motorists forced to drive with their headlights?

John Pitcock said the following on 13/10/2006 11:18:

Quoted message said:

Dipped lights waste most of the light by shining on the road, (and can
dazzle when badly adjusted, loaded or going over humps). Less powerful
running lights would use less power, LEDs would be ideal for this.

I didn't bother reading the Sun article, but this comes up from time to
time. AIUI, what the Euro-prats are asking for is the less powerful
"running lights", in other words the dim/dip light already fitted to
many, if not most, cars for more than a decade. My 11 year old Mondeo
has these - when the sidelights are turned on whilst driving, the
headlights come on at reduced power (dimmed). Next stage up is
headlights at normal power (dipped), and then main beam.

I really don't see this as a problem to cyclists, although I do agree
with you that it will cause an increase in fuel consumption and
therefore emissions. Not much individually, but how many million cars
are there in the UK?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

I really don't see this as a problem to cyclists, although I do agree
with you that it will cause an increase in fuel consumption and
therefore emissions. Not much individually, but how many million cars
are there in the UK?

There is a relative conspicuity issue with daytime lights as other road
users may merely look for lights and not other hazards. New Scientist had an
article on it a while back:

http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg18725111.900-turned-off-by-daytime-driving-lights.html

Mind you, arguably the relative conspicuity issue exists anyway with drivers
looking for other vehicles and not cyclists, pedestrians or herds of cattle.

Regards,

-david

X-No-Archive:yes

Paul Boyd said:

I really don't see this as a problem to cyclists,

The problem is motorists will assume all vehicles have twin
headlights showing at all times. When they get to a junction,
rather than making proper observations, they will just take
a quick glance and no headlights = empty road.

I would favour a law in the opposite direction and make use
of lights other than dimdip illegal in urban areas where there
is sufficient street lighting.

John Pitcock (nospam) said:

How much extra fuel will be burnt to provide the several watts to power
these lights?

I reckon about 40 million litres a year

Based on:
There's about 500 billion miles / year driven on GB roads (
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1096 )
Guess an average speed of 40Km/h that's 12.5 billion hours
Say 40% is at night anyway, so that's 7.5 billion extra hours with the
lights on in daylight
A car headlight is about 50 Watts say half that for dipped, but 2
lights gives 375 billion Wh = 1,350,000,000,000,000 Joules
One litre of petrol yields 34,000,000 J

So that's a nice little tax earner for the government, but not so good
for the planet

Simon Jester wrote on 13/10/2006 12:11 +0100:

Quoted message said:

The problem is motorists will assume all vehicles have twin
headlights showing at all times. When they get to a junction,
rather than making proper observations, they will just take
a quick glance and no headlights = empty road.

I would favour a law in the opposite direction and make use
of lights other than dimdip illegal in urban areas where there
is sufficient street lighting.

They have had this as a law for many years in places like Finland and
Sweden so there should be some good evidence as to whether it has the
effect you suggest. Personally it reminds me of the Jasper Carrot
sketch when the Volvo comes out of the car crusher as a cube of metal
with the running lights still going.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Also in the Times today ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2401786,00.html

Tony Raven said:

. Personally it reminds me of the Jasper Carrot
sketch when the Volvo comes out of the car crusher as a cube of metal
with the running lights still going.

Volvos used to be so square that when they were taken out of the
crusher you couldn't tell the difference. 🙂

TTT said:

Also in the Times today ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2401786,00.html

Quoted message said:

From the article-

'It claims that this will save between 1,200 and 2,000 lives a year
across the EU, because cars will be more conspicuous to vulnerable road
users such as pedestrians and cyclists.'

I'd like to know how many cyclists are run down by cars because they
didn't see it. For freaks sakes! A car is a big thing which makes a
sound like a car. I tend to look for these things when at junctions, as
they tend to hurt when they run into you. When I'm riding along, the
cars which I can see the headlights on are on the opposite side of the
road.

How long before someone from the battery industry suggests that, as
vulnerable road users, cyclists should have their lights on all the
time.

It's just the way my newsreader is set up, but I /had/ to read a thread
with the subject line:

motorists forced to drive with their head....

