View Single Post
Old 05-24-2011, 10:57 AM   #30 (permalink)
needs more cowbell
dcb's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 267 Times in 210 Posts
As I mentioned before, and it is the sort of thing I will probably have to mention again, since it is the sort of thing that is surrounded by a massive SEP field (Someone Elses Problem), but extraneous lights on cages in the daytime take attention away from pedestrian traffic and more pedestrians get hit as a result, is my current hypothesis to explain why DRLs result in more pedestrian deaths.

Here was what I came up with originally:
Originally Posted by dcb View Post
thanks for that Blue,
so here is the dilemma:

We have a biased pro DRL page with actual and fairly recent studies indicating that more pedestrians are run over with DRLs on, 16 percent more. And a presumably less significant (and even more bizarre) stat from 30 years ago about slightly less people getting hit with two cars at once.

FYI, Worldwide, 2/3 of people killed in vehicle accidents are pedestrians. According to the AAA, , 1.9 per 100,000 are pedestrians and 15.6 per 100,000 accidents are occupants.

So if the pro DRL data is to be believed then why does it seem like it is at the cost of more pedestrian lives? What the hell was going on in denmark in 1993? I absolutely do not like the idea of mowing down more cageless folks and cannot think of a conclusive reason why DRLs shouldn't be safer, but WTF?

I think we've settled on the 500 million gallons of gas annually figure for running all those DRLs.
  Reply With Quote