Daytime running lights

[jasonh]

Any petitions on the Govt e-petition site yet? I'd set one up if I had any clue how....

[Horse]

By evidence, I was hoping for a more reliable independent source rather than pointing at blatantly biased and emotive web sites titled "drivers against DRL" or similar.

Ty this (you may need to set aside an hour or two):

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p75/239101.pdf

Although I can't find it on the web anywhere, IIRC TRL found that the times of day when headlamps (or DRL, which are different to AHO) made a difference to motorcycle conspicuity was at dawn and dusk.

Let's be honest about this, the zone of risk (for example, at a junction where a vehicle is likely to encroach in to a bike's path) is the 3 - 4 seconds leading to the junction. Anyone who can't see a bike 3 -4 seconds away shouldn't be on the road or hasn't looked.

There are also other effects to consider, eg:


Shaw, 1979

Compared the accuracy with which subjects estimated the speed of a motorcycle with headlamp on, and off.

Subjects over-estimated the speed for lower speed of approach
Subjects under-estimated the speed for higher speed of approach

The reversal from over- to under- took place between 50-55mph with the headlamp off, and between 35-40mph with the headlamp on.

[oscar]

That's me buying the darkest shade of glasses I can find!

[manilva15b]

I am personally strongly for using lights during the day at all times. In my opinion they:
1. improve the visibility of vehicles, i.e. allow to more reliably, and earlier, identify all traffic around

2. they remove the risk that some drivers will forget to turn their lights on in "uncertain" conditions, e.g. at dusk, when it starts to rain or becomes foggy, i.e. visibility starts to deteriorate.

There is a difference which needs to be appreciated; that of using DRLs and headlights. I have always been and will continue to lobby against daytime headlights for many of the reasons discussed, particularly in respect of the more vulnerable road users. DRL is different, and I particularly agree with WS's point 2 above (tunnels being a particular issue here in Spain).

On the economy side, IIRC the Commission proposal pointed out that the increase in emissions would be 0.3%, hardly significant. That would of course be even less with the increasing adoption of LED technology in vehicle lights.

As far as making it an offence NOT to use DRLs, that is down to the member state government amending their own traffic legislation.

[Horse]

I am personally strongly for using lights during the day at all times. In my opinion they:
1. improve the visibility of vehicles, i.e. allow to more reliably, and earlier, identify all traffic around

2. they remove the risk that some drivers will forget to turn their lights on in "uncertain" conditions, e.g. at dusk, when it starts to rain or becomes foggy, i.e. visibility starts to deteriorate.

There is a difference which needs to be appreciated; that of using DRLs and headlights. I have always been and will continue to lobby against daytime headlights for many of the reasons discussed, particularly in respect of the more vulnerable road users. DRL is different, and I particularly agree with WS's point 2 above (tunnels being a particular issue here in Spain).

I don't understand how you draw a distinction between the 'benefits' of AHO & DRL. How do you see (sic) them differently?

And things like tunnels are really irrelevant - we shouldn't be bringing in Big Nanny laws 'just in case'. A lot of cars have light sensitive headlamps anyway.

[Horse]

Hi

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm

I am personally strongly for using lights during the day at all times. In my opinion they:
1. improve the visibility of vehicles, i.e. allow to more reliably, and earlier, identify all traffic around

As long as that 'traffic' doesn't include cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders . . . etc.?

[manilva15b]

I don't understand how you draw a distinction between the 'benefits' of AHO & DRL. How do you see (sic) them differently?

And things like tunnels are really irrelevant - we shouldn't be bringing in Big Nanny laws 'just in case'. A lot of cars have light sensitive headlamps anyway.

By AHO I presume you means headlights. DRL are "sidelights" or "position lights". DRL allows you to see the vehicle more easily under most conditions without the drawback of either being dazzled or distracted. There is an advantage for the vehicle with DRL in that it still allows the use of the "passing" light function without having to actively cancel it afterwards.

I strongly disagree with tunnels being irrelevant. Round here at least many tunnels are poorly lit or unlit (and still many drivers fail to light up ).

I would also disgree with the statement that many cars have automatic lights. This is an option on many new cars, but the majority of cars on the road do not have this. I have not heard of this feature being made mandatory; so it is not relevant to the arguement.

The point has been made many times on this forum that although the forum users are either actually or aspiring advanced drivers, the majority of road users are not (and wouldn't recognise advanced driving if it ran over them ). Legislators in this case really do have to make rules for the lowest common denominator in order to protect other road users.

[WS]

As long as that 'traffic' doesn't include cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders . . . etc.?

Personally, this thread is the first time I heard about the idea that using lights in daytime may reduce the visibility of pedestrians and cyclists. I scanned through the anti-DRL links above and get the point... but this requires scientific evidence.

Intuitively, in my personal opinion, I don't see how cars with their lights on during the day could distract me and make me not see a pedestrian.

In Poland using dipped-beam or DRL during daytime had been strongly recommended by the police and road safety organisations before they introduced compulsory use of lights at all times last spring. Of course I accept that these views may be different in different countries. Each country has its own tradition and road culture and some things may work in one country and not work in others. At the same I would be cautious in using countries like Bulgaria (which was mentioned in the abovementioned links as a country where DRL did not work out) as an example of what works and what doesn't. Most Eastern European countries develop fast and the number of cars on the roads is growing dramatically from year to year, which may "falsify" accident statistics. So one would need to see all the numbers in order to form a jundgement.

