Queue dazzlers

[Lutz]

Unless on main beam, no headlamp that is properly adjusted and clean will dazzle. If it does, it's not the headlamp that's the problem but the eyesight of the person being dazzled and he or she needs to see an optician.

 

[JonnyG]

hi Lutz i always welcome your opinion......and on so many many topics you are a eye opener. no pun intended.
But sometimes assuming as you have done here is not a ractional as you would have us thinking......

LED "get out of my way" lights originated as a decree by the German EU Industry Commissar as a way of selling a dummy on other proposed EU legislation which would have meant for example that Porche engines would not get an exemption on noise legislation - which they now have - on the grounds that the racket they produce is somehow "sporty".

Not only are these 1200 candela lights dazzling,they are dangerous, because they cause split second blindness and a lot can happen in a split-second. When daylight headlights were made compulsory in Poland and in Austria casualties increased. Unfortuneately, I would expect this to happen in Britain as it has in France.

Austrian opthalmologists have shown how dangerous they can be - see DRL website dadrl.org.uk for details. Cyclist, motor-cyclist, and pedestrian organisations are against them.British traffic police cars have the daytime lights on their Volvos sensibly disabled.

are we to assume all of this is down to people having poor eyesight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

 

[Lutz]

There are a lot more research papers that conclude that daytime running lights contribute towards a reduction of accidents than those that claim the opposite. I doubt whether many of those that oppose daytime running lights have actually read and analysed the Dutch research paper referred to in the DaDRLwebsite. (http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_DRL.pdf). At least one other cited report concludes that at least as many accidents are caused by inadequate lighting as by dazzle, but this fact is completely ignored by DaDRL. How certain can one be that any increase in road fatalities is directly attributable to the introduction of daytime running lights or headlights, or could not something else have happened at the same time with that being the actual cause? Anyway, even in Austria where they dropped the requirement for daytime headlights did not go so far as to ban them.
Furthermore, Regulation ECE87 covering the requirements for daytime running lights was issued by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and this organisation has nothing to do with the EU.
Certainly, the position taken by DaDRL is so biased and a lot of their 'findings' from other sources taken completely out of context, that it is difficult to take their arguments seriously. They also make no attempt to differentiate between daytime running lights and the use of headlights during the day.
One would have to look straight into a high intensity daytime running light at close range in order to suffer from split-second blindness.

 

[Gafferbill]

..........whether we realize it or not, where we are looking whilst we are driving changes when we are towing a caravan.
We will spend more time looking in our mirrors when we are towing than we do when driving solo.
This is because we are travelling slower relative to most other vehicles on the road and we have a bigger vehicle to control and far more vehicles are likely to want to overtake us.
All these factors mean we depend on looking and acting on what we can see in our mirrors to maintain safety.
The use of any lighting can help and enhance what can be seen in a mirror especially in inclement weather.
In fact in inclement weather the vehicle that is not lit when most other vehicles are, can become invisible when viewed through a mirror.
The driver of an HGV is constantly making decisions on what they can see in their mirrors and this is my personal yardstick.
If I think an HGV driver would have difficulty seeing me then my dipped headlights go on especially as there are now more and more vehicles on the road with permanent running lights.

 

[JonnyG]

There are a lot more research papers that conclude that daytime running lights contribute towards a reduction of accidents than those that claim the opposite. I doubt whether many of those that oppose daytime running lights have actually read and analysed the Dutch research paper referred to in the DaDRLwebsite. (http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_DRL.pdf). At least one other cited report concludes that at least as many accidents are caused by inadequate lighting as by dazzle, but this fact is completely ignored by DaDRL. How certain can one be that any increase in road fatalities is directly attributable to the introduction of daytime running lights or headlights, or could not something else have happened at the same time with that being the actual cause? Anyway, even in Austria where they dropped the requirement for daytime headlights did not go so far as to ban them.
Furthermore, Regulation ECE87 covering the requirements for daytime running lights was issued by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and this organisation has nothing to do with the EU.
Certainly, the position taken by DaDRL is so biased and a lot of their 'findings' from other sources taken completely out of context, that it is difficult to take their arguments seriously. They also make no attempt to differentiate between daytime running lights and the use of headlights during the day.
One would have to look straight into a high intensity daytime running light at close range in order to suffer from split-second blindness.

hi lutz. it is interesting though, how we can all find stuff from so called "experts" to back our own opinion. does that not actually tell you something concerning who is right and who is wrong? No it shouldnt really as each view piont has its merits and demerits..although i would be interested in your viewpiont as to what else could have been the reason why fatalities went up on the introduction of daylight hours driving lights?And indeed its true austria didnt ban there use, but they did drop the requirement forcing you to use them,Wondering how that statement would work in your viewpionts favour? you know this is the new law, but hey we are not forcing it on you as we arent sure its a good thing!.
quote.
"At least one other cited report concludes that at least as many accidents are caused by inadequate lighting as by dazzle"
????? I am sorry is that supposed to balance things out? or just confuse the issue? no one is suggesting that in poor light one should not have your lights on, just in normal daylight dazzle is an issue and inadequante lights in normal daylight is not! as you dont need your lights on in good daylight!.So all you have done is brought another issue to the front which apllies in poor conditions and night time driving and chucked it into the pot concerning dazzling with daytime lights?

Now as someone who rides motorcycles i can say how often i have read of people complaining about motorcycle lights and of course my last few bikes have had compulsory daytime running lights and of course are adjusted perfect. except my front forks go up and down, cannot be helped afterall its the suspension and so the angle of my lights also changes as does the angles on the road little hump back bridges and dips and raises in the road ect ect..oh and i suppose this also applies to any vehicle with suspension and therefore any vehicles lights angle will change and given the intensity of modern lights this appears to be a problem, at times you cannot simply try to mask this by saying either the lights are poorly adjusted or your eyesight needs checking. thats simply not true today.

 

[Lutz]

The DaDRL website makes absolutely no attempt at serious discussion. It is no more than a list of criticisms of daytime running lights. To suggest that daytime running lights are a violation of human rights
shows to what degree of absurdity they are prepared to go to force their
issue through.
They seem to ignore that the prime cause of dazzle is improper adjustment and dirty lenses, not the intensity of the light. I am not 100% sure, but I believe that there is a requirement to fit xenon headlamps only in conjunction with automatic beam height adjustment and headlamp washers.
It is significant that statistics that apparently show an increase in road fatalities since introduction of daytime running lights originate primarily from eastern European countries. There is no information on how the data was collected so we have no means of assessing their validity. It is perfectly possible, for example, that the data before and after was collected at different times of the year, resulting in summer figures being compared with winter ones. Any increase in road fatalities linked solely to the introduction of daytime running lighhts is therefore pure conjecture. The DaDRL claims are meaningless because there is no way of verifying the data. They quote no sources or details of prevailing conditions to enable this to be done. There may also be other factors that could have affected the outcome, such as a general increase in traffic density during the study period (which is quite likely in countries like Poland and Bulgaria), changes in the weather, and so on. How do we know, for example, that more road deaths did not occur because there was an unusually cold or wet winter at some time during the study?

 

[otherclive]

Lutz I fully agree with your view, as the DaDRL website lacks any objective assessment of the supposed results that are quoted. Its a bit like the UK exponents of speed cameras who were shown up by the DoT study via the TRRL that speed was a minority cause of fatalities, and even then in many cases the vehicle was travelling within the legal speed limit, but either its speed was too great for the conditions, or the driver concentration lapsed. And yes HID can only be fitted with self-levelling and washer systems installed, and HID retrofits are illegal without self-levelling and washers, which I suggest rarely get fitted due to the complexity involved.

 

[JonnyG]

The DaDRL website makes absolutely no attempt at serious discussion. It is no more than a list of criticisms of daytime running lights. To suggest that daytime running lights are a violation of human rights
shows to what degree of absurdity they are prepared to go to force their
issue through.
They seem to ignore that the prime cause of dazzle is improper adjustment and dirty lenses, not the intensity of the light. I am not 100% sure, but I believe that there is a requirement to fit xenon headlamps only in conjunction with automatic beam height adjustment and headlamp washers.
It is significant that statistics that apparently show an increase in road fatalities since introduction of daytime running lights originate primarily from eastern European countries. There is no information on how the data was collected so we have no means of assessing their validity. It is perfectly possible, for example, that the data before and after was collected at different times of the year, resulting in summer figures being compared with winter ones. Any increase in road fatalities linked solely to the introduction of daytime running lighhts is therefore pure conjecture. The DaDRL claims are meaningless because there is no way of verifying the data. They quote no sources or details of prevailing conditions to enable this to be done. There may also be other factors that could have affected the outcome, such as a general increase in traffic density during the study period (which is quite likely in countries like Poland and Bulgaria), changes in the weather, and so on. How do we know, for example, that more road deaths did not occur because there was an unusually cold or wet winter at some time during the study?

