Use of headlights in the day.

Our man in Havana

I am hearing ads on the radio telling you to use your headlights 24/7 even during the daytime. If this is such a good idea why is it not required by law?

Any idea?

magpie

Because the law is an ass.

They should also make it illegal to have foglights on unless it's FOGGY

woody

I use them all the time it is a matter of habit and a good one as it gives other drivers better visablitiy.

Volvos and Saabs have the car set to switch them on at igniton

Borzoi

woody wrote:

I use them all the time it is a matter of habit and a good one as it gives other drivers better visablitiy.

Volvos and Saabs have the car set to switch them on at igniton

The same, it also saves on those stupid incidences that I've seen countless times where the driver fills up at the garage at night and forgets to turn lights back on afterwards.

The Saab, has a dash mounted switch for off, parking lights, and heads on while engine running, or at least mine does

masto1983

I have the 'sidelights' on during the day. As said above, it improves visibility for pedestrians/cyclists/other drivers. Headlights can be very annoying during the day tho, if someone is behind you you have to flick the mirror.

Flinty

It's pretty dark out all the time, so makes sense. I know any time i've rented a car in America the lights are automatically on all the time at some level or another.

Seth Brundle

I use side lights always during daytime - I find that sometimes headlights can dazzle during daytime.

Our man in Havana

would it not be a good idea to make it compulsory?

impr0v

I think they are advising that you have your dipped beams on during the day, not full headlights as they certainly do dazzle.

BrianD3

Dipped headlights are an aid to visibility during the day and will not cause any dazzle unless they're really badly aimed.

As for sidelights, they are too dim/small to be of much use while driving. There's little point putting on your sidelights in any conditions. If visibility is poor enough to warrant lights, then it's dipped headlights that should be used. OTOH if visibility is good (eg a bright sunny day) then sidelights are practically invisible due to being drowned out by natural light.

BrianD3

D!ve^Bomb!

i'm sorry, i really dont get this.. lights on? during the day? more visiabilty? buts its DAYLIGHT!! how? why? it doesn't improve anythin except the speed at which your battery runs dry?

unkel

BrianD3 wrote:

Dipped headlights are an aid to visibility during the day and will not cause any dazzle unless they're really badly aimed.

As for sidelights, they are too dim/small to be of much use while driving. There's little point putting on your sidelights in any conditions.

Agree

That using dipped headlights 24/7 improves safety is controversial. Tests in Sweden have clearly shown is does. It is compulsory there now (not sure might be in other Scandinavian countries now as well)

Obviously the climate there has something to do with it. Extensive tests in the Netherlands showed no increase in safety. Plans to make it compulsory were then abandoned

Using dipped headlights 24/7 adds about 3% to total fuel consumption of a car compared to only using them when they are typically used

magpie

I have the 'sidelights' on during the day

Those are parking lights. Turn on your dipped headlights.

Simple rules people:

1) Always have your dipped headlights on. This avoids those, "is it dark enough to need headlights" moments that result in idiots in silver cars driving around invisible in heavy rain etc. I'm sure this doesn't apply to any of you, but it takes away the burden of responsibility from those incapable of exercising it properly.
2) Sidelights are for parking only.
3) Don't turn on your foglights unless it is foggy. Turn them off again as soon as visibility improves.

The reason why Saabs and Volvos have them on permanently is because that is the law in Sweden.

enda_4

impr0v wrote:

I think they are advising that you have your dipped beams on during the day, not full headlights as they certainly do dazzle.

Yeah i agree, nothin worse than someone coming up behind ya with full headlights on at any time.... Did yis know that apparently it's against the law to have spotlights hooked up to ur dips, or so i was told when i was gettin my car NCT'd

MrPudding

newband wrote:

it doesn't improve anythin except the speed at which your battery runs dry?

Having your headlights on does not cause you battery to run dry unless you leave them on when the engine is off. In this case it will cause the battery to run dry whether it is day or night.

MrP

woosaysdan

i always drive with my dips on!!! my dad is a driving instructor in the army and when he was teaching me how to drive he would always get me to turn them on!!!

masto1983

magpie wrote:

2) Sidelights are for parking only.

How are sidelights for parking?
Whats your definition of sidelights?

