RE: Daytime running lights: yes or no?
Tuesday 26th September 2006
DRLs make pedestrians hard to seeAre daytime running lights (DRLs) a smart idea that can save lives -- or a way for those cocooned in airbag-strewn metal boxes to gain advantage over pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists? That's just one debate we're not having, as the EU prepares to mandate DRLs across the continent.
Daytime running lights: yes or no?
EU proposal tabled: you don't decide
DRLs make pedestrians hard to see
According to The Association of Drivers against Daytime Running Lights (DADRL), "the decreasing trend in UK road accidents has levelled off despite advances in vehicle design. We believe a contributory factor is due to increased use of full power distracting daytime running headlights known as DRL which make vulnerable road users less conspicuous."
The association argues that there's no evidence that DRLs save lives, that they increase the danger to vulnerable, less conspicuous road users, and that, when introduced into the USA, accidents increased.
One ex-police officer from the US writes: "As a veteran and a long career in law enforcement I would like to draw your attention to a peculiar irony in the use of DLRs.
"As a way of extracting information from enemies and criminals we used to put people in a bright room and then shine a harsh light on them! And that was the most effective technique we could find to cause the most discomfort in a person, in effect it was torture. The reason it worked so well is that bright glare increases stress level, produces intense discomfort, and is in fact unbearable for any length of time.
"The technique is now considered inhumane and is no longer allowed. The effect of daytime running lights on a driver is the exact same thing. You have turned the American roadways into a torture chamber where the driver is forced to endure glaring lights in front and behind him with no way to escape.
"I think we are now beginning to see the effects of this as I read these comments. Every year it seems their are more and more cars with drls and they seem to be getting even harsher and brighter. I would strongly urge whoever is making the rules here to put an immediate end to the use of all daytime running lights."
Discussion
On a purely selfish level I like running with my DRLs on, and even used to use (manually turned on) dipped beam in clear weather on my previous cars. If DRLs were compulsary then my 'advantage' would be lost.
Anyway, in the states, aren't most of the mandatory DRLs just little orange sidelights, hardly dazzlers.
Anyway, in the states, aren't most of the mandatory DRLs just little orange sidelights, hardly dazzlers.
[quote=Truckosaurus]On a purely selfish level I like running with my DRLs on, and even used to use (manually turned on) dipped beam in clear weather on my previous cars. If DRLs were compulsary then my 'advantage' would be lost.
I often do the same. Don't see it as an 'advantage'. Just think its safer
I often do the same. Don't see it as an 'advantage'. Just think its safer
The American Policeman said:-
"The technique is now considered inhumane and is no longer allowed. The effect of daytime running lights on a driver is the exact same thing. You have turned the American roadways into a torture chamber where the driver is forced to endure glaring lights in front and behind him with no way to escape
Dont American cars have dipped beams fitted or what?
Full of sh**e in my opinion. With over 30 years driving experience, in my humble opinion, vehicles with lights on during day light hours do register with the little grey cells a little quicker than those without, the only objection I have, and motorcyclists, please not well, I do object to you sitting behind me with FULL BEAM ON day or night.
Dipped beam is fine, or if you do feel you need FULL BEAM, then kindly dip it when you are sitting behind another veihcle. Daytime running lights = good idea. Although there may not be any evidence or statistics to prove DTRL do help to decrease accidents, is not a valid reason not to do it, or do we have to wait until more are killed and maimed and thousands of pounds spent on more surveys until someone says, "Oh what a good idea if we had DTRL's"
I cant honestly see that statistics could prove that DTRL's increase incidents?
"The technique is now considered inhumane and is no longer allowed. The effect of daytime running lights on a driver is the exact same thing. You have turned the American roadways into a torture chamber where the driver is forced to endure glaring lights in front and behind him with no way to escape
Dont American cars have dipped beams fitted or what?
Full of sh**e in my opinion. With over 30 years driving experience, in my humble opinion, vehicles with lights on during day light hours do register with the little grey cells a little quicker than those without, the only objection I have, and motorcyclists, please not well, I do object to you sitting behind me with FULL BEAM ON day or night.
Dipped beam is fine, or if you do feel you need FULL BEAM, then kindly dip it when you are sitting behind another veihcle. Daytime running lights = good idea. Although there may not be any evidence or statistics to prove DTRL do help to decrease accidents, is not a valid reason not to do it, or do we have to wait until more are killed and maimed and thousands of pounds spent on more surveys until someone says, "Oh what a good idea if we had DTRL's"
I cant honestly see that statistics could prove that DTRL's increase incidents?