strange didnt know that Austria was now classified as eastern europe and the USA certainly is not as their 2008 research found daylight running lights to offer no advantage what so ever over none daylight lights, unless you were in a van! dont you just like statistics. at the moment some prof has made noises towards the UK s government with concerns of daylight lights, but again he must have gotten his data all wrong too!
Now just because it appears to have worked in sweden [based on what?]but we know in poor light its better to be seen and so lights on, makes sense and as sweden suffers from poor lighting much longar than most of us here in Western europe then daylight lights must be good for them, but that doesnt mean it it is good for every other place on this earth..
Also if you are going to question the data and ask things like was the data taken in an unusally wet or cold winter, and therefore assuming more accidents would take place then was average, you might as well ask if more idiots were out on the road at that time too! If you go down that road all data statistics are useless eitherway..
you see Lutz you cannot go assuming your data is foolproof and everybody elses is not..

 

[Gybe]

All cars in Sweden have had to run with lights on in daylight since 1977. Swedish armed forces and Swedish United Nations units used the practice of daytime lights on for much longer, partly as it made people aware of their vehicular presence more quickly.
Daytime running lights were brought in as a safety aid in safety wise Sweden.
Many many motorcyclists around the world always run with headlights on in daylight hours. Personally I've had all my motorcycle and scooter headlights switched to permanently on since 1971 when on the road and nearly all of my friends always ride with lights on including a couple of Police motorcyclists when on their own bikes. A lot of the two wheel fraternity will tell you that they are probably still here because they always ride with lights on. The only reason that Police Volvo's in the UK had their lights altered so they could be switched off was because it made them very visible and stand out, not because it was considered a danger or bad idea.
Particularly in country rural areas with tree or hedgerow lined roads DRL's are a great safety aid.
I've only ever worn Photochromic lensed glasses since I first needed glasses in 1972. May be they cut the dazzle as the only lights I rally have an issue with is those vehicles with main beam headlights and drivers who don't like over use of the dip switch.

 

[Lutz]

Statistics are good and can, in fact, be quite invaluable, so long as they can be verified, which is something those published by DaDRL are not.
I did say that the data mentioned originated primarily, not entirely, from eastern Europe. Before I am prepared to accept that these results are representative, I would like to know what other research sources elsewhere say, and not just Austria and the USA.

 

[JonnyG]

Statistics are good and can, in fact, be quite invaluable, so long as they can be verified, which is something those published by DaDRL are not.
I did say that the data mentioned originated primarily, not entirely, from eastern Europe. Before I am prepared to accept that these results are representative, I would like to know what other research sources elsewhere say, and not just Austria and the USA.

hi lutz.
thats like me asking you to show me data from a never ending list of countries around the world! i would like to think that data from america and Austria would be taken as a decent source? if eastern Europe is not aceptable but then where would data come from to be aceptable to you? afterall none of it eitherway is conclusive and given the differing light conditions, [on average] how could any results be reflective of everywhere...
Now lutz i dont believe daylight lights being on all the time is actually going to bring down incidents in already good lighting conditions, and if for some reason others think differently, then i will take a leaf out of your book.and say they really need to get their eyes tested...........

 

[RogerL]

Can we focus (pun intended) on two things:-
Additional lighting on vehicles in daylight improves road safety for all road-users - fact, end of discussion.
Some DRLs and HID headlights are excessively bright - the law is based on restricting electrical wattage, 55w/unit, but the use of LED and HID makes it paramount that the law is revised to use Lumens as the measure.
Despite the EU's obsession with standards the revision on vehicle lighting is long overdue.

It's not sufficient to hide behind the caveat of "properly adjusted lights" - all vehicles move up/down according to variations in road surface so it's not uncommon for uncoming drivers to be below the horizontal for a significant part of their approach.
It's noticeable that German brands are worse but I suspect that's due to their take-up of LED/HID lighting being more rapid than other brands.

 

[Lutz]

In view of the fact that daylight running lights are supported by a lot more sources than the handful that DaDRL name, I think it is only appropriate to ask for more detailed information as to why they should come to a conclusion which is so conflicting with the rest.
Believe me, car manufacturers do appreciate the problem of dazzle. Our engineers are working on the development of intelligent headlamp systems that sense the exact position of an oncoming vehicle and dynamically change the beam pattern so that the light intensity is restricted wherever dazzle can occur and increase the intensity elsewhere where more light is needed.

