition and acknowledged that there may be issues in need of attention. NHTSA’s own tests showed that DRLs, like those on Saturn products, produce more glare than is permitted by even the high glare limits of the US DRL law. However, three years and millions of glaring headlights later, NHTSA has failed to take corrective action even in the face of unprecedented complaints about excessive glare. Nor has GM responded in any meaningful way. NMA spokesman, Eric Skrum said, “The NMA is calling for a boycott of all Saturn products and we are hoping that even Saturn owners will join us in demanding action to eliminate this source of irritation and distraction.” The NMA wants NHTSA to recall all vehicles with high-beam DRLs, disconnect or modify the lamps to eliminate the glare being endured by other motorists, and install a driver-controlled on/off switch. The NMA also is calling for a ban on DRLs that use high-beam headlamps, stricter glare limits on other types of DRLs, and driver-controlled on/off switches for DRLs on new cars.
James J. Baxter, President of the National Motorists Association said, “If General Motors is looking for reasons why it is progressively losing market share and customer loyalty, it might just take a hard look at this issue. To save a few dollars on electrical wiring, GM has chosen to alienate millions of motorists on a daily basis. The alleged safety benefits of DRLs are highly questionable, but there is no question that shining bright lights in other drivers’ eyes are distracting, enraging and reduces safety.” As part of the NMA’s Saturn boycott campaign, the drivers’ rights membership organization is offering free bumper stickers (SUN’S UP—LIGHTS OFF—THANK YOU) and free tags that can be placed on the windshields of Saturn automobiles, to alert their owners of the recall campaign. (Windshield tag text is available at www.motorists.org/issues/drl/tag.html or by contacting the NMA.) The free bumper stickers and windshield tags can be ordered on the NMA web site, www.motorists.org, or by calling 608-849-6000. The National Motorists Association was established in 1982 to represent the interests and rights of North American motorists. It operates at the national level and through a system of state chapters. The NMA is solely supported through the contributions of individuals, families and small businesses. For more information about the NMA, call 800-882-2785, fax us at 608-849-8697, E-mail us at nma@motorists.org, or visit the NMA web site at http://www.motorists.org. Spokespersons available for interviews: * The National Motorists Association: Eric Skrum or James J. Baxter * Drivers Against Daytime Running Lights: David Coe * LightsOut.Org: Roy Milnes, United Kingdom * James Walker, Auto Industry Consultant, Michigan * Daniel Stern, Automotive Lighting and Signaling Consultant * James VanderMeer, Washington State Political Activist, * Bill Kraft, New Jersey Activist * Bill Jordon, PhD., Florida Activist * Paul Cassel, New Mexico Activist
|
|||||||||||