Chalk

its definitely easier to see a car if it has its dipped ligths on in my experience.
as was metioned - silver cars in the rain is one example.

i find that with a quick glance in the mirror you would spot a dipped headlight without paying much attention, whereas a neutral color car might take a split second longer to spot.

Ba_barbaraAnne

magpie wrote:

Those are parking lights. Turn on your dipped headlights.

Simple rules people:

1) Always have your dipped headlights on. This avoids those, "is it dark enough to need headlights" moments that result in idiots in silver cars driving around invisible in heavy rain etc. I'm sure this doesn't apply to any of you, but it takes away the burden of responsibility from those incapable of exercising it properly.
2) Sidelights are for parking only.
3) Don't turn on your foglights unless it is foggy. Turn them off again as soon as visibility improves.

The reason why Saabs and Volvos have them on permanently is because that is the law in Sweden.

I agree totally and always used dipped headlights. There's nothing worse in murky weather then having 'ghost cars' appearing out of nowhere.

Side/parking lights are absolutely useless at making a car more visible during the day. Many cars only have parking lights on one side of the car too, so you end up thinking a bicycle is appoaching!

I've seen a few rare roadsigns round the country advising people to use dipped lights in the daytime. There's one on the road from Cross to Headford I think.

As for it being made compulsory - It probably will be eventually. The Rules of the Road say that dipped lights must be used in 'poor visibility'. The definition of this is not very clear but our climate is often so overcast, misty or drizzly that this surely is classed as such. Dusk and dawn are also times you should have on your dips and the number of invisisble cars on the roads as the long, dark evenings approach are increasing.

Most bikers keep their lights on full-time nowadays and they certainly are easier to see on the road.

Any increase in fuel consumption is offset by the savings on car repairs!

seamus

magpie wrote:

2) Sidelights are for parking only.

So what are parking lights for?

I would have said it should be compulsory, but as a biker, I've heard a few reasonable arguments against it. I drive around with dipped headlight on all the time. It improves my visibility - essential on a motorbike.

However, if it become compulsory, then everyone is doing it, and the "novelty" of it is lost, and I (bikers) lose another visibility aid.

The main problem with other vehicles is that when they're pulling out of sideroads, they're expecting to see a car, a truck, etc. Most of the time, they will spot a bike, but sometimes, in a kind of blindness, the bike isn't "seen", that is, they do see the bike, but it doesn't register as a "vehicle", because it's not in the criteria their brain generated when looking for a "vehicle". I've done this before myself and gotten a fright.
However, if the dips are on, it becomes a visible hazard within the field of view that causes the brain to notice it and re-evaluate.

So if *everyone* starts having their dips on, people will become used to it, and bikers with their dips on will blend into the background again.

On top of this, people may have noticed at night, if you see a line of traffic with their lights on, you might have missed a biker in between two cars. You'd be forgiven, because the bike's lights get drowned out. Because there is only one light (essentially), and darkness interferes with your perception of distance, the bike's light can be mistaken as the headlight of the vehicle behind it, effectively creating a false gap in the traffic where the biker is.

It's been shown that DRLs (daytime running lights) can cause the same phenomenon, though not as commonly as at night.

It's a valid argument.

Swarfboy

Absolutely, dipped headlights should always be used at all times. Besides being our company policy I cannot believe the fools that drive on country roads that are nearly as dark during the day, especially when raining and overtake expecting the oncoming traffic to see them well in advance...
Having said that I think more peple are copping on to a simple "safer" driving policy... all we have to do now is to teach them to drive.!

egan007

Might as well have a candle on the dash as sidelights - they are pethatic
USE parking lights or dipped headlights

Also - does anyone know what the headlight adjuster dial is in your car?
I know only some cars have them - BUT USE THEM - if you do
You can point your dipped headlights at the ground dring the day

magpie

seamus wrote:

So what are parking lights for?

In my car the "side lights" are the "parking lights". Maybe some cars have seperate sets of lights for both tasks, but the point is if you need lights put on your dipped headlights, adn in Ireland you need lights most if not all of the time. Unlike these people you see driving around with 2 pinpricks of light that look like a diode on each side of their bonnet at dusk. Just turn on your lights people!

