Car daytime running lights

[David Hansen]

A while ago I mentioned that the EU were trying to make things even
more dangerous for cyclists by introducing these things. I contacted
my MEP, who has discovered that this idea is being pushed by parts
of the UN, no doubt the same sort of people who are pushing bike
helmets.

<http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_traffic/un_collaboration/unrs2_appendices.pdf>
is something which mentions both things. However, the UN is so
inpenetrable that it is difficult to know what is going on and then
lobby about it.

I suggest others take this up with their MEP.

Here is most of the reply I got from my MEP.

====================================================================

This is an idea which is soon likely to be given approval not by the
European Union, but by the United Nations. In anticipation of this
the European Union has started its own research as to how the idea
could be taken on board in the EU. The European Commission has done
this by launching a consultation with all groups involved in road
transport.

The consultation is still on going. The Department for Transport has
taken part in this and made it clear the UK is opposed to the idea.

For my part I am against DRLs for many reasons. Firstly, making cars
run with headlights on will increase fuel consumption. This makes no
sense at a time when we should be seriously trying to combat climate
change. It will also increase costs for motorists.

Daytime running lights on cars will also distract attention from
vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorbikes and pedestrians
putting them at greater risk. This would compromise road safety
rather than improve it.

Finally, it makes no sense to have an EU law which would require
drivers in Cyprus to drive with head lights on in the same way as a
driver in Sweden for example.

It is not yet guaranteed that this consultation will result in an EU
law. However, I will continue to raise objections to this idea in
European Parliament discussions on road safety.

====================================================================




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Mar 21, 9:29 am, David Hansen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> This is an idea which is soon likely to be given approval not by the
> European Union, but by the United Nations. In anticipation of this
> the European Union has started its own research as to how the idea
> could be taken on board in the EU. The European Commission has done
> this by launching a consultation with all groups involved in road
> transport.

I guess what they mean is they're consulting with the DfT and
counterparts rather than people who this might affect such as cycling
and motoring groups.

peter

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:57:08 -0700 (PDT), naked_draughtsman
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>I guess what they mean is they're consulting with the DfT and
>counterparts rather than people who this might affect such as cycling
>and motoring groups.

No, I think it's just the other definition of consulting, the one
used by governments. "Good, that's all settled, now we'll just
arrange the consultation to approve it".

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[John Grove]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:57:08 -0700 (PDT), naked_draughtsman
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>I guess what they mean is they're consulting with the DfT and
>>counterparts rather than people who this might affect such as cycling
>>and motoring groups.
>
> No, I think it's just the other definition of consulting, the one
> used by governments. "Good, that's all settled, now we'll just
> arrange the consultation to approve it".
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

If the EU OJ says sidelights for running lights then the British Civil
service mandarins
will translate it to mean full headlights, spotlights and fog lights to be
on at all times.
and the Police will enforce this with a will to raise revenue.

The French Italians Spanish and Greeks will pass it into law and ignore it.
The Germans will act sensibly together with the other nations,

The EU OJ is the European Union Official Journal.
When a regulation is published in the EU OJ all member states have to take
it into their law,

 

[JNugent]

John Grove wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> naked_draughtsman <[email protected]>:

>>> I guess what they mean is they're consulting with the DfT and
>>> counterparts rather than people who this might affect such as cycling
>>> and motoring groups.

>> No, I think it's just the other definition of consulting, the one
>> used by governments. "Good, that's all settled, now we'll just
>> arrange the consultation to approve it".

> If the EU OJ says sidelights for running lights then the British Civil
> service mandarins will translate it to mean full headlights, spotlights
> and fog lights to be on at all times.
> and the Police will enforce this with a will to raise revenue.

> The French Italians Spanish and Greeks will pass it into law and ignore it.
> The Germans will act sensibly together with the other nations

> The EU OJ is the European Union Official Journal.
> When a regulation is published in the EU OJ all member states have to take
> it into their law,

The Italians already have this law (but only outside built-up areas).
The place it is most honoured is on the autostrada.

 

[Jeff]

David Hansen wrote:
> A while ago I mentioned that the EU were trying to make things even
> more dangerous for cyclists by introducing these things. I contacted
> my MEP, who has discovered that this idea is being pushed by parts
> of the UN, no doubt the same sort of people who are pushing bike
> helmets.
>
> <http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_traffic/un_collaboration/unrs2_appendices.pdf>
> is something which mentions both things. However, the UN is so
> inpenetrable that it is difficult to know what is going on and then
> lobby about it.
>
> I suggest others take this up with their MEP.
>
> Here is most of the reply I got from my MEP.
>
> ====================================================================
>
> This is an idea which is soon likely to be given approval not by the
> European Union, but by the United Nations. In anticipation of this
> the European Union has started its own research as to how the idea
> could be taken on board in the EU. The European Commission has done
> this by launching a consultation with all groups involved in road
> transport.
>
> The consultation is still on going. The Department for Transport has
> taken part in this and made it clear the UK is opposed to the idea.
>
> For my part I am against DRLs for many reasons. Firstly, making cars
> run with headlights on will increase fuel consumption. This makes no
> sense at a time when we should be seriously trying to combat climate
> change. It will also increase costs for motorists.
>
> Daytime running lights on cars will also distract attention from
> vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorbikes and pedestrians
> putting them at greater risk. This would compromise road safety
> rather than improve it.
>
> Finally, it makes no sense to have an EU law which would require
> drivers in Cyprus to drive with head lights on in the same way as a
> driver in Sweden for example.
>
> It is not yet guaranteed that this consultation will result in an EU
> law. However, I will continue to raise objections to this idea in
> European Parliament discussions on road safety.
>
> ====================================================================
>
>
>
>
Some feedback on your arguments against DRLs.

