DRL banned in Austria

[Gość: matiz]

Delicately balanced hues and shades are painting pictures in harmony with a
beautiful world. Reflected rays impressionistically are touching your inner
eye and make you listen to the symphony of colors. Gentle brushes of light
playfully dancing over the skies the clouds the hills make you feel happy
and may be - a little bit more than that. Just in case you were lucky enough
to look at a spot of peacefully untouched nature - being framed by the
borders of your visual field - Turning around it may occur to you that never
ending rows of 'daytime running lights' stir up some disharmonious
sensations. Or blind anger.

Since you know that DRL caused fatalities (and still does) among 'weaker'
traffic participants, predominantly children at pedestrian crossings (quod
erat demonstratum). DRL implies a Violation of the Obligation of Protection.
Article 3, the first cornerstone of the Declaration of Human Rights,
proclaims the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Following the 'experiment' TWO YEARS DRL in Austria the Ophthalmological
Society of Austria (ÖOG) banned DRL.

Accentuating (DRL) one group of 'traffic-relevant objects' makes all the
other objects less conspicuous - worst case- they might turn into
sub-threshold stimuli hence escaping attention - to be �overlooked� -like
other non-accentuated objects in traffic scenarios (side impact- and/or rear
end- crashes). Reflecting materials (another attempt to improve safety of
the 'weaker group') are inefficacious in connection with DRL.

Distracters (DRL) provoke problems. Seeing, perceiving and recognition have
to be differentiated.The driver might see a child crossing the street. Its
image may be focussed at retinal level, the visual pathways functioning
perfectly would send the signal to the visual cortex. In spite of all that
it may happen that this very �traffic-relevant� object virtually disappears.
A number (~> four) of distracters (DRL) can cause capacity (and/or even more
complex -) problems of the visual short term memory (VSTM). Emphatically the
driver might repeat ever so often: �I did not see the child ! I swear it!�
Wrong. He saw the child, though he could not perceive it. The pedestrian
crossing seemed to be empty.

The phenomenon described above belongs to a group of cognition- and
recognition failures: �Change blindness, inattentional blindness, sustained
inattentional blindness, repetition blindness, disturbance of the �gist� of
a scene� etc. Over millions of years our visual pathways and visual centres
together with our complete central nervous system were conditioned to
function and react adequately within a natural environment as it is
described nostalgic/poetically in the introduction of this article. Ever so
often mankind tries to improve nature without giving sufficient thought and
consideration to all the complexity of a dynamic system. Clumsily he
disturbs and destroys the delicately balanced equilibrium. Usually such
simplifications (like DRL) are simple, straight - and wrong. Unfortunately
increased attention and/or training cannot prevent those cognitive
deficiencies caused by too high numbers of various distracters.

Dipped headlights and/or special (fog- etc) lamps are contraindicated during
daytime light conditions. The human sensory physiological system requires
exclusively dipped headlights or special headlights (fog etc.) under the
conditions of reduced sight. The reason: All the other �traffic-relevant�
objects, even resting traffic have to be caught and illuminated by the beam
of the headlights in order to avoid sub-threshold stimulus conditions. DRL
does not improve traffic safety. At no time of the day or the night, at no
season, at no geographical latitude or height, even in countries of the
extreme north or south DRL can be justified. The laws of sensory physiology,
cognition psychology and brain research are valid at any time and anywhere
on this planet.

