I've looked at some of these studies and as is normal for statistics, they only point out the ones that help their cause.

One of the studies I looked at in more detail showed an 8% increase in accidents after DRLs were introduced, however, they didn't point out that there was 18% more vehicles on the road in the same time period... Statistics can be used to "prove" just about anything if you cherry pick the figures...

Absolutely and the statistics to back up the arguments put forward by the Pro-DRL people are similarly tweaked to suit.

Some thoughts from bikers -> http://www.network.mag-uk.org/jan07p1.html

Chris

And as for it not making you more visible having lights on, try coming out for the day with me, or ask why my company are wiring all our lights to come on with the ignition etc.

Perhaps it works out cheaper than driver training

Chris

DRLs make sense in certain circumstances, like driving through a pine forest, with the sun low in the sky. They will achieve burglar all in England, France, large parts of southern Germany, Ibiria, Italy, Greece...

As for "always use your headlights in rain/when using wipers", this is complete nonsense. I've seen people lit up like Christmas trees, in light drizzle and with visibility of about 2 miles!

One of the main studies that said that "using lights reduces accidents" was also fundamentally flawed. The "no lights" period studied was in the UK in February, and the "lights on" comparison period was the April of the same year. Anyone else see the problem here?

Edited 4 November, 201015 yr by KenONeill

Perhaps it works out cheaper than driver training

Chris

We drive buses, so not much choice but to train us im afraid.

Matt

When I was in the army in Germany in the 1960s, it was (sensibly) against the law to drive with only parking lights on (I won't even call them sidelights as they should ONLY be used for parking in the dark). If lights were needed at all it had to be dipped headlights, and I would expect it to still be the same. That made so much sense to me that I have never-ever used parking lights when moving.

As for Daylight Running Lights, early Volvos were OK as they didn't dazzle so long as their drivers put their dipped headlights on at dusk because that put the DLRs out. And I'm happy if dipped headlights are used in daylight although I really don't think they are necessary. But all these recent DLRs are so bright they must cause more of a hazard then having none, and many of them don't seem to reduce their intensity when lights are on at night so they dazzle as much as the idiots who use their fog lights when visibility isn't reduced to less than 100 metres by fog or falling snow ( the only times they are legal)

Fortunately my car doesn't have them, otherwise I would have to remove their fuse.

We drive buses, so not much choice but to train us im afraid.

This explains why they are hard-wiring them

Chris

I work for the MOD & we have to drive with dipped beam on in any vehicle at any time when we are on a public road. I dont see any problem with driving with dipped beam on during the day,most motor bikers do & it makes them easier to see when they appear from nowhere in your mirrors. I do agree with the earlier comment about some drl,s being very bright nowadays. As for numptys that drive with thier front fog lights on...........dont get me started....lol

I dont see any problem with driving with dipped beam on during the day,most motor bikers do & it makes them easier to see

If all car drivers used dipped beam during daylight hours, how visible do you think motorcyclists would be?

If all car drivers used dipped beam during daylight hours, how visible do you think motorcyclists would be?

I understand the point you are making; this is the concern of the motorcycle groups with mandatory DRLs. I guess it depends which way round you look at it. If m/c are the only things with headlights on during the day - is it the contrast between them and all the other cars with no headlights on that makes them more visible? Or is it that it's a lot easier to pick a moving bright light out of the background/peripheral vision?

If it's the latter then to answer your question, they'll be just as visible as they are now. Having said that I've never been a motorcyclist, so I am possibly not looking at it from that angle.

We drive buses, so not much choice but to train us im afraid.

Matt

Apparently there is, or else your company would be training you as to when dipped headlights do make a worthwhile difference to your visibility, rather than hard-wiring the lights.

I have a motobike licence (no bike at the moment) but I don't buy this notion that use of dipped beams/sensible DRLs makes motorbikes with headlights on during the daylight hours less visible.

Having had use of dipped headlights drummed into me when I was learning to ride, as I have dark coloured cars (last ones dark blue & dark grey) I can appreciate the safety benefits of being more visible to other road users. Where the road/driving conditions dictate I quite regularly drive with dipped beam on as a matter of course. Now we are going into the winter the safety benefits are ever more evident; the number cars driving round yesterday in the half-light of early morning with no external illumination was suprisingly high.

That said some of the OEM LED DRLs fitted to some higher end cars such as Audi and Mercedees are ridiculously bright and frankly a distraction; the C (or is it E?) class Mercedees seem to be particularly bright. I had been considering switching out the filament bulb DRLs in my yet to be delivered Superb for LED lights, but now I don't think I'll bother. However I probably won't feel the necessity to put dipped headlights on so much during the day.

Best regards

David

My Octy has been ordered with DRL's & I will be having them switched on, mainly due to the day to day driving since having them on my 500.

My Furby didnt have them & i didnt drive with lights on during daylight hrs( unless visability would make the car more difficult to see - drizzle ,rain,fog) but when I picked up my 500, i deliberately had the DRL's on, and regardless of what the figures say, I have found in reality that with these on, there are far less incidents of people pulling out on you either from side roads or on motorways, causing you to slow down. ( I had 2 yesterday when using my wifes Smart - no drl's), so as far as modifying some idiots behaviour I am convinced it works.

This argument around motorcycles seems mute, as they have been told for a long time to have your lights on so motorists can see you.This is found to be being successful in reducing the number of motorcycle accidents, then any argument that DRL's dont make any difference in reducing accidents goes completely out the window.

The fact that motorcyclists have to put lights on & now cars are having to do the same in order to make sure other road users are seen, is obvioulsy an indication that either the driving lessons / test is insufficient, or people are getting lazy / more selfish when driving.

Sidelights were introduced when there were far fewer cars on the road, these outdated forms of illumination should be take away from the cars light switch arrangement and only be available as parking lights via the indicator stalk. One motor manufacturer has already done this - My Fiat 500 does not have "sidelights" when you put the lights on from the switch, you get dipped lights & the DRL's dim to act like sidelights, the car does have parking lights which acivtate when the indicator stalk is used, this totally removes a manual use of sidelights - Brilliant Idea.

This argument around motorcycles seems mute, as they have been told for a long time to have your lights on so motorists can see you.This is found to be being successful in reducing the number of motorcycle accidents, then any argument that DRL's dont make any difference in reducing accidents goes completely out the window.

I disagree - headlights on motorbikes when other vehicles are not using headlights helps them stand out against the background.

Headlights on all vehicles will make cyclists less visible as well.

The essence of your argument appears to be that you're more concerned with your own safety than that of all other road users. While I can understand that point of view, it treats our shared resource, the roads, as a battleground rather than something we should be taking enough care to share with users in safety for all.

these outdated forms of illumination should be take away from the cars light switch arrangement and only be available as parking lights via the indicator stalk.

So you think using sidelights only in built up areas with good street lighting and where the speed limit is 30 mph or less should be banned?

I disagree.

I'll reproduce a graphic from Rospa:-

In it, you can see the motorcyclists argument that they become less visible. They do, because it's less obvious that there are two vehicles not just one.

However, since it's plainly easier to see that there's at least one vehicle, does that not contribute to increased safety?

I guess the problem becomes one of depth. You see the car, and can judge its distance quite easily, but not the motorbike - which is plainly quite a bit closer.

Hmmm. I can see both sides of this one and I'm still unsure of the answer.

I'll reproduce a graphic from Rospa:-

In it, you can see the motorcyclists argument that they become less visible. They do, because it's less obvious that there are two vehicles not just one.

However, since it's plainly easier to see that there's at least one vehicle, does that not contribute to increased safety?

I guess the problem becomes one of depth. You see the car, and can judge its distance quite easily, but not the motorbike - which is plainly quite a bit closer.

Hmmm. I can see both sides of this one and I'm still unsure of the answer.

Sorry - but how many motorcyclist ride in that position? - None in my experience so that ROSPA argument is flawed in reality IMHO.

I understand the point you are making; this is the concern of the motorcycle groups with mandatory DRLs. I guess it depends which way round you look at it. If m/c are the only things with headlights on during the day - is it the contrast between them and all the other cars with no headlights on that makes them more visible? Or is it that it's a lot easier to pick a moving bright light out of the background/peripheral vision?

If it's the latter then to answer your question, they'll be just as visible as they are now. Having said that I've never been a motorcyclist, so I am possibly not looking at it from that angle.

To me it is the latter - ie it's easier to pick out a light in your peripheral vision because of the way your eye works. The centre of your eye is very receptive to colour (the receptors are called cones) but the peripheral areas are really only receptive to light and dark (rod receptors). As a result it's the moving light that helps.

I disagree - headlights on motorbikes when other vehicles are not using headlights helps them stand out against the background.

Headlights on all vehicles will make cyclists less visible as well.

The essence of your argument appears to be that you're more concerned with your own safety than that of all other road users. While I can understand that point of view, it treats our shared resource, the roads, as a battleground rather than something we should be taking enough care to share with users in safety for all.

Sorry that is a rubbish argument, and I am speaking from the point of view of somebody who rides motorbikes and used to use a bicycle as their sole means of transport to work all year round; my wife currently commutes by bicycle into a city centre daily. It is the responsibility of all road users (and I mean ALL road users) to make themselves adeqautely visible for the safety of themselves and equally everyone else on the road.

Why motorcyclists should attempt to single themselves out as a special case for the use of dipped headlights I'm not sure I fully understand. Yes we are more vulnerable than car drivers, but that is why motorcycle training and testing focuses on anticipatory and defensive riding, something that many car drivers could do with being taught. The cyclists that get themselves into difficulty tend to be the ones that ride round in dark clothing and with inadequate lighting. I'm not saying that wearing hi-viz cycling clothing kept me completely out of harms way in all situations, but I couldn't imagine cycling in rush hour traffic without. My motorcycling clothing is equally hi-viz.

IMHO the notion that as a car driver I should compromise my ability to be safely seen by other road users in order to maintain some arbitary scale of relative visibility between the different classes of road user is frankly nonsense. This isn't me being selfishly more concerned with my own safety to the detriment of other road users, it is me taking responsibility for my own safety for the benefit of all road users - me included.

Best regards

David

Sorry - but how many motorcyclist ride in that position? - None in my experience so that ROSPA argument is flawed in reality IMHO.

I agree, when I was taught to ride motorcycles we were taught specifically not to ride in that road position. As a motorcyclist you should 'own' the lane you are in by riding up the middle. There are circumstances as a cyclist where the same lane 'ownership' is appropriate to prevent other road users making dangerous manouvers around you.

Sorry the diagram is complete 'toot' and I assume has been used out of context.

Best regards

David

Edited 5 November, 201015 yr by cookdn

Sorry the diagram is complete 'toot' and I assume has been used out of context.

Best regards

David

Hi David,

I got the diagram from a document that was linked to earlier in the thread. I may have misread (and so taken it out of context) but AIUI this is the argument by the motorcycle "lobby" for not having mandatory DRLs.

Martin

Hi David,

I got the diagram from a document that was linked to earlier in the thread. I may have misread (and so taken it out of context) but AIUI this is the argument by the motorcycle "lobby" for not having mandatory DRLs.

Martin

Hi Martin

I haven't looked at the source article but the accusation that the diagram was being used out of context wasn't directed at you. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Diagrams like that are like statistics, if taken at face value by the reader without question they can support what ever argument the author wants.

Best regards

David

Hi Martin

I haven't looked at the source article but the accusation that the diagram was being used out of context wasn't directed at you. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Diagrams like that are like statistics, if taken at face value by the reader without question they can support what ever argument the author wants.

Best regards

David

ISo you think using sidelights only in built up areas with good street lighting and where the speed limit is 30 mph or less should be banned?

Absolutely!!!!! Then they wouldn't be confused with parked cars. Another plus would be that parking lights wouldn't need to be so bright and wouldn't flatten batteries as fast.

I agree, when I was taught to ride motorcycles we were taught specifically not to ride in that road position. As a motorcyclist you should 'own' the lane you are in by riding up the middle.

If you look carefully you will realise that the motorcyclist is riding down the middle of the lane. The vehicle behind is a 4x4 and is therefore

either

a - being driven by a woman and so is 5 feet from the kerb.

or

b - being driven by a man and so is 6 inches from the rear of the motorcyclist and about to shove him into a ditch so he can get past

After reading through this thread I have come to a simple conclusion - you all need to lighten up a bit .

Yes sidelights should never be used alone as they are now really only suitable to be Parking lights, the minute it starts to drizzle / rain people think sidelights alone are enough, even in some street light areas.

And with respect to the answer that I look after my own safety, Yes I do, because with 35 years of driving along with the major increase in road traffic, and others selfish behaviour on the roads means that as long as I am clearly visible, then it is down to other road users to use mirrors, check for traffic before exiting junctions, & as taught, look over your shoulder before pulling out or overtaking to cover the wing mirror blind spot then I cant do any more that that, Any incident that comes out of this I will have done everything possible.

I've been reading a similar discussion on another forum which I guess is to be expected this time of year with the darkness coming in earlier and earlier. Personally I disagree with driving only with sidelights on when it's dark as even with streetlights on it makes it more difficult to see a car in this state. I was driving last night with a Passat behind me using only its sidelights and it was difficult to see him, there was more light reflecting off his grill as he passed streetlights than coming from his own lights. A few minutes later he put his full headlights on and it was much easier to see him at a glance, I don't know why some people intentionally seem to drive with sidelights only in conditions where dipped headlight would work better.

John