Hi, Steve.
I am a bit of a sceptic about the cost
effectiveness of mandatory daytime running lights and their effectiveness in a
sunny climate with light coloured landscape such as we have in much of Australia
(and you have in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and much of Texas).
There has been some great comments from the group
about DRL which makes me think there is room for further investigation. And it
could well be that LED lights with their intense light, long life and low
current draw might be worthy of some consideration.
It could well be that the intelligent way forward
is to incorporate DRLs into cars and leave it up to the drivers to do what they
want. If a case then clearly establishes itself for their benefit, it would be
possible to convince people to use them voluntarily. Failing that,
mandation.
I recall before they made bicycle helmets here (in
Oz) mandatory (causing an immediate reduction in the number of people
riding bikes) about 80% of bicyclists wore them anyway. Perhaps that same sort
of thing could happen with DRLs.
The case is much clearer for DRLs in low light
environments than it is here but I for one am open to input and appreciate
the trouble that people in this group have gone to in floating ideas and
knowledge, even some of the more colourful sceptics.:)
As for more freeways, I believe a much higher
percentage of US vehicular travel is on freeways than it is here in Australia,
including for metropolitan areas. From a town planning perspective, there would
be widespread concerns about the traffic generation aspect of more urban
freeways. I don't know what the right answer is but in Los Angeles at one stage
50% of the downtown area was for parking for people working in the remaining
buildings. That may well be the reductio ad absurdum, but even if we had zero
emission vehicles, the urban amenity impacts of very high levels of motorcar use
may well be unacceptable and if freeways do, in fact, tend to generate traffic,
that could well negate the per mile or per kilometre safety improvements of
freeways in metropolitan areas above a certain minimum level.
Variable road pricing and improved public transport
could well have more effect on the road toll than additional freeways, but I
fear that would be a very difficult ask because the land use planning battle in
most low density US cities was lost a long time ago. There would likely be a
huge time lag as we redesign our cities to make car free or one car household
living practical/desirable. And then we would have to grapple with the fear of
the street exhibited by millions of people who have been hiding in low density
suburbs and behind locked car doors all their lives.
Another huge potential for improved road safety in
the US is more efficient trucks. Truck development in the US has been all but
paralyzed by anti-truck interest groups including the rail lobby and CRASH which
is, I believe, partially funded by the rail lobby. The US as I understand
it still uses a very high percentage of 5 axle articulated vehicles at about
36.5 tonnes GCW, much as they did 25 years ago. During that time, Australian 6
axle articulated vehicles have gone from a 38 tonne GCW to 42.5 tonnes and a 45
tonne GCW is in effect over much of Australia and spreading, now. The increase
was based on the use of "road-friendly" suspensions. Australia has also
introduced B-doubles (politically correct jargon for B-trains) which are 25
metres long and weigh up to 68 tonnes GCW. Their efficiency has seen their
widespread adoption and they have an impressive safety records. And our
road-trains are carrying more weight as well, partly through the use of
tri-drive prime movers and tri-axle air-suspension dollies.
More productive heavy vehicles mean fewer of them.
Fewer heavy vehicles mean fewer front ends to hit things. Simplistic but not far
off the mark. I'd suggest more productive heavy vehicles might be worthy of
consideration for improving road safety in the US. We're going pretty well on it
here in Oz, and funny thing is we are using mostly US sourced heavy equipment at
weights US operators only dream about.
Cheers,
Bob Murphy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:10
AM
Subject: Re: Daytime running lights
In a
message dated 9/6/02 8:32:57 PM Mountain Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
Only 30 percent of our VMT is on motorways.
I agree with Peter that highway deaths are a major issue in
America.
We lose around 41,000 people per year in highway fatalities, the
equivalent of about 14 world trade center attacks per year. I can't
believe there isn't a rebellion considering this fact. Americans value
their freedom, however, and they consider the ability to drive a basic freedom
that is worth the risk of being involved in a fatal accident.
I have
been looking for things that we could do as engineers in order to lower these
numbers, and Peter's solution of building more "motorways" seems like a very
reasonable solution. We have achieved significant reductions from the
historical high of about 58,000 fatalities per year primarily due to tougher
laws on drinking and driving..... but those laws seem to have reached their
point of maximum impact, and fatalities are now beginning to show a slight
increase.
We have improved highway geometric designs, improved guard
rails, and certainly improved the vehicles themselves. Until I read
Peter's post, I thought the only solution was increasing the requirements for
driver education, particularly for those involved in their first accident.
As insurance rates prove, once you are involved in one accident, you are
much more likely to be involved in a second (or more.) I still think
this is a good idea.
I'm sorry to have to question Peter's number
about only 30% of the traffic being on motorways. As I looked at the
national highway statistics a few years ago. I recall more like 70% of VMT is
on the interstates and arterials, with about 30% on local roads. This was the
opposite of the total mileage -- 70% local miles, and 30% arterial and
interstate. (I used these numbers to support the need for better
pavement management on local roads.)
Because of this, I also have to
question the impact Peter stated of 5,000 lives saved. My friend, even
if we only save 1 life, we've done good! (to quote an environmentalist who was
willing to spend an extra five billion $ to guarantee a perfectly safe
emission level of a rare pollutant.)
I will side with Peter and others
on the issue of DRL, however. I use my lights when necessary to see or
to be seen. I just purchased a new car last month, and the headlights
will come on automatically if the lighting conditions warrant (as long as the
switch is in the automatic position.) Don't the drivers have some
responsibility in this? Isn't this part of improved driver education?
Isn't this a more effective solution?
Best Regards,
Steve
Mueller
Denver, Colorado, USA
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus
Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.385
/ Virus Database: 217 - Release Date:
4/09/2002