RESUMÉ: REDUCED SIGHT: (DIPPED HEAD-) LIGHT

DRL: NOT JUSTIFIED

EPILOGUE:�Modern� headlights (without automatic adjustment-system�) and
street lamps are causing glare and prolonged retinal recovery following
light �stress�. The amount of highly energetic blue light is increasing
within the spectrum of these lamps thus causing irritation and even problems
for the environment (The Plight with Light). It is suggested to revise the
philosophy of light designing engineers. Within short time DRL contributed
to the climatic change like any other energy wasting measure. At the cost of
the next generations (delayed onset) again.

niech powiedzą to np. emesikowi

[bolo737]

> Accentuating (DRL) one group of 'traffic-relevant objects' makes all the
> other objects less conspicuous - worst case- they might turn into
> sub-threshold stimuli hence escaping attention

np. ten fragment - i wiele innych. - niech powiedzą to emesikowi - przeczyta
(chwali się że angielski zna), na pewno jako wyjebitny fachowiec od fizjologii
ludzkiego oka (nie raz chwalił się "wiedzą" w tym zakresie) będzie miał powód
do "merytorycznej" dyskusji.

[Gość: matiz]

bolo737 napisał:

> > Accentuating (DRL) one group of 'traffic-relevant objects' makes all the
> > other objects less conspicuous - worst case- they might turn into
> > sub-threshold stimuli hence escaping attention
>
> np. ten fragment - i wiele innych. - niech powiedzą to emesikowi - przeczyta
> (chwali się że angielski zna), na pewno jako wyjebitny fachowiec od fizjologii
> ludzkiego oka (nie raz chwalił się "wiedzą" w tym zakresie) będzie miał powód
> do "merytorycznej" dyskusji.

Hehe, to samo pomyslałem.
To jest ten koleś, który się ciągle chwali ilu to on ma znajomych lekarzy.
Którzy twierdzą, że wraz z wiekiem zmniejsza się wrażliwość oka na światło.
Ja się zastanawiam, jakiej specjalności ci lekarze. Weterynarze?

[Gość: maxie]

Daytime running lights may soon be compulsory in all EU states

By Stefanie Petrou-Binder MD

BERLIN - A special symposium on "Traffic Ophthalmology" at the centennial
Congress of the German Ophthalmological Society has revealed that the European
Union is now considering making daytime running lights (DRLs) compulsory in all
member states.
"Daytime running lights render vehicles more conspicuous, particularly in the
twilight hours when poor contrast and inconsistent lighting allow vehicles to
escape notice.
"Twenty-five years of Swedish experience indicates that requiring all
automobiles to use daytime running lights will reduce daytime traffic
accidents," Bernhard Lachenmayer MD reported.
In fact, Swedish safety studies conducted in the 1960s proved that DRLs reduced
pedestrian traffic accidents by 21% and cyclists by 17%.

The studies placed cars of different colours on the streets at day and twilight
periods. The surrounding colours of woods, fields and neighbourhoods varied
seasonally when foliage or snow dominated the background.
Detection of oncoming vehicles was poor when marked by a lower contrast between
them and their surroundings - except if the car used lights.
When oncoming vehicles with lights on approached cyclists, pedestrians or other
vehicles from different peripheral angles (between 20° and 80°), the study
reveals that 9% less accidents occurred.
Compulsory DRLs became a standard feature for Swedish cars in 1967. This was
considered a wise safety policy considering the long hours of twilight in
Sweden.
This was also the same year that Sweden switched from left to right sided
traffic and DRLs provided a new means of alerting vehicles to one another and
to other road users.
Other Scandinavian countries soon followed suit. Countries such as Canada,
Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary have made compulsory laws for DRL use on
country roads and highways.

In the US, DRLs became optional in the 1980s for use on roads outside built-up
areas. They now come as standard on several makes of US cars.
Large US and Canadian fleet studies carried out in the 1950s provided
additional data supporting DRL efficacy in reducing traffic accidents.
Greyhound bus fleet studies verified that daytime accidents could be reduced by
10% with DRLs.
A few years later, truck fleets turned out a remarkable 44% reduction in
daytime accidents. A New York study showed an 18% drop in daytime collisions
involving car drivers.