As for the argument that it might make being a motorcyclist more dangerous. Well, if that's the case I sympathise with your predicament, but it's hardly grounds for discouraging car drivers to use their lights.

woody

I'd say this will become law before soon and possibly a penalty points issue

But alas I think it is totally necessary

FX Meister

I always have my dips on during the day, it just makes it easier to spot other cars and for them to spot me. What I can't stand is the amount of spas that use only their dusk lights at night and they seem to be on the increase.

ando

newband wrote:

i'm sorry, i really dont get this.. lights on? during the day? more visiabilty? buts its DAYLIGHT!! how? why? it doesn't improve anythin except the speed at which your battery runs dry?

Next time the sun is setting behind you while driving, check out what the cars look like in your mirror. All you see is black shapes, not really being able to distinguish one car from the other. Now look out for someone behind you that has headlights on and you'll notice how much DRL's are a good idea.

seamus

magpie wrote:

As for the argument that it might make being a motorcyclist more dangerous. Well, if that's the case I sympathise with your predicament, but it's hardly grounds for discouraging car drivers to use their lights.

Interesting twist on words. "If this makes your safety measures less effective, then that's your problem for choosing that method of transport".

DRLs won't save the lives of any car drivers.

magpie

If this makes your safety measures less effective, then that's your problem for choosing that method of transport

Erm, yes? Your point being?

DRLs won't save the lives of any car drivers.

In that case why the campaign to encourage people to do so? In order to make it more unsafe for motorcyclists and force them off the road?

Incidentally, here's a safety tip for motorcyclists: When you're going along the canal don't zoom along a queue of traffic on the wrong side of the road and rely on car drivers coming the other way to veer into the cycle lane to allow you to whizz past with a helmet balanced on your head and a fag in your mouth. Then maybe you won't need the increased visibility of only you being allowed to use dipped headlights during the day.

(and yes, I'm sure there are responsible motorcyclists like you who obey the rules of the road yadda yadda yadda. I just don't nearly have head on collisions with them every day of the week as I'm trying to get to/from work)

Seth Brundle

woody wrote:

I'd say this will become law before soon and possibly a penalty points issue

They have a lot more offences to get pushed through first before they start worrying about lights!

sliabh

MrPudding wrote:

Having your headlights on does not cause you battery to run dry unless you leave them on when the engine is off. In this case it will cause the battery to run dry whether it is day or night.

MrP

Just to add to this. If your headlights are running down your battery then your alternator is banjaxed. But you probably know that anyway as you were only able to start the car a few times before the battery went dead!

I was surprised to see the comment that headlight usage reduced efficiency by 3%. I would like to see data to back that one up. I would believe it for something like air-con but the I am less sure about headlights.

seamus

magpie wrote:

Erm, yes? Your point being?

Never mind, see below

Incidentally, here's a safety tip for motorcyclists: When you're going along the canal don't zoom along a queue of traffic on the wrong side of the road and rely on car drivers coming the other way to veer into the cycle lane to allow you to whizz past with a helmet balanced on your head and a fag in your mouth. Then maybe you won't need the increased visibility of only you being allowed to use dipped headlights during the day.

I'm not going to bother. Clearly you see motorcyclists as nothing more than a pest who are a danger to themselves. 70% of motorcycle accidents are caused by the driver of the car.

magpie

70% of motorcycle accidents are caused by the driver of the car.

How did they work that one out?

I couldn't find any Irish statistics, but here are some from the US (from http://www.motorcycleaccidentlegalcenter.com/resources/motorcycle_statistics.html)

1) Over 50 percent of all motorcycles involved in fatal crashes collided with another motor vehicle in transit. In two-vehicle crashes, 76 percent of motorcycles involved were impacted in the front, and only 5 percent were rear-ended. ( i.e. head-on collisions)

2) 27 percent of motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes collided with a fixed object, compared with 17 percent of passenger car occupants.

3) 38 percent of all motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents were speeding, approximately twice the rate for drivers of passenger vehicles.

4) Motorcycle operators involved in fatal crashes had higher intoxication*** rates than drivers of any other type of vehicle involved in a fatal accident.

5) 27 percent of all fatally-injured motorcycle operators were intoxicated

6) 28 percent of young motorcycle drivers involved in fatal crashes were either unlicensed or driving with an invalid license at the time of the crash.

Clearly you see motorcyclists as nothing more than a pest who are a danger to themselves

Now where would I get that idea?