1. Increased fuel consumption: the amount of power required for DRLs,
as compared to the power required to move the car, is very small.
Simply changing a few driving habits would easily save more fuel than
DRLs would consume.

2. Distracting attention from other road users: motorcycles and
bicycles can have DRLs too. Having driven amongst cars with DRLs, I
don't find them particularly distracting unless the lights are misaligned.

3. Cyprus v Sweden: This may have some merit (I suspect that Cyprus is
probably brighter during the day, on average, than is Sweden. However,
while Cypriots might not benefit as much as would Swedes, having a
common set of rules EU-wide simplifies life for everyone (no more "Oh
dear, what are the local rules?").

 

[Martin Dann]

David Hansen wrote:
> A while ago I mentioned that the EU were trying to make things even
> more dangerous for cyclists by introducing these things. I contacted
> my MEP, who has discovered that this idea is being pushed by parts
> of the UN, no doubt the same sort of people who are pushing bike
> helmets.
>


This (DLRs) has been discussed in Parliament a few times, and according
to the minister for something or other, this has already been passed
into car manufacturing regulations, such that all new cars from 2012
will have to be built with DLRs.

Martin.

 

[Mark T]

Jeff writtificated

> Some feedback on your arguments against DRLs.

> 2. Distracting attention from other road users: motorcycles and
> bicycles can have DRLs too. Having driven amongst cars with DRLs, I
> don't find them particularly distracting unless the lights are
> misaligned.

This misses the point. Drivers will look for lights. A bicycle light will
be not be nearly as bright as car lights. Pedestrians will not have
lights. Motorcycles, instead of being more visible than cars will be half
as visible.

The effect is small, but there are a huge amount of journeys made.

> having a common set of rules EU-wide simplifies life for everyone (no
> more "Oh dear, what are the local rules?").

I'd prefer not to have extra deaths and serious injuries simply to save
tourists the embarrasment of forgetting to put their side lights on.

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Martin Dann wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
>> A while ago I mentioned that the EU were trying to make things even
>> more dangerous for cyclists by introducing these things. I contacted
>> my MEP, who has discovered that this idea is being pushed by parts
>> of the UN, no doubt the same sort of people who are pushing bike
>> helmets.
>>
>
>
> This (DLRs) has been discussed in Parliament a few times, and
> according to the minister for something or other, this has already
> been passed into car manufacturing regulations, such that all new
> cars from 2012 will have to be built with DLRs.

That was what I thought as well, though couldn't point to a definitive
reference on the topic.

C&U changes are not usually retrospective on existing vehicles.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Mar 21, 9:59 pm, "John Grove" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:57:08 -0700 (PDT), naked_draughtsman
> > <[email protected]> said in
> > <[email protected]>:
>
> >>I guess what they mean is they're consulting with the DfT and
> >>counterparts rather than people who this might affect such as cycling
> >>and motoring groups.
>
> > No, I think it's just the other definition of consulting, the one
> > used by governments. "Good, that's all settled, now we'll just
> > arrange the consultation to approve it".
>
> > Guy
> > --
> > May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> >http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> > 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
>
> If the EU OJ says sidelights for running lights then the British Civil
> service mandarins
> will translate it to mean full headlights, spotlights and fog lights to be
> on at all times.
> and the Police will enforce this with a will to raise revenue.

You'd like to think so, but they currently don't seem to be able to
enforce the mobile phone ban or the requirement to have working lights
at night (on cars or bikes).

peter

 

[Adrian Godwin]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> A while ago I mentioned that the EU were trying to make things even
> more dangerous for cyclists by introducing these things. I contacted
> my MEP, who has discovered that this idea is being pushed by parts
> of the UN, no doubt the same sort of people who are pushing bike
> helmets.
>


You might find this group of interest :

http://www.dadrl.org.uk/

Also see :

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11400.asp

-adrian

 

[Martin Dann]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Martin Dann wrote:
>> David Hansen wrote:
>>> A while ago I mentioned that the EU were trying to make things even
>>> more dangerous for cyclists by introducing these things. I contacted
>>> my MEP, who has discovered that this idea is being pushed by parts
>>> of the UN, no doubt the same sort of people who are pushing bike
>>> helmets.
>>>
>>
>> This (DLRs) has been discussed in Parliament a few times, and
>> according to the minister for something or other, this has already
>> been passed into car manufacturing regulations, such that all new
>> cars from 2012 will have to be built with DLRs.
>
> That was what I thought as well, though couldn't point to a definitive
> reference on the topic.
>
> C&U changes are not usually retrospective on existing vehicles.

