Famous Quotes on DRL





What's New
Action Centre



Views on DRL from:



















































































































































































































Last updated

13 December 2010

© admin@dadrluk.orangehome.co.uk

Prime Minister’s Petition

Daytime Lights - epetition reply 9 February 2007

We received a petition asking:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure the continued safety of users of motorcycles and scooters by fighting EU proposals to introduce daytime running lights on motorcars."

The Government's response

The UK Government is opposed both to mandatory daytime dipped headlamp use and to mandatory dedicated daytime running light (DRL) use (except where required by poor visibility, e.g. fog) for a number of reasons.  These include questions over the safety of vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists, pedal cyclists and pedestrians. Other concerns are the accuracy of overall cost: benefit analysis figures, increased motoring expenses and increased carbon dioxide emissions.

The European Commission (EC) has been discussing daytime headlamp use and DRLs with Member States for quite some time.  Research has been carried out into daytime headlamp use, as an aid to vehicle conspicuity: there are arguments both for and against.  There are also arguments for and against the use of dedicated, low wattage DRLs (rather than dipped-beam head-lamps) which could be provided or mandated for new vehicles.

Mandatory daytime headlamp use or dedicated DRLs could have an adverse impact on the relative daytime conspicuity of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, who are not illuminated.

In addition, motorcyclists currently make themselves more conspicuous in daytime (on a voluntary basis) by using dipped beam headlamps. If all vehicles were illuminated, this advantage might reduce or disappear altogether.

The costs of additional fuel expenses and pollution effects also need to be taken into account. The EC estimates, for instance, that the compulsory use of DRLs across the Union would lead to a 1.5% rise in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

The UK's response to the recent EC consultation on this subject highlighted these concerns.  The UK's reply was informed by a study of the EC analysis, commissioned by the Department for Transport.  The results support the view that the benefits have been over estimated while the additional costs to motorists have been underestimated.

Further to its consultation, recent discussions with the EC now lead us to conclude that it may not press for early adoption of mandatory daytime running lights. It is expected to reconsider the proposals during the coming year. In the meantime, the Department for Transport will continue to hold further talks with the EC to reiterate our main concerns.



Are Volvo drivers blind? - James May Sunday Mirror



From: FARAGE Nigel [mailto:nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: 03 November 2009 08:41
Subject: RE: Lethal Daytime Running Lights
Dear Mr Milnes
Many thanks for writing to members of the EU's contemptible consultative assembly about this absurd , but cleverly sold and intentionally oppressive, piece of EU-legislation.
Most of the EU-assembly's members are careerists, or fanatics, who would, and do, vote for anything the EU-Commission proposes, because they see the
EU as their milch-cow for life and as an un-challengeable empire, which will give them ever greater privilege and wealth - if not any real power
(which is all at the EU's Council, Commission and Court and in the EU's client-governments)
UKIP's representatives, of course, did not vote for this nonsense about "day-time running lights". 

They vote against the entire gamut of the Commission's wicked proposals, and are very glad to hear that they have your support, if only in this instance.
The truth is, however, that you cannot pick and choose, which EU-legislation you will be subjected to.
You can either support UKIP and a policy of scrapping it all, or you can support one of the other parties and, as Edward Heath put it, "swallow the lot".

Yours sincerely
Andrew S. Reed
Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels,

From: GRIFFIN Nick [mailto:nick.griffin@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: 03 November 2009 15:59
Cc: Martin Wingfield; BRONS Andrew Henry Wiliam
Subject: RE: Lethal Daytime Running Lights

Dear Mr Milnes
Many thanks for your message about the EU's decision to enforce the introduction of Daytime Running Lights.
I completely agree with your assessment of the situation, and did not and would not vote for such legislation,
a) because it is clearly wrongheaded and,
b) because even if it had merit the decision of what kinds of lights should be used on British roads should be the business of our parliament in Westminster and not of any European institution.
If I can be of any direct assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely
Nick Griffin MEP


From: mike nattrass [mailto:ukipmep@hotmail.co.uk]
Sent: 13 June 2009 14:03
To: admin@dadrluk.orangehome.co.uk
Subject: RE: Lethal Daytime Running Lights

I support you 100% and thank you for the statistics and input which I shall use.
ALL UKIP MEPs will vote against this. yet another EU obsession that "one size should fit all."
"If the Swedes like it let them keep it" is my view, but do not impose this killer red tape on us. The answer must be "NO."
 No need to even think about this I WILL SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT in the parliament.
A prime example of why the EU does not suit the UK.

Keep in touch please.
This one will be a Youtube event when it comes up for debate.
"Stark raving bonkers" and Tony Hancock comes to mind!



From: Caroline Lucas [mailto:carolinelucas@greenmeps.org.uk]
Sent: 06 July 2007 17:14
To: dadrl
Subject: Re: Vehicle Daytime Running Lights: Offence against Equality Principle


Dear Roy,


Green MEPs are opposing the plans to require vehicles to run daytime dipped headlights. They share your concerns about fuel consumption and CO2 emissions and also believe that it would lead to less visibility amongst road users other than motorists, such as pedestrians and cyclists.