Borzoi

sliabh wrote:

I was surprised to see the comment that headlight usage reduced efficiency by 3%. I would like to see data to back that one up. I would believe it for something like air-con but the I am less sure about headlights.

Osram, the bulb makers, put it at less than 1% here which tallies with figures of approx 1/2% that I heard years ago. This is nowwhewre near the level of Aircon, which on a crap system could be up to 12%


Seamus

Interesting if inconclusive report on DRLs as they apply to bikes here Long rep, from Victoria, Oz

seamus

magpie wrote:

How did they work that one out?

Sorry, clearly I'm talking about bike-car collisions.

I couldn't find any Irish statistics, but here are some from the US (from http://www.motorcycleaccidentlegalcenter.com/resources/motorcycle_statistics.html)

They're US statistics, they don't apply. The attitudes cannot be compared.

I forget where I get that 70% figure from, but that's the generally accepted figure for Ireland and the UK.

http://hibernian.netsource.ie/insurance/Motorcycle_report.asp
By far, it's not the fact that a person is on a motorcycle that makes it dangerous, it's inexperience and lack of training. Same can be said for cars, you're just less likely to kill yourself through ignorance and error.

http://www.nsc.ie/uploads/ACF8C2.pdf

Research indicates that the prime cause of most motorcycle crashes in urban areas is the actions of other road users who fail to anticipate the presence and likely actions of the motorcyclist. Typically motorcycle crashes occur when a motorist emerges from a junction into the path of a motorcyclist.

In rural areas, most motorcycle accidents are caused by driver error - but that's the same for cars. Again it's not the bike that's inherently dangerous, it's the attitude.

Now, to get back on topic, let's address this "choice" issue again.

You have Side Impact Protection on your car (if you don't say you do, for the sake of comparison). I buy a truck and mount 6-foot spikes on the front, 4 inches in diameter, and about 1.5 feet off the ground. Now, by your logic, I shouldn't care less that in the event that I **** up, you and anyone in your passenger seat will be horribly skewered by my spikes, since there's no way in hell a side impact system would stop it. No, it's your problem for choosing to drive a car.

magpie

I buy a truck and mount 6-foot spikes on the front, 4 inches in diameter, and about 1.5 feet off the ground

In what way does this equate with motorists turning on dipped headlights during the day?

This would be a reasonable comparison if it had been found that mounting 6 foot spikes on trucks resulted in them having much higher visibility resuting in less accidents, and if trucks were in the majority of road users. As neither is the case I fail to see what you're trying to demonstrate here.

Some statistics from Hibernian: http://hibernian.netsource.ie/insurance/Motorcycle_report.asp

Accident statistics show motorcycling to be inherently dangerous especially in Ireland where, according to OECD figures, a motorcyclist is 2-3 times more likely to be killed than in other European countries.

The numbers of fatalities in recent years have shown a marked increase
Hibernian has lost €12m on motorcycle business over the past 4 years, primarily down to the extra cost of claims from pillion passengers, a liability which became compulsory in January 1999

The cost of pillion claims has far exceeded our worst expectations
90% of pillion passenger claims come from the Provisional Licence-holding sector where it is illegal, under the licensing laws, to carry a passenger
The Irish motorcycle fatality rate is the highest in Europe and 2.5 times higher than in the UK

10% of motorcyclists killed or injured were not wearing helmets

12% of fatalities and serious injuries are in 15-17 age bracket

70% of motorcyclists hold Provisional licences

20% of Provisonal licence holders do not know they are not permitted to carry pillion passengers

Ireland has no Compulsory Basic Training programmes in place

22% of motorcyclists have never had any form of training

Ireland is one of a few European countries where road traffic law does not require inexperienced riders to display an L Plate or similar


As for the culture in Ireland being different from that in America, what about this? http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=588580&issue_id=5935

It discloses that the number of motorcyclists killed (68) was the highest in ten years and says the fact that approximately 37pc of fatal motorcycle accidents involved no other vehicle or road user indicated speed and/or alcohol were significant contributory factors.

seamus

magpie wrote:

In what way does this equate with motorists turning on dipped headlights during the day?

This would be a reasonable comparison if it had been found that mounting 6 foot spikes on trucks resulted in them having much higher visibility resuting in less accidents, and if trucks were in the majority of road users. As neither is the case I fail to see what you're trying to demonstrate here.