Predictably, my guess at the rest was wrong

Sirius631 said:

TTT said:

Also in the Times today ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2401786,00.html

Quoted message said:

From the article-

'It claims that this will save between 1,200 and 2,000 lives a year
across the EU, because cars will be more conspicuous to vulnerable road
users such as pedestrians and cyclists.'

I read that too... and afterwards I was fuming at the mouth!

Quoted message said:

I'd like to know how many cyclists are run down by cars because they
didn't see it. For freaks sakes! A car is a big thing which makes a
sound like a car. I tend to look for these things when at junctions, as
they tend to hurt when they run into you. When I'm riding along, the
cars which I can see the headlights on are on the opposite side of the
road.

This morning I saw a classic case of why I think it could be a bad idea.
A car with its (dippped) lights on a lighted town road in slightly misty
daylight conditions was driving towards me... on closer inspection I
could see some movement but couldn't see what it was through the glare
of the headlights. It was only later I could see it was a cyclist in the
primary position (ie between headlights of the car) with lights on with
a car behind waiting to pass.

One of my biggest concerns when cycling is when I'm on unlit country
roads an night, and whether the dazel from on coming traffic hides me
from traffic approaching from my behind.

That risk just maybe increased with this legislation?

Quoted message said:

How long before someone from the battery industry suggests that, as
vulnerable road users, cyclists should have their lights on all the
time.

I guess we better start buying shares in battery manufactures! I've got
a lower power laser somewhere.. can I fit that to a bike... lol ;o)

"mblewett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sirius631 said:

TTT said:

Also in the Times today ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2401786,00.html

Quoted message said:

From the article-

'It claims that this will save between 1,200 and 2,000 lives a year
across the EU, because cars will be more conspicuous to vulnerable road
users such as pedestrians and cyclists.'

I read that too... and afterwards I was fuming at the mouth!

Quoted message said:

I'd like to know how many cyclists are run down by cars because they
didn't see it. For freaks sakes! A car is a big thing which makes a
sound like a car. I tend to look for these things when at junctions, as
they tend to hurt when they run into you. When I'm riding along, the
cars which I can see the headlights on are on the opposite side of the
road.

This morning I saw a classic case of why I think it could be a bad idea. A
car with its (dippped) lights on a lighted town road in slightly misty
daylight conditions was driving towards me... on closer inspection I could
see some movement but couldn't see what it was through the glare of the
headlights. It was only later I could see it was a cyclist in the primary
position (ie between headlights of the car) with lights on with a car
behind waiting to pass.

Where as if the car didn't have its headlights on in the mist, the cyclist
with the light woudl go past you, you woudl pull out and be knocked off your
bike by the near invisible car.

At least with petrol and diesel engines you get some noise, with Hybrids
becomming more common, it won't be long until a lot of the noise you hear
from cars will be Tyre noise... and they are getting quieter as well (less
noise = more efficient)

I am afraid I drive a 1983 SAAB 99 and as a driver i find cars with daylight
runnign lights a lot more visible esecially when "parked" at the side of the
road (whats about to pull out of a parking space) which I think is the
original reason denmark started the ball rolling.

And when cycling I notice cars much earlier than normal, though given their
road positions and how little I can see when I look behind, its only
oncomming cars and those that are going away from me that can be seen
better.

Crossing the road as a pedestrian i suspect it woud lhelp on faster roads,
but not really been out walking on faster raods much.

Niall

in message <[email hidden]>, Niall Wallace

(') said:

I am afraid I drive a 1983 SAAB 99 and as a driver i find cars with
daylight runnign lights a lot more visible esecially when "parked" at the
side of the road (whats about to pull out of a parking space) which I
think is the original reason denmark started the ball rolling.

This is an arms race. Different things in the road environment are
clamouring for a fixed amount of attention from drivers. If some things
take more of the driver's attention, there is less left over for
everything else.

Yes, this makes drivers safer, but at the cost of increasing the risk for
all other road users. For the same reason that we don't allow extraneous
signs to clutter the edges of major roads, we should not allow running
lights on cars.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.

Niall Wallace said:

Where as if the car didn't have its headlights on in the mist, the cyclist
with the light woudl go past you, you woudl pull out and be knocked off your
bike by the near invisible car.

