Didn't know you existed until recent issue of New
Scientist. I wrote the following a few
years ago -but I called DRLs something else, as I hadn't heard the term
before. It's a neater term than the
one I used, so I've modified the article accordingly. I sent it to a few publications, but it
wasn't used. It adds little to comments made before, but I feel that
light-pollution in itself is bad, and I also feel that DRLs contribute
significantly to road-kills of wildlife. Best of luck with your campaign, but I don't have much
faith in the politicians who control our futures - and my own MP is, as far as
I can see, a dead loss. Best wishes, B W B Dear Sir, Daylight Running Lights I find Daylight Running Lights (DRLs) objectionable for several
reasons, (not listed any particular order): 1)
They are an unnecessary and very
significant form of environmental light-pollution. 2)
Whether dazzling or not, they are
extremely distracting when seen in a rear-view mirror – hence are likely to
increase accidents under certain circumstances. 3)
Well-adjusted headlights at any time
(day or night) increase stress and strains on drivers, especially when
travelling longer distances, while poorly adjusted and the new ultra-bright
xenon lights not impose considerably greater stresses on other drivers, but
increase irritation and frustration – which, in turn, increases
the risk of accidents. 4) Like ABS brakes, seatbelts and all other
‘safety’ measures, they encourage drivers to drive faster. 5)
However well adjusted the lights, they
will, especially in dull or evening conditions, reduce the ability of
oncoming drivers to see cyclists, pedestrians, unlit vehicles, animals,
wildlife, etc. 6) Any use of extra power (such as stronger
lights, air-conditioning, heaters, etc.) will inevitably increase fuel
consumption. The use of unnecessary
lights is an unnecessary increase in use of fuel resources and polluting
emissions. There are two purposes of lights on vehicles - to increase the
driver’s visibility and to increase the visibility of the vehicle to other
drivers. Why use lights at all if other vehicles can be seen clearly at a
greater range than, say, 100 metres – well beyond safe and comfortable
stopping distance of a car travelling at a reasonable speed? If a driver cannot comfortably see other vehicles at 100 metres
when 95 percent of other drivers can, then he is not fit to drive. That is, in almost any daylight
conditions, other than fog, heavy mist or driving rain, sleet or snow. In general, in moderate conditions, all
drivers, with legally acceptable eyesight, can comfortably see pedestrians,
cyclists and other vehicles from about half an hour after sunrise to half an
hour after sunset (although this ‘half-hour’ can vary between summer and winter
and depending on weather conditions). Those drivers who feel a need for any kind of headlights in
daylight conditions (even when it is a bit misty or under dark clouds or in
rain) are driving too fast for their own capabilities – and we can see the results
of the false sense of security given by driving with headlights on by the
accident pile-ups on motor-ways and other ‘fast’ roads. The argument that research indicates that DRLs decrease accident
rates is meaningless unless we have considerably more information about how
the studies were made. Did the
studies compare the effects of DRLs in bright sunlight conditions, midday
under heavy cloud, within 60 minutes (or 45 or 30 or 15) before or after
sunset/sunrise, the effects of the bright lights of modern high-performance
vehicles compared with side-lights, the effects of DRLs in flat country
compared with hilly areas where even well adjusted lights are dazzling to
oncoming vehicles for a large proportion of the time. I would contend that, in many situations,
the use of well-adjusted, non-dazzling dipped headlights,
will increase accident rates. Does the use of DRLs increase or decrease the rate of deaths and
injuries to pedestrians, cyclists, animals and wildlife (deer, badgers, foxes,
hedgehogs, owls, etc.)? I am quite certain that any half-trained statistician or lawyer
could pull to pieces any research that shows that DRLs improve safety. I am equally certain that a well-designed,
unbiased study would show that the use of headlights during the day
significantly increase road injuries and wildlife road-kills. There may be a small case to be made for using very low power
sidelights on vehicles travelling where visibility is less than 200 metres. Penalties comparable to those used for speeding, should be
imposed for: The use of more than one set of headlights/foglights
on any road vehicles. The use of high-power headlights (including Xenon-type),
incorrectly set lights, defective lights (such as lights not working – with, perhaps,
some exemption when the driver can replace, on the spot, any defective light
pointed out by the police). The inappropriate use of headlights during daylight hours. I strongly resent the fact that speeding motorists, tailgaters,
mad overtakers, aggressive drivers, and those using
other anti-social behaviour (such as inappropriate use of lights) are
constantly presenting hazards and, just as importantly, discomfort and
stress, to those who use the roads intelligently without causing undue stress
to either themselves or others. I
don’t blame the police. The blame sits
fairly and squarely on Government and those politicians who let the situation
continue. B. W. B. |