*whoosh*
That cars are the majority of road users is here nor there. It's a not case of majority rules, it's a case of who's most affected by a change, positively or negatively.

Some statistics from Hibernian: http://hibernian.netsource.ie/insurance/Motorcycle_report.asp

Yeah, that's the link I posted. Purely to demonstrate the fact that motorcycles aren't inherently dangerous as you seem to imply.

As for the culture in Ireland being different from that in America, what about this? http://www.unison.ie/irish_independ...0&issue_id=5935

It discloses that the number of motorcyclists killed (68) was the highest in ten years and says the fact that approximately 37pc of fatal motorcycle accidents involved no other vehicle or road user indicated speed and/or alcohol were significant contributory factors.

Again, as I say, probably on a par with car accidents, where speed and alcohol will be a contributory factor, and most fatal accidents occur outside of cities. All this proves is that motorcyclists are more likely to die in an accident. This doesn't make motorcycles inherently dangerous, just inherently dangerous in the event of an accident. There's a big difference.

Getting way off topic here.

magpie

What are you talking about *whoosh*? What's clearly gone over your head is that there is absolutely no comparison between mounting iron spikes on a truck and asking motorists to turn their headlights on to increase road safety.

yeah, that's the link I posted. Purely to demonstrate the fact that motorcycles aren't inherently dangerous as you seem to imply.

Oh, that's funny, as practically the first line on this page reads:

Accident statistics show motorcycling to be inherently dangerous especially in Ireland where, according to OECD figures, a motorcyclist is 2-3 times more likely to be killed than in other European countries.

Here, some more reading matter for you if you can be bothered:
(from http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motoring/2003/0924/431169859MOT24LIGHTS.html)

The Government committee responsible for developing road safety strategies will not recommend compulsory daytime headlights. This is despite a highly successful pilot campaign in Dublin last year.

The High Level Group on National Road Safety will consider the impact of last year's "Lights On Daytime" campaign by Dublin City Council. Accident statistics for the period are expected to be made available by the National Roads Authority (NRA) at the end of October or the beginning of November.

The group comprises the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the National Roads Authority, (NRA), An Garda Síochána, the National Safety Council, the Medical Bureau of Road Safety and local authorities. It devised the last road safety strategy which expired last year and is now working on a new framework to run until 2005. It is expected to issue its recommendations in the coming weeks.

A source told Motors that the group would most likely shy away from the Scandinavian system where motorists are required by law to have daytime running lights (DRL) in use during the day. Figures released last week showed a reduction in road-death numbers since the introduction of penalty points in November, in all categories except motorcycles.

The 2002 "lights on" campaign in Dublin has been described as a success by Owen Keegan, the council's director of traffic, and assistant city manager. Speaking to Motors Keegan said there was "very strong support from the public. It was very well received. There was a large increase in the use of dipped headlights by motorists in Dublin and no increase in Cork" - Cork was used as a control area to assess the impact of the campaign in Dublin.

Earlier this month Keegan and his City Council colleagues received a report by the department of psychology in Trinity College, Dublin. The 70-page report, seen by Motors, shows increased DRL use from 15 per cent to 44 per cent during the six-week campaign last summer. After the campaign ended, up to 34 per cent of motorists used DRLs on normal days and up to 70 per cent on "gloomy" days.

The report, by Ray Fuller, David Bonney and Fiona Hayes, said that the campaign had an "immediate and persistent" effect. In the control area of Cork city DRL use actually dipped slightly to below 10 per cent during the campaign period.

The report suggests that perhaps the "optimal" strategy would be a "legal and technical one" - the introduction of a legal requirement on manufacturers that all new vehicles be fitted with automatic DRLs. This is how it works in other countries, most notably in Scandinavia where such initiatives date back up to 30 years.

Finland was first to make DRL use compulsory on rural roads in winter in 1972. In 1977 Sweden made their use compulsory on all roads throughout the year, while Norway required all new cars to be fitted with automatic DRLs from 1985. Canada followed suit from 1989, and Hungary in 1994 outside built-up areas.

A study by the SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research in the Netherlands in 1997 said that requiring motorists by law to switch on their lights during the day would "most likely prevent 24.6 per cent of the fatalities and 20.0 per cent injured persons from multiple daytime accidents within the EU." At the time of the study it predicted the saving of 5,500 lives and and about 155,000 injuries annually.