Edited by vipers on Tuesday 26th September 10:58
I'm not sure. On the way to work today I got dazzled by someone with their lights on because the car in question was going over a bump. Sure you can say that the roads should be flat, but you can also say that I wouldn't have been dazzled if their lights weren't on. It's not like I can miss an X5 now is it?
nickjm said:
I'm not sure. On the way to work today I got dazzled by someone with their lights on because the car in question was going over a bump. Sure you can say that the roads should be flat, but you can also say that I wouldn't have been dazzled if their lights weren't on. It's not like I can miss an X5 now is it?
In the ccase you describe though Nick (bumpy road) you'd have been dazzled day or night so teh road (not the lights) is the issue - unless we want to ban people driving at night (wonder which party will think of that firs as another sop to the green lobby?)
nickjm said:
I'm not sure. On the way to work today I got dazzled by someone with their lights on because the car in question was going over a bump. Sure you can say that the roads should be flat, but you can also say that I wouldn't have been dazzled if their lights weren't on. It's not like I can miss an X5 now is it?
Although your absolutely correct, you would still be dazzled at night, when he would have had his lights on anyway.
I can see this thread generating lots of interesting comments.
In Scandinavia its a legal requirement to use dipped headlights in day time due to the low angle of the sun in the daytime sky for most of the year. If you are coming out of the sun then I agree day time running lights are a great safety feature.
This is not the same as idiots at lower latitudes driving with their front fog lights on however, as this just blinds other motorists and makes you look like a tosser.
This is not the same as idiots at lower latitudes driving with their front fog lights on however, as this just blinds other motorists and makes you look like a tosser.
oagent said:
In Scandinavia its a legal requirement to use dipped headlights in day time due to the low angle of the sun in the daytime sky for most of the year. If you are coming out of the sun then I agree day time running lights are a great safety feature.
This is not the same as idiots at lower latitudes driving with their front fog lights on however, as this just blinds other motorists and makes you look like a tosser.
This is not the same as idiots at lower latitudes driving with their front fog lights on however, as this just blinds other motorists and makes you look like a tosser.
Interesting, didnt realise the reasoning behind it in Scandinvia, and as has been pointed out on this site before, having fog lights on when it aint foggy is illegal, tosser sums it up though, doubt if they even know what those little lights are even called on the front of the car.
I'm not really into having them on all the time. I find lights on in daytime distracting. These new Xenon jobbies look like someone is flashing you every time they go over a blade of grass.
Also, won't emergency vehicles blend in a little more too? It's not only the blue lights we look for.
Also, won't emergency vehicles blend in a little more too? It's not only the blue lights we look for.
jonnylayze said:
a car with its lightson is much easier to see coming in the other direction (i.e you see it earlier). Therefore, IMO it makes things like overtaking (and pulling out of junctions) safer.
I think thats the problem, the cars are easier to see, so you *think* it's safer, but for the average driver is that giving them even more reason to then assume it IS safe and overtake when that poorly illuminated cyclist is coming the other way, or any other number of less obvious hazards.
Making observation easier should be a good thing, but not if it breeds ignorance to the vast assortment of other road users.
For example, my daily drive consists of mainly sharing the road with other cars. These are currently not a problem anyway. The problem is the hazards you don't see, and they are not being made any more "obvious" by this policy.
I think the picture illustrates that we will add obviousness to things that should already be clearly bloody obvious to a driver worth having a lisence, while adding nothing to any of the other things which by all accounts are ultimately far higher up the "sudden hazard" list.
Cyclists with daytime lights and yellow high-vis, horses the same... I can see cars, how about making the things that I will likely have more trouble seeing a bit more obvious rather than the already obvious?
Lights, lights, lights, no lights, *must be nothing coming*, overtake, ooohhh, that cyclist doesn't have lights on... bang...
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 26th September 11:15
oagent said:
In Scandinavia its a legal requirement to use dipped headlights in day time due to the low angle of the sun in the daytime sky for most of the year. If you are coming out of the sun then I agree day time running lights are a great safety feature.
This is not the same as idiots at lower latitudes driving with their front fog lights on however, as this just blinds other motorists and makes you look like a tosser.
