How to deactivate airbags ?
- Thread starter jeegnesh
- Start date
jeegnesh
New member
Spoke to an Indy and he told me loads of people go for this option, behind the center console there an orange plug, take this out and airbags are out of order, but you need a reset from Indy or OPC to get them working again.
I had tons of cars that never had airbags, and they were alot weaker then the Boxster, in fact right tin cans. Also for child seat you de-activate them, so if a child has to do without them, then I think I can. My wife was in a big impact and the airbags never even went this was in an M3 and they were working fine. Hope not to regret it.
Might go the offcial route once the wallet feels better, I only brought my Boxster yesterday [
]
I had tons of cars that never had airbags, and they were alot weaker then the Boxster, in fact right tin cans. Also for child seat you de-activate them, so if a child has to do without them, then I think I can. My wife was in a big impact and the airbags never even went this was in an M3 and they were working fine. Hope not to regret it.
Might go the offcial route once the wallet feels better, I only brought my Boxster yesterday [
]Helen Goff
No.1 Poster
don't see any advantage to disabling them. unless your going to carry a child regularly. i would think your insurence company might have a few words to say about a safety system being deactivated.
if you don't want airbags then buy a early porsche. [8D]
if you don't want airbags then buy a early porsche. [8D]
Guest
New member
i think the wording of your original thread confused a lot of people.
this is quite a long reply,my volvo s40 has sips,thats 6 airbags,none can be switched off.
at the end i discuss drl s because they too constitute optional safety equipment toprotect you and your passengers
what youre saying is you want to disconnect the airbag to allow a child under a certain height to travel in the passenger seat,not disconnect the drivers airbag at all!
remember that disabling standard fit safety features,which do not come with an option of switching on or off,is a modification to the standard car so you will have to tell your insurer
as advice,a rear facing child seat cant be placed in a front seat with an airbag (by law),the child seat must be forward facing and pushed as far back(away from the airbag) as possible
a child under 135cm cant travel in the front seat without the correct child seat,so it sounds like you need a forward facing child seat pushed back as far as possible
here is a link i hope helps you,and below the text is reproduced:
http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/advice/childcarseats.htm
THINK! Home | Advice
THINK! advice & factsheet - child car seats
Information on the Child Car Seats Campaign can be found in the Road Safety Campaigns section.
On a related point ,to further increase the safety of occupants the use of dipped headlights during daytime will significantly minimise the risk of death and personal injury,and their use will be mandatory by 2012
heres a link for you to my site:
http://www.daylightrunninglights.blogspot.com/
and heres the text,copyright waived
Why the time has come for daytime headlights
![[FONT=verdana,geneva"]](/forum/styles/default/pcgb/space.gif ". [FONT=verdana,geneva\"]")
10 December 2006
Why the time has come for daytime running lights.
One of the greatest obstacles to mandatory daytime running lights has always been the prospect of imposing upon motorists both another restriction upon their freedom and a significant financial burden.
Let me start by considering briefly these two objections:
1.Do we wish to substitute driver decision making on the need for lighting for legislative compulsion.
The primary rebuttal of this argument is that it is egocentric.
The motorist may indeed be able to decide whether or not his view of the road is sufficient to drive without lighting, but he is unable to answer decisively whether the pedestrian can see him.
The colour of the car,the colour of surroundings,whether the sun is behind the car and the nature of the junction are all variables which do not impact upon the driver`s decision making.
I submit that it is highly unlikely that in the course of a journey a driver will continuously re-evaluate whether to turn on the headlights other than when passing through a tunnel.
It is therefore often necessary to turn the headlights on,even on bright days,which many motorists omit to do because misplaced hazard perception.
The driver decision making process is inherently flawed because the driver is unable to determine the level of the car`s conspicuity yet mandating headlight use has no converse disadvantage.
In other words the argument should be turned on its head,the question is not whether the driver should be free to decide whether to turn the headlights on,but whether he should be permitted in some or any circumstances to turn them off.
To give an analogy,the objectors` argument it is similar to a local council saying,"We own the streetlights,its up to us to say when to turn them on,even though we are in the council offices and you are the road users" .
Infringement of driver freedom was raised as an objection in relation to compulsory seat belt wearing,but who now seriously maintains their use should be optional.
Further,omitting to wear a driver seatbelt is wholly self-harming,whereas omitting to use daytime running lights may be harmful to all other road users as well as the driver
2.Installation costs.
Retro-fitting of daytime running lighting systems such as that proposed by Hella will cost approximately 60 pounds though the AA suggest that led daylight running lights which would reduce fuel consumption cannot viably be retro-fitted.
The fitment of daytime running lights to new cars involves negligible additional production costs,and Hella has already submitted a low cost conversion for existing headlights,using a power output approximately one quarter that of dipped beam headlights.
3. Running costs.
Non-led daytime running lights use between 1.5 to 3 per cent more fuel,though this may be less where only the frontheadlights are engaged.
led daylight running lights may use as little as 0.3per cent extra fuel 4.Do we wish to criminalise non adopters.
Unlike the introduction of compulsory seatbelts which may have criminalised the absent minded,daytime running lights are engaged automatically with the engine.
If they fail during use,this is no different to a headlight blowing and no criminal offence will necessarily have been committed,and if they are not operational for the annual mot test the car will not be roadworthy in the first place.
Therefore very few motorists will be criminalised by the introduction of this legislation.
It should benoted that the EC Consultation Document entitled"Saving Lives With Daylight Running Lights (DRL)" makes 5 alternate prpoposals,and driver criminality will be detremined by which is the preferred proposal.
For the readers convenience I include them here:
1) The use of DRL is required on all motor vehicles from a certain date.
or 2) The use of DRL is required on all motor vehicles from a certain date. Inaddition, new motor vehicles will be required to have an automatic switching-on of dipped beam headlights.
or 3) The use of DRL is required on all motor vehicles from a certain date. Inaddition, new cars sold after the same date will be required to have dedicated DRL that are switched on automatically.
or 4) New cars sold after a certain date are required to have an automaticswitching-on of dipped beam headlights. Cars that do not have automaticDRL will not be required to turn on low beam headlights.
or 5) New cars sold after a certain date are required to have dedicated DRL thatare turned on automatically. Cars that do not have dedicated DRL will not be required to turn on their dipped beams.
To quote from ROSPA`s Response to the EC consultation document, "RoSPA would therefore support option 5 as the most acceptable and pragmatic,although if realistic answers can be found to the practical issues of option 3 then this would be preferable".
These practical issues are, "An engineering requirement to retrofit automatic DRL would not be a pragmatic solution. It is difficult to see how this would be practical".
Hella has a viable and low cost solution to the retro-fit issue which could be made available for 60 pounds before the advantages of economies of scale .
The Justification
So far only the practicalities of introducing daytime running lights has been touched on,the substantive case for their introduction on safety grounds has involved considerable empirical evidence and research.
It is sufficient here to mention that ROSPA,a charity selflessly dedicated to road safety,recommends their introduction subject to certain practicalities being overcome.
For further reading please refer to the john davies research paper 08.10.2006 entitled,"Why the time has come for daytime running lights".
The Studies
Various studies have shown that DRLs can improve the noticeability and detectability of vehicles in the central and peripheral fields of view. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995); Allen, J. M., Strickland, J., Ward, B., and Siegel, A.: Daytime headlights and position on the highway. Am J Optometry 46: 33--36 (1969); Attwood, D. A.: Daytime running lights project, IV: Two-lane passing performance as a function of headlight intensity and ambient illumination. Technical Report RSU 76/1. Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1976; Attwood, D. A.: Daytime running lights project, II: Vehicle detection as a function of headlight use and ambient illumination. Technical Report RSU 75/2. Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1975; Horberg, U.: Running light--twilight conspicuity and distance judgement. Report 215. Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1977; Horberg, U., and Rumar, K.: Running lights--conspicuity and glare. Report 178. Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1975; Kirkpatrick, M., Baker, C. C., and Heasly, C. C.: A study of daytime running lights design factors. (DOT HS 807 193). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1987.; Ziedman, K., Burger, W., and Smith R.: Evaluation of the conspicuity of daytime running lights. (DOT HS 807 609). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1990. International Studies Andersson, K., Nilsson, G., and Salusjarvi, M.: The effect of recommended and compulsory use of vehicle lights on road accidents in Finland. Report 102A. National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden, 1976. A study in Finland conducted between 1968 and 1974 found that DRLs, when required on rural roads in the winter, were associated with a 21-percent reduction in daytime multiparty crash events (involving more than one motor vehicle or motor vehicles colliding with pedestrians or pedalcyclists). Andersson, K., and Nilsson, G.: The effect on accidents of compulsory use of running lights during daylight hours in Sweden. Report 208A. National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden, 1981.In Sweden, a study based on 2 years of pre-law and 2 years of post-law data reported and 11-percent reduction in multiparty daytime crashes subsequent to the DRL law. Vaaje, T.: Kjorelys om dagen reducerer ulykkestallene. Arbetsdokument 15.8.1986. Transportokonomisk institutt, Postboks 6110 Etterstad, N-0602 Oslo 6, Norway, 1986.A study in Norway published in Norwegian and reviewed by Koornstra found a 14-percent drop in multiparty crashes prior to the law, during the 1980-85 period when voluntary DRL use was climbing. Elvik, R.: The effects on accidents of compulsory use of daytime running lights for cars in Norway. Accid Anal Prev 25: 383-398 (1993). A study in Norway, covering the period 1980 to 1990, examined the effect of the country's DRL law, which applied to new cars in 1985 and to all cars beginning in 1988. DRL use was estimated to be about 30-35 percent in 1980-81, 60-65 percent in 1984-85, and 90-95 percent in 1989-90, so, as in the earlier Scandinavian studies, only partial implementation of DRLs was assessed. There was a statistically significant 10-percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes associated with DRLs in this study, excluding rear-end collisions, which increased by 20 percent. For all daytime crashes involving multiple parties, there was a statistically significant 15-percent reduction associated with DRLs in the summer but not in the winter. No significant effects of DRLs were found for collisions involving pedestrians or motorcyclists. Hansen, L. K.: Daytime running lights in Denmark--Evaluation of the safety effect. Danish Council of Road Safety Research, Copenhagen, 1993; Hansen, L. K.: Daytime running lights: Experience with compulsory use in Denmark. Fersi Conference, Lille, 1994. Two studies evaluating Denmark's 1990 DRL law have been completed, one that assessed short-term effects, the other looking at longer term effects. Results of these two studies were quite consistent. There was a small reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes (7 percent) in the first year and 3 months the law was in effect, with one type of DRL-relevant crash (left turn in front of oncoming vehicle) reduced by 37 percent. In the second study, which covered 2 years and 9 months of the law, there was a 6-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes, and a 34-percent reduction in left-turn crashes. There was a small reduction in motor vehicle-pedalcyclist collisions (4 percent) but a statistically significant increase (16 percent) in motor vehicle-pedestrian collisions. North American Studies Some DRL critics have attempted to undermine the unequivical results of international studies on the grounds that driving conditions in Scandinavian countries are not comparable to North American driving conditions. The following studies utterly refute this assertion Cantilli, E. J.: Accident experience with parking lights as running lights. Highway Research Record Report No. 32. National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1970.In the United States, a small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18-percent lower daytime, multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles. Stein, H. S.: Fleet experience with daytime running lights in the United States. Technical Paper 851239. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 1985.In a much larger fleet study conducted in the 1980s, more than 2,000 passenger vehicles in three fleets were equipped with DRLs. One fleet operated in Connecticut, another in several States in the Southwest, and the third operated throughout the United States. A 7-percent reduction was found in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes in the DRL-equipped vehicles compared with control vehicles. Aurora, H., et al.: Effectiveness of daytime running lights in Canada. TP 12298 (E). Transport Canada, Ottawa, 1994. In a study in Canada comparing 1990 model year vehicles (required to have DRLs) with 1989 vehicles, a statistically significant 11-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes other than rear-end impacts was estimated. This estimate was adjusted to take into account the fact that about 29 percent of 1989 vehicles were fitted with DRLs. Collisions involving pedestrians, pedalcyclists, motorcyclists, and heavy trucks and buses were not included in this study. Sparks, G. A., et al.: The effects of daytime running lights on crashes between two vehicles in Saskatchewan: a study of a government fleet. Accid Anal. Prev 25: 619-625 (1991). In another Canadian study, crashes of vehicles with and without DRLs in a government fleet in Saskatchewan were compared with a random sample of crashes involving vehciles without DRLs. The estimated reduction in daytime two-vehicle crashes was 15 percent. When the analysis was limited to two-vehicle collisions most likely to be affected by DRLs--involving vehicles approaching from the front or side--the estimated reduction was 28 percent. Society of Automotive Engineers Inc., Automotive Engineering Vol. 102 ; No. 8 ; Pg. 35; ISSN: 0098-2571 (August, 1994). In 1994 Avis, Inc. announced the results of a traveler-safety study analyzing the incidence and degree of damage to cars equipped with daytime running lights; the study showed a significantly greater degree of damage to those without daytime running lights (DRLs). Those equipped with DRLs have their headlights on at all times and are more visible to other drivers. During the day, they are on at an 80% power level; in the dark they operate at 100%. Damage severity in the non-DRL group (measured in terms of cost) was 69% greater than that of the DRL-equipped fleet. Only the non-DRL vehicles experienced damage in excess of $15,000. The Avis study involved 1500 cars with DRLs, and 1500 without, representing approximately 29,000 rentals in eight cities in Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Washington. Summary of the Studies U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). In summary, although the studies of DRLs have differed in design, analysis techniques, and outcome measures, the later studies are largely in accordance with the earlier ones, indicating that the overall effect of DRLs on motor vehicle crashes is positive. Duration of DRL Effects An often-used anti-DRL argument is that the positive effects of DRLs will erode over time as the public becomes accustomed to their use on the roadways. The following analysis proves this argument to be fallacious. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). The early and later DRL studies have shed light on concerns about the duration of DRL effects and the possibility of negative effects of DRLs on some road users. It has been suggested that when DRLs are first introduced into some part of the vehicle population, positive crash reduction effects will be found only because DRLs are new and unique and the vehicles that have them stand out from those that do not. Once people get used to seeing vehicles with DRLs, it is conjectured, their effects will diminish, and, if all vehicles have them, their noticeability will be reduced or drivers will come to ignore the extra information. All three of the early Scandinavian studies examined the effects of DRLs over a period of several years when DRL use was increasing, and DRL effects were estimated in Sweden and Finland when DRL use was nearly 100 percent. Thus to the extent that novelty or habitation effects occur, the effects of DRLs in the early Scandinavian studies were still positive over time and with close to 100 percent use. The later studies also suggest that the initial positive effects of DRLs do not dissipate over time. The reductions in multiple-vehicle crashes found in the Denmark studies, based on experience during the first 15 months of the law and then extended to include the first 33 months, were very similar. This similarity led the author to onclude that the effect was a permanent one and not due to the novelty of DRLs. In the study in Norway, the reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes was maintained during the 3 years in which DRLs were required for all vehicles and use was close to 100 percent. Effect of DRLs on Motorcyles Another anti-DRL argument is that their use in automobiles will negate the positive effects of motorcycles operating with their lights on. The following studies indicate that this argument has little statistical weight. The effect of DRLs on motorcycle crashes has been studied in Denmark and Norway, where daytime lights were required for motorcyclists prior to the DRL law for passenger vehicles. In the study in Norway, a 4-percent increase, not statistically significant, was found for motorcyclist crashes. In Hansen's evaluation of Denmark's law, daytime multiple-vehicle crashes involving motorcycles were unchanged, but nighttime and single-vehicle daytime motorcycle crashes decreased over this period, leading Hansen to conclude that there might be a "minor negative impact" of DRLs on motorcycle crashes. Costs of DRLs One the most foolish arguments raised against DRLs is that they are expensive to implement and decrease fuel economy. This argument is summary dismissed by the facts cited below. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). DRL costs are low, so even very modest crash reduction capabilities would be cost effective. For example, according to General Motors, there is a minimal wiring cost in converting to DRLs, and a fraction of a mile fuel penalty (about $ 3 per year for the average driver).
Posted by john davies at 18:00
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
About Me
john davies View my complete profile
this is quite a long reply,my volvo s40 has sips,thats 6 airbags,none can be switched off.
at the end i discuss drl s because they too constitute optional safety equipment toprotect you and your passengers
what youre saying is you want to disconnect the airbag to allow a child under a certain height to travel in the passenger seat,not disconnect the drivers airbag at all!
remember that disabling standard fit safety features,which do not come with an option of switching on or off,is a modification to the standard car so you will have to tell your insurer
as advice,a rear facing child seat cant be placed in a front seat with an airbag (by law),the child seat must be forward facing and pushed as far back(away from the airbag) as possible
a child under 135cm cant travel in the front seat without the correct child seat,so it sounds like you need a forward facing child seat pushed back as far as possible
here is a link i hope helps you,and below the text is reproduced:
http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/advice/childcarseats.htm
THINK! Home | Advice
THINK! advice & factsheet - child car seats
- In 2005, 27 children aged 0-11 were killed and 299 seriously injured in cars.
