Use of headlights in the day.

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

Capt'n Midnight

During WWII they used to camoflague anti-submarines by putting powerful lights on the wings and front of the plane. Lights don't always make you more visible.

If only a few use them then they stand out. Once every one starts using them cars with them don't stand out. I suppose it's a bit like if you were the only person driving a bright orange car. You'd be safer because you stood out. Do New York Taxi's stand out or do they blur in to a sea of sameness ? (not having drive there myself)

The worst part is they distract your attention from other road users who can't compete, cyclists and pedistrians can't generate 50W of electricty continuously (per bulb). (Bicycle dynamo is 3W and bulbs aren't high efficiendcy ones)

And (my pet hate) if the orange paint has worn off those "not for intended purpose" bulbs used in too many indicators, then it is very hard to see the flashing...

alias no.9

unkel wrote:

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

I'll take it your friend found the light switch and turned it to on . He's never needed to do any alterations, Fiat and Alfa are about the only company who've actually got their lights sorted. You can just leave the dipped headlights switched on all the time, when you kill the ignition, the lights go out (except for those follow me home ones). If you want to put the parking lights on, you have to do it intentionally, ie press in a button and turn the key one click further anticlockwise before removing it.

Overall, I'm in favour of DRL's. They will not help you see better but will help other people