The study says the mandatory DRL use is both "desirable and urgent" but warns policy-makers to adopt a "gently-gently" approach with the public. Brian Farrell of the National Safety Council would advocate "anything that increases visibility because that has got to be good for road safety." The NSC ran its own campaign three years ago. The initiative was supported by the minister at the time, Bobby Molloy, who said the Government was "seriously considering" the mandatory DRLs.

Owen Keegan believes phased introduction may be the best option. "There may be an argument for a promotion of voluntary use first and then a staged approach where we get PSVs (taxis, buses etc) to have them on. There may not be enthusiasm for making it mandatory for all vehicles straight away."


You will note from this that DRL is expected to save 5,500 lives annually (you think it will save none).

seamus

magpie wrote:

What are you talking about *whoosh*? What's clearly gone over your head is that there is absolutely no comparison between mounting iron spikes on a truck and asking motorists to turn their headlights on to increase road safety. The fact that this might impinge on the safety of motorcyclists has been clearly demonstrated by me to be abject fallacy as motorcyclists are a danger to themselves. 37% of fatalities not involving another vehicle, high instance of speeding and intoxication, low instance of licence and/or training. What more statistics do you need?

Your logic is all over the place here. Clearly we should potentially lower the amount of visiblity measures available to a motorcyclist, despite the fact that the majority of fatalities occur in collisions with other vehicles, and a majority of them occur when the other driver fails to see or anticipate the motorcyclists movements? What sense does that make?
You see, you can use statistics to get them to say whatever you want.

For the record, I'm as yet undecided on my feelings about DRLs. I have a feeling that they're a bit of a distraction from the real causes of our road safety problems, and on the whole wouldn't serve to change our record much, and won't change our attitudes at all.

daymobrew

From Motorcycle Action Group Ireland website (http://www.magireland.org/pol17_19.htm)

in 65% of accidents involving motorcycles, the other involved party is primarily at fault.

Not far off 70% mentioned earlier.

magpie

Clearly we should potentially lower the amount of visiblity measures available to a motorcyclist

No, that's utter bull****.

This is not a debate about whether motorcyclists should be made to dress in black and turn off their headlights. (many of them do this already)

DRL makes the roads safer for motorists and there is absolutely no proof that it makes the roads more dangerous for motorcyclists, despite your opinion.

majority of them occur when the other driver fails to see or anticipate the motorcyclists movements?

And you think this is more related to lights than to lack of motorcyclist training, reckless motorcycle driving, intoxication and all the other causes highlighted by the statistics?


let me quote again from the page you posted up to show motorcycles are not inherently dangerous http://hibernian.netsource.ie/insurance/Motorcycle_report.asp

Accident statistics show motorcycling to be inherently dangerous especially in Ireland where, according to OECD figures, a motorcyclist is 2-3 times more likely to be killed than in other European countries.

So in what way would cars putting on DRL change these stats? Would it become even more dangerous?

Perhaps if motorcyclists stayed in lane, obeyed speed limits, attempted to pre-empt the actions of other road users and didn't run red lights you might see a reduction in these figures.

magpie

From Motorcycle Action Group Ireland website

Well, yes, they make that statement but I don't see anything to back it up. I wouldn't really expect a motorcycle action group to have any other opinion, would you?

seamus

magpie wrote:

No, that's utter bull****.

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your opinion?

And you think this is more related to lights than to lack of motorcyclist training, reckless motorcycle driving, intoxication and all the other causes highlighted by the statistics?

Other drivers ****ing up and killing motorcyclists is more related to the *visibility* of the motorcyclist than all of those things. Since it's the *other* driver who messes up more often than not, then obviously the problem lies with other drivers having trouble seeing motorcyclists, so obviously increasing the visibility can help reduce these accidents.

So in what way would cars putting on DRL change these stats? Would it become even more dangerous?

I see you failed to read my post above. Motorcycles aren't dangerous until an accident occurs.

Perhaps if motorcyclists stayed in lane, obeyed speed limits, attempted to pre-empt the actions of other road users and didn't run red lights you might see a reduction in these figures.

