ADUK Archive

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/arti ... -year.html

Your thoughts....

Jasp wrote:http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1061245/Now-Europe-wants-headlights-ALL-day--inflating-fuel-costs-160-year.html

Your thoughts....

"Europe" can go and......no, I'd better not say it in polite company.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

And motorcycle casualties will increase as they become even less visible. Yet another case of the British government bowing to European wishes.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer.

fungus wrote:And motorcycle casualties will increase as they become even less visible. Yet another case of the British government bowing to European wishes.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer.

Yes, quite apart from my instinctive resistance to yet more interference by politicians and their armies of officials, I do think the situation for bikers in particular (and possibly other road user groups too) would take a turn for the worse.

I am aware that research and studies from other countries are claimed to have 'proved' that this measure has yielded an overall improvment in safety, but their circumstances are different in various ways and I think we should be cautious about being swayed by that.

Until it becomes quite clear that we would gain a strong safety benefit from this measure, we should be rejecting it quite firmly, and flatly refusing to adopt it. IMHO that should be our message to our government, and their message to "Europe".

Best wishes all,
Dave.

fungus wrote:Yet another case of the British government bowing to European wishes.

Does the UK government actually have any choice in the matter?

P.

So we've had a hundred years of motor vehicles, and - by and large - managed to see everyone else . . .

I might think it was a Good Thing (TM) if the car makers didn't continue to paint them silver and black . . . while putting daytime lights on 'to be seen'.

My local bus Co. has started running with daytime headlamps, shortly after changing their livery to green and grey . . .

TBH, from the biker PoV, the 'at risk' zone is only 3 - 4 seconds away from a junction - at which point you're clearly visible if the other driver looks.

I also have strong concerns about how this will affect cyclists and pedestrians - especially on those mizzly grey days when glare will be a problem.

I thought Europe were 'looking in to it' not enforcing it.

I believe (cant find the links right now) that although Sweden and Norway found daylight running lights (brighter than 'side' lights but not as bright as headlights on 'dipped' beam to be a benefit, a study in Denmark found them not to make any appreciable difference and I'm expecting to see a report coming out of the Netherlands at some point soon, if it hasn't already been done.

Porker wrote:

fungus wrote:Yet another case of the British government bowing to European wishes.

Does the UK government actually have any choice in the matter?

P.

I believe the UK Government has been actively involved and even commisioned its own reports into the effects of daylight running lights - TRL springs to mind?

Big Err wrote: I believe (cant find the links right now) that although Sweden and Norway found daylight running lights (brighter than 'side' lights but not as bright as headlights on 'dipped' beam to be a benefit, a study in Denmark found them not to make any appreciable difference and I'm expecting to see a report coming out of the Netherlands at some point soon, if it hasn't already been done.

I wonder why we don't have a two-stage, automatically-switched system:
Bright daylight: No lights
Gloomy: DRLs switch on
Dark: Headlamps switch on

The dash lights on my SEAT switch on when it gets dark, so it must be easy to do . . .


Also, weren't daytime lights found to be counter-productive, and increase vulnerable casualties, in Austria?

TripleS wrote:I am aware that research and studies from other countries are claimed to have 'proved' that this measure has yielded an overall improvment in safety, but their circumstances are different in various ways and I think we should be cautious about being swayed by that.

I agree. Member States have diverse daylight conditions. The EU stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranian and it is important to bear this in mind.

Information from the consutation is here if anyone is interested.

Porker wrote:

fungus wrote:Yet another case of the British government bowing to European wishes.

Does the UK government actually have any choice in the matter?

P.

Of course not. The procedures for enacting EC legislation don't require input from UK Council Minsters or indeed MEPS. The rest of the EU decides amongst themselves and then the UK is bound by their decision....
This why we need to 'get out' of the EU as soon as possible.

MGF wrote:[qu
Of course not. The procedures for enacting EC legislation don't require input from UK Council Minsters or indeed MEPS. The rest of the EU decides amongst themselves and then the UK is bound by their decision....
This why we need to 'get out' of the EU as soon as possible.

Oh I'm strongly in favour of removing ourselves from the EU if we can establish a basis for independent success for this country without formal ties to other countries. The principle should be that we co-operate from our own free will where we can agree on matters of mutual benefit, but there should be no obligation on us to adopt any measures devised by them unless we're happy to do so; and that doesn't just mean our government - it means us, the people.

In the meantime I would tell them to get stuffed. I mean to say, what are they going to do? Send a gunboat? (1)

Best wishes all,
Dave.

(1) That harks back to the good old British Goon Show.

....and if there's much more of this nonsense, I might let rip with a rousing chorus of a certain Harry Secombe/Ned Seagoon song from that highly esteemed programme.

A letter in the Daily Mail today in response to the original article:

USING daytime running lights (Mail) will increase accidents. Austria scrapped the compulsory use of headlights during daylight hours from January this year after a two-year experiment obliging vehicles to use headlights all the time. After January 1, casualties fell sharply. When headlights were originally made compulsory in Austria, fatalities soared by 12 per cent. They have now fallen by 5 percent and motorcycle accidents by 25 per cent.

The Austrian Ophthalmological Society says this is because the human eye and brain can't inter­pret 'traffic relevant objects' when screened out by dazzle.

In the first six months of 2007, following Poland and the Czech Republic's compulsory use of daytime running lights (DRL), fatalities in both countries shot up by 17 per cent. In Bulgaria, they increased even more, while Spain, which doesn't require DRL, showed a 13 per cent fall in road casualties.

Various organisations, including the Association of Drivers Against Daytime Running Lights, the CTC (Cyclists Touring' Club), The Rambler's Association, Living Streets - the Pedestrian Associa­tion, the RSPCA and The British Motorcyclists Federation are campaigning against this EU directive (www.dadrl.org.uk)

WILLIAM LONESKIE,

Lauder, Borders.

I'm not sure if I've understood quite the reasoning, but based on the groups, and what I recall (and the actions of bikers), isn't it good* for any individual motorist to have his lights on, but bad for those who don't have bright lights (peds, cyclists etc).

If this is the case then the legislation ought not to be necessary -- everyone should switch their lights on anyway for their own benefit, regardless of the law...



* more likely to be seen, but less likely to have speed / distance accurately judged.

7db wrote:I'm not sure if I've understood quite the reasoning, but based on the groups, and what I recall (and the actions of bikers), isn't it good* for any individual motorist to have his lights on, but bad for those who don't have bright lights (peds, cyclists etc).

If this is the case then the legislation ought not to be necessary -- everyone should switch their lights on anyway for their own benefit, regardless of the law...



* more likely to be seen, but less likely to have speed / distance accurately judged.

I presume the next 'directive' will deal with the resulting carnage by requiring pedestrians to carry illumination to front and rear? (for their own safety, of course............ )

MGF wrote:Information from the consutation is here if anyone is interested.

There was also an e-petition which received a response on the issue here....

Chris