July 2007, the government claimed that they had never discussed
mandatory EU wide fitting of DRLs

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-07-24b.151703.h&s="daytime+running"#g151703.q0

Then February this year they claimed that the EU has mandated them,

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-02-25c.188253.h&s="daytime+running"#g188253.q0

Then more recently they claim it is a UN regulation,

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-03-18a.38.6&s="daylight+running"#g39.0

(Since when has the UN been able to make national laws)

 

[Martin Dann]

Adrian Godwin wrote:
> David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A while ago I mentioned that the EU were trying to make things even
>> more dangerous for cyclists by introducing these things. I contacted
>> my MEP, who has discovered that this idea is being pushed by parts
>> of the UN, no doubt the same sort of people who are pushing bike
>> helmets.
>>
>
>
> You might find this group of interest :
>
> http://www.dadrl.org.uk/

http://www.dadrl.org.uk/whatsnew.html

The end of a RoSPA quote:

“Although the counter argument would be that DRL may make it easier for
cyclists to spot cars, enabling them to plan an ‘escape route’ to
prevent an accident if the car were to pull out, it does not address the
issue of drivers making poor or incomplete observations and failing to
spot a cyclist."


So one of the arguments in favour of DRLs, is to place more
responsibility on the more vulnerable roads users.
As well as increasing the amount of SMIDSYs there is also the posibility
of increased "Didn't you see me" from cars that cut you up. And I have
had drivers ask "Didn't you see me" after trying to run me off the road.


Martin.

 

[JNugent]

Martin Dann wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>> David Hansen wrote:
>>>> A while ago I mentioned that the EU were trying to make things even
>>>> more dangerous for cyclists by introducing these things. I contacted
>>>> my MEP, who has discovered that this idea is being pushed by parts
>>>> of the UN, no doubt the same sort of people who are pushing bike
>>>> helmets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This (DLRs) has been discussed in Parliament a few times, and
>>> according to the minister for something or other, this has already
>>> been passed into car manufacturing regulations, such that all new
>>> cars from 2012 will have to be built with DLRs.
>>
>> That was what I thought as well, though couldn't point to a definitive
>> reference on the topic.
>>
>> C&U changes are not usually retrospective on existing vehicles.
>
> July 2007, the government claimed that they had never discussed
> mandatory EU wide fitting of DRLs
>
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-07-24b.151703.h&s="daytime+running"#g151703.q0
>
>
> Then February this year they claimed that the EU has mandated them,
>
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-02-25c.188253.h&s="daytime+running"#g188253.q0
>
>
> Then more recently they claim it is a UN regulation,
>
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-03-18a.38.6&s="daylight+running"#g39.0
>
>
> (Since when has the UN been able to make national laws)

I assume that last bit was a question, and the answer, of course, is
"never".

But AIUI, the international co-operation which allows motor vehicles to
be driven in countries other than the one of their registration (this
including all the conventions on "green cards", "international driving
licences", the ID stickers system, etc) is overseen by the UN.

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Mar 24, 4:58 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Then more recently they claim it is a UN regulation,
>
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-03-18a.38.6&s="dayligh...
>
> (Since when has the UN been able to make national laws)

The OP mentions that his MEP discovered that people from the UN are
'pushing' for this to be implemented.

I couldn't find anything about it on the UN website so I fired off an
email to their general email address asking how can I go about finding
out about this particular topic and what it the protocol for sending
in comments on such issues. I received this very helpful reply this
evening:



Greetings from the Public Inquiries Team.

We regret to inform you that we do not have information on your topic.

Thank you for taking the initiative to write to us.

Best regards,

Public Inquiries Unit
Public Relations Section
Department of Public Information
United Nations
[email protected]

 

[Simon Brooke]

Jeff wrote:

> 2. Distracting attention from other road users: motorcycles and
> bicycles can have DRLs too.

And by what do you propose these should be powered?

> 3. Cyprus v Sweden: This may have some merit (I suspect that Cyprus is
> probably brighter during the day, on average, than is Sweden. However,
> while Cypriots might not benefit as much as would Swedes, having a
> common set of rules EU-wide simplifies life for everyone (no more "Oh
> dear, what are the local rules?").

So people killed in Cyprus (or Britain) should be gladdened in their dying
moments that they have died to save a Swede?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The trouble with Simon is that he only opens his mouth to change feet.
;; of me, by a 'friend'