Drivers misguidedly think that illuminating their vehicles like Christmas trees gives them extra safety;  the reality is tragically different :  dazzling lights lead to crashes resulting in serious — often fatal — injuries to vulnerable road users, particularly pedestrians, cyclists and motor-cyclists.

The Highway Code (para.114) requires drivers "not use lights so as to dazzle or otherwise discomfort other road users or use fog lights otherwise than in seriously reduced visibility", then switching them off when visibility improves  (it further stipulates that drivers should apply their parking-brakes in stationary traffic, thereby extinguishing brake lights and reducing glare for following drivers).

Please see also the DaDRL-UK web-page on cyclists and how vulnerable they are in an environment of dazzling light.

Pedestrians

A pedestrian is equally vulnerable, even at a zebra crossing.  In Austria, it is called a "Schutzweg" which means ‘protected way’.  There is however increasing evidence that drivers are failing to discern pedestrians at crossings, owing to visual overload.

Other vulnerable road users — motorcyclists Motorcyclists’ safety is also compromised by DRL and Xenon-HID lamps.  From my own experience as a biker I can say that many motorists (by which I mean those in motor-cars) — despite the numerous exhortations in official advertising to ‘think bike’ — are frequently unaware of a motorcyclist approaching a junction and therefore emerge right in his path.  In daylight this is noticeably more likely to happen when one is following a motor-car whose lights are on:  not really very surprising for the headlights or DRL on the motor-car distract the attention of the person waiting to emerge from the smaller and less easily seen motorcycle behind.

Political actions and the scientific background

EU directive

The EU uses reports based on flawed methodology which predict a reduction of 6 -11% in accidents;  no EU country — not even Sweden, where daytime running lights began — can demonstrate a reduction in overall accidents due to DRL.  Tragically, where the effects of the introduction of DRL can be measured, evidence gathered by DaDRL indicates that DRL kill — particularly the most vulnerable road users, as discussed above :  Austria, deaths up 12%;  Poland, up 6%;  Bulgaria, up 8%.

Mike Penning — Conservative M.P. for Hemel Hempstead and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport — has refused to take action and sides with the EU, claiming that DRL will reduce UK accidents up to 6%.  According to statistics published by the Department for Transport, reported casualties in 2009 reached a long-term low of 222,146 in 2009.  We are monitoring these figures and have advised Mr. Penning that we think he could be held legally liable if they rise.  (It is noticeable that, although the overall figure for fatalities fell by 12%, the decline in fatalities was smaller amongst cyclists (10%) and much smaller amongst motorcyclists (4%).)

Even the EU itself — the instigator of the World’s most ambitious ‘carbon-reduction’ target — estimates that the introduction of DRL will increase fuel consumption by 1.5%, equivalent to emissions of 1.8million tonnes of CO₂ p.a. in the UK.  This is based on the assumption that 10% of vehicles will use LED lamps (this is in line with our own calculations).  To put it in perspective :  the Carbon Trust, with an annual budget of £143million and around 500 consultants managed to achieve a ‘reduction’ of only 1.8 - 2.0million tonnes of CO₂ in 2009/10.

The position of DaDRL UK	The unequivocal recommendation of Prof. Heilig is an outright ban on DRL and HID lamps resulting in Austria banning DRL.   After tests conducting DRL in the real world, Japan proposed 200cd - unlike laboratory tests undertaken by the EU, which consisted of no more than showing slides to subjects of the experiment:  a procedure culminating in the adoption of 1,200cd!   All HID headlights and most dedicated DRL — certainly those fitted to the most recent German motor-cars (see our letter to BMW) are, when in use, in violation of regulation 27 of the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989 (item 11):  they ‘cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road’, particularly on uneven surfaces, where they need active self levelling.
Existing beam-self-levelling mechanisms are designed merely to compensate for changes in load distribution resulting from such things as rear-seat passengers and luggage and therefore operate only at very low speed, not reacting at all to undulations in the road surface:  speed humps, for example, and — thanks to the government’s taking around £40-billion in road taxes but spending only about 15% of that on the road network — the marker of today’s British roads, the pot-hole.

What can you do ?

1. We have wide cross-party political support.  Please write to your MP and get him to ask Philip Hammond Transport Minister to take action — if Austria can defy the EU dictatorship and ban DRL so can the United Kingdom.
   Your MP can be found (sometimes) at the House of Commons.
    

2. If you have been involved in an accident or received a speeding ticket and you think DRL/HID glare was a factor, the latest medical evidence on the Studies page might help your legal team prepare its case, particularly in relation to mitigating circumstances. See also The Law.
    

3. Let’s use the power of the Web to get action:  forward this Newsletter to everybody you think would be interested — perhaps we can shame manufacturers and politicians in to action against dazzling vehicle lights.

Kind regards,

Blinded Bi Xenon and Drivers against Daytime Running Lights are worldwide voluntary groups of experienced motorists including scientists, engineers, mathematicians, lawyers and ophthalmologists supported by the leading pedestrian, cycling and motorcycling organizations and committed to improving road safety by reducing glare and other distraction in the driving environment.

PS See Ken on The One Show Cabbies guide to motor manners - including blinding lights