 

[otherclive]

Back in the mid60s I worked in a development unit where these 'new fangled' fibre optic cables held out the prospect of using a single high intensity discharge bulb sited away from the cars headlight unit but with the light intensity into each fibre controlled. This was to enable road undulations and on coming vehicle lights to be measured and the light intensity into each fibre of the fibre optic cable to be controlled accordingly. Also steering effect was included into the demonstrator rig. The concept worked really well. Unfortunately the analogue computer driving this rig was as large as the average family saloon.!! But with LED lights the same principal is now being installed in today's cars.

 

[JonnyG]

Can we focus (pun intended) on two things:-
Additional lighting on vehicles in daylight improves road safety for all road-users - fact, end of discussion.
Some DRLs and HID headlights are excessively bright - the law is based on restricting electrical wattage, 55w/unit, but the use of LED and HID makes it paramount that the law is revised to use Lumens as the measure.
Despite the EU's obsession with standards the revision on vehicle lighting is long overdue.

It's not sufficient to hide behind the caveat of "properly adjusted lights" - all vehicles move up/down according to variations in road surface so it's not uncommon for uncoming drivers to be below the horizontal for a significant part of their approach.
It's noticeable that German brands are worse but I suspect that's due to their take-up of LED/HID lighting being more rapid than other brands.

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/ETSC2011_PIN_Report.pdf
Hi roger, and thank you for "the fact" more lights on ect ect... er well cyclist and motorcyclists are also road users and in motorcyclists cases where daylight lights have been standard much longer than on cars, it seems other vehicles still dont see them, FACT. whilst there has been reductions in deaths europe wide over the last decade cyclists pedestrains and motorcyclists are still being killed at lower rate reductions than everyother road user.Fact.. it appears education, better roads, better control of speeds seem to be the way forward take sweeden example.. FACT....
France has just killed a law , [thank god] that demanded motorcyclists had to wear large parts of hi fiz vest as well as daylight light! imagine that still not enough light for those frenchies to see motorcyclist! who already have daylight lights as standard! Fact.....
if i am still alive in 2 decades time, care to make a bet that once everybody has to have daylight lights on everywhere, that people will still be filling out insurance claims with the words i didnt see them!!!!!!!....
like i said had daylight lights for a decade now and still i am invisable to many morans driving cars so please dont go telling me about "facts" concerning daylight light.
,training of road users would be a better bet,motorcyclists who also drive cars are considered a better insurance roadrisk than merely car drivers.Now thats a FACT.and as i have to treat every road user as a moran regardless of my bike having daylight lights on, please dont go telling me its a fact daylight lights improve road safety!........for whom?

 

[Lutz]

I always thought that I have relatively good eyesight, but I can't see oncoming traffic when driving against the sun unless they have their lights on, particularly in late autumn and early spring soon after sunrise or just before dusk when the sun is just above the horizon. If headlights or daytime running lights help in situations like that they can't do any harm in less critical conditions.
What a strange argument that if the odd cylist or motorcyclist is overlooked despite daytime lights, then one may as well abolish daytime lights. I am 100% sure that even more would be overlooked without them.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I'm sorry JonnyG but I cannot agree with your argument that DRL's are not effective.

It is regrettable when anyone suffers a serious incident, so anything that helps to reduce those incidents should be welcomed.

Ideally it would be fantastic if someone came up with 'cure all' to prevent all such incidents, but being realistic with 25M UK vehicls on the roads there will always be some risk of incidents between road users.

So its very unlikely that any one single initiative will stop all incidents, so we have to look for incremental improvements.

DRL's fall into this category, and the possibility they may not be as effective for all road users should not be a reason for dismissing them. dadrl.org.uk is by its name dedicated to look for negative views re DRL's

I am very suspect of 'facts' produced by lobby organisations. Often spurious links are made between sets of data to produce highly biased arguments. For that reason your claim that some types of incidents have risen with the introduction of DRL's must be treated with great care, and only trusted when the actual basis used to derive the figures can be interrogated.

Intuitively it seems to make sense to make all vehicles as visible as possible. DRL's certainly must help in this respect, but I do agree that some are brighter or miss-aligned, and could occlude lesser vehicles in the vicinity by their dazzle. I do wonder if some of these lighting systems (including headlights) have been after-market fits by armatures who either don't have the skills to do the job properly. I whole heartedly agree with RogerL about the method of specifying light output in Lumens not Watts.

I really think I have seen enough information to believe DRL's actually decrease the number of incidents.

 

[Lutz]

I concur with your suspicion that some of the retrofitted DRL's are probably cheap (Chinese?) imports that have not been type approved nor properly fitted by people who know what they are doing.