This is not the same as idiots at lower latitudes driving with their front fog lights on however, as this just blinds other motorists and makes you look like a tosser.
I was under the impression that studies in Scandinavia showed that running with dipped beam reduced accidents, but after they made it law (and thus everyone did it) it had a much lesser effect than predicted.
Interesting how "there's no evidence that DRLs save lives" and yet the DADRL states "the decreasing trend in UK road accidents has levelled off despite advances in vehicle design. We believe a contributory factor is due to increased use of full power distracting daytime running headlights known as DRL which make vulnerable road users less conspicuous" - is there any evidence to support this belief?
I think the argument would be a lot better to say that drivers would start looking only for lights and so miss bicycles, pedestrians, animals etc rather than trying to compare a cars headlights in the distance with US police shining a bright light directly in your eyes from a few feet away - hardly the same thing
I don't think DRL's are a good thing due to drivers relying on looking for lights, but there you go, no one asked - especially not the EU law makers!!
I think the argument would be a lot better to say that drivers would start looking only for lights and so miss bicycles, pedestrians, animals etc rather than trying to compare a cars headlights in the distance with US police shining a bright light directly in your eyes from a few feet away - hardly the same thing
I don't think DRL's are a good thing due to drivers relying on looking for lights, but there you go, no one asked - especially not the EU law makers!!
I'm working in Norway and have my car over here and "have" to put my lights on during the day, it's compulsary. I can't say that I get stressed because of the lights, they arn't that dazzling in the day. It took a little while to get used to it but now it feels normal. I even put the lights on during the day when back home now. I have always put the lights on my motorbike so why not the car. I see no harm in it at all! There is a a big plus side to having the lights on during the day, and that is it will make the idiots who drive in hard rain and on poor visibilty days who would normally not put their lights on more visible! Maybe we will all see the light at the end of the tunnel!
Can't see things? Get an eye test and wear specs. The only time when daylight running lights would be useful is when it's misty on the morning or foggy.
*White & Silver car owners take note*. When it's foggy or misty, the colour of the fog / mist is usually white or slightly greyish which means that you blend into the background and can't be seen. Just because you drive a white or silver car that can normally be spotted from 15 miles away does not mean that you can be seen in foggy conditions. Turn your lights ON! The number of white or silver car owners who seem to think that they can be seen in foggy conditions without their lights is simply staggering.
Otherwise an emphatic no to daylight running lights. I get annoyed enough with the Chelsea Tractor driver who has EVERYTHING turned on at night and who's driving in my boot. I really don't want to have to suffer the same torture during the day! After a day staring at a LCD screen, any form of bright lights shining in my eyes is enough to make me grumpier than ususal. Bringing in a rule that would force us to drive with our lights on all the time would bring out the worst in me.
Rant over.
*White & Silver car owners take note*. When it's foggy or misty, the colour of the fog / mist is usually white or slightly greyish which means that you blend into the background and can't be seen. Just because you drive a white or silver car that can normally be spotted from 15 miles away does not mean that you can be seen in foggy conditions. Turn your lights ON! The number of white or silver car owners who seem to think that they can be seen in foggy conditions without their lights is simply staggering.
Otherwise an emphatic no to daylight running lights. I get annoyed enough with the Chelsea Tractor driver who has EVERYTHING turned on at night and who's driving in my boot. I really don't want to have to suffer the same torture during the day! After a day staring at a LCD screen, any form of bright lights shining in my eyes is enough to make me grumpier than ususal. Bringing in a rule that would force us to drive with our lights on all the time would bring out the worst in me.
Rant over.
I have a Volvo V40 which has DRL and a bright yellow Caterham 7. Even with the headlights of the Caterham turned on during the day I still get plonkers pulling out in front of me because the 'heven't seen me'. While I agree that DRLs are a good idea, I think improving driver awareness and observation is needed. I agree wholeheartedly with the comment above about bad weather and headlights, some people don't realise that even though they may be able to see the car in front in heavy rain/fog that the person in front can't see them. However, you average speed camera isn't going to spot them and seeing as though we don't have many traffic police any more they're more likely to get away with it. So the sooner DRLs become law the better.
However, I think something would beed to be done with cars fitted solely with Xenons to reduce the brightness or have auxialliary halogen DRLs to avoid blinding people
Roy.
However, I think something would beed to be done with cars fitted solely with Xenons to reduce the brightness or have auxialliary halogen DRLs to avoid blinding people
Roy.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff