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.

[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!