Of this group the number of 0-4's killed was 11, 107 seriously injured and 1,919 slightly injured in cars.
In 2004, a survey conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory showed that 5% of 0-4 year olds were not restrained in any way in the rear of cars.
The morning and afternoon school runs are the peak times for accidents involving children.
Even at low speeds, having your child in an incorrectly fitted seat could increase their risk of injury.
It is now the law that children up to 135cms (around 4'5"), or up to 12 years old, whichever comes first, must travel in the correct child seat.
- Protect your children by using a properly fitted, purpose made child car seat which meets the current safety standards and is appropriate for your child's weight and height. Try before you buy and get a trained professional to demonstrate how to fit the seat.
When fitting a child car seat in your car, always follow the manufacturer's instructions thoroughly and allow plenty of time. The same applies when it comes to strapping your baby or child into the seat.
Make sure your child car seat is properly fitted every time you use it. Always keep a copy of the fitting instructions in your car.
Child seats are designed for various weights of child. As a general guide:- Baby seats are for babies weighing up to 13kgs (birth to 9-12 months) or until they can support their own head. They face backwards and are fitted into the front or rear of the car with a seat belt. They should never be used in the front where the front seat is protected with a frontal airbag.
Child car seats are for children weighing between 9 and 18 kgs (aged nine months to about four years) and have their own straps. They face forwards and are usually fitted in the back seat of a car with a seat belt.
Booster seats and booster cushions are for children weighing 15 to 36 kgs (aged around 4 years and upwards). They are designed to raise them so they can use an adult seat belt safely across both their chest and lower abdomen.
By law, you have to wear a seat belt if one is fitted. No child can in the front seat without the correct child car seat (or seat belt if over 135cm).
By law, children under 3 years old MUST NOT travel in a car or goods vehicle unless they are in the correct baby/child car seat.
By law, you MUST NOT place a rear-facing child seat in a seat where there is an active frontal airbag. Forward-facing restraints should be as far back from the airbag as possible. Always check the car handbook.
Never modify a child car seat or seat belt to try to make it fit.
Check the advice in your car handbook and the advice from the child seat manufacturer. If in doubt call the manufacturer's helpline or speak to your local Road Safety Officer.
Lap and diagonal belts are safer than lap-only belts. - Baby seats are for babies weighing up to 13kgs (birth to 9-12 months) or until they can support their own head. They face backwards and are fitted into the front or rear of the car with a seat belt. They should never be used in the front where the front seat is protected with a frontal airbag.
Information on the Child Car Seats Campaign can be found in the Road Safety Campaigns section.
On a related point ,to further increase the safety of occupants the use of dipped headlights during daytime will significantly minimise the risk of death and personal injury,and their use will be mandatory by 2012
heres a link for you to my site:
http://www.daylightrunninglights.blogspot.com/
and heres the text,copyright waived
Why the time has come for daytime headlights
10 December 2006
Why the time has come for daytime running lights.
One of the greatest obstacles to mandatory daytime running lights has always been the prospect of imposing upon motorists both another restriction upon their freedom and a significant financial burden.
Let me start by considering briefly these two objections:
1.Do we wish to substitute driver decision making on the need for lighting for legislative compulsion.
The primary rebuttal of this argument is that it is egocentric.
The motorist may indeed be able to decide whether or not his view of the road is sufficient to drive without lighting, but he is unable to answer decisively whether the pedestrian can see him.
The colour of the car,the colour of surroundings,whether the sun is behind the car and the nature of the junction are all variables which do not impact upon the driver`s decision making.
I submit that it is highly unlikely that in the course of a journey a driver will continuously re-evaluate whether to turn on the headlights other than when passing through a tunnel.
It is therefore often necessary to turn the headlights on,even on bright days,which many motorists omit to do because misplaced hazard perception.
The driver decision making process is inherently flawed because the driver is unable to determine the level of the car`s conspicuity yet mandating headlight use has no converse disadvantage.
In other words the argument should be turned on its head,the question is not whether the driver should be free to decide whether to turn the headlights on,but whether he should be permitted in some or any circumstances to turn them off.
To give an analogy,the objectors` argument it is similar to a local council saying,"We own the streetlights,its up to us to say when to turn them on,even though we are in the council offices and you are the road users" .
