Daytime running lights

[TripleS]

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.

The third brake light isn't high level on Eileen's MX-5.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Horse]

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.

Sussex Uni did a study on parked police vehicles being rear-ended. When they went for the newest high-vis schemes the rate of these crashes increased . . .

[TripleS]

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.

Sussex Uni did a study on parked police vehicles being rear-ended. When they went for the newest high-vis schemes the rate of these crashes increased . . .

Is it possible that the high-vis was indeed catching the attention, but having a hypnotic effect and drawing the approaching drivers to them?

I particularly wonder about this because of the times I find myself following a vehicle and if they wander off course a bit, so do I. Obviously I shouldn't be doing this, but in accordance with our usual policy of honestly and accuracy I mention it as being number 347 in the Schedule of Significant Failings by 3S.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Porker]

A form of target fixation, perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_fixation

P.

[waremark]

Or just making the brake lights relatively less prominent??

[NalaGee]

DRLs' have been mandatory in Canada since the
early 1990s' Since that time all vehicles produced here, and all imports are all fitted with DRLs' that are active when purchased new.

My original car, 1990 Passat Wagon had them as
as standard feature, and as with most other makes
the light intensity is that of a perhaps a slightly
less intensity to the low beam.

I have no problem with seeing them on vehicles
while driving, in fact the vehicles that really stand
out on the road are those without them, the same
applies to Motor Bikes. You soon get used to it, so
don't worry about them

As for burning more fuel and increasing carbon dioxide emissions as reported in the Telegraph report, I would think this most unlikely, especially in todays modern designed and built cars

Just to add to the above point - the Budget for B.C
announced the following today;
" On July 1, 2008, the Province will begin phasing in the 'Carbon Tax' which will hit gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane, and home heating fuel.
this to be 2.48 cents per litre this year, rising to
8.27 cents by 2012"
(This Tax is the first to be introduced on the N.A)
(Continent - probably more will follow now!)

We already have annual 'Air Care' checks for emissions control which are quite strict, so if there
were any substantial fuel & increasing carbon dioxide emissions from DRLs', here anyway, they
would have been reported & dealt with long ago.

I think there are more other important issues on motoring today that need prompt action on than DRLs'

Cheers
Alan

(B.C Canada)

[Horse]

DRLs' have been mandatory in Canada since the
early 1990s' Since that time all vehicles produced here, and all imports are all fitted with DRLs' that are active when purchased new.

My original car, . . . .
I have no problem . . . You soon get used to it, so don't worry about them

Just to add to the above point - the Budget for B.C

I think there are more other important issues on motoring today that need prompt action on than DRLs'

Interesting post.

Could you add two more nuggets of info?

1. What was the reason for introducing daytime lights?
2. Was that objective achieved & maintained?

As for burning more fuel . . . I would think this most unlikely . . .

Additional lights & wiring have to manufactured, installed, and maintained. That doesn't come for free

And something has to make the lights glow, so some power has to be used.

[NalaGee]

Horse said:

Interesting post.

Could you add two more nuggets of info?

1. What was the reason for introducing daytime lights?

2. Was that objective achieved & maintained?

As for burning more fuel . . . I would think this most unlikely . . .

Additional lights & wiring have to manufactured, installed, and maintained. That doesn't come for free ;
And something has to make the lights glow, so some power has to be used.[/quote]

Answer:

1) For the official answer as tp why DRLs' were
introdced, am awaiting a reply from Federal Min'
of Transport;
meanwhile check:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/en/menu.htm

2) Should be also answered by them.

As for the installation & operation of lights, it would seem that all manufacturers have their own
methods.
On a RAV4, they come on when the gear is engaged for the drive off. Turn off when gear
disengaged.
Hope this helps!

[NalaGee]

Interesting post.

Could you add two more nuggets of info?

1. What was the reason for introducing daytime lights?
2. Was that objective achieved & maintained?


In reply to Horse original posting:

Have received the following from the M.o.T Canada,
along post but informative, hope this is OK?

Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Transport Canada develops and enforces the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS). The Act requires that each vehicle manufactured for sale in Canada or imported into Canada is certified by its original manufacturer that it complies with all applicable CMVSS in effect at the time the main assembly of the vehicle was completed.

CMVSS 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices requires that all new motor vehicles manufactured on and after December 1, 1989, are equipped with automatic daytime running lights (DRL) systems. CMVSS 108 specifies DRL to be any two lamps, white or yellow, on the front of the vehicle provided they meet prescribe photometric requirements.

