Posted by Michael Gilligan on 19/07/2016 16:43:52:
Posted by Michael Walters on 19/07/2016 16:27:34:
I think they've proven that the lights do work on a public safety level by reducing accidents, as you're much more likely to see a passing car.
.
Interestingly, Michael, there has been research that suggests that; in an environment where the use of DRL is the norm, an unlit vehicle becomes even less visible than it would ordinarily have been.
This would imply that the benefit of DRL is a self-fulfilling prophesy [rather like the imposition of 'bus lanes]
A little light reading <ouch> here.
MichaelG.
Thanks,
By reading that short pamphlet produced by the Anti-DRL league, the question of DRL seems to have arisen chiefly in nordic countries, i would wager that the question ever arose at all because in those countries it gets much darker, it would therefore make sense that there should be DRL in those countries, however, if what you say is true then it seems less of a necessity in countries where daylight hours are longer and more forgiving.
Lets flip the question the other way and say "would removing lights on cars altogether increase accidents?" I'm sure the resounding answer would be yes because you can't see anything after dark(if you study the war period then we can see with the blackouts, that this experiment was put to the test). So there is clearly a benefit to better lighting, but the question is how much? Does this benefit increase exponentially, presumably, if the lights were so bright then you also can't see anything, that's why they tell you to not look at the sun.
So, it seems to me that their law is based on the flawed thinking of "more lights = less accidents". So therefore, we can ascertain that having the right amount of light is the sensible approach, and they ought to study what amount of light is acceptable for the human eye(and also at which level do things start to disappear) and regulate their law on that.
Michael W
Edited By Michael Walters on 19/07/2016 18:26:52