Daytime Running Light mod

[getsmartusa]

So don't install them.

- David -

[jediknight36]

Originally Posted by getsmartusa

So don't install them.

- David -

As long as they turn on by themselves, im happy.

[fmaxwell]

Originally Posted by getsmartusa

So don't install them.

David,

What bjordan said was

Originally Posted by bjordan

As a member of the cyclist community, I’m asking all of you to consider keeping your lights off in daylight.

I'm with him on that and it's why I won't put them on my car (see my earlier post). bjordan's post gave some rather grim statistics to consider and I'll join him in making that request. The minimal amount of additional safety that DRLs provide for car drivers does not justify the danger that their widespread use poses to cyclists.

[Old smart]

I don't buy this cycle-only argument. I want to be aware of everyone approaching from my narrow left, not just motorcyclists. They are all worthy of considered risk, and of consideration. I have been a motorcyclist.

[fmaxwell]

Originally Posted by Old smart

I don't buy this cycle-only argument. I want to be aware of everyone approaching from my narrow left, not just motorcyclists. They are all worthy of considered risk, and of consideration. I have been a motorcyclist.

They aren't worthy of equal consideration -- because an accident involving two cars typically results in only automotive damage and minor, if any, injuries. The impact with a car and a motorcycle will often lead to death for the cyclist.

Motorcycles, with their much smaller frontal area, need something that gets the attention of other drivers. That's why the federal government mandated that the motorcycle headlights be on at all times. That reduced accidents and deaths. Now that DRLs are becoming more common, motorcycle headlights don't stand out like they used to and the death rates are on the rise.

If you wanted to be equally aware of cars and motorcycles, why would you be in favor of cars, which are already far larger and more easily seen, also having two headlights (as opposed to the motorcyclists' one) burning during the day? That's like saying that you want to be equally aware of bicycles and semi trucks, so semi trucks should have four flashing taillights, two flashing headlights, and reflectors on all 18 wheels.

[Old smart]

[quote=fmaxwell;133420] ... because an accident involving two cars typically results in only automotive damage and minor, if any, injuries. ... /QUOTE]

Huh?? A head-on collision only resulting in minor, if any, injuries??

[jwight]

Now that DRLs are becoming more common, motorcycle headlights don't stand out like they used to and the death rates are on the rise.

Not a bike rider so certainly not an expert, but the implied cause and effect between more auto DRLs in use and an increase in bike fatalities needs to have empirical data to support it. Unless those data are out there, it's just speculation IMHO. Maybe the fatality increase is caused by global warming, sunspots or just plain being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[SmartDigger]

What about the bike going 20-50 mph over posted speed limmit

[Fredvon4]

SmartDigger....interesting suggestion as an argument

Should we assume ALL car drivers are homicidal idiots because some choose to drive 50mph in a 70mph zone while chatting away on the phone... sheesh

Motorcyclists are not the only drivers who may occasionally drive over the "Posted speed limit"

I can post several credible "studies" that suggest Motorcycle DRL did not have any measurable reduction in fatal accidents

BUT I can NOT find empirical evidence to support bjordans claim that: "Every research study reporting the benefit of DRLs has been demonstratively discredited"

There in lies the probelm... I can find research that discredits SOME of the agenda driven studies.... but bjordan impeaches his own opinion with the over reach of stating the EVERY research study has been discreditied.... simply not true

I also seriously question the LOGIC of his implied conclusions from these statistical anomalies: "Bicycle and motorcycle casualties increased by 43% and 46%, respectively. Since the ban, fatalities have decreased 5% overall and 25% for motorcyclists"

On first read it sounds like turning ON DRLs caused a 43~46% increase in Bike and Motorcycle fatalities... that is astonishing claim. However we do not have a numerical starting point. What if; before DRLs there was 3 deaths per 100,000 and after DRLs there was 4.5 deaths per 100,000...

We do not know, because it is a statistic reported...

Perhaps bjordan is exactly correct...Suppose the data for the 43%~46% is 1000 fatalities per 100,000 and increased to 1430 per 100,000.... Then we could logically analyze the data to support a correlation that the controlled change (using DRLs on ALL vehicles) caused 430 MORE deaths per 100,000

Then comes the inverse data set that works against our conclusion... once DRLs were banned the increase in fatalities to 46% only dropped by 25% (one assumes now it is 21% fatality rate (over what ratio we do not know)... so bjordan and others concluded that full time DRLS caused a remarkable increase in fatalities by 46% but fail to analyze why if once DRLs were Banned the fatality rate did NOT drop by the same 46% rate...

The unfortunate problem we all have is too much of the data and info we all rely on is entirely Politically, Business, and Special interest motivated and Every one has a agenda... we do NOT have ANY credible National or International organization just doing pure cause and effect science on any of millions of issues like this....every body devolves into a money or power driven manipulation of we consumers...least ways that is my cynical view of the real world....YMMV

BTW I am perfectly OK with bjordan and fmaxwell having their personal point of view and enthusiastically arguing their points and opinions.... I held the same point of view for a long time also... I am a trained Motor Cycle Foundation (MSF) basic and Advanced course trainer, I also was trained to teach the Army Defensive driving course to all soldiers and civilians in the commands I was assigned to. Those credentials do NOT make me any smarter or more "In the know" on the subject of DRLs for ALL vehicles.... I can not, from the available data, categorically claim that DRLs save lives

But I will part with this tid bit of knowledge.... bjordan bases part of his argument against car DRLS with the fact that GM heavily lobbied for the feature so they could make all their North American vehicles have the DRLs because the Canadians required them. Arguing in part that it was a business decision and not from some knowledge about safety...I do NOT dispute his assertion or GMs motivation.... sound like a logical argument to me.

However, bjordan fails to acknowledge that there is NO mandated DRL for motorcycles in this country....

The History is this... Honda and Kawasaki were suffering a negative public image for motorcycles in this country in the 70s due to high fatality rates and safety.

I think around 1976~76 they voluntarily added a "Key on - Lights on" feature and started a significant marketing campaign to claim their bikes were safer and they were good guys because they made safer motorcycles....

Think about that a bit...there we NO studies, or any evidence that DRLs on Motorcycles saved lives...They did it for market share reasons.... To this day there is NO credible study that suggests Motorcyclists are any safer with, or with out, head lights ON.

Fred... First drivers license 1968, California... Bike...Honda 90 second Bike Triumph Bonneville 650.... never one accident on any motorcycle with another bike or car.... in the ditch many times overdriving my skills or equipemnt....grin

[bjordan]

Well reasoned input, Fredvon4. Unbiased and balanced. But do, when you get a minute, look at DADRL - Studies, and especially http://www.lightsout.org/docs/30yrs.pdf.

Bill