Transport Canada's analysis (Ref. Aurora, H., et al.: "Effectiveness of daytime running lights in Canada" TP 12298 (E). Transport Canada, Ottawa, 1994) of collision data before and after implementation of DRL in 1989 indicated an overall effectiveness in frontal and lateral collisions between two light duty vehicles (cars, vans, pickup trucks, SUVs) of 8.3 percent in daylight, 16.6 percent in twilight for a combined total of 9.2 percent, and for head-on collisions alone 17.5 percent in daylight, 27 percent in twilight for a combined total of 18.5 percent. Other types of collisions involving pedestrians, pedal-cyclists, motorcyclists, and heavy trucks and buses have not yet been analyzed although European study suggests that DRL may have a positive effect on them.

There were several other studies done around the world; they suggested various levels of benefits resulting from improving daytime conspicuity of vehicles. As result, in November 2007, the United Nation Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) adopted an amendment to one of its Regulations. It requires that all vehicles submitted for type approval have DRL. This amendment comes into force in three years time. This period of time was given to motor vehicle manufacturers to implement the new requirements in their production. UNECE Regulations apply to 46 countries around the world.

[Angus]

I listened to the discussion on this on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show the other day and one thought struck me then which seems to have been overlooked in this thread too.

Replacing bulbs on many modern cars is an absolute pain

Bearing in mind how many cars less than 2 years old I reguarly see with only one functional headlight, I can see that increasing too.

My brother-in-law has disabled the daylight lights on his Volvo because of the frequency of having to replace bulbs

[Horse]

Thanks!

Transport Canada's analysis (Ref. Aurora, H., et al.: "Effectiveness of daytime running lights in Canada" TP 12298 (E). Transport Canada, Ottawa, 1994) of collision data before and after implementation of DRL in 1989 indicated an overall effectiveness in frontal and lateral collisions between two light duty vehicles (cars, vans, pickup trucks, SUVs) of 8.3 percent in daylight, 16.6 percent in twilight for a combined total of 9.2 percent, and for head-on collisions alone 17.5 percent in daylight, 27 percent in twilight for a combined total of 18.5 percent. Other types of collisions involving pedestrians, pedal-cyclists, motorcyclists, and heavy trucks and buses have not yet been analyzed although European study suggests that DRL may have a positive effect on them.

Hmmm . . . so they haven't finished analyzing results for particularly vulnerable road users, and they haven't heard about the Austrian experience:

linky

The Austrian 2006/07 DRL experiment was associated with a 12.2% increase in accidents.

Overall: 24,850 injured (+11%) and 324 fatalities (+17%).
Children all casualties +13%
Cyclists all casualties 2,814 accidents + 43 %
Motorcyclists all casualties 1,400 accidents, + 46%

Source http://www.bmvit.gv.at/en/service/publi ... ents03.pdf

As result, in November 2007, the United Nation Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) adopted an amendment to one of its Regulations. It requires that all vehicles submitted for type approval have DRL. This amendment comes into force in three years time. This period of time was given to motor vehicle manufacturers to implement the new requirements in their production. UNECE Regulations apply to 46 countries around the world.

Blimey, not heard that . . .

[Horse]

While I think of it:

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

Review of the evidence for motorcycle and motorcar
daytime lights

Antonio Perlot
FEMA general secretary
Federation of European Motorcyclists' Associations

Stephen Prower
BMF research officer
British Motorcyclists Federation

7 March 2003


Summary
The paper reveals the defects of method, conduct or findings of Janoff et al 1970, Andersson et al 1976 and the other main monitoring studies to date of the effect of motorcycle and motorcar daytime light laws. It weighs up the prima facie arguments for and against motorcycle and motorcar daytime lights, and predicts that on balance motorcar daytime lights may manifest a net safety disbenefit. It approves the method of Olson et al 1981's motorcycle gap acceptance experiment, but notes the limited import of the findings. It finally canvasses how ostensible motorcycle ‘conspicuity’ accidents that in fact have other causes can be prevented.


Longer, final, version:



8. Summary and conclusions
The purpose of this paper has been:
• To review the evidence in favour of both motorcycle and motorcar daytime lights
• To consider in the light of the evidence how far the use of daytime lights by motorcars as well as motorcycles is likely to enhance overall road safety
• To review some of the other remedies for motorcycle accidents that compete for attention with the use of daytime lights.

In conclusion the formal evidence of the monitoring studies of the effect of both motorcycle and motorcar daytime lights fails to establish satisfactorily that daytime lights have had any overall effect to reduce accidents. The methods that the studies have employed are inherently flawed: the odds-ratio method is not specific to the effect of daytime lights, and the fleet study method is incapable of distinguishing between the immediate ‘novelty’ effect of daytime lights, and their enduring true effect.

The prima facie arguments in favour of motorcar daytime lights in turn fail to ‘rescue’ the studies. On the positive side of the balance, the effect of daytime lights to reduce accidents is likely to be trivial. On the negative side there are important potential adverse side-effects.

The situation of motorcycle daytime lights is similar, save that there is more to be weighed in their favour on the positive side of the balance. Experimental field studies might assist to carry matters forward. The uthors know of only one important study: the motorcycle study Olson et al 1979a.

Encouragingly, Olson et al made findings that—although they were specific to the prevailing situation in Michigan in the late 1970s—suggested that motorcycle daytime lights might have a positive beneficial effect.

On the other hand Olson speaking informally to Despain 1981, and
later also Olson 1989 cautioned that ‘conspicuity treatments’ might not treat all of the causes of motorcycle accidents at intersections.

Against this background in 2001 the European motorcar manufacturers
and importers offered to the institutions of the European Union to hard-wire all of their production of motorcars for the European market from 2002 with the headlights permanently on.

At the same time the European motorcycle manufacturers and importers decided also to ‘hard-wire’ all of their production of motorcycles for the European market.

Given that, on the evidence of the study findings and arguments, it is unlikely that motorcar daytime lights confer any positive ‘net safety benefit’—indeed it is possible that they may even manifest a negative safety disbenefit—, the offer of the motorcar manufacturers is misguided. Further it is likely that motorcar daytime lights will diminish the positive safety benefit that, it is less controversially asserted, motorcycle daytime lights confer upon motorcycles. The offer of the European motorcar manufacturers should therefore be unequivocally rejected.

The authors pass over the unfortunate revival, by the decision of the motorcycle manufacturers, of the bitter controversy that has divided motorcyclists and motorcyclist's organisations in different countries over the past thirty years whether governments should override the objections of the section of motorcyclists who oppose daytime lights by legislating to make motorcycle daytime lights compulsory.

Instead the authors take up from the cautions against a blind belief in the efficacy of motorcycle daytime lights that were uttered by Olson 1989 — they list, drawing inter alia upon the suggestions of Olson's paper, a number of causes, or possible causes, of motorcycle accidents at intersections (or motorcycle accidents with a pedestrian) that motorcycle daytime lights do not, or will not, prevent — and in the spirit of moving forward they canvass research needs and the potential that also exists for devising new means of prevention.

The authors conclude by recommending the prompt conduct, in the interest of the safety of motorcyclists, of the research in question.

[Hedd]

I've driven volvo's for years and the switch allows you to turn off the dip beam if you want, other wise when the ignitions on the dip beams on. I leave it on. This is because I belive people will instantly react to something with a light on as it being man made and a moving hazard where as a car without lights on could with certain paint colours momenterily be un-recognisable as a vehicle. Yes the lights being powered by the altinator must reduce mpg. But the new DRL systems as seen on new AUDI's don't use dip beam systems their luxon LED's produce bright white light but use little power. No good for seeing where your going in the dark but good for getting noticed.

Dip beam style DRL's could cause problems to vunerable cyclists in some cases, at the brow of a hill or speed bump for example if the car was fitted with the increasingly more popular HID/xenon lights otherwise I can't see what the fuss is about.

[Horse]

This is because I belive people will instantly react to something with a light on as it being man made and a moving hazard

otherwise I can't see what the fuss is about.

So what about man-made bicycles, prams, buggies, children (man + woman-made ) - should they all have lights on too?

And non-man made deer, horses, cattle, sheep - also moving hazards?

[TripleS]

This is because I belive people will instantly react to something with a light on as it being man made and a moving hazard

otherwise I can't see what the fuss is about.

So what about man-made bicycles, prams, buggies, children (man + woman-made ) - should they all have lights on too?

And non-man made deer, horses, cattle, sheep - also moving hazards?

Oh yes, they can't be left out of it. Obviously they will require an immediate design change to secure the benefits of this marvellous idea.

Best wishes all,
Dave.