It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Brighting used in Gang Stalking as a form of Torture or Threat
a. This involves a vehicle parked on the roadside with headlights on facing the subject as he/she walks or drives by. The car may then drive away just after the subject sees the truck/car to further target the subject.
b. A parked vehicle with headlights on in front of the subject's house that drives away when the subject looks out the window.
c. An oncoming car with High Beams on in a location where they should not be used and are not dimmed!!
The above two overt tactics are done initially to sensitize the subject.
Then the brighting may continue by one or more vehicles parked in a store parking lot with headlights on as subject drives by or vehicles parked in their own driveways with their headlights on as the subject drives by.
These tactics are then done many, many times thereafter to torture and threaten the subject as he/she drives by.
c. Turning on High beams in normal driving conditions where they should not be used!!
Originally posted by En4cer
Yes every little bit helps but unfortunately it comes down to mathematics. Every year more and more drivers operate on our roadways increasing the number of accidents (Accidents have gone up every year in my jurisdiction over the past 15 years – so has the volume of drivers).
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.