# DRLs on cars - apparently it's all our fault!



## Mad at urage (8 Feb 2011)

DRLs are coming to European cars, and it's all because those dozy peds and cyclists can't see a tonne of metal bearing down on us! 

[quote = 'The European commission']The commission said road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, detected vehicles using DRL more clearly and quickly than those equipped with dipped beam headlights.[/quote]

Of course! All those SMIDSY cyclists riding into cars are causing countless deaths and this will be solved by a lighting 'war' where cars have the advantage of carrying big generators around with them (and drivers meanwhile become more conditioned to "If it's not lit up then it isn't there" ).

http://uk.news.yahoo...-t-5268574.html


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Feb 2011)

http://www.ctc.org.u...aspx?TabID=4681
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4742 

The CTC campaigned against DRL


----------



## Mad at urage (8 Feb 2011)

Yes, was aware of that and agree with all their points. Apparently though "the commission" knows better what is good for cyclists than cyclists.


----------



## Dan B (8 Feb 2011)

If the comparison is with dipped beam then I'm not surprised DRL were found to be more useful - they're less dazzling and they don't suck your attention away from everything else on the road.

Here's a suggestion for an intervention that might be even better yet: Daytime Running Unlit. Turn the damn lights _off_ when you don't need them to see or be seen by.


----------



## sheddy (8 Feb 2011)

Drivers against DRLs - http://www.dadrl.org.uk/


----------



## domd1979 (8 Feb 2011)

Arriva introduced a standing instruction in 2004 to their drivers that buses must have dipped headlamps switched on at all times. Accident rate for their buses dropped significantly following that.

As far as DRLs go... I'd rather see the prevalance of driving with fog lights on when its not foggy dealt with, since most fog lights are more dazzling than any dipped headlamp.


----------



## Norm (8 Feb 2011)

This is a good thing. Having lived with it, I think it is a benefit for all road users. 

Including pedestrians and cyclists.


----------



## Davidc (8 Feb 2011)

Don't care if others on here don't agree. I'm 100% in favour of this.

I'm also in favour of compulsory daytime lighting on cycles when on the road.

No question of a 'war'. It's just about improving visibility and safety for everyone.

Just hope the rules allow for LED running lights as an alternative to dipped headlights - that way the carbon footprint is only marginally above zero

The greatest benefit has to be for pedestrians.


----------



## Gerry Attrick (8 Feb 2011)

Never heard of so much b******s. If a driver can't see a cyclist, ped or whatever in daylight, then he should not be driving, period.

Why on earth would DRL's improve the situation?


----------



## Davidc (8 Feb 2011)

Gerry Attrick said:


> Why on earth would DRL's improve the situation?



By helping the vehicle show up against the background. Massive improvement. It's not about the driver, it's about the ped or cyclist.

Having experienced it I think it should have been introduced 70 years ago as soon as lighting, generators and batteries could support it..


----------



## Gerry Attrick (8 Feb 2011)

Fine if one or two vehicles light up. Then they will show up against the background. But if all drivers light up, then cyclists, lit or not, will merge into even more insignificance than they do now. 

And will provide a greater "defence" for drivers to say SMIDSY.


----------



## Davidc (8 Feb 2011)

Gerry Attrick said:


> Fine if one or two vehicles light up. Then they will show up against the background. But if all drivers light up, then cyclists, lit or not, will merge into even more insignificance than they do now.
> 
> And will provide a greater "defence" for drivers to say SMIDSY.



Quite the opposite.

If all cars light up when running its a huge help to peds and cyclists.

If cyclists also light up then there can never be an excuse for SMIDSY ever again. (if there ever was in the past)

As I said above I'm 100% in favour of it, can't wait for it to come in. Said as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian. I see it as excellent news

Hope the penalties for ignoring the rule are massive.


----------



## Gerry Attrick (8 Feb 2011)

You obviously do not wear spectacles. Try riding in the rain when cars have their headlights on. Then translate this to a car driver peering through a rain shrouded screen. Drivers need no further excuses to not see us.


----------



## Davidc (8 Feb 2011)

Gerry Attrick said:


> You obviously do not wear spectacles. Try riding in the rain when cars have their headlights on. Then translate this to a car driver peering through a rain shrouded screen. Drivers need no further excuses to not see us.



