outlash
also available in orange
- Location
- ice station zebra
Time to enforce or encourage drivers to put their lights on
- Thread starter Accy cyclist
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
I had a scare the other day, driving down a slip road into 70mph dual carriageway traffic in very heavy rain i indicated as I approached and did two 'lifesavers' to check for traffic on the road. Saw the range rover with its side lights on in the fast lane but completely failed to see the unlit silver 4x4 whose silver paint camouflaged it perfectly in the driving rain and spray. Scary.
totallyfixed
Veteran
- Location
- The only county without a McDonalds
Good grief, someone makes a reasonable comment and as per usual gets sniped at with all the usual remarks concerning lights. A common sense approach might be to look at it from the perspective of other road users. First, get rid of vehicle side lights, a complete waste of time in adverse conditions, reasons, in low light pedestrians with poor eyesight will struggle to see the vehicle approaching. On DC's and motorways in wet weather vehicles with only side lights are invisible in rear view mirrors, changing lanes becomes extremely dangerous, especially for trucks and vans that produce a lot of spray.
DRL's are a knee jerk response to the high number of casualties on the roads, certainly they might save some lives in certain conditions, but in bright sunlight? I seriously doubt it. Against this the energy cost needs to be calculated [there are parallels here with cycle helmets] In the UK we have the sublime and the ridiculous, cars with with super bright lights on whatever the weather and cars with no lights in fog and even at night where they have forgotten to switch them on, quite unbelievable.
As to the war of lighting power between vehicles and bikes, actually the cyclists are winning this one because we are not regulated. Not really something to brag about.
Sorry @mickle just seen your post.
DRL's are a knee jerk response to the high number of casualties on the roads, certainly they might save some lives in certain conditions, but in bright sunlight? I seriously doubt it. Against this the energy cost needs to be calculated [there are parallels here with cycle helmets] In the UK we have the sublime and the ridiculous, cars with with super bright lights on whatever the weather and cars with no lights in fog and even at night where they have forgotten to switch them on, quite unbelievable.
As to the war of lighting power between vehicles and bikes, actually the cyclists are winning this one because we are not regulated. Not really something to brag about.
Sorry @mickle just seen your post.
steve50
Disenchanted Member
- Location
- West Yorkshire
that i exactly the reason why drl's are a good thing, it has been proven that they do save lives. I'm sure all of us who have ever driven on a motorway or a dual carriageway in pouring rain will be fully aware of how a car can almost "disappear" in the spray much the same as an unlit car driving in foggy conditions.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
just maybe it's been proved in the same sense that "helmets save lives" has been proved. At any rate, I'd need some serious convincing that it it didn't, almost by definition, make vulnerable road users (on foot and bike, children etc) less visible. And this is quite apart from any environmental argument
Richard A Thackeray
Legendary Member
Yes, DRLs are a menace
Far too many drivers forget/don't bother/don't know that the rear lights are not in the same circuit (okay there are exceptions), & drive about at dusk, or even after dark just on DRL
Another concurrant problem is the constant illumination of some instrument panels, thus making the less 'savvy' driver think that the lights are on
Only Tuesday evening, a car passed me with no tail-lights showing, I caught the driver at a set of traffic-lights, & knocked on the window, gesturing for her to open it
"You've no lights on"
"Yes I have, my dials are lit up"
Well, can you see your lights reflecting off the car in front?"
"No"
"Try the switch?"
"Ooops!"
Far too many drivers forget/don't bother/don't know that the rear lights are not in the same circuit (okay there are exceptions), & drive about at dusk, or even after dark just on DRL
Another concurrant problem is the constant illumination of some instrument panels, thus making the less 'savvy' driver think that the lights are on
Only Tuesday evening, a car passed me with no tail-lights showing, I caught the driver at a set of traffic-lights, & knocked on the window, gesturing for her to open it
"You've no lights on"
"Yes I have, my dials are lit up"
Well, can you see your lights reflecting off the car in front?"
"No"
"Try the switch?"
"Ooops!"
- Location
- Somewhere wet & hilly in NW England.
They would be if they were spotted by Police.
The same should apply to cyclists too who don't 'light up' eg the two ****wits who were descending The Struggle two nights ago at around 6.30pm with precisely zero illumination between them.
Whilst we are at it there ought to be something done about high intensity helmet mounted lights too - last night, heading back from the chippie (naughty!) two cyclists heading along the A6 from Shap riding with such things completely dazzled me. Not good.
DLRs were made mandatory to all new type approvals since 2011. They are here to stay as various studies have proven their effectiveness - including an alleged 21% reduction in daytime crashes involving cyclists.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811029.pdf
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811029.pdf
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
Why confuse the issue with foreign data?
Ian H
Ancient randonneur
I wonder whether equipping someone with hi-vis and bright lights gives them, sub-consciously, a sense of entitlement.
The 21% figure is from the EU - which I agree is still foreign - however, humans are not all that different, their sight etc is pretty similar across nationalities. I am sure given enough time the UK can provide its own figures. Without mandatory DLR we cannot gather accurate figures.
- Location
- Somewhere wet & hilly in NW England.
Well, it's an accepted principle on CC. In SC&P it's ok to use eg the size of some Scandanavian welfare states as a valid tool to argue why we should do the same over here.
Can't see why that shouldn't apply on this issue.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
They're not allowed to drive until it's corrected, although I was told yesterday that 1 in 3 failed a driving eyetest at the Royal Norfolk Show in 2014.
Common sense also dictates that you are either visible or invisible. The concept of "more visible" seems to be motorist propaganda, apparently unsupported by casualty figures.
Yes. "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear" http://highwaycode.info/rule/126
They attract attention to the illuminated vehicles... which ironically, are some of the least vulnerable road users, with metal surrounds and airbags and so on.
When did you last have your eyes tested and were you wearing any prescribed glasses?
swansonj
Guru
on my reading of that paper, they found that daytime running lights INCREASED daytime collisions of vehicles on pedestrians and cyclists by 5.6%?
I have not read all 110 pages, but that does seem to confirm the impression of many of us that DRLs are part of an arms race of illumination that leaves more vulnerable road users at a net disbenefit....
OP
OP
Accy cyclist
Legendary Member
- Location
- The hills of Accrington
Perfect vision doesn't mean perfect reactions. You might see the approaching grey vehicle but only when it's too late. Oh unless you're a perfect specimen of humanity who can do no wrong like yourself!
If i'm right you take an eye test when you take your test by reading the car number plate 20 yards away. Unless you're involved in an accident your eye sight wont be tested again till you reach 75 years of age. No doubt someone will correct me on that but i'd say there are many out there using the roads while having a vision defect. Are you saying that poorly sighted pedestrians should keep away from roads.