On November 22nd the Transport Committee debated the proposed legislation and Green Party representatives on the committee submitted an amendment calling for the removal of the daytime running lights idea.  Unfortunately they lost their amendments, however they were re-tabled when the legislation was discussed by the whole Parliament in early 2007. Despite Greens pushing for the proposals to enforce day time running lights, the Parliament voted to support the idea. Caroline and the Greens will continue to speak out against vehicle day time running lights but the legislative process is now so far advanced that opportunities to do so are severely limited.


I hope that adequately explains the Green Party position and action being taken. Thank you for taking the time to raise these issues with Caroline.

Kind regards,

Cath Miller

Constituency Co-ordinator and Researcher
Office of Dr Caroline Lucas MEP



From: mike nattrass [mailto:ukipmep@hotmail.co.uk]
Sent: 25 July 2007 11:24
To: dadrl@btinternet.com

Just to confirm that ALL UKIP MEPs are against Daytime Running Lights and

will vote against.

 MIKE NATTRASS MEP (Transport Committee)



From: TITLEY Gary [mailto:gary.titley@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: 13 November 2006 16:21
To: dadrl
Subject: RE: Vehicle Daytime Lights - pedestrian fatalities

Thank you for your recent email regarding Daytime Running Lights

I share the same concerns that you raise in your correspondence, namely that this proposal will present greater dangers to vulnerable road users and pedestrians.

It is for this reason that I will be opposing this initiative as and when it reaches the European Parliament.

Best wishes,

Gary Titley

Office of Gary Titley MEP

Leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party Brussels ASP 13G 30  Tel:   +32 2284 7212



From: HELMER Roger [mailto:roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu]

Sent: 15 November 2006 07:46

To: dadrl

Subject: RE: Vehicle Daytime Lights - A scientific battleground

 Dear Roy,

 I support your position.  But we're getting too hung up on technicalities.

The Commission proposal is a plain defiance of common sense, and anyway it's

none of their business whether I put on my headlights or not.

 The proposal would also result in more motor-cycle fatalities.

 I shall vote against it.

 Best regards.






From: Honest John [mailto:letters@honestjohn.co.uk]
Sent: 12 November 2006 20:23
To: dadrl
Subject: Re: Vehicle Daytime Lights - pedestrian fatalities

Very many thanks for that.

In the UK it is a particularly dangerous proposal due to the massively more congested roads.

Makes sense on sparsely trafficked country roads, as in Sweden, where the idea came from.

Not in the UK where motorcycles will instantly become invisible.


From: keith lewis
Sent: 12 October 2006 22:04
To: dadrl@btinternet.com

As a motorcycle instructor it is mandatory for me to use dipped headlights whilst instructing - I use a BIG White bike and wear a white helmet and have still had motorists pull out in front of me and my students - if a Driver cant see a motorcycle or other road user at a distance that is likely to result in a accident then lights wont make any difference.


Sent: 06 October 2006 17:42
To: tren-e3-consultation@cec.eu.int
Cc: dadrl@btinternet.com
Subject: Daytime Running Lights


EU Consultation on Daytime Running Lights use.

 I wish to add my comments against the compulsory introduction of daytime running lights (DRLs) on motorcycles.

Regardless of the pollution factor, there is one main reason why these should not be adopted.

It is more dangerous for the motorcyclist.

It has been proven during the Battle of the Atlantic (WW2) that camouflaging aircraft by placing low wattage lights on the fuselage of the aircraft effectively disguised the aircraft from surfaced submarine lookouts.  The kill statistics went up markedly when this form of camouflage was used.  As the attacker could get closer and therefore press home the attack before the noise of the aircraft gave the game away.

If DRLs are adopted for compulsory use on motorcycles the hit rate will increase for exactly the same reason.  DRL's are camouflage and not presence enhancers.  DRL's on motorcycles or a vehicle behind a motorcycle will disguise the motorcycle

Rgds, Ainslie Casson MA DMS DipM MCMI                                                                                            reference:   www.globalatlantic.com/janes2.html



From: WISE Thomas [mailto:thomas.wise@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: 27 September 2006 12:53
To: dadrl
Cc: NATTRASS Michael Henry
Subject: RE: EC proposal to mandate vehicle daytime lights

 Dear Roy

 You said " We would welcome any views you may have and hope that you can have some influence with the EC to protect vulnerable road users. "

 Well, Sometimes I wish that yes, I did have some clout with the Directorate and Commissioners. Sadly, in reality, I have little or none.

 I have to say that wholly agree with you on this particular topic, but it will not stop the juggernaut that is the interfering EU doing what it

can to impose itself in every area of our lives. It is as if we had no legal framework at all in the UK.  So, what can YOU do?