I don't agree with you at all, do have experience of it, and do wear spectacles.

I'm delighted if DRL comes in, and look forward to it and the improvement in road safety for all it will bring.

If DRL for cyclists came in not only would drivers see us better, it would take away all excuse for failure to see us, as I said, if there ever was one.


----------



## Gerry Attrick (8 Feb 2011)

OK David, we will have to agree to differ on this one.


----------



## snorri (8 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> If all cars light up when running its a huge help to peds and cyclists.



I fail to understand this, can you explain your reasoning here please?.


----------



## Davidc (8 Feb 2011)

snorri said:


> I fail to understand this, can you explain your reasoning here please?.



Yes.

In a sentence, the cars stand out much much better than without lights.

When cars have daylight lights on (as in Sweden and Poland where I've experienced it) they simply stand out better against the background, and people react faster to them. Where you see pedestrians fail to spot vehicles and step out here it doesn't happen as much when there's lighting on.

It doesn't have as much effect on bright sunny summer days as on dull dim ones, like many here over the past 6 weeks. Even on sunny days you see the advantages in shady streets in cities.

When driving outside cities there's a distinct improvement in visibility, and on a bike it's just as valuable as in a car.

I can see no disadvantages at all to DRL, and many big advantages, provided as I said above that the rule allows low energy LED running lights to be used.

I don't expect everyone else to agree, but I do expect most to acknowledge the benefits if and when DRL comes in.


----------



## snorri (8 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> Yes.
> 
> In a sentence, the cars stand out much much better than without lights.



OK

I've cycled in Poland and Sweden myself and can't say I was aware of any safety improvement. In fact I curtailed my Polish tour due to fears for my safety on the road!
I am just concerned that unlit objects will become even more obscure among the increased number of lit objects.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## Davidc (8 Feb 2011)

snorri said:


> OK
> 
> I've cycled in Poland and Sweden myself and can't say I was aware of any safety improvement. In fact I curtailed my Polish tour due to fears for my safety on the road!
> I am just concerned that unlit objects will become even more obscure among the increased number of lit objects.
> ...



Possibly. In Poland the driving's crazy, speeds are crazy* and the alcohol consumption is too high, and I don't think anything would make it safe in the short term.

Since my bike is a lit object, day and night, it's unlikely to be obscured. I do think bike DRLs are/ would be even more desirable than now in an environment where they are present on everything else.

I think you're right - we'll just disagree.

*when traffic's moving at all!


----------



## frank9755 (9 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> I'm delighted if DRL comes in, and look forward to it and the improvement in road safety for all it will bring.
> 
> If DRL for cyclists came in not only would drivers see us better, it would take away all excuse for failure to see us, as I said, if there ever was one.




Of course exactly the same points apply to pedestrians. Do you think they should also carry lights during the daytime?


----------



## MartinC (9 Feb 2011)

This is similar the same to the Hi Viz argument The correct approach (for me) is - I should use DRL but nobody else should be allowed to, then I will be safer (if everyone does it then I won't be safer).

Interesting that we'll legislate to put lights on vehicles but not to get them painted in bright colours.


----------



## Davidc (9 Feb 2011)

Pedestrians are encouraged to wear bright colours. They don't, and I don't think compulsion can or should happen.



MartinC said:


> Interesting that we'll legislate to put lights on vehicles but not to get them painted in bright colours.



I can't understand why not (apart from the response of the makers, the Clarksonites and the DM)

Trains have to have bright yellow front and rear, why not road going powered vehicles.

Stripes of flourescent yellow, red and black, the black being retroreflective.

(I have to admit that my car is a faintly blue metalic silvery colour, which I know blends into the background very efficiently, especially around dusk and during dull days).


----------



## psmiffy (9 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> Stripes of flourescent yellow, red and black, the black being retroreflective.




Definetly not - there are enough idiots crashing through line of cones into safe working area already without making the rest think that the closed off areas areas containing working vehicles are part of the traffic stream





snorri said:


> OK
> 
> I've cycled in Poland and Sweden myself and can't say I was aware of any safety improvement. In fact I curtailed my Polish tour due to fears for my safety on the road!



