---No, it doesn't blind oncoming drivers, but it does create glare,
-clutter, and can hide directional signals, motorcycles and emergency
-vehicles, among other things. I posted a link to the NMA web site
-which has several documents which list these and other issues.
-(www.motorists.org) You also need to consider the cumulative effects
-of not just one car with DRLS, but many in a group.
Not sure how they create glare during the day. At least not anymore than the
sun itself does. As for hiding directional signals, I will agree with that,
which is why many new vehicles with DRLs actually turn off the headlamp on
the side the blinker is blinking on. Referred to as "headlight wink" by
owners. But with the drivers here in Cali, you can't trust turn signals
anyways. People either drive for miles with their blinkers going, don't use
them at all, or don't even turn in the direction of the blinker, such as
making a right hand turn from the left lane or vice versa. See it on a
daily basis here in San Diego.
---The reason for this is that
having your lights on creates certain side effects, and these must be
balanced against the benefits they are providing.
Well, since it seems there are too many conflicting studies to say one way
or the other how much of a benefit or hindrance DRLs are, it's hard to try
and balance any potential side effects with benefits, because what some
studies call benefits, others site as problems.
---Ok, I'll bite - the number of Volvos on the road is relevant because... ?
I dunno, you brought up Volvo's to back up your argument. I doubt that any
make of vehicle causes more percentage of motorcycle accidents than another.
---The term which you are seeking is actually called "lane splitting",
and it is legal in many places. Wether it is safe or not is up to
debate. Given the attention level of the average cager, I would
certainly not attempt it myself except in an emergency. I also do not
know many bikers who make a habit of the practice. Most bikers know
why "we" get hit so often; its because we're small and difficult to
see. Having our headlight on all the time helps to make up for that
deficiency, but being cloaked in a sea of headlights takes our small
advantage away, leaving us right back where we started.
So are there any studies showing motorcycles that have automatic headlights
are less likely to be in an accident over older models without them?
---There is a big difference. As I stated above, the motorcycle's
headlight compensates for its small size. Motorcycles are basically
invisible, not only because of their smaller size, but because when
drivers are performing an action such as pulling out into the street,
on some psychological level, their brain is trying to determine wether
there are any cars coming, when it should instead be evaluating the
entire environment, looking for any potential conflicts, which brings
motorcycles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, etc. into consideration.
In most car/motorcycle accidents almost always the driver will say of
the motorcyclist that they simply didn't see them. The brain has a
remarkable ability to ignore "irrelevant" data, and for whatever
reason, motorcycles seem to fall into this category when people simply
scan in a subconcious manner. The motorcycle's headlight being on may
be just what is needed to grab the focus of the consious mind, at
which point the person will realize that there is indeed a motorcycle
there. Most of this benefit goes away however, when the motorcycle
headlight is forced to swim in a sea of DRLs. A motorcycle well ahead
of a pack of cars with their headlights on may once again simply drop
back down to ignored status.
I think a lot of it is lack of education anymore. I know several motorcycle
riders and always give upmost courtesy to them(when they are lane splitting
15mph over the speedlimit, or cutting me off trying to be the first one at a
stoplight) and pay special attention to them, but I was taught to when
learning how to drive as well.
---If a driver is unable to determine via the conditions at hand
wether it is safer to turn their lights on or off, then I would
seriously question that person's decision making ability in general
and would further theorize that said individual perhaps does not
possess the cognitive ability necessary to safely operate a motor
vehicle in the first place.
That describes most people driving on the roads today. At least here in
California. Nobody cares about the other drivers. I can't wait till I move
back to Nebraska in a few months.
---The site to which you refer is www.motorists.org, which is the web
site for the National Motorists Association, a group which I have
been a member of for the better part of two decades. (i.e. I think
I'm in a slightly better position to judge their intent.)
So you yourself are biased towards the general consensus of the website.
---Regarding "all these studies about the hazards of DRLs" you which purport
them
to be quoting, only one of the articles on the site mentions any DRL
studies, and in that article there are 3 studies which were mentioned,
two by the Greyhound Bus Company, one of which was pro-DRL, and
neither of which was about the "hazards of DRLs". The third study was
done by the Highway Loss Data Institute (the insurance industry).
This was the one that brought up concerns about DRL use.
There were several different articles that came up when I searched for DRL's
like you said to. I read through all of them. Every single article,
whether it referenced pro-DRL studies or not, was negatively biased against
DRLs. There was not one single article promoting any of the benefits DRLs
do provide. Which lead me to my opinion that they could care les about any
benefits of running DRLs. They have made up their mind that DRLs are bad
and they don't care what anyone else says, and of course since you are such
a dedicated member, those are your thoughts as well.
---As far as
being biased goes, uhhh, yeah, that's kind've the point! They have
looked at the situation, drawn their conclusions, and their articles
support their arguments. They are not a public clearinghouse of
motorist information, they are a group trying to promote the rights of
motorists.
Promoting the rights of motorists would be more beneficial should they just
supply information and let the motorist come to their own conclusion. But
every article about DRLs is written in a negative manner towards them,
leading people to only see the supposed negative side of DRLs. How is only
giving a one sided opinion promoting anything but the opinion of the people
who own the website? You talk about people being sheeps and believing what
the government tells them, well the same thing can be said about the
supporters of a site such as that that only posts article that coincide with
the website owners opinion on items such as DRLs.
And sorry for the whole formatting thing. I simply click reply and it's
formatted in the style required to send the email. I have tried using my
standard email formatting and it won't go through.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.12/878 - Release Date: 6/28/2007
5:57 PM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2007 - 00:15:21 EDT