Although these early studies were not as comprehensive or well thought out as
the Swedish safety studies, they too reflect the overall efficacy of DRLs in
signalling to other road users the presence of an approaching vehicle, Dr
Lachenmayer said.
Daytime running lights are low beamed and smaller than headlights. They are
automatically triggered to activate at twilight and can be assembled
independently without expensive alteration to the car's light system.
DRLs are directed forward and slightly to the left (or right, depending on
which side of the road you are driving on) in order to avoid causing discomfort
to oncoming traffic.
The arguments against DRLs centre on increased fuel consumption and pollution.
But Dr Lachenmayer stressed that reliable studies have revealed that petrol
consumption and pollution are increased by less than 1% with the use of DRLs
and so do not constitute a major cost hike or contribute significantly to air
pollution.

Nonetheless, some researchers challenge the Canadian and Swedish reports. They
assert that new statistical studies are needed to investigate further the
effect of real DRLs in varying traffic situations and lighting conditions.
The reason for the scepticism is that all of the studies upon which conclusions
have been based were carried out before the introduction of actual DRLs and in
fact used car headlights - which are much bigger, brighter and higher-set - to
alert fellow road users to the presence of oncoming vehicles. Others object
that DRLs are liable to mask brake lights and cause accidents.
The EU has done its own analyses of DRLs. An official review indicates that
DRLs reduce the percentage of vehicles' collisions by about 10% and fatalities
by 25%. The
EU estimates that mandatory DRLs would prevent 5,500 traffic fatalities per
year within member states.

Dr Lachenmayer stressed that non-motorised road users - pedestrians, bike
riders, children and the elderly - profit even more from DRLs than car drivers.
He said DRLs should be made compulsory for everyone's benefit.

Walka na cytaty? Jakoś na stronie Austriackiego Towarzystwa Okulistycznego nie
dało się znaleźć przytoczonego przez autora wątku materiału. Zacytowany
przemnie artykuł autoryzowany jest orzez ESCRS (European Society of Cataract
and Refractive Surgeons)

[Gość: kroll]

Jak skonczysz meczyc sie z tlumaczeniem, to napisz cos wiecej.
Czytam twoje wypociny i mam niezla polewke.

[Gość: matiz]

emesnju udaje, że nie widzi tergo wątku.
A może nie wie o co w nim chodzi?

[iberia.pl]

Gość portalu: matiz napisał(a):

> emesnju udaje, że nie widzi tergo wątku.
> A może nie wie o co w nim chodzi?

a to jest jakis obowiazek wypowiadania sie w watku w ktorym ktos kogos wzywa
jak do tablicy?
Moze wyszedl z zalozenia, ze swoje zdnaie na temat zasadnosci wlaczania swiatel
w dzien juz przedstawil i nie widzi powodu aby znow pisac to samo, a poza tym
temat jest nudny do urzygu i nie warto karmic trolli.Tez tak uwazam.

[bolo737]

uważać se możesz. ale jeżeli emesik zamierał głos w KAŻDYM wątku dotyczącym
świateł to nie widzę powodu aby dla tego robił wyjątek.

[Gość: kroll]

Co ty powiesz?
A twoje zwierzenia o twopich wyczynach na pierwszej randce nie sa nudne?
Pomijam, ze powinnas sie wstydzic, zamiast sie tym chwalic, ale po co ciagle o tym opowiadac?
Chcesz sie dowartosciowac, bo zaden facet cie nie che?

[ktbb]

Dawno pisałem, że śmieję się z argumentów oślepiania w dzień itd, a największe
niebezpieczeństwo, to "przyciąganie" wzroku przez światła i obniżenie
możliwości dostrzegania słabo widocznych obiektów.
Ciesze się, że naukowcy potwierdzili to, co w swoim doświadczeniu potwierdziłem
wielokrotnie.
A co do oślepiania... Hmmm. Wynalazki typu świecenie długimi zamiast mijania
dają mi się na trasie we znaki nieraz. Są auta, co ewidetnie świecą długimi, bo
świecą im DWIE żarówki w jednej lampie. W lusterku - horror.