Agree - I have cycled in lots of places where daylight running lights are compulsary - makes it easier to to see cars approaching in the distance on the long straight roads that are commonplace in many parts of Europe - however as a cyclist I see no advantages or disadvantages to the use of daylight running lights


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (9 Feb 2011)

At the moment I've no enthusiasm for DRLs.

All I've seen of this is the LED's on Audis and the 9 billion watt strip of search-light grade LED's on some new Citroens.

My own opinion is that the plethora of these things - which obviously are being placed for fashion statement (Citroen - in a semi-vertical arc) rather than conforming to sense (Audi - strip beneath headlights) are just going to provide distraction from the things I want to see.


----------



## Mad at urage (9 Feb 2011)

DRLs are part of a process of lighting escalation that cyclists and pedestrians will always lose. Our eyes are naturally attracted to bright objects and we will always see the brightly-lit object in preference to the less brightly lit. It becomes a competition which cyclists and pedestrians will lose because a motor vehicle has the power to carry around bigger generators and will eventually outshine the motor-less anyway, leaving all the cyclists and pedestrians unseen in the shadows around their bright lights.

I now cycle with a bright helmet light (Hope Vision 1 Adventure - this one http://www.bikeradar...-light-10-39875) and an Electron Terra 2 Front Light on the bike (can be set to alternate flashing in traffic). I wear a flashing red rear on the helmet and two separate red rears on the bike (flashing during the day and one constant at night). 

I shouldn't need that amount of lighting!

Nowadays this combination (with a 'night vision' jacket and several reflective bands) is fairly normal. Fifteen years ago it would have been seen as excessive (I rode with about the same bike lights and a head-mounted front light - because 5 miles of my commute was off-road, and just a couple of ankle-bands). 

I am aware of contributing to the problem. When I turn out in the morning with a helmet and two lights on my head, as well as several flashing on the bike, the local schoolkids see *it** as both remarkably funny (at least they are not yet indoctrinated with the idea that everyone should dress like that) and - more unfortunately, as how _cyclists_ dress (because _cycling's dangerous_  and 'cos _cyclists are ridiculous_ ). This feeds their expectations later in life and discourages them from choosing cycling as a means of transport.

When I started cycling, the idea of "What do you expect us to wear? Bloody flashing lights like a Christmas tree?" was a joke response (and seen as such); nowadays the answer at least in the UK appears to be "Yes, of course" (but not for example in cycle-friendly countries such as Netherlands!).

Nowadays my ridiculous Christmas Tree of lights is used nightly and in poor visibility during the day (heaven forbid that motor vehicles should slow down to spot an unlit and slow-moving road user in poor visibility ). DRLs will mean that cars are more noticeable than I am during the day (see second sentence of this post) which means that drivers (and pedestrians and probably cyclists ) will be less liable to notice me than without DRLs. Cyclists will have to use (increasing powers of) cycle lights during the day, further increasing the cost of cycling_*#*_ and decreasing its advantage over motor transport. 

DRLs are therefore bad because they increase a car's advantage over cycles and pedestrians in the "_see me! my presence is important!!_" competition that is our road system and also because they will (as a knock-on effect) increase the cost of cycling and so discourage people from taking it up.




***'Look at the Funny Cyclist'   
*# *I have probably £300 worth of lights on my bike, which is not a lot compared to what could be spent but far more than most people who may consider cycling would want to spend.


----------



## McrJ64 (9 Feb 2011)

"Arriva introduced a standing instruction in 2004 to their drivers that buses must have dipped headlamps switched on at all times. Accident rate for their buses dropped significantly following that."

Really - So without dipped lights, a 60 (single decker) or 100 (double decker) bus is invisible!! We don't stand a chance.


----------



## domd1979 (9 Feb 2011)

McrJ64 said:


> "Arriva introduced a standing instruction in 2004 to their drivers that buses must have dipped headlamps switched on at all times. Accident rate for their buses dropped significantly following that."
> 
> Really - So without dipped lights, a 60 (single decker) or 100 (double decker) bus is invisible!! We don't stand a chance.



It would seem so, since the drop in pedestrian/bus accidents was something like half!!


----------



## domd1979 (9 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> Trains have to have bright yellow front and rear, why not road going powered vehicles.



And on the main line headlamp at all times...