Infringement of driver freedom was raised as an objection in relation to compulsory seat belt wearing,but who now seriously maintains their use should be optional.
Further,omitting to wear a driver seatbelt is wholly self-harming,whereas omitting to use daytime running lights may be harmful to all other road users as well as the driver
2.Installation costs.
Retro-fitting of daytime running lighting systems such as that proposed by Hella will cost approximately 60 pounds though the AA suggest that led daylight running lights which would reduce fuel consumption cannot viably be retro-fitted.
The fitment of daytime running lights to new cars involves negligible additional production costs,and Hella has already submitted a low cost conversion for existing headlights,using a power output approximately one quarter that of dipped beam headlights.
3. Running costs.
Non-led daytime running lights use between 1.5 to 3 per cent more fuel,though this may be less where only the frontheadlights are engaged.
led daylight running lights may use as little as 0.3per cent extra fuel 4.Do we wish to criminalise non adopters.
Unlike the introduction of compulsory seatbelts which may have criminalised the absent minded,daytime running lights are engaged automatically with the engine.
If they fail during use,this is no different to a headlight blowing and no criminal offence will necessarily have been committed,and if they are not operational for the annual mot test the car will not be roadworthy in the first place.
Therefore very few motorists will be criminalised by the introduction of this legislation.
It should benoted that the EC Consultation Document entitled"Saving Lives With Daylight Running Lights (DRL)" makes 5 alternate prpoposals,and driver criminality will be detremined by which is the preferred proposal.
For the readers convenience I include them here:
1) The use of DRL is required on all motor vehicles from a certain date.
or 2) The use of DRL is required on all motor vehicles from a certain date. Inaddition, new motor vehicles will be required to have an automatic switching-on of dipped beam headlights.
or 3) The use of DRL is required on all motor vehicles from a certain date. Inaddition, new cars sold after the same date will be required to have dedicated DRL that are switched on automatically.
or 4) New cars sold after a certain date are required to have an automaticswitching-on of dipped beam headlights. Cars that do not have automaticDRL will not be required to turn on low beam headlights.
or 5) New cars sold after a certain date are required to have dedicated DRL thatare turned on automatically. Cars that do not have dedicated DRL will not be required to turn on their dipped beams.
To quote from ROSPA`s Response to the EC consultation document, "RoSPA would therefore support option 5 as the most acceptable and pragmatic,although if realistic answers can be found to the practical issues of option 3 then this would be preferable".
These practical issues are, "An engineering requirement to retrofit automatic DRL would not be a pragmatic solution. It is difficult to see how this would be practical".
Hella has a viable and low cost solution to the retro-fit issue which could be made available for 60 pounds before the advantages of economies of scale .
The Justification
So far only the practicalities of introducing daytime running lights has been touched on,the substantive case for their introduction on safety grounds has involved considerable empirical evidence and research.
It is sufficient here to mention that ROSPA,a charity selflessly dedicated to road safety,recommends their introduction subject to certain practicalities being overcome.
For further reading please refer to the john davies research paper 08.10.2006 entitled,"Why the time has come for daytime running lights".
The Studies
Various studies have shown that DRLs can improve the noticeability and detectability of vehicles in the central and peripheral fields of view. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995); Allen, J. M., Strickland, J., Ward, B., and Siegel, A.: Daytime headlights and position on the highway. Am J Optometry 46: 33--36 (1969); Attwood, D. A.: Daytime running lights project, IV: Two-lane passing performance as a function of headlight intensity and ambient illumination. Technical Report RSU 76/1. Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1976; Attwood, D. A.: Daytime running lights project, II: Vehicle detection as a function of headlight use and ambient illumination. Technical Report RSU 75/2. Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1975; Horberg, U.: Running light--twilight conspicuity and distance judgement. Report 215. Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1977; Horberg, U., and Rumar, K.: Running lights--conspicuity and glare. Report 178. Department of Psychology, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1975; Kirkpatrick, M., Baker, C. C., and Heasly, C. C.: A study of daytime running lights design factors. (DOT HS 807 193). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1987.; Ziedman, K., Burger, W., and Smith R.: Evaluation of the conspicuity of daytime running lights. (DOT HS 807 609). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 1990. International Studies Andersson, K., Nilsson, G., and Salusjarvi, M.: The effect of recommended and compulsory use of vehicle lights on road accidents in Finland. Report 102A. National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden, 1976. A study in Finland conducted between 1968 and 1974 found that DRLs, when required on rural roads in the winter, were associated with a 21-percent reduction in daytime multiparty crash events (involving more than one motor vehicle or motor vehicles colliding with pedestrians or pedalcyclists). Andersson, K., and Nilsson, G.: The effect on accidents of compulsory use of running lights during daylight hours in Sweden. Report 208A. National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden, 1981.In Sweden, a study based on 2 years of pre-law and 2 years of post-law data reported and 11-percent reduction in multiparty daytime crashes subsequent to the DRL law. Vaaje, T.: Kjorelys om dagen reducerer ulykkestallene. Arbetsdokument 15.8.1986. Transportokonomisk institutt, Postboks 6110 Etterstad, N-0602 Oslo 6, Norway, 1986.A study in Norway published in Norwegian and reviewed by Koornstra found a 14-percent drop in multiparty crashes prior to the law, during the 1980-85 period when voluntary DRL use was climbing. Elvik, R.: The effects on accidents of compulsory use of daytime running lights for cars in Norway. Accid Anal Prev 25: 383-398 (1993). A study in Norway, covering the period 1980 to 1990, examined the effect of the country's DRL law, which applied to new cars in 1985 and to all cars beginning in 1988. DRL use was estimated to be about 30-35 percent in 1980-81, 60-65 percent in 1984-85, and 90-95 percent in 1989-90, so, as in the earlier Scandinavian studies, only partial implementation of DRLs was assessed. There was a statistically significant 10-percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes associated with DRLs in this study, excluding rear-end collisions, which increased by 20 percent. For all daytime crashes involving multiple parties, there was a statistically significant 15-percent reduction associated with DRLs in the summer but not in the winter. No significant effects of DRLs were found for collisions involving pedestrians or motorcyclists. Hansen, L. K.: Daytime running lights in Denmark--Evaluation of the safety effect. Danish Council of Road Safety Research, Copenhagen, 1993; Hansen, L. K.: Daytime running lights: Experience with compulsory use in Denmark. Fersi Conference, Lille, 1994. Two studies evaluating Denmark's 1990 DRL law have been completed, one that assessed short-term effects, the other looking at longer term effects. Results of these two studies were quite consistent. There was a small reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes (7 percent) in the first year and 3 months the law was in effect, with one type of DRL-relevant crash (left turn in front of oncoming vehicle) reduced by 37 percent. In the second study, which covered 2 years and 9 months of the law, there was a 6-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes, and a 34-percent reduction in left-turn crashes. There was a small reduction in motor vehicle-pedalcyclist collisions (4 percent) but a statistically significant increase (16 percent) in motor vehicle-pedestrian collisions. North American Studies Some DRL critics have attempted to undermine the unequivical results of international studies on the grounds that driving conditions in Scandinavian countries are not comparable to North American driving conditions. The following studies utterly refute this assertion Cantilli, E. J.: Accident experience with parking lights as running lights. Highway Research Record Report No. 32. National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1970.In the United States, a small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18-percent lower daytime, multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles. Stein, H. S.: Fleet experience with daytime running lights in the United States. Technical Paper 851239. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 1985.In a much larger fleet study conducted in the 1980s, more than 2,000 passenger vehicles in three fleets were equipped with DRLs. One fleet operated in Connecticut, another in several States in the Southwest, and the third operated throughout the United States. A 7-percent reduction was found in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes in the DRL-equipped vehicles compared with control vehicles. Aurora, H., et al.: Effectiveness of daytime running lights in Canada. TP 12298 (E). Transport Canada, Ottawa, 1994. In a study in Canada comparing 1990 model year vehicles (required to have DRLs) with 1989 vehicles, a statistically significant 11-percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes other than rear-end impacts was estimated. This estimate was adjusted to take into account the fact that about 29 percent of 1989 vehicles were fitted with DRLs. Collisions involving pedestrians, pedalcyclists, motorcyclists, and heavy trucks and buses were not included in this study. Sparks, G. A., et al.: The effects of daytime running lights on crashes between two vehicles in Saskatchewan: a study of a government fleet. Accid Anal. Prev 25: 619-625 (1991). In another Canadian study, crashes of vehicles with and without DRLs in a government fleet in Saskatchewan were compared with a random sample of crashes involving vehciles without DRLs. The estimated reduction in daytime two-vehicle crashes was 15 percent. When the analysis was limited to two-vehicle collisions most likely to be affected by DRLs--involving vehicles approaching from the front or side--the estimated reduction was 28 percent. Society of Automotive Engineers Inc., Automotive Engineering Vol. 