Tuesday 14th August 2001

Pedestrian Safety

Running lights and ABS as standard?

---

[dtn]

Daytime running lights have been compulsory here in Sweden for many years, which probably explains why Volvos have them as standard (cars that only have headlights and ordinary sidelights are wired by their importers so that dipped headlights switch on automatically). I''m told this contributed greatly to reducing the number of road accidents between vehicles, but I''m not sure what effect it''s had on accidents involving pedestrians. One of the first things we notice whenever we drive in the UK is how much more difficult it is to see approaching traffic, although many more drivers seem to be using their lights ''voluntarily'' these days when light levels are low, and of course bikers are already very aware of the advantages.

[rickeee]

funny, it's actually illegal to drive during the day time in Spain with your headlights on. I used to have a Fiat Panda when I lived there and its tape recorder would only work properly if I put the headlights on. I thought it odd that people on the roadside took such an interest in my headlights and they used to gesticulate wildly to me. It was only when I got fined by the Nazi Guardia Civil highway patrol that I realised why.

[Dan Myers]

Car development time is so long that designs for 2003 are well under way and major package items are fixed already so car makers will be working to meet the date. I guess that manufacturers want the rules changed so that from 2003 the pedestrian safety tests are not compulsory, just in case their plans don't work and they are forced in to delaying a launch. This happens with emissions legislation - cleaner cars appear years before the delayed legislation forces them to. Then they tell us all about it in the advertising!

[scudderfish]

It staggers me that cars can still have bull bars fitted. They look purpose designed to kill children. They may have a use in outback Aus, but they are totally unjustified here. I saw on the news this morning that they cannot be fitted by manufacturers on new cars, but they can still be a dealer fit option. Pants!

Regards,
Dave

[jim3981]

Whether the deal saves 500 or 2000 lives surely loads more could be saved by increasing pededestrian training. I have no problem with making cars safer - its great but surely it would be better to reduce the number of incidents than to reduce the effects.
The TRL figures show that in the overwhelming majority of RTA's involving pedestrians the pedestrian was at fault. Why is it always motorists that get the attention

[Fatboy]

Simple, Becuase you can't generate revenue by using pedestrian idiocy cameras... (thought he though is highly amusing - just picture a big pole with a camera and red light on top that flashes with a big buzz - 'Oi you! yes you, the pillock trying to cross under a bus, hold it right there )

[jamie]

daytime running lights are a bad idea, as thay make all cars, and bikes without them MORE difficult to see! The etsc's proposals are much more valid than the ones that they are putting through at the moment, which could actually cause more injuries! I'm not shure why they arn't putting them through?

[ATG]

One of my usual red herrings .... "interesting" fact:-

Plonk something on the horizon and you will often see it clearly because it is silhoeted (sp? ... ahem). Cover it in light bulbs and turn them on, and the object seems to dissapear as it blends into the background light. At twilight, with the sunlight coming in at low angles you can see effect with cars, particularly in rolling countryside like cotswolds and south downs.

[Marshy]

On the other hand, when they're a bit closer, down in that dip in the road, they're invisible unless their lights are on.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I can't quite believe that the Swedes got it completely wrong though...

[hertsbiker]

If all cars end up with their lights on, where does that leave us bikers?

Maybe they're going to legalise coloured headlight covers, so we can tell the difference between a car and a bike??????

[zertec]

A car on the horizon is hard to hit....

Clive Reed
Zertec Limited
[e-mail]
www.zertec.co.uk

[smeagol]

Sitting in a Low slung car, I get dazzled by these gits with their lights on (esp high intensity & driving lights) in the rain (reflection from road & lights). The idea that these will be permenantly on even in daylight strikes me with real dread. (side lights ala volvo are fine).

Re bikes and lights, Bikes ride with lights to get the attention. I agree with hertsbiker on this, if all cars had lights what do the bikes need to do to get people to see them?

[Marshy]

Here's the thing... ordinary side lights are sometimes no more powerful than a candle, and about as much use on a car. Headlights would seem to be too bright to leave on in the daytime, according to many. Something in the middle might work.

Anyone remember dim-dips?

[hertsbiker]

to get noticed, maybe a race-can? unfortunately illegal on road. Certainly used to be a lot safer WITH mine on. Funny that.

[hertsbiker]

To make pedestrians safer, how about closing Pubs to people on foot, as they all get so drunk they can't even walk straight.

ANd then, introduce "jay walking" laws like they have in the States.

While we're about it, a few fences to stop peds crossing at stupid places, and "pedestrian calming" !!

something's got to change. We can't be responsible for EVERYTHING ??

[philshort]

Its dark a lot in Sweden. They run with chains or snow studs on their tyres as well, are these going to be made compulsory also?

Nanny state, compulsion, EEC, sped cameras, WHY DON'T THEY ALL JUST F**K OFF!

[dtn]

True, it is dark in Sweden from the end of September to the end of March (which is why we're all hoping for a bit of snow right now -- it makes all the difference) but it's also a lot lighter during the other 6 months! More to the point, perhaps, is that 60 per cent of Sweden is covered in rather gloomy forest (that's an area bigger than the whole UK),which not only makes things dark but is also home to a range of beasts even more hazardous than the average pedestrian, such as the famous elk. Hit a big bull elk at even moderate speeds and you probably won't live to tell the tale (generally the same colour as the road, they tend to come staight through the windscreen). It's therefore no coincidence that even the smallest petrol station usually carries an impressive range of bolt-on spots.

One last point about lights: most of the posts in this thread have failed to realise that we're all being conned. Why? Because lighting technology is far more advanced than anything on any car that exists today. It would be perfectly possible, and not very expensive, to equip all vehicles with anti-dazzle daytime running lights that automatically adjust to ambient light intensities. Expect more!

As for snow tyres (some dubbed, some not), these became compulsory in winter conditions only about a year ago, following a series of rather nasty multiple-death minbus crashes and the ensuing media/political hue and cry. In reality the new legislation is calculated to save only about 8 lives a year at the most (at great expense, because millions of drivers have had to buy a second set of tyres) compared with the 80 or so lives that the authorites estimate would be saved if only all the people who don't currently bother to wear their seat belts decided to do so (car seat belts were invented by Volvo, by the way). This is a classic case of unenforced legislation (the fine is 20 quid). I think most people would agree that seat belts are not a symptom of the nanny state but a case of common sense, albeit one that unfortunately seems to need enforcing.

Lastly, speed cameras: you're all far too law abiding in the UK! I haven't heard of any in Sweden yet; even the cameras set up by the meteorological office to monitor winter road conditions have to be accompanied by giant signs to this effect -- or risk being blown up by another Swedish invention, this time courtesy of a certain Mr Nobel!