----------



## fimm (9 Feb 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> <snip> lots of other good stuff
> DRLs are therefore bad because they increase a car's advantage over cycles and pedestrians in the "_see me! my presence is important!!_" competition that is our road system and also because they will (as a knock-on effect) increase the cost of cycling and so discourage people from taking it up.



This. All of it, not just the bit I've quoted.


----------



## Davidc (9 Feb 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> DRLs are part of a process of lighting escalation that cyclists and pedestrians will always lose. Our eyes are naturally attracted to bright objects and we will always see the brightly-li .....



This, all of it, is too long to bother replying to, especially as IMO it is 99.9999999999999% wrong.

DRLs will be a positive contribution to everyone's safety and will not disadvantage cyclists or anyone else.

Cycling is safer now than at any time sine the 1940s, and statistically is 4 times safer than when I started in the 1960s, so no you don't need all your lights or high visibility stuff, but it does help others to see you early. So does mine.


----------



## henshaw11 (10 Feb 2011)

As a (n ex-)motorcyclist I'm not happy about DRL - you use the headlight to help the numpties in cars spot you, 'cos all they're usually looking for is large lumps on the road. Wih DRL all you'll get is the same numpties looking for headlight-sized lights. Most bike lights aren't that great at night, during the day - as already mentioned if you could be bothered to read it - they'll be even more easily be missed amongst all the other light clutter.


----------



## MartinC (10 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> This, all of it, is too long to bother replying to, especially as IMO it is 99.9999999999999% wrong.
> 
> *DRLs will be a positive contribution to everyone's safety* and will not disadvantage cyclists or anyone else.
> 
> Cycling is safer now than at any time sine the 1940s, and statistically is 4 times safer than when I started in the 1960s, so no *you don't need all your lights or high visibility stuff*, but it does help others to see you early. So does mine.




Contradiction.


----------



## hatler (10 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> This, all of it, is too long to bother replying to, especially as IMO it is 99.9999999999999% wrong.
> 
> *DRLs will be a positive contribution to everyone's safety and will not disadvantage cyclists or anyone else.
> *
> Cycling is safer now than at any time sine the 1940s, and statistically is 4 times safer than when I started in the 1960s, so no you don't need all your lights or high visibility stuff, but it does help others to see you early. So does mine.



I presume you mean the emboldened statement above if cyclists use DRLs as well ?

If not, this statement is clearly incorrect.

Even if they do, I would disagree. Motors will always be able to produce brighter lights thereby putting cyclists at a disadvantage.

Let's leave aside the issue of obliging cyclists to use DRLs putting people off cycling in the first place, thereby reducing the number of cyclists, thereby reducing safety for all (see CTC's Safety in Numbers).

My view: DRLs will increase risk for cyclists.


----------



## GrasB (10 Feb 2011)

I find DRLs useful when on the open road in dull conditions, often they mean I can see a vehicle far earlier through hedges etc than without them. Around town however they're more a hindrance further adding to the information overload already present. That said since I've gone to LI-ION battery in light solutions I've been running lights day & night on my bike.


----------



## PpPete (10 Feb 2011)

I'm with Mad@ourage on this one...

DLRs on the cars and we'll have more SMIDSY's with cyclists on the "receiving end".	Not just cars hitting cyclists, because drivers will be looking for lights, not other road users, but also dozy peds stepping out in front of bikes will become a major problem IMO.

£300 of lighting on our bikes and we might start to even up the balance a little - but we are never going to be able to compete with lights on motor vehicles.


----------



## Mad at urage (10 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> This, all of it, is too long to bother replying to, especially as IMO it is 99.9999999999999% wrong.
> 
> DRLs will be a positive contribution to everyone's safety and will not disadvantage cyclists or anyone else.
> 
> Cycling is safer now than at any time sine the 1940s, and statistically is 4 times safer than when I started in the 1960s, so no you don't need all your lights or high visibility stuff, but it does help others to see you early. So does mine.


Which of it is wrong?

Our eyes are naturally attracted to bright objects and we will always see the brightly-lit object in preference to the less brightly lit?

But that's why DRLs work for those cars fitted with them! They are brighter than the unlit/dimly lit objects around them and attract peoples attention _away from those other objects_.

Is the amount of lighting now deemed 'normal' by cyclists and expected by motorists less than it was 15 years ago? No, more lighting is expected.

