Daytime running lights

[Porker]

To be made mandatory?

http://tinyurl.com/34tlku

regards
P.

[Darren]

After a while, and everyone getting used to it, will it actually make any difference to the accident rates? Are there any stats that show during the day this has an effect?

[PeterE]

http://www.dadrl.org.uk/

http://www.lightsout.org/

[TripleS]

To be made mandatory?

http://tinyurl.com/34tlku

regards
P.

I hope these will not be made mandatory, and as far as I'm concerned our government has no need to be swayed by these further antics by the European busybodies. It's quite simple, Gordon. Just tell them to get stuffed, and you'll almost certainly receive a large measure of public support in doing that.

I honestly don't see any advantage in the use of daytime running lights. All it means is more distracting light sources, and I don't see how it can fail to worsen the situation for motorcyclists.

Of course one can argue about the extent of the effect of fuel consumption and emissions, and it probably isn't great, but it is in the wrong direction, and it makes no sense to worsen things in that respect either.

It's a silly idea. Forget it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[PeterE]

Of course one can argue about the extent of the effect of fuel consumption and emissions, and it probably isn't great, but it is in the wrong direction, and it makes no sense to worsen things in that respect either.

To my mind the key objection is not that it increases fuel consumption, but that it disadvantages vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians and makes the driving task more unpleasant and annoying.

And I agree it may make motorcycle safety worse as it will eliminate the advantage to motorcyclists at present of using their dipped headlight in daytime.

[TripleS]

Of course one can argue about the extent of the effect of fuel consumption and emissions, and it probably isn't great, but it is in the wrong direction, and it makes no sense to worsen things in that respect either.

To my mind the key objection is not that it increases fuel consumption, but that it disadvantages vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians and makes the driving task more unpleasant and annoying.

And I agree it may make motorcycle safety worse as it will eliminate the advantage to motorcyclists at present of using their dipped headlight in daytime.

Thank you, Peter. Yes, it's not only motorcyclists, it is likely to have an adverse effect of other road user groups as well.

As I say, I truly hope this will not go ahead, but it if does I favour a mass disregard of the law, including disabling the system on cars that have it built-in. It's another way of adding further complexity and cost to cars, manufacturing costs, maintenance costs and running costs. It's something else to go wrong and it will be a pain in the arse all round if they're stupid enough to do it.

You know, I really do wonder how much all this kind of meddling costs us, and don't forget this is all paid for by us, the taxpayers; nobody else.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[PeterE]

As I say, I truly hope this will not go ahead, but it if does I favour a mass disregard of the law, including disabling the system on cars that have it built-in. It's another way of adding further complexity and cost to cars, manufacturing costs, maintenance costs and running costs. It's something else to go wrong and it will be a pain in the arse all round if they're stupid enough to do it.

The problem is that if you don't have lights on, but most other cars do, you are making yourself less visible in relative terms and thus potentially jeopardising your own safety.

In the mid-90s when cars had dim-dip lights I used these for a while for driving in well-lit urban areas at night, but eventually reached the conclusion other road users did not see me as well as they would if I had dipped headlights on.

I read the report as making the fitment of DRLs on cars compulsory, not necessarily their use, but even so I can see it leading to most drivers who do not have them choosing to drive around on dipped headlights.

[TripleS]

As I say, I truly hope this will not go ahead, but it if does I favour a mass disregard of the law, including disabling the system on cars that have it built-in. It's another way of adding further complexity and cost to cars, manufacturing costs, maintenance costs and running costs. It's something else to go wrong and it will be a pain in the arse all round if they're stupid enough to do it.

The problem is that if you don't have lights on, but most other cars do, you are making yourself less visible in relative terms and thus potentially jeopardising your own safety.

In the mid-90s when cars had dim-dip lights I used these for a while for driving in well-lit urban areas at night, but eventually reached the conclusion other road users did not see me as well as they would if I had dipped headlights on.

I read the report as making the fitment of DRLs on cars compulsory, not necessarily their use, but even so I can see it leading to most drivers who do not have them choosing to drive around on dipped headlights.

Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that the law would require them to be standard on all new cars, and that the lights would be on all the time the engine was running, which is how I understood the Volvo system was arranged. In the case of cars not fitted with this system I was anticipating that the law would require that drivers switched on dipped headlights themselves whenever they were on the move.

In any event I hope there will be a huge backlash against this and that it will not take effect.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[jont]

In any event I hope there will be a huge backlash against this and that it will not take effect.

If new cars start having it fitted as standard (like auto wipers, auto dimming mirrors etc etc), I'm sorry, but I just don't see people caring enough to disable it. Then you have the effect that Pete mentioned that if you don't join in, you potentially make yourself more vulnerable. So even if the government don't mandate it, if enough manufacturers start doing it (because having all european cars the same will cost less than having a unique UK lighting module), I think it will happen of it's own accord.

[ScoobyChris]

As far as I know pretty well most modern cars do have this functionality built in and it's just a case of enabling it via an ECU coding for the markets that need it. Of course, it can be just as easily disabled as well

I don't really have a problem with it and can't see any real disadvantages aside from making everyone look like a Volvo driver

Chris

[PeterE]

I don't really have a problem with it and can't see any real disadvantages

Well, the key disadvantage is that it increases the relative vulnerability of motorcyclists, pedal cyclists and pedestrians. Anything without a set of glaring, dazzling lights will be ignored

[ScoobyChris]

Well, the key disadvantage is that it increases the relative vulnerability of motorcyclists, pedal cyclists and pedestrians. Anything without a set of glaring, dazzling lights will be ignored

I'd be interested to see any proof that is the case? Presumably it's not a problem in other countries like Sweden, Netherlands, etc where daytime running lights are mandatory or there'd be a significant number of deaths involving these vulnerable road users?

Chris

[PeterE]

Well, the key disadvantage is that it increases the relative vulnerability of motorcyclists, pedal cyclists and pedestrians. Anything without a set of glaring, dazzling lights will be ignored

I'd be interested to see any proof that is the case? Presumably it's not a problem in other countries like Sweden, Netherlands, etc where daytime running lights are mandatory or there'd be a significant number of deaths involving these vulnerable road users?

AFAIK the Netherlands don't have mandatory DRLs.

There's plenty of evidence on the two links I gave earlier.

Also see this from the CTC:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4106

[ScoobyChris]

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. The cycling one is good though - I especially like the photoshopped picture at the bottom showing how DRL (with the aid of a bit of touching up) can obscure a cyclist

My friend who hails from Holland tells me they are mandatory so I have no reason to believe they're not. He thinks DRL's are great and thinks the UK should have made them compulsory years ago....

Chris

[WS]

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

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.

In my opinion the argument about the increased fuel consumption is a false one: the additional weight of vehicles caused by modern safety systems (e.g. beams in doors protecting from side impacts) increase fuel consumption far more than having your lights switched on. Lights are, in my opinion, yet another safety measure used in modern cars and each of these measures costs you some fuel. This is the price to pay for being safer (of course is you agree that it is safer).