EU plans for daytime running lights

[Dieselman]

And I would prefer bikes to have proper DRL's not dipped, or even high beam headlights. They are not a substitute and can be both dazzling an deasily missed due to being a beam as opposed to a spot light.

 

[NewMB]

Seeing lights on in the daytime, I either know its a motorcycle or a Volvo!! I wouldnt want everyone to have lights on, there is just no need for it.

But you do see them..... this is the point of DRL's.

 

[wemorgan]

The Department of Transport commissioned a review on the EU reports on DRL. Here's the full report and executive summary. It's worth reading to get the true facts of the issue.

I'll quote the key summary points:

• There is substantial evidence that the mandatory use of DRL would provide a net accident reduction. However, the evidence concerning the magnitude of the effect and particularly the relationship with accident severity is considerably weaker.
• The estimates of the fuel and emissions increases as a result of implementing DRL are reasonable and possibly slightly conservative (high).
• The research into the potential of DRL on cars to impair the conspicuity of motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users was well controlled but limited in scope and did not consider some important variables. However, some consistent conclusions could be drawn which were that it should be possible to design dedicated DRL of low intensity (e.g. about 200cd) that are beneficial to the conspicuity of cars without adversely affecting the conspicuity of motorcyclists. However, DRL of higher intensity (potentially including standard passing beam headlights) could have an adverse effect on motorcyclist conspicuity in some circumstances.
• There is considerable scientific uncertainty inherent in the values of the benefit to cost ratios presented in the EC work. The key variable is the assumption that the accident benefits would be considerably greater for fatal accidents (15%) than for serious (10%) or slight (5%) accidents. This assumption was very weakly supported by the available data and changing it to a more technically defensible assumption that the mean effect of 5.9% remained the same for all accident severities reduced the benefit to cost ratios to much less than 1 indicating that the costs would be greater than the benefits.
• It was considered that it would be more technically valid to present a range of possible benefit to cost ratios within which there could be confidence that the true answer would lie, thus reflecting the technical uncertainty. The analysis showed that a ratio of 1 would fall within this range meaning that, although an accident reduction potential exists, it is not possible to say with certainty whether the benefits of implementing DRL would outweigh the costs.

For the issue of increased fuel and CO2 emmissions here's another extract:

However, these increases occur on a per trip basis. Using the assumption that 55% of travel in terms of distance occurs during daylight hours (Koornstra et al, 1997), this means that these derived increase should be multiplied by a factor of 0.55. From the PHEM results, this gives an average annual increase in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of 0.28% from the use of dedicated DLRs and an increase of 1.0% from the use of dipped headlights.​

 

[kwakdonut]

And I would prefer bikes to have proper DRL's not dipped, or even high beam headlights. They are not a substitute and can be both dazzling an deasily missed due to being a beam as opposed to a spot light.

There is only a finite amount of space on a bike! I have ABS which means I have no underseat storage as this is where the ABS module is fitted! Am afraid that bike lights have to be on dipped - which, to be honest, the majority of bikers use anyway. It is personal choice but I try to ensure that I am as visible as possible.

 

[NewMB]

From the PHEM results, this gives an average annual increase in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of 0.28% from the use of dedicated DLRs and an increase of 1.0% from the use of dipped headlights.​

Am I missing the point here or are DRL's not the same as dipped lights?

I mean, setting no 2 on the light switch.

 

[kwakdonut]

Am I missing the point here or are DRL's not the same as dipped lights?

I mean, setting no 2 on the light switch.

I believe that the DRL's that are being proposed are not just dipped lights on permanently but bespoke wattage front lighting. Possibly something like the new Audi's are currently using???

Can anyone enlighten us on this?

 

[Shude]

DRL laws were discussed on this forum about two years ago, very similar comments!

http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=31379

 

[Dieselman]

Can anyone enlighten us on this?

Headlamps on at 1/5th duty in dim-dip mode.

 

[Dieselman]

There is only a finite amount of space on a bike!

I can't believe that a few square centimetres of frontal space can't be dedicated to proper DRL's if they are such a good safety measure.
Just move the Ram air intakes, as surely safety is the most important thing to a biker...which is why they all wear flourescent jackets and helmets, isn't it.?
Paint the front of the bike flourescent yellow, wear hi-viz apparel and you can forget the lights.

The problem with using dipped beam is that it's very directional, so isn't easily seen from side angles, which is why some bikers have taken to riding on full beam, which is very annoying.
Proper DRL's are a spot point of light and can be seen much more clearly than dipped headlights and don't create dazzle.