Depends on the mist. It may be that sidelights would have been more
appropriate - would still give sufficient warning to other drivers
(especially if in an urban environment) without dazzling them.

Quoted message said:

I am afraid I drive a 1983 SAAB 99

You don't need to apologise for that :-)

Quoted message said:

and as a driver i find cars with daylight runnign lights a lot more
visible esecially when "parked" at the side of the road (whats about
to pull out of a parking space) which I think is the original reason
denmark started the ball rolling.

In normal daylight conditions, if you can't tell which cars are
driving and which are parked, you shouldn't be on the road.

In twilight conditions, you should use sidelights - this makes you
visible to other drivers, without dazzling them or distracting them
from other road users. The motto is "Headlights to see, sidelights to
be seen by". If you can clearly see where you are going, you don't
need your headlights on (fog or heavy rain/spray excepted).

Unfortunately, most drivers put their headlights on far too early in
the evening, which does cause dazzle and distraction, and masks
pedestrians, cyclists and even those responsible drivers using
sidelights in some circumstances.

If a driver is looking to pull away from a parking space, he should
have his indicators on, which makes it abundantly clear what his
intentions are - far more so than leaving his headlights on, given the
number of drivers who do that when they are parked and have no
intention of going anywhere.

Quoted message said:

And when cycling I notice cars much earlier than normal, though given
their road positions and how little I can see when I look behind, its
only oncomming cars and those that are going away from me that can be
seen better.

And how often does that help? If I'm cycling, it doesn't really make a
lot of difference whether I see an oncoming car 100m away or a mile
away, I'll still have plenty of time to react appropriately.

Quoted message said:

Crossing the road as a pedestrian i suspect it woud lhelp on faster
roads, but not really been out walking on faster raods much.

I suspect it wouldn't. It is harder to judge the speed of approaching
headlights than an approaching unlit car. Because with headlights, all
you see is the headlights - whereas without, you see that car and the
surrounding roadscape, which gives you a much better point of
reference to judge the speed than simple binocular vision.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Niall Wallace said:

True I assumed that it was the sort of mist where you can't see bugger all
until its 10m away from you.

That's not mist, that's thick fog. Cycling on busy roads in those
conditions is probably inadvisable in the first place, unless you have
extremely good lights - in which case, you wouldn't be obscured by
other cars' lights in the first place.

Quoted message said:

Are side lights really bright enough? Thoguh its more to do with the
conditions the jump from Side Lights to dipped headlamps in terms of
brightness is quite big soemthing in the middle (DRLs) provides brighter
side lamps which may or may not be an advantage in some conditions.

Yes, in the twilight, side lights are bright enough. And again, anyone
who can't see a car with sidelights on, at a distance of 200m, should
not be driving at all.

Quoted message said:

True, thugh I don't recal any time when during daylight I have had a problem
with being dazled by dipped head lamps, however this may be due to the
amount of sun light around in Summer up here (Fife) and lack of light in the
winter which means that its time for head lgihts around 4pm.

"Dazzled" is perhaps the wrong word. "Distracted" would be better - I
often find that in less then full daylight, headlights do obscure
what's around them - especially cyclists and pedestrians.

Quoted message said:

The DRL rules were apparently introduced (jsut been readingo n
wikipedia, so possibly baws) in Finland because they helped in low sun
conditions, so cars are more likely to have gone from a dull blob in
the sun light to a dull blob with 2 bits of white light sticking out
of the glare. (Scottish winter around 1530hrs)

We need to educate drivers to use sidelights in dimpsy conditions
then. Forcing drivers to use too-bright lights all through the day
because a small number are too stupid to turn them on for a half-hour
or so when it would make a difference is _not_ the way to solve the
problem.

Quoted message said:

It's more for identification than judging speed, consider attemtping to
cross the A9 north of Perth with a cold midday sun on a 60mph section.
Looking directly south you can probably see 100m down the road then nothing
but sunlight. Anything which can make a car more visible is going to help.

How much use do you think even main beam headlights are when a car has
the sun directly behind it? Absolutely none. The sun is considerably
brighter than any headlamps, even though it is a lot further away, and
will completely mask any lights on the car if it is in that position.