Is lighting us up like Christmas Trees laughed at by non-cyclists? Yes it is (especially kids).

Does this ridicule discourage people from cycling? Yes it does.

Does the extra cost of all this hi-tech lighting put people off cycling? Yes, demonstrably so.

Will motor vehicles always be able to generate more light than non-motorised? Yes, they have spare power to do so.

Come on Davidc, _in your opinion_ "DRLs will be a positive contribution to everyone's safety and will not disadvantage cyclists or anyone else": Justify that by telling me why all of the above "is 99.9999999999999% wrong".


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Feb 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> DRLs are part of a process of lighting escalation that cyclists and pedestrians will always lose.


I reckon that's right.

Having said that, dom knows a thing or two about this, and, if he's still reading this thread I'd ask him if he thought that the reduction in pedestrian/bus coming togethers might not be counterbalanced by meetings of vehicles less well lit and pedestrians - and I'd include bicycles in the vehicle category.


----------



## sheddy (10 Feb 2011)

Cyclists will have to join in at all hours just to stay safe by 2025, when most of the cars on the road will have DRLs

Maybe bikes will be sold with integral lights ?


----------



## psmiffy (10 Feb 2011)

I have followed this thread from its inception and have marvelled at the degree of paranoia and stress that the forthcoming implementation of daylight running light has caused. I have cycled quite long distances on a number of occasions in all the Scandinavian countries and a fair number of their cities where daylight running lights are mandatory – TBH apart from mentally acknowledging that DRLs exist I never really noticed them – or felt in the slightest that I was somehow submerged in a malevolent sea of luminescence - neither did I get confused in any way about the identity of any vehicle – suffer from temporary blindness - epileptic fits or nausea.

I note that in the countries where they have been adopted there has been no mention of the wholesale slaughter of cyclists due to their adoption – or for that matter the slightest increase (most are well in decline) in their ksi over the period they have been used – nor have I observed that the indigenous cycling populations have felt it necessary to arm themselves with retaliatory multi candela weapons to counter the use of DLRs.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Feb 2011)

It won't make any difference either way. Half* of the idiots I see on bikes don't bother with lights even at night. Why they're going to be worried about cars having lights on during the day I don't know, I suspect they won't even notice.

*Not to be taken literally, I haven't counted them or anything.


----------



## marinyork (10 Feb 2011)

I don't see the point myself. I think people are basically talking about dull and winter rather than all year round (yeah I know that's not the official line). In this context I don't see why you wouldn't redefine lighting up times and have a winter dipped headlight lighting up time that ran from 1st November till 28th of February being some later/earlier time say 1hr than sunrise/sunset rather than 1hr30 later which is the situation at present. I also don't trust the manufacturers to come up with something practical - these are the people that brought us the appalling xenon headlights and all the problems that went with them. 

It won't make that much difference to cyclists the vast majority of the time, the concern would be in winter/early spring/late autumn rush hour traffic chocked commutes vs 50 other headlights/DRL. I think it'd probably be useful to pedestrians though.


----------



## Davidc (10 Feb 2011)

OK, I'll put my comments in. I think you are wrong, and that DRLs will inprove road safety. So do those who've studied the issue for Europe (AFAIK it's not the EU it's the roads body which includes other states as well


Mad@urage said:


> Which of it is wrong?
> 
> Our eyes are naturally attracted to bright objects and we will always see the brightly-lit object in preference to the less brightly lit? Great - so everyone will notice cars more. Safer for everyone.
> 
> ...



Im my 'ideal world' private motorised transport would cease to exist and the commercial variety would come under some close control, removing much of the need for measures like DRL. Unfortunately I'm in a minority and it won't happen so mitigating measures are needed.


----------



## Mad at urage (11 Feb 2011)

"Great - so everyone will notice cars more. Safer for everyone."
At the expense of noticing other things ...

"No, they solely and exclusively make the cars more noticeable. Zero effect on everything else. You ar e talking absolute nonesense."
Ahhh, so the nub of your argument is that people's attention is infinite: Causing people to take more notice of one thing does not detract from their ability to notice other important items. This contradicts my experience (try listening to birdsong whilst someone plays rock music in the next garden. Notice that car indicator lights are not noticeable if you are in the direct line of the headlights - this is called ‘visual darkening'). 
The extension of this of course is that mobile 'phone use whilst driving is not dangerous: After all, people can divide their attention between infinite number of things and still pay attention to them all. Wrong David, they can't. People will look for car-bright lights and ignore dimmer or unlit bikes.