 

[Gybe]

There's a great difference between using lights during daylight stopping all accidents and daytime lights preventing or reducing accidents.
Motorcyclists and all two wheel riders will have accidents no matter what they wear or how many lights they have, but many motorcyclists around the world believe they've avoided accidents due to running with lights on. Some years ago New Zealand did a long techinical research program into motorcycle accidents, it pointed clearly to the use of light coloured clothing, dayglo and reflective materials improving safety and the use of daytime lights was said to improve safety and accident risks by nearly 30%. The research clearly pointed out that more visible clothing and DRL didn't stop the user having an accident but using internationaly recognised data gathering and interpretation criteria of that data the use of lights and clearly visble colours improved safety and reduced the possibility of an accident.
The number of road users goes up each year, it's hard to tell how many accidents are prevented by the use of DRL on bikes or cars. I'd rather use DRL than find that a vehicle has pulled out in front of my car, van or bikes and caused a collision because the driver didn't notice me.
Police motorcyclist friends experience drivers not seeing them despite riding big white bikes with with dayglo markings, blue lights and wearing white helmets. On their personal bikes they ride with lights on. We can't prove that a vehicle that starts to pull in to the path of a bike or vehicle with DRL and suddenly stops would have caused and accident if there was no DRL.I believe I and many others are still alive and accident free because of DRL. Wobbling around local country lanes on a mountain bike happy with my flashing LED's and high lumen Nightsearcher front light during daylight hours is better than having a local tree surgeon wipe me out the way he's done with our neighbours who he didn't notice until it was too late.

 

[emmerson]

Having been driven down to Poole by a driver who believes lights are for seeing with, in horrible grey conditions, I will continue to use my dipped headlights whenever conditions demand.
Btw, the matrixes on the M4 read "Poor driving Conditions" Was the grey murk not a big enough clue?

 

[RogerL]

The motorbike lobby fought long and hard to stop cars having DRLs because they felt they should have a monopoly on their own visibility by being the only ones to use DRLs - or more usually a single lamp on mainbeam dazzling oncoming traffic.

 

[otherclive]

I thought that the reason the motorcyclists didn't support universal DLR was because the bike with its light would be not so clearly visible among cars with DLR. They even sought dispensation to allow bikes to have coloured DLRs but this was rejected. I find that with cars having LED DLR strings motor bikes are still visible. One reason why Roger may think bikes have full beam on is that their lights are higher off the road and align more closely with a car drivers eye height and the bikes suspension moves more than a cars due to road undulations and braking/acceleration. This will more often than not be the cause of dazzle from a motorbike. But I must say I haven't ever really had any problems with on coming motorbike lights at day or night.

 

[Gybe]

The motorbike lobby fought long and hard to stop cars having DRLs because they felt they should have a monopoly on their own visibility by being the only ones to use DRLs - or more usually a single lamp on mainbeam dazzling oncoming traffic.

"Lobby" Well that's a usual kind of high jacking scenario with these kind of issues. Myself and many others in motor cycles groups were quite annoyed by a few people claiming to represent all of us.
Most mortorcycle lights are higher than car likes and a single unit, never could see an issue but once a few get on their horses of a cause ohers just jump on.
More and more cars are running DRL and bikes still stand out.

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

as a life long biker, I always used headlights and dayglow vest, it is a matter of self preservation no more than that. if a car driver was dazzled by my headlight on a summer day so what!! at least he could seem me that was the point,
even then on the odd occasion a car or van would still pull out on you with the old " sorry mate didn't see you" never once did any one say "I pulled out because you dazzled me" if DRL's reduced the risk of morons running around without lights in poor conditions or at dusk then I for one am in favor.
this is not the same arguement though as high intensity lights "zenon" or LED's sometimes these are a bit bright especialy on a dark country road with undulations or roads with traffic calming, it is not true however that "HID can only be fitted with self-levelling and washer systems installed,
and HID retrofits are illegal without self-levelling and washers ,because my Meriva has 55w zenon bulbs as standard and there is no washers or self leveling on the car just a manual dipped beam adjustment switch.
regarding the OP's complaint of high intensity brake lights dazzling, well how things have changed, it doesn't seem that long ago since being pulled over a few times for having red brakelights mounted on the parcel shelf as high level brake lights was considered to be an illegal fittment now all cars have them,

 

[Lutz]

Do you have the current Meriva or the previous model, Colin? The current one isn't even available with xenon headlamps. The option was dropped with the introduction of the current model apparently because there was not enough demand for such an expensive feature on a relatively small car like the Meriva. Besides, headlamp washers were always standard with xenon headlamps. I'm not 100% certain about automatic beam levelling, but I'm pretty sure that was included, too.