102 ; No. 8 ; Pg. 35; ISSN: 0098-2571 (August, 1994). In 1994 Avis, Inc. announced the results of a traveler-safety study analyzing the incidence and degree of damage to cars equipped with daytime running lights; the study showed a significantly greater degree of damage to those without daytime running lights (DRLs). Those equipped with DRLs have their headlights on at all times and are more visible to other drivers. During the day, they are on at an 80% power level; in the dark they operate at 100%. Damage severity in the non-DRL group (measured in terms of cost) was 69% greater than that of the DRL-equipped fleet. Only the non-DRL vehicles experienced damage in excess of $15,000. The Avis study involved 1500 cars with DRLs, and 1500 without, representing approximately 29,000 rentals in eight cities in Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Washington. Summary of the Studies U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). In summary, although the studies of DRLs have differed in design, analysis techniques, and outcome measures, the later studies are largely in accordance with the earlier ones, indicating that the overall effect of DRLs on motor vehicle crashes is positive. Duration of DRL Effects An often-used anti-DRL argument is that the positive effects of DRLs will erode over time as the public becomes accustomed to their use on the roadways. The following analysis proves this argument to be fallacious. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). The early and later DRL studies have shed light on concerns about the duration of DRL effects and the possibility of negative effects of DRLs on some road users. It has been suggested that when DRLs are first introduced into some part of the vehicle population, positive crash reduction effects will be found only because DRLs are new and unique and the vehicles that have them stand out from those that do not. Once people get used to seeing vehicles with DRLs, it is conjectured, their effects will diminish, and, if all vehicles have them, their noticeability will be reduced or drivers will come to ignore the extra information. All three of the early Scandinavian studies examined the effects of DRLs over a period of several years when DRL use was increasing, and DRL effects were estimated in Sweden and Finland when DRL use was nearly 100 percent. Thus to the extent that novelty or habitation effects occur, the effects of DRLs in the early Scandinavian studies were still positive over time and with close to 100 percent use. The later studies also suggest that the initial positive effects of DRLs do not dissipate over time. The reductions in multiple-vehicle crashes found in the Denmark studies, based on experience during the first 15 months of the law and then extended to include the first 33 months, were very similar. This similarity led the author to onclude that the effect was a permanent one and not due to the novelty of DRLs. In the study in Norway, the reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes was maintained during the 3 years in which DRLs were required for all vehicles and use was close to 100 percent. Effect of DRLs on Motorcyles Another anti-DRL argument is that their use in automobiles will negate the positive effects of motorcycles operating with their lights on. The following studies indicate that this argument has little statistical weight. The effect of DRLs on motorcycle crashes has been studied in Denmark and Norway, where daytime lights were required for motorcyclists prior to the DRL law for passenger vehicles. In the study in Norway, a 4-percent increase, not statistically significant, was found for motorcyclist crashes. In Hansen's evaluation of Denmark's law, daytime multiple-vehicle crashes involving motorcycles were unchanged, but nighttime and single-vehicle daytime motorcycle crashes decreased over this period, leading Hansen to conclude that there might be a "minor negative impact" of DRLs on motorcycle crashes. Costs of DRLs One the most foolish arguments raised against DRLs is that they are expensive to implement and decrease fuel economy. This argument is summary dismissed by the facts cited below. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Reports , Vol. 110 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 233; ISSN: 0033-3549 (May, 1995). DRL costs are low, so even very modest crash reduction capabilities would be cost effective. For example, according to General Motors, there is a minimal wiring cost in converting to DRLs, and a fraction of a mile fuel penalty (about $ 3 per year for the average driver).
Posted by john davies at 18:00
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
About Me
john davies View my complete profile
I'm assuming you want to de-activate the airbag without going to the expense of buying a Porsche child seat, and you are going to fit a different child seat that hasn't got the de-activation buckle. That being the case, there is a DIY on the Renntech forum which might be of interest:
http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=9658
I think if you start pulling fuses you will probably get an airbag fault light, which will have to be reset with a PST2/PIWIS at a Porsche centre or independent.
http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=9658
I think if you start pulling fuses you will probably get an airbag fault light, which will have to be reset with a PST2/PIWIS at a Porsche centre or independent.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