"It's a part of the process by which our roads have become safer for all, including cyclits. We kill and injure less people now than at any time in the past 65 years, that includes cyclists. Still far too many but less than in the past."
We'd kill and injure even less people if no-one ever went out except in brightly-lit cars but the increased deaths caused by lack of exercise would more than compensate; _this is exactly what has been happening over the past 65 years._

"Is lighting us up like Christmas Trees laughed at by non-cyclists? Not to any extent. You are wrong."
WaaaHAHaHA!!!!  No David, you are wrong. From my personal experience, many do laugh at cycle wear. Perhaps I mix a bit more than you do in non-cycling circles but it is certainly seen as ridiculous by many.

"Does this ridicule discourage people from cycling? No, not to any significant extent. Any disouragement is from the (incorrect) perception that cyling is dangerous and from the culture where cars are seen as 'cool'."
Wrong again (and highlighted by your admission that cars are "cool" - a.o.t. dressing like a Christmas Tree).
First the two issues are directly linked: It is believed that we need to dress ridiculously because cycling is unsafe. 
Second many of my colleagues over the years have wished they dared to cycle, but "couldn't bring myself to dress like that, I'd look like an idiot". People are very image-conscious you know!

"Does the extra cost of all this hi-tech lighting put people off cycling? No, not in the slightest. The cost of effective daytime lighting for a bike, as fitted to my round town bike, is no more than £20. For that you get lighting which gets complaints about its brighness (2 x 1/2 watt Smarts at the back at £5 each, Electron 4 LED front at £7.50 which gives high intensity low illumination. No use for seeing the way in the dark but shows up like a lighthouse). "
Oh! These: http://www.google.co...ed=0CDAQ8wIwAw# and http://www.bikeradar...ar-light-29688? 
Sorry David but merely compliant (are they even compliant?) lighting is not enough to get noticed in a complex and brightly lit environment. I cycled for over 20 years in London, occasionally returning since and whilst noticeable in a shop or an office and perhaps "annoyingly bright" from directly behind, those lights don't spread their high intensity wide enough to be noticed out of the corner of a driver's eye when you are at the wrong angle. I've cycled and driven past many such and they are effectively invisible from inside a car (especially in the rain) unless you are directly behind them.

"Will motor vehicles always be able to generate more light than non-motorised? But they won't, they'll operate with the legal minimum finding the cheapest way to meet the rules. Power, using LEDs, is a marginal issue."
LEDs are good but not magic. More LEDs for wider spread of bright lights require more power. If it's such a marginal issue why do decent LED lights like Hope Vision warn only to use top quality batteries and that these will die suddenly? It's because they use power David and to get longer run-times or brighter lights you need more batteries. This is why they have dimmer options on high power cycle lights - but those on cars will be set to the maximum brightness that multiple (more) LEDs can give. 
They won't need " the cheapest way to meet the rules" because unlike cyclists they won't have to buy batteries (disposable or high-quality rechargeable).

"You are wrong, the experience in other countries demonstrates that I am right, thats why it's being introduced Europe-wide. I can find no logic, sense or reason in your arguments. I am absolutely in favour of DRL. I'm not expecting to persuade you - only the positive results of their introduction will do that."
"No logic, sense or reason" really! Honestly I can find none of those in your denial that human attention is infinite.

Experience in other European countries is mixed. No study in Europe has shown DRLs to save lives, only to reduce collisions for those vehicles fitted. I'm sure you realise that the Scandinavian countries (where there is a positive effect from DRLs) have significant areas which are permanently dark in winter. They also have more large wild animals and most of the decrease in collisions is accounted for by collisions with animals. The side effects of this legislation have simply been ignored.

"OK, I'll put my comments in. I think you are wrong, and that DRLs will inprove road safety. So do those who've studied the issue for Europe (AFAIK it's not the EU it's the roads body which includes other states as well"
So we should put our trust in the Eurocrats: Uncle knows best because he has "studied the issue for Europe"! You do know the studies that 'proved' cycles were more noticeable, were done using photographs of roads? Of course Uncle is not influenced by any business considerations, nor can there be anything else than our safety in his collective mind.

David, you trust them therefore I am wrong, as is the CTC http://www.ctc.org.u...aspx?TabID=4681 and other organisations who have studied the evidence with less input from business concerns (e.g. http://www.dadrl.org...DRLstudies.html). I am certainly not going to dissuade you from your trust in the honourable and trustworthy nature of central government (in this case European) bureaucrats, but I hope you won't continue to trust those little 'safety lights'.


----------



## Norm (11 Feb 2011)

Seems coincidental that those who have experience are happy with them, and those who don't aren't.


----------



## tyred (11 Feb 2011)

I don't really care either way. There are times in the middle of the day where dipped lights are appropriate but the driver should really have enough intelligence to realise this.

I'm more concerned by modern car headlights being so bright that they ofter dazzle other road users.


----------



## Davidc (11 Feb 2011)

Mad@urage, I'm not going to bother respoding again to most of that. My considered opinion is that you (and the CTC) are wrong on this subject. 

My observations are based on experience rather than on what bureaucrats think, and in any event it's not them that have done the analysis behind the recommendations.

Don't bother trying to base your opposition to DRLs or to my views on your experience of cycling generally or in London. From what you have said mine is at least double that, and also includes periods of cycling in a number of other places, some of which require DRLs on cars. That mainly goes with age, and by the time you catch up I'll be long gone.

Based on my experience I'll be delighted to see DRL laws. Unfortunately in the UK we could end up with the worst possible outcome which would be new cars with DRLs and older ones not having to use them.

I'll continue relying on appropriate and well placed lights of appropriate and effective types in order to be seen, and to see by.Judging by the contents of your posts I'll rely on my judgement not yours in selection and use of those lights.


----------



## Davidc (11 Feb 2011)

tyred said:


> I don't really care either way. There are times in the middle of the day where dipped lights are appropriate but the driver should really have enough intelligence to realise this.



As I saw in South Devon yesterday most do but sadly a few don't. We have to cater for the few.



tyred said:


> I'm more concerned by modern car headlights being so bright that they ofter dazzle other road users.



Again from yesterdays trip into the misty gloom of Devon, one of the biggest issues is the small number of drivers who go around with full beam lights on instead of dipped beam.


----------



## PpPete (11 Feb 2011)

Davidc said:


> Unfortunately in the UK we could end up with the worst possible outcome which would be new cars with DRLs and older ones not having to use them.



OK so we'll agree to disagree on the benefits/disadvantages but I'm baffled by your statement above. Surely this is the only way in which they can be introduced ? New cars required to have them. Older cars without them gradually disappearing. 

I'm (just) old enough to remember the introduction of seatbelts....required to be fitted in all new cars, then required to be used in all cars (with a very few exceptions) many years later.

How else do you propose it is done? Requiring all motorists to retrofit ? or all cars without DLRs to run on sidelights? Given that lack of success in persuading motorists not to us their mobiles / paint their nails etc whilst driving that would seem to be wishful thinking of the worst sort.


----------



## Norm (11 Feb 2011)

PpPete said:


> I'm (just) old enough to remember the introduction of seatbelts....required to be fitted in all new cars, *then required to be used in all cars (with a very few exceptions) *many years later.


Just to clear up something which is kind of unclear in the post above, weat belts have never been required to be used in all cars, only in those cars where they were fitted as part of the original equipment. 

You may have intended those vehicles to be the ones covered in your "very few exceptions", PpPete, but I just thought I'd clarify.


----------



## Mad at urage (11 Feb 2011)

PpPete said:


> OK so we'll agree to disagree on the benefits/disadvantages but I'm baffled by your statement above. Surely this is the only way in which they can be introduced ? New cars required to have them. Older cars without them gradually disappearing.
> 
> I'm (just) old enough to remember the introduction of seatbelts....required to be fitted in all new cars, then required to be used in all cars (with a very few exceptions) many years later.
> 
> How else do you propose it is done? Requiring all motorists to retrofit ? or all cars without DLRs to run on sidelights? Given that lack of success in persuading motorists not to us their mobiles / paint their nails etc whilst driving that would seem to be wishful thinking of the worst sort.