Perhaps if car drivers did the above, we'd see less carnage on our roads. :rolleyes:

There's no point in continuing this. It's off topic, and clearly your prejudice against all motorcyclists is so ingrained that you can't accept that bikers aren't just a bunch of speeding children, driving recklessly.

magpie

OK, to summarise:

5,500 lives a year should not be saved by DRL as in your opinion other people having headlights on in daytime will make motorcyclists less visible, which is tantamount to fitting 6 foot steel spikes at passenger level on all trucks in order to kill passengers in cars.

There's no arguing with that logic.

For your own sake I however ask you to read these safety tips for motorcyclists http://www.nsc.ie/road_safety/advice.cfm.

While yes, there are issues with other vehicles hitting motorbikes they are easily avoided. E.g. don't overtake on the left of another vehicle. Ever!

I'm off to drive home now. Stay safe, and no I'm not taking the piss.

seamus

magpie wrote:

5,500 lives a year should not be saved by DRL as in your opinion other people having headlights on in daytime will make motorcyclists less visible,

No, I made it quite clear that I was undecided on this issue. I was pointing out a valid concern which you have failed to invalidate.

which is tantamount to fitting 6 foot steel spikes at passenger level on all trucks in order to kill passengers in cars.

That's not what I said either.

For your own sake I however ask you to read these safety tips for motorcyclists http://www.nsc.ie/road_safety/advice.cfm.

Thanks, I'll keep them in mind. Nothing new there, but it always helps to keep reading them. I suggest you read them too. You may not be a motorcyclist, but by knowing what we have to do, you may be in a better position to correctly anticipate our manouvers. A common failing in car drivers, I gather.

E.g. don't overtake on the left of another vehicle. Ever!

Except within the law, obviously. Check your rules of the road for details.

mike65

Okay Seamus and Magpie, if you want to continue this debate do so via PMs!

Back on topic. Daylight running lights should be law, as to whether it should be side lights or dipped mainlights, well it would help if all sidelights were the same. I cant belive some maufactureres continue to use those patheric candles in the corners. All sideligts should be inside the main lense.

I tend to use sidelights in good conditions, I switch to dips when it gets murky or I'm driving out of a low sun.

Mike.

John R

mike65 wrote:

Back on topic. Daylight running lights should be law,

Mike.

A bit arrogant there aren't we? I hadn't realised god had spoken on the issue.

The point is that it is an argument whether it should be a law or not.

IMO definitely not.

seamus' point is a valid one. If DRLs were the norm it would make other road users, cyclists and pedestrians even more so than motorbikes at a great disadvantage. Once people become used to reacting to headlights/ tail lights there is a much greater risk of them not seing un-illuminated traffic.

His other point that motorists not seeing other cars leads to mainly fender-benders wheras not seeing bikers and pedestrians leads to serious injuries and deaths.

That some/many bikers/cyclists/pedestrians do stupid things is not at issue, that using DRLs makes them less visible when acting correctly or incorrectly is the issue.

This is already the case at night when nothing can be done about it, introducing similar trends to the daytime hours sounds bad to me.

sliabh

John R wrote:

If DRLs were the norm it would make other road users, cyclists and pedestrians even more so than motorbikes at a great disadvantage.

I think this is a weak argument for not using lights. It's like we should not introduce seatbelts because people could die trapped in their cars in the event of a fire after a crash. There may be some disadvantages to it, but the overall benefit is far greater.

And personally I don't think it would make that much differennce to the safety of cyclists, pedestrians or bikers. Drivers will still keep an eye out for other hazards and risks in the road environment.

Tenshot

egan007 wrote:

Also - does anyone know what the headlight adjuster dial is in your car?
I know only some cars have them - BUT USE THEM - if you do
You can point your dipped headlights at the ground during the day

If you are carrying something heavy in the boot, then the back of the car goes down and brings the front of the car up. This can turn your dips into not-so-dipped lights, and make them dazzle oncoming traffic.

The dial allows you to compensate for this. Generally, you shouldn't need to adjust it during normal driving.

On the subject of DRL becoming the norm, I don't see this having any negative effect on bikes that are also running with their lights on (day or night). Bikes running without lights at all may be at slightly increased risk, but that's all the more reason for them to use lights! (And don't get me started on cyclists who insist on riding at night with no visible lights whatsoever, assuming the street lighting will be adequate for a car to see them.)