At the same time Austria is probably a more stable market and if the introduction of DRL is the only thing they changed recently and the number of accidents involving pedestrians etc. increased, that would mean something.

[fishter]

Intuitively, in my personal opinion, I don't see how cars with their lights on during the day could distract me and make me not see a pedestrian.

The problem arises when you expect all cars to have lights showing. At that point when the "average" driver glances out of the side window they simply count the lit up cars and don't see the cyclist between them and the first lit-up car.

[Gromit37]

Intuitively, in my personal opinion, I don't see how cars with their lights on during the day could distract me and make me not see a pedestrian.

The problem arises when you expect all cars to have lights showing. At that point when the "average" driver glances out of the side window they simply count the lit up cars and don't see the cyclist between them and the first lit-up car.

I disagree.

As a lifelong (but recently lapsed) cyclist, I can assure you that cyclists will be in danger no matter what. Cyclists can make themselves very 'visible' should they wish to. Apart from common sense and road positioning I use flourecent/reflective waistcoat, flashing LEDs and/or regular lights as and when required. I ride a recumbent trike, which sits very low to the ground. Some people claim it's a deathtrap, that I can't be seen... but the evidence proves I am seen even without all of these aids. The trike takes up little more roadspace than a normal cycle, yet I get given much more room by 99.999% of motorists than I did riding a regular cycle. Judging by the stares of people around me, I know I can be clearly seen by motorists from quite a distance.

I suspect it's a case of motorists not actively looking for anything but cars and in some cases just ignoring what they see. This is not going to be affected by DRLs. I have had people pull out on me when I'm lit up like a Christmas tree despite being the only other vehicle on the road and riding in the primary road position. On uprights or my 'bent.

Ian

[Horse]

By AHO I presume you means headlights. DRL are "sidelights" or "position lights". DRL allows you to see the vehicle more easily under most conditions without the drawback of either being dazzled or distracted. There is an advantage for the vehicle with DRL in that it still allows the use of the "passing" light function without having to actively cancel it afterwards.

I strongly disagree with tunnels being irrelevant. Round here at least many tunnels are poorly lit or unlit (and still many drivers fail to light up ).

I would also disgree with the statement that many cars have automatic lights. This is an option on many new cars, but the majority of cars on the road do not have this. I have not heard of this feature being made mandatory; so it is not relevant to the arguement.

The point has been made many times on this forum that although the forum users are either actually or aspiring advanced drivers, the majority of road users are not (and wouldn't recognise advanced driving if it ran over them ). Legislators in this case really do have to make rules for the lowest common denominator in order to protect other road users.

OK, lots of points there, so I won't try and break your post down in to individual lines to respond to.

First: Is there any conclusive evidence that DRL or AHO makes any difference?

Second: You say that legislators must protext against the idiots, and that ambient light-sensitive headlamps are irrelevant - while telling me that one of the locations you think should be legislated for is 'tunnels'; surely legislating for ambient light AHO would make far more sense. Yes, the majority of cars may not yet have that feature - but AFAIK the EU plan is not to implement lights on laws for all cars, only new ones.

Third: Take a look at any new motorcycle - it will have AHO. They still have 'passing lights' which don't need cancelling. My last few cars (inc. several SEATs!) have all had headlamp flashers which didn't need actively 'cancelling' - you just take the pressure off the lever.

Finally: "DRL allows you to see the vehicle more easily under most conditions". The TRL research years ago showed that daytime headlamps for bikes only had a benefit at dawn and dusk. Which normal daylight conditions - bearing in mind we already have laws about using lights at night etc. - are you thinking of where a vehicle can't be clearly seen?

Postscript: For anyone who's interested in the potential drawbacks of DRL, search on Google for 'yehoudi' aircraft.

[jamei]

I am assuming that by DRLs they mean sidelights without rear lights? I am against the gratuitous use of vehicle lighting, including headlights, but I have often thought it would be useful to have my front sidelights on without putting my rear lights on (I think they can make the brake lights less noticeable, though I don't have any acutal evidence for this).

[Gromit37]

If I am correct, rear end shunts make up the largest proportion of accidents on the road. In which case, DRL should include rear lights too. Although if people can't see a five foot by four foot expanse of metal and glass directly in front of them with bright red brake lights glaring, I doubt it would make much difference. Or perhaps they *DO* see them, but just take no notice? In which case DRL will not help.

[PeterE]

If I am correct, rear end shunts make up the largest proportion of accidents on the road. In which case, DRL should include rear lights too. Although if people can't see a five foot by four foot expanse of metal and glass directly in front of them with bright red brake lights glaring, I doubt it would make much difference. Or perhaps they *DO* see them, but just take no notice? In which case DRL will not help.

AIUI all proposed schemes of DRLs include rear as well as front lights. Arguably that could make rear end shunts more likely as brake lights would become relatively harder to distinguish.

[manilva15b]

AIUI all proposed schemes of DRLs include rear as well as front lights. Arguably that could make rear end shunts more likely as brake lights would become relatively harder to distinguish.

That's not a strong arguement since (AFAIK) the rules will apply to new cars only and all will have high-level (third) brake lights.