PpPete, they can introduce what is known as "behaviour based standards", in other words they require drivers to switch on lights during the day (that are designed for low-light and night-time use). This is how the law was introduced in Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden I believe. The change now is to make all European cars fit permanently-lit lights (whenever the ignition is on presumably).

From a 2008 report in the second link above (forum broke the direct link, but it's org.uk and follow studies tab):

"A 1976 study in Finland found that DRLs _would_ reduce multi-vehicle crashes and ped/cyclists crashes on rural roads by 21 percent"

Notice the Ped/cyclist bit - the law as envisaged in this study would have applied to cyclists too.
Notice "would" - this was predictive and 20 years before Finland introduced the law.

"A 1982 study in Sweden based on two years pre-law and two post law data concluded that the DRL law would reduce daytime crashes by 11 percent, ped/cyclist crashes by 17 percent and bicycle/moped crashes by 21 percent"

Looks good so far! 

In Norway a 1993 study found that DRLs would reduce daytime crashes by 15 percent in summer [but] no effects on multi-vehicle crashes in the winter, also there was no affect on crashes involving pedestrians or motorcyclists. None of the results were statistically significant!

Hang on ... no statistically significant results and a 15% reduction concluded (but not for more vulnerable road users now)! Very odd.

"Two studies in 1993 and 1995 evaluating Denmark's 1990 DRL law showed consistent results. These studies concluded that two years after enactment of the law, DRLs reduced daytime multiple-vehicle crashes by 6 - 7 percent and reduced motor-vehicle-to-pedalcyclist crashes by 4 percent."

Hmmm, a slight benefit there, but 4% is not normally regarded as a statistically significant number. Rather less than the promised ("would") reduction of 10 to 20% !

"However the second study also showed that DRLs significantly increased motor-vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes by 16 percent"

Poor pedestrians! For our (in this study) 4% reduction, they get hit 16% more (I wonder if that's because they don't have DRLs ).

As I said: No European study has shown a reduction in road casualties _resulting from_ DRLs (although some promised that there "would" be).


----------



## PpPete (11 Feb 2011)

Norm said:


> Just to clear up something which is kind of unclear in the post above, weat belts have never been required to be used in all cars, only in those cars where they were fitted as part of the original equipment.
> 
> You may have intended those vehicles to be the ones covered in your "very few exceptions", PpPete, but I just thought I'd clarify.



Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## domd1979 (11 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I reckon that's right.
> 
> Having said that, dom knows a thing or two about this, and, if he's still reading this thread I'd ask him if he thought that the reduction in pedestrian/bus coming togethers might not be counterbalanced by meetings of vehicles less well lit and pedestrians - and I'd include bicycles in the vehicle category.



Its an interesting question. The difference it made with Arriva is quite astounding really. As for the disbenefits to peds and cyclists I'm still undecided and haven't read enough on it to completely make my mind up. From a purely driving point of view, I like DRL. The bigger issue really is standard of driving that no amount of DRL or not will solve... Just on vehicle lighting nor will not having DRL stop the high percentage of cheese brain drivers who go round with fog lights blaring which are far higher intensity than headlamps. 

Another thought on DRL is that in dull conditions it does mean that any hi-vis will bounce the light back at the driver. There are far too many people - drivers and cyclists who aren't lit up when the weather conditions dictate that they really should be.


----------



## Davidc (11 Feb 2011)

PpPete said:


> OK so we'll agree to disagree on the benefits/disadvantages but I'm baffled by your statement above. Surely this is the only way in which they can be introduced ? New cars required to have them. Older cars without them gradually disappearing.



I meant that we would end up without a law requiring the use of dipped lights when moving.

In Scandinavia and Poland the law was changed to require this. AFAIK where this has been introduced there's an alternative, which is to retrofit a lighting relay to bring on the dipped headlights with an option for a dimming resistor in circuit, like the dim dip system we had at one time which was dropped.

On many cars, including mine, all that's needed to comply with the Scandinavian laws is a software change, available for a small fee (of course).


----------



## sheddy (20 Feb 2011)

Petition here - http://www.lightmare.org/


----------



## perplexed (16 Mar 2011)

fimm said:


> This. All of it, not just the bit I've quoted.



+1

DRL will just mean we're even more lost in the background. Other drivers will just see the 8 billion candle power from the Audi's lights as they look down the road.


----------

