> Podałem linka:
> http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/vehicles/d
oc/consultations/drl_trl.pdf
Wybacz, że dopiero teraz Ci odpowiadam, ale postanowiłem zapoznać się z
dokumentem do którego link podałeś.
Dokument pochodzi z 2009, a opiera się na badaniach z 2006 roku
przeprowadzonych w UK, która o ile mnie pamięć nie myli, nie wprowadziła
całorocznego obowiązku używania świateł do jazdy dziennej.
Za dalszy komentarz do przytoczonego dokumentu niech posłuży konkluzja z ww.
Pozwolę sobie ją zacytować w oryginale, by nie być posądzonym o
nieudolne/złe/złośliwe tłumaczenie.

1. There is substantial evidence that the mandatory use of DRL would provide
a net accident
reduction. However, the evidence concerning the magnitude of the effect and
particularly the
relationship with accident severity is considerably weaker.

2. The estimates of the fuel and emissions increases as a result of
implementing DRL are
reasonable and possibly slightly conservative (high).

3. The research into the potential of DRL on cars to impair the conspicuity
of motorcyclists and
other vulnerable road users was well controlled but limited in scope and did
not consider some
important variables. However, when compared with other similar studies some
consistent
conclusions could be drawn. These were that it should be possible to design
dedicated DRL of
low intensity that are beneficial to the conspicuity of cars without
adversely affecting the
conspicuity of motorcyclists. However, DRL of higher intensity (potentially
including
standard passing beam headlights) could have an adverse effect on
motorcyclist conspicuity in
some circumstances.

4. There is considerable scientific uncertainty inherent in the values of
the benefit to cost ratios
presented in the EC work. The key variable is the assumption that the
accident benefits would
be considerably greater for fatal accidents (15%) than for serious (10%) or
slight (5%)
accidents. This assumption was very weakly supported by the available data
and changing it
to a more technically defensible assumption that the mean effect of 5.9%
remained the same
for all accident severities reduced the benefit to cost ratios to much less
than 1.

5. It was considered that it would be more technically valid to present a
range of possible benefit
to cost ratios within which there could be confidence that the true answer
would lie, thus
reflecting the technical uncertainty. The analysis showed that a ratio of 1
would fall within
this range meaning that, although an accident reduction potential exists, it
is not possible to
say with certainty whether the benefits of implementing DRL would outweigh
the costs.

Proszę Cię więc bardzo serdecznie, przestań się ośmieszać przytaczając link
do ww. dokumentu jako potwierdzenie faktów.
Najciekawsze moim zdaniem jest:
"Analiza pokazuje, że choć redukcja wypadków POTENCJALNIE występuje, to nie
jest możliwe określenie, czy korzyści wprowadzenia DRL nie przewyższą
kosztów"
Dalej będziesz twierdził, że czarne jest białe?
Pozdrawiam.
WOJO