Quoted message said:

Mibbe continuous testing really is the only way.

Definitely agreed.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Stevie D" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Niall Wallace said:

Where as if the car didn't have its headlights on in the mist, the
cyclist
with the light woudl go past you, you woudl pull out and be knocked off
your
bike by the near invisible car.

Depends on the mist. It may be that sidelights would have been more
appropriate - would still give sufficient warning to other drivers
(especially if in an urban environment) without dazzling them.

True I assumed that it was the sort of mist where you can't see bugger all
until its 10m away from you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am afraid I drive a 1983 SAAB 99

You don't need to apologise for that :-)

Quoted message said:

and as a driver i find cars with daylight runnign lights a lot more
visible esecially when "parked" at the side of the road (whats about
to pull out of a parking space) which I think is the original reason
denmark started the ball rolling.

In normal daylight conditions, if you can't tell which cars are
driving and which are parked, you shouldn't be on the road.

For most parked cars during the day the most obvious thing to show they may
move off is either a white trail out the exhaust or someone sitting in the
passenger seat. Though if your on a bike you may also be able to hear the
engine running. Can't rely on anyone to bother to indicate.

Quoted message said:

In twilight conditions, you should use sidelights - this makes you
visible to other drivers, without dazzling them or distracting them
from other road users. The motto is "Headlights to see, sidelights to
be seen by". If you can clearly see where you are going, you don't
need your headlights on (fog or heavy rain/spray excepted).

Are side lights really bright enough? Thoguh its more to do with the
conditions the jump from Side Lights to dipped headlamps in terms of
brightness is quite big soemthing in the middle (DRLs) provides brighter
side lamps which may or may not be an advantage in some conditions.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, most drivers put their headlights on far too early in
the evening, which does cause dazzle and distraction, and masks
pedestrians, cyclists and even those responsible drivers using
sidelights in some circumstances.
If a driver is looking to pull away from a parking space, he should
have his indicators on, which makes it abundantly clear what his
intentions are - far more so than leaving his headlights on, given the
number of drivers who do that when they are parked and have no
intention of going anywhere.

True, thugh I don't recal any time when during daylight I have had a problem
with being dazled by dipped head lamps, however this may be due to the
amount of sun light around in Summer up here (Fife) and lack of light in the
winter which means that its time for head lgihts around 4pm.

The DRL rules were apparently introduced (jsut been readingo n wikipedia, so
possibly baws) in Finland because they helped in low sun conditions, so cars
are more likely to have gone from a dull blob in the sun light to a dull
blob with 2 bits of white light sticking out of the glare. (Scottish winter
around 1530hrs)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And when cycling I notice cars much earlier than normal, though given
their road positions and how little I can see when I look behind, its
only oncomming cars and those that are going away from me that can be
seen better.

And how often does that help? If I'm cycling, it doesn't really make a
lot of difference whether I see an oncoming car 100m away or a mile
away, I'll still have plenty of time to react appropriately.

Doesn't help at all, when cycling im on the other sideo f the road and the
biggest percieved danger is what is in the large blind spot thats onlly
fillable by fitting mirrors (yeuck) or having a pair of eyes fitted in the
back of my head. In which case any form of lights on cars is only of use
when its actually dark.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Crossing the road as a pedestrian i suspect it woud lhelp on faster
roads, but not really been out walking on faster raods much.

I suspect it wouldn't. It is harder to judge the speed of approaching
headlights than an approaching unlit car. Because with headlights, all
you see is the headlights - whereas without, you see that car and the
surrounding roadscape, which gives you a much better point of
reference to judge the speed than simple binocular vision.

It's more for identification than judging speed, consider attemtping to
cross the A9 north of Perth with a cold midday sun on a 60mph section.
Looking directly south you can probably see 100m down the road then nothing
but sunlight. Anything which can make a car more visible is going to help.

However from what ive seen and read there is bugger all inforamtion about
the effects of driving with lights on in the road conditions found in the UK
during day lgiht hours.

I disagree with the suggestions that having some orm of light operating at
all tiems on a car will dazzle others but defiantely having the wrong type
of light on for the conditions will.

