As va toki EU doka radau: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/vehicles/doc/consultations/drl_trl.pdf esmines isvados tingintiems skaityt: Although it is possible to be critical of several specific aspects of the work, very substantial evidence has been presented that the introduction of DRL would result in a net casualty reduction effect. DRL with high light intensities could impair the conspicuity of motorcyclists but it was possible to design DRL that could improve the conspicuity of cars in the dim ambient light conditions of most relevance without adversely affecting the conspicuity of motorcyclists. The exact recommendations varied but DRL of 200cd would have fallen within the recommended ranges of both Cobb (1992) and GRE (2003, 2004). This shows that it is very important that the technical details of the implementation of DRL are considered very carefully since it may be that a policy option which involved the use of existing passing beam headlights (or high intensity dedicated DRL) as DRL could have an adverse effect on motorcyclist conspicuity. However, an independent assessment of those effects using a sophisticated computer modelling technique has suggested that the estimate of a 0.5% to 1.5% increase in fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions appears reasonably accurate and possibly even slightly higher than justified. The computer modelling undertaken as part of this review suggested increases of 0.28% for dedicated DRL (21 watts each) and 1.0% for passing beam headlights (55w each plus rear and interior lights). "CodeC" wrote in message news:je56k7$h0$1@trimpas.omnitel.net... skaitineju stai 108 puslapiu dokumenta parengta NHTSA. tai tikrai rimtas dokumentas, su kruvom detaliu, atliktu tyrimu aprasymu begales ivertintu aplinkybiu. daug skirtingu rezultatu suvestiniu i labai daug ka atsizvelgta. tikrai nesiruosiu cia perpasakoti. pasakysiu tik trumpai: pacioj bendriausioj rezulatatu suvestinej, yra stai toks idomus dalykas: The following shows the effectivness of DRLs against all three daytime target crashes: -0.7% kas isvertus zodziais: DRL zvelgiant labai globaliai PADIDINA avaringuma 0.7%. yra suvestinese ir teigiamu skaiciu. yra ir neigiamu - gerokai didesniu uz -0.7%. priklausomai nuo LABAI daug aplinkybiu. dar kas idomu, beveik prie visu rezultatu padaryta tokia isvada: "none of the results were statistically significant" tai dabar klausimas tiems, kas bent minimaliai sugeba mastyt: tai tera viens is daugelio dokumentu. tai dokumentas turintis info su realiu tyrimu rezultatais ir detaliu metodologijos aprasymu. tokiu dokumentu yra daug, is ivairiu saltiniu, su skirtingom metodologijom. kiek teko man ju matyt - bent kazkiek rimtai atrodantys skaitosi pakankamai sudetingai ir tikrai yra ka veikti norint suprasti. jie pateikia nemazai kontraversisku isvadu. FAKTAS yra labai paprastas: DRL yra labai smarkiai abejotinos naudos dalykas. sunkiai ivertinamas ir sunkiai turetu but sprendziama: gerai DRL konkrecioj vietoj konkreciu laiku ar be. vienokiose situacijose lyg ir yra naudos, kitose lyg ir yra zalos. o ar tai buvo isstudijuota priimant tokia tvarka? ar bent vienas valdziazmogis yra mates ir skaites kanors panasaus? ar bent vienas JUSU yra tai skaite? ar bent vienas turit ziniu ir sugebejimu tyrimu isvadas ir metodus interpretuoti ir PRITAIKYTI vietinei situacijai? ar tai buvo padaryta isleidziant tokia tvarka? ar jus turit teise mane durnint ir zemint, negirdeje issamesnio DRL prievoles pagrindimo kaip 'lempa lengviau pastebet' ir savo subjektyviu pezalu? pdf NEprisegsiu. nei vieno oponento verto ir igalaus suprast kas ten parashyta cia nera. tie kas domisi ir kam rupi REALYBE, o ne pasipyzdavoti, tikiu patys sugebes susirasti. o troliam sulau pamastyt, kaip is sono jus atrodot varydami ant manes. man tai neskauda, tiesa sakant man netgi linksma. pamatyt ir parodyt begalini zmoniu ribotuma, bukuma ir netgi piktuma.