 

[NewMB]

I can't believe that a few square centimetres of frontal space can't be dedicated to proper DRL's if they are such a good safety measure.
Just move the Ram air intakes, as surely safety is the most important thing to a biker...which is why they all wear flourescent jackets and helmets, isn't it.?
Paint the front of the bike flourescent yellow, wear hi-viz apparel and you can forget the lights.

The problem with using dipped beam is that it's very directional, so isn't easily seen from side angles, which is why some bikers have taken to riding on full beam, which is very annoying.
Proper DRL's are a spot point of light and can be seen much more clearly than dipped headlights and don't create dazzle.

Like the old Volvo 140/240/260/740/760/780 etc.

This later changed to become a less bright sidelamp and to include the main headlight at a lower light.

 

[kwakdonut]

I can't believe that a few square centimetres of frontal space can't be dedicated to proper DRL's if they are such a good safety measure.
Just move the Ram air intakes, as surely safety is the most important thing to a biker...which is why they all wear flourescent jackets and helmets, isn't it.?
Paint the front of the bike flourescent yellow, wear hi-viz apparel and you can forget the lights.

The problem with using dipped beam is that it's very directional, so isn't easily seen from side angles, which is why some bikers have taken to riding on full beam, which is very annoying.
Proper DRL's are a spot point of light and can be seen much more clearly than dipped headlights and don't create dazzle.

Why not go the whole hog and paint all cars bright yellow?!!

Then we wouldn't have to waste millions of pounds/euros on such a stupid, badly thought out idea

 

[Dieselman]

Why not go the whole hog and paint all cars bright yellow?!!

How would that help drivers see bikes.?

 

[wemorgan]

Then we wouldn't have to waste millions of pounds/euros on such a stupid, badly thought out idea

In your opinion maybe, but the scientific evidence proves otherwise.

 

[Swiss Toni]

I recall an episode of The Simpsons...


Homer was invited to design a car for "him" (the average Joe). And one of the features he added was a (mouse-shaped?) ball to go on the top of the aerial.
Such a device added to your own car makes it easier to spot in a vast out-of-town-shopping-facility Car Park.
Actually, this makes sense.
Until everyone has them, and then the benefit is somewhat lost.


The DRL is not the same though.

You stop at a T-Junction, turning left, just about to join the main road and glance to your right. You glance left, see nothing and pull out.
Wherever the biker comes from, if they had been showing a dipped beam, the chances of you seeing them are that much greater.

Same applies for overtakes on single carriageways, the chances of you seeing a light and it drawing your attention is that much greater.

I don't see that there is a reduction in the "impact" of having DRLs simply because everyone has them, I only see benefit.
Beats me how some bikers don't put a dipped beam on every ride, but then I cringe when I see them riding wearing jeans or t-shirts (but that comes from knowing what happens in even the "smallest" spill).

A big pointy spike in the centre of the steering wheel, directed at the drivers heart might improve drivers attention, but given the arguements on here about how it is improvements in vehicle safety that have reduced road deaths (ie not road engineering, targetted enforcement etc) then another step in the that direction has to be a good thing.

So, as I said, you are all wrong (except the Swedes).

 

[st13phil]

In your opinion maybe, but the scientific evidence proves otherwise.

But the scientific evidence is not (despite what some like to think) conclusive. For countries with long twilight periods - like Sweden - there may be a benefit, but there is a body of research that suggests that DRL's actually increase collision rates overall, and especially amongst vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Check Lund's study in Denmark, the study for the State of Victoria in Australia, and the Japanese Department for Transport for examples of dissent.

The bottom line seems to be that there may be a benefit from DRL's, but there may be a significant demerit to them as well. At best, the overall view is inconclusive.

 

[wemorgan]

Some more extracts from the review of the EU reports on DRL:

• Although it is possible to be critical of several specific aspects of the work very substantial evidence has been presented that the introduction of DRL would result in a net casualty reduction effect.​
• In particular, the evidence for assuming a 15% reduction in fatal accidents is weak and it was considered that it would be more​

  technically defensible to assume that a mean effect of between 3.9% and 5,9%
  ​
• The conspicuity of motorcycles in the presence of differing intensities of DRL and different ambient lighting conditions was not investigated.​

  ​
• These were that DRL with high light intensities could impair the conspicuity of motorcyclists but it was possible to design DRL
  that could improve the conspicuity of cars in the dim ambient light conditions of most relevance without adversely affecting the conspicuity of motorcyclists.​