1 Get everyone you can to write to their MP. Use http://www.theyworkforyou.com as a source of WHO their MP is. It only needs your post code and the email facility is given on that page!

2 yes, get MEPs involved. The UKIP involvement is through Mike Nattrass, who sits on the Transport committee. I am sure you will have his email,

but I have put it in the cc above. (michaelhenry.nattrass@europarl.europa.eu)

3 Get your contacts top vote UKIP when it matters. That is on every possible occasion, not just at Euro election time. Why, you may ask?

Well, Roy, if you don't, we will have no control over our lives and any influence you might think we have WILL be over ruled!

 Any questions, please get back to me!

 Best wishes

Tom Wise MEP


From: HELMER Roger [mailto:roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: 28 September 2006 15:40
To: dadrl
Subject: RE: EC proposal to mandate vehicle daytime lights

Thanks.  I'm with you guys on this.  R.




Cognition psychology is teaching us that  the driver's attention is caught by the DRL and at the same time pedestrians, bikers, obstacles on the road etc. can be overlooked very easily. In addition the not too well known 'change blindness' (elicited by DRL)  can cause additional problems.  Univ.-Prof. Dr. Peter Heilig  University of Vienna/Austria (pedestrians)


Volvo day-running lights can still prompt unwelcome flashing by other drivers - Jason Dawe Sunday Times Driving Magazine


I thoroughly support your campaign against mandatory day-time lights on running vehicles.  My observations of those cars, notably Volvos, which routinely use such lights, is that they are both unnecessary and indeed dangerous, in that drivers misinterpret their meaning.  The use of lights in this way would also be irresponsible, giving the waste of energy and the need to tackle climate change.  I hope this helps.

Norman Baker MP      Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary     www.normanbaker.org.uk


"Daytime running lights are yet another measure that seeks to promote the safety of those in cars to the detriment of those outside them.  You have two very convincing arguments: DRLs waste a non-trivial amount of energy, and they make all road users without lights relatively less conspicuous and therefore put them at greater risk".

Professor John Adams    University College London  ……………..see Safety and Environment


"The original concept of a daytime running light was (and still is) to have lights of about one tenth of the output of a dipped headlight”.

Professor emeritus Murray Mackay    Aston University  ………………..see a Solution


The RAC Foundation is concerned that widespread use of DRL will reduce the perceived benefits of daytime lights to groups such as motorcycles, buses etc. and may further reduce the conspicuity of road users not equipped with DRL such as cyclists, equestrians and pedestrians.

Kevin Delaney Traffic & Road Safety Manager The RAC foundation for motoring


Would we need them if we drove with our eyes open?

John Humphrys       BBC Radio 4


So do we have to equip school children with headlamps and car batteries in their satchels?

Roger Harrobin       Environmental Correspondent BBC Radio 4……….see Pedestrians


Yes, I do agree with you over this.  Especially now that Volvos are fitted with Halogen or Xenon headlights that can be very distracting in the daytime when one of these cars hits a bump. The reasoning for their use may make sense in Scandinavia where cars on roads are few and far between.  But on UK roads they make no sense, are a menace, and could even be proven to be illegal under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989.

Honest John of the Motoring Telegraph …. ………………………………see  The Law


People who use glaring lights deserve a good slappin'!!!.

Terry Wogan      Radio 2                  …………………………………… also see Humour



UK Government response to a questionnaire in EU report IR1 October 2004

“There is some prejudice among the general public against Volvo drivers, who are sometimes perceived as aggressive, and this association may have created a slight hostility.”


UK Government Department of Transport letter to DaDRL  14 February 2003

“With reference to your concerns about saving energy, I can inform you that these concerns have already been discussed in European fora.  It is accepted that the standard 55W headlamp is not the ideal DRL solution for reasons of power consumption and beam pattern.  Lamp suppliers are now working on DRL solutions which consume less energy.”




We have raised with the EC our concerns that any benefits of DRLs might not be as great as claimed, and that any overall benefits might be achieved at the expense of more vulnerable road users (especially pedestrians and pedal cyclists) who will not be equipped with such lamps and will become relatively less conspicuous.  In addition, we have commented that DRLs can not be introduced without some negative environmental effect due to the increased combustion of fuel to power the lamps.  We await the EC's conclusions with interest.




FROM the Shadow Minister for Transport and for London

The use of daytime lights for motorcycles is an issue that has generated much controversy.  Daytime lights come in two forms; ‘lights on’ laws and Daytime Running Headlights (DRL)The latter involves a number of technical issues as a DRL is a special kind of light which is designed for daytime use only.  We will continue to keep new research into the issue under review but at present do not support their introduction.  The history of daytime lights legislation has also been mixed, with ‘lights-on’ laws having been subject to implementation followed by repeal (as in the state of Victoria, Australia).  We believe that driving during in daylight with headlights on a high-beam should be an endorseable offence.  It is not necessary and causes danger by startling other road users.

Bernard Jenkin MP Shadow Minister for Transport and for London