While a DRL law will force drivers to use a light in daylight conditions,
those who are sensible enough to know which lights to use are also more
likely to be the observant drivers who will still look for everything rather
than the muppets who just drive, dont' pay attention to anything and some
how manage to keep their licence.

Mibbe continuous testing really is the only way. Driving is after all a
privellage not a right.

Niall

Niall Wallace said:

"mblewett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This morning I saw a classic case of why I think it could be a bad
idea. A car with its (dippped) lights on a lighted town road in
slightly misty daylight conditions was driving towards me... on
closer inspection I could see some movement but couldn't see what it
was through the glare of the headlights. It was only later I could
see it was a cyclist in the primary position (ie between headlights
of the car) with lights on with a car behind waiting to pass.

Where as if the car didn't have its headlights on in the mist, the
cyclist with the light woudl go past you, you woudl pull out and be
knocked off your bike by the near invisible car.

If only there were a way to have some illumination from car headlights but
not as much as you do with dipped headlights.

I imagine a situation where instead of twisting the knob on the end of the
stalk a full 60 degrees, maybe one just twisted it thirty degrees, or pushed
a stalk up by one notch instead of two, or twisted the know on the dashboard
by just one click, and then there were special 5W bulbs that illuminated, so
the car could be seen in poor light conditions.

Actually, come to think of it, my car has such a facility, and I used it on
Friday in the slightly hazy evening twilight.

If only other people's cars were fitted with such a device.

A

Ambrose Nankivell said:

If only there were a way to have some illumination from car headlights but
not as much as you do with dipped headlights.

I imagine a situation where instead of twisting the knob on the end of the
stalk a full 60 degrees, maybe one just twisted it thirty degrees, or pushed
a stalk up by one notch instead of two, or twisted the know on the dashboard
by just one click, and then there were special 5W bulbs that illuminated, so
the car could be seen in poor light conditions.

Actually, come to think of it, my car has such a facility, and I used it on
Friday in the slightly hazy evening twilight.

If only other people's cars were fitted with such a device.

Our car [1] has the ability to adjust the angle of the dipped beam.
Probably more to enable you to keep the beam in the right place if you
load up the back, but I use it to adjust the intensity of the dip
depending on my perception of traffic conditions.

[1] Toyota Corolla Verso

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Freedom defined is freedom denied. (Illuminatus)

Stevie D said:

Niall Wallace said:

Where as if the car didn't have its headlights on in the mist, the cyclist
with the light woudl go past you, you woudl pull out and be knocked off your
bike by the near invisible car.

Depends on the mist. It may be that sidelights would have been more
appropriate - would still give sufficient warning to other drivers
(especially if in an urban environment) without dazzling them.

It was a light mist around 10am.. not fog, but enough vapour in the air
to scatter a headlight even tho visibility was several hundered meters.
Side lights would of been a better option.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am afraid I drive a 1983 SAAB 99

You don't need to apologise for that :-)

Quoted message said:

and as a driver i find cars with daylight runnign lights a lot more
visible esecially when "parked" at the side of the road (whats about
to pull out of a parking space) which I think is the original reason
denmark started the ball rolling.

In normal daylight conditions, if you can't tell which cars are
driving and which are parked, you shouldn't be on the road.

Agreed, but that reminds me of another pet hate.. parked cars with
hazzard lights on but you can only see the outside light (because say
someone else has parked behind them)

Quoted message said:

In twilight conditions, you should use sidelights - this makes you
visible to other drivers, without dazzling them or distracting them
from other road users. The motto is "Headlights to see, sidelights to
be seen by". If you can clearly see where you are going, you don't
need your headlights on (fog or heavy rain/spray excepted).

Again I agree, however (as a non car owner) how many cars today have
side lights (perhaps it's me not noticing, or being stuck in the 70's..
carwise!)

Regards
Mark

mblewett said:

Again I agree, however (as a non car owner) how many cars today have
side lights (perhaps it's me not noticing, or being stuck in the
70's.. carwise!)

Well, they all have 'position lights' which are a lot less bright than
dipped headlights. How many people use them is a moot point.

A