As an aside, I often mistake a distant car for a bike at night if only one of its headlights is working. This can be pretty dangerous, since it's hard to tell if you're looking at the left or right headlight (and hence how far into the centre of the road the car is positioned).

John R

sliabh wrote:

I think this is a weak argument for not using lights. It's like we should not introduce seatbelts because people could die trapped in their cars in the event of a fire after a crash. There may be some disadvantages to it, but the overall benefit is far greater.

And personally I don't think it would make that much differennce to the safety of cyclists, pedestrians or bikers. Drivers will still keep an eye out for other hazards and risks in the road environment.

It is nothing like the seatbelt issue at all.

Either daytime lights make no difference, in which case why use them at all. Or they do help cars become more visible so other road users without bright lights have to be less visible in comparison.

The situation is already that bikes and pedestrians are already half-ignored by a certain amount of drivers, this will only make it worse.

Not that much difference for a pedestrian or cyclist can mean the difference between staying upright or being mowed down by some half-blind biddy or an overstressed van driver with mobile in one hand, map on dash or dozy school run mum trying to placate the little tyrants in the backseat while negotiating a 4 ton farm vehicle into a parking space.

Anyone who regularly drives at night knows the danger of unlit bicycles or daft pedestrians stumbling across streets who are all but invisible in a sea of headlights, once daytime headlights become the norm it will be all to easy for drivers to miss non-lighted dangers.

The simple logic is that if lights are a real benefit then unlighted road users have to be less visible and when these are the smaller and easier to miss users it will be a bigger problem.


Also, considering the Irish motorists complete inability to use lights properly. Half the cars will be going round with fog lights front and rear on all the time and a small amount will merrily drive with full lights on all the time as well.

John R

Tenshot wrote:

On the subject of DRL becoming the norm, I don't see this having any negative effect on bikes that are also running with their lights on (day or night). Bikes running without lights at all may be at slightly increased risk, but that's all the more reason for them to use lights! (And don't get me started on cyclists who insist on riding at night with no visible lights whatsoever, assuming the street lighting will be adequate for a car to see them.)

Any cyclist will tell you that lights are just an extra hassle, they generally need to be taken off and carried around to prevent theft. Also there is no way they can be compete with car lights for brightness.

There is no excuse for the suicidal muppets who ride without them at night but forcing them to be used in daylight is just stupid.

unkel

Borzoi wrote:

Osram, the bulb makers, put it at less than 1%

They would now, wouldn't they

And they're not lying...

sliabh wrote:

I was surprised to see the comment that headlight usage reduced efficiency by 3%. I would like to see data to back that one up

...they're economical with the truth. The dipped lights in Sweden use special "attention" bulbs which are 18W

Our bulbs are about 55W and same voltage. (55/18) * 1% = 3%

I wouldn't mind spending 3% more on fuel, but let's not forget the bigger picture here. In the Netherlands alone for example the extra fuel would amount to a third of a BILLION liters of fuel used annually

Also the battery is more heavily used and will need to be replaced sooner. Same for the bulbs. The vast majority of time travelled in cars is during daylight hours. Bulb life would decrease from about 5 years to 1 year ballpark. As we saw in another recent thread here, bulbs are sometimes not immediately replaced when faulty, leading to dangereous situations

Not to forget people that leave the lights switched on when switching off the engine. Some cars warn you, some don't. You might notice at night, but not so easily during the day. To make the change properly, you'd need to alter the electrics to have the dimmed lights come on automatically when the engine starts and switch off when the engine stops

My best mate has had this done for all the cars he has owned. He swears by 24/7 lights and he has only owned FIATs and Alfas with their less than perfect electrical systems

We agree to disagree on this matter

FX Meister wrote:

I always have my dips on during the day, it just makes it easier to spot other cars

YOU (with dips) can see OTHERS (no lights) better in broad daylight?

Personally I feel that IF by leaving them off during the day and only switching them on when legally required for motorists and lights on 24/7 for motorcyclists would lead to more material damage to cars and less injuries / deaths to motorcyclists, I'd rather leave them switched off

mike65 wrote:

Daylight running lights should be law

John R wrote:

A bit arrogant there aren't we? I hadn't realised god had spoken on the issue.

If every poster (myself included) that passed opinion for fact should end his post with "imho" it would be boring imho