http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16215106
talking about the proposal for cars having brighter lights and having daylight running lights.
Can't help thinking that this is all very selfish.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Modern car lights 'could save lives'
(20 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Someone else on the early morning BBC browse!
From that article apparently xenon day-running headlights on all cars would prevent 18% of road deaths. One wonders if the 'technical services' company TUV Rheinland which provided that snippet is perhaps involved in the production of xenon bulbs.
Interesting standpoint from motorcyclists that they would become less visible in the see of daytime lighting, and a general feeling throughout the article that LED lighting is some futurist, expensive beast only used on top-end audis. Also a somewhat worrying demo of a camera that spots pedestrians and highlights them in beams of light. Which I'm sure wouldn't be at all distracting when it flags up every cyclist filtering past.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yes, I found that bit interesting too. Will it direct light at oncoming cyclists to blind them (i.e. riding into traffic on the A90 path).
High end LED technology as found in all bike lights and on Audis... heh.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"It is likely that DRL has a favourable effect on accidents involving pedestrians, cyclists or
motorcyclists. In fact, the main gain to be obtained from cars using DRL is not counteracted
by any possible negative effect to more vulnerable road users. Pedestrians will see cars with
DRL sooner than without. Motorcyclists will see cars with DRL and will be able to avoid a
collision."It is likely that it will help peds and motorcyclists be able to avoid inattentive drivers who are only looking for car headlights then? Well that's nice. I like how they don't even bother trying to explain how it is likely to help cyclists who normally get an excellent view of cars being driven straight at them anyway.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I wonder if there is some historical data to be gleaned by looking to see if Volvo's are statistically less likely to be involved in accidents, they've had DRL for many years.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Ha! Just went to post this myself, see I've been beaten. Too long hanging round in PY obviously!
The bit that I took umbrage with is this part
LED daytime running lights have become part of the exterior design of Audis In other words, it could take decades before the number of deaths on our roads is reduced as a result of better car lights - or indeed before the number of bikers hit in so-called Smidsy (sorry, mate I didn't see you) accidents as a result of them becoming less visible in traffic
So, sorry, how exactly are daytime "look how more expensive my car is than your car" running lights going to reduce the numbers of cyclists and motorbikers killed by drivers pulling out from junctions without undertaking basic mirror, signal, maneouver? And what on earth does as a result of them becoming less visible in traffic mean?
I'm sure better lights have their place - but they are not going to deal with the root cause of most of the death and destruction on the roads - speed, drink, innatentiveness, inability to properly control a high powered, large and heavy vehicle and downright selfish, dangerous and bullying driving.
Posted 13 years ago # -
My concern would more be that the presence of cars with lights on in the day makes things without lights less obvious relatively, thus potentially increasing the rate of accidents.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Motorcyclists will see cars with DRL and will be able to avoid a
collision."
I can see the cars perfectly well, it's the smidsy dimwit who does not register me that is the problem! :-(Besides, the led lights on Audis always remind me of a drag queens false eyelashes :-D Makes me wonder what the drivers look like at weekends and evenings :-)
Posted 13 years ago # -
"And what on earth does as a result of them becoming less visible in traffic mean?"
As amir says, there's a theory that drivers will become tuned to look only for things with lights on, and therefore won't pay attention to bikes without lights on. It's very very similar to an argument against hi-viz clothing (which I know was never stated by Kim) that drivers become tuned to only look out for hi-viz and so miss cyclists not wearing it.
I do wonder how much validity there is to either statement, but have no scientific basis for the pondering.
It does seem interesting, as has been pointed out, that the whole tenet of the piece seems to be that they're a good idea because motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians will be able to avoid bad drivers...
Posted 13 years ago # -
I think it's relatively well established that there is a training effect where your brain looks out for specific things, i.e. when approaching a junction at night, you look out for headlights.
However to counteract that, different stuff gets more attention, as you can demonstrate to yourself by riding a recumbent that has a quarter of the cross-section yet gets 10x the passing space.
Not sure quite how to reconcile these.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Ride more recumbents.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"However to counteract that, different stuff gets more attention, as you can demonstrate to yourself by riding a recumbent that has a quarter of the cross-section yet gets 10x the passing space.
Not sure quite how to reconcile these. "
Wear outrageous outfits? :-)
Posted 13 years ago # -
To clarify - more people riding recumbents. Not riding more than one recumbent at once. Although that could be an entertaining (if expensive) game...
Posted 13 years ago # -
Ride a recumbent whilst wearing an unfeasibly tall, stripey top hat with multi coloured flags sprouting from the top. That should get their attention.
EDIT: (Not very aero mind. Maybe a big flashing Starsky & Hutch style light on top?)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Some of these comments remind me of the experiment to see if drivers left less room for cyclists wearing helmets - wearing a long blonde wig increased the safety margin.
Back on topic, the BBC report does point out that the UK govt opposed daylight lights and argued that the costs would exceed benefits (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/consultations/drl_20060727/drl_united_kingdom_government.pdf) The accident savings suggested by Philips Lighting are much higher than the UK's TRL for daytime lights.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I've owned 2 Volvo's in my life (they are generally quite safe, and I am generally quite boring ;) ), in both the headlights were set on all of the time, you couldn't switch the lights off.
This is already the law in some of Europe, personally I don't really have an opinion for or against, but in both cars you had to replace the lamps quite frequently which was a bit of a nuisance.
As an aside, I really liked the S60, I wish I hadn't sold it now!Posted 13 years ago # -
you had to replace the lamps quite frequently which was a bit of a nuisance
- that was part of the argument against DRL from UK govt. Because lights would need replaced more often, and some people wouldn't do it immediately, there would be more crashes at night due to faulty lights.Posted 13 years ago # -
I've owned Volvos for years. I don't go though bulbs very quickly but I've only ever had old RWD models so perhaps the FWD kind are different. My 1981 244DL had the wee sidelights on all the time. From the late 80s they used the dips running at 20% of normal power. Tail, licence plate and interior bulbs on mine run all the time too. The main dashboard lights still work but the centre section with the heater controls has gone dark.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I am all for less light pollution altogether, night or day...there must have been at some point someone going door to door selling those damned movement detector, sear your eyeballs, spotlights which lit up almost half the street when activated. When cycling at night I am quite often blinded by these types of lights or if you cycle on a dark path adjacent to playing fields with banks of spotlights you actually cannot see where you are going. I am not sure how I am supposed to avoid a car that is driving at me whether it has lights on or not, as it is probably going faster than me and occupying much more of the road than I am and other than leaping/bunny hopping onto a pavement to get out of the way definitely has the advantage, i.e. if it hits me I am almost certainly going to come of worse. It is a bit like all the crumple zones/cages built in cars give drivers a false sense of security...will they drive more haphazardly because they think they are more visible and therefore it is up to other road users to avoid them.
Posted 13 years ago # -
@ wee folding volvo ! not 100% sure, its been a while since i did any work on them , but am sure that if you in through the centre dash vents you can access the centre circuit, and hence bulbs ! or carry torch !but then, if its too hot then you really dont need to see that do you ?
clunk clik !Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