  ​
• The area where greatest scientific uncertainty was found was in the cost benefit analysis. [It] was considered more technically defensible to assume that the mean [reduction] value of 5% (or perhaps 5.9% if being generous) applied to all injury accidents
  ​

And from SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research , Nertherlands, on why road users can not comprehend the benefits of DRL:

• DRL as a road safety measure is uncomprehensible for the road user, because one ‘knows’ that with sufficient attention every vehicle is seen on the road in daylight. Moreover, experienced drivers judge themselves as rather good experts in safe road behaviour and think that scientific research can not tell them things they do not already know, which surely does not imply that they always behave on the road according to what they ‘know’ to be safe​
  
  [*]
  Perhaps most strikingly, 8% of cars with usual colours in the open field during daylight (excluding dawn and dusk) are not visible without DRL from certain not too far distances, compared to cars with DRL (Padmos, 1988).​
  [*]
  It is known from many in-depth accident studies (e.g.: Nagayama, 1978; Cairney & Catchpole, 1990) that not or too late ‘seeing’ an other road user is a causal factor in about in 50% of the total of daytime accidents and for intersection accidents this becomes the case in 80% of the daytime accidents (Carney & Catchpole, 1990).​
  [*]
  Road users can not be aware of what they have not seen or are not informed of otherwise​

  ​
  
  

 

[Mr E]

• DRL as a road safety measure is uncomprehensible for the road user, because one ‘knows’ that with sufficient attention every vehicle is seen on the road in daylight. Moreover, experienced drivers judge themselves as rather good experts in safe road behaviour and think that scientific research can not tell them things they do not already know, which surely does not imply that they always behave on the road according to what they ‘know’ to be safe​
  
  [*]
  Perhaps most strikingly, 8% of cars with usual colours in the open field during daylight (excluding dawn and dusk) are not visible without DRL from certain not too far distances, compared to cars with DRL (Padmos, 1988).​
  [*]
  It is known from many in-depth accident studies (e.g.: Nagayama, 1978; Cairney & Catchpole, 1990) that not or too late ‘seeing’ an other road user is a causal factor in about in 50% of the total of daytime accidents and for intersection accidents this becomes the case in 80% of the daytime accidents (Carney & Catchpole, 1990).​
  [*]
  Road users can not be aware of what they have not seen or are not informed of otherwise​

  ​
  
  

That is one of the most telling results in driver research - whether it's an appraisal of skill, judgment of safety, or other related topics, a large number of drivers think that they are a "special case" (I've never had an accident, I'm a better driver than the majority, etc, etc).

I don't have a strong opinion either way on DRL - it's never been something I've had to look at or research. It's interesting that colours seem to come into play and I've certainly noticed that different colours "disappear" in different conditions such as low light angles, dusk/down, mist/fog, etc.

Remember that "I didn't see you" works both ways - and I've lost count of the number of times that I wince at the position that bikers sometimes put themselves into, usually at inappropriate speeds too.

 

[Defiant]

This idea originally came from Sweden,

So, that's who I thank. And for all these years I've been cussing-out the Canadians, which is how the US got stuck with the damned things. Of course, in our case, we got them because GM went whining to Congress about having to build cars with two separate wiring systems- while Canada required DRLs, they were illegal in the US. It's still illegal to move a car with its "parking lights" on in California, although what the real distinction is I cannot fathom. It's also illegal here to drive with only the fog lights on without the headlights, showing that legislators have never driven in a moderate snowstorm at night, where headlights make the flakes look like a jump to hyperspace and effectively blind you from seeing the road at all.

On many cars, the high-beam filaments are wired in series and powered "backward" to act as DRLs. This gives you a good, directed beam, but supposedly not bright enough to dazzle oncomers.
I'm convinced the statistics showing greater "awareness" or "safety" are spurious, and I base that on being in police cars trying to get through traffic with lights and siren blazing away furiously. For many drivers, you could be plowing down the highway in a bright-orange arctic icebreaker, and the dolts still wouldn't see you.

Oh, and you can blame us for the third brakelight. I don't think they're half so effective as the old Citroen DS car's lights up on the rear corners of the roofline.

And can someone explain how some drive down the highway with the indicator inside the rear-view mirror blinking away in their face?

If we can generate energy from stupid, all our problems will be solved.

 

[coupe deville]

Possibly something like the new Audi's are currently using???

oh no not like the new Audi's -now were all going to look like d1ckheads
something a bit more subtle but still easy to see please law makers

 

[kwakdonut]

If we can generate energy from stupid, all our problems will be solved.

We have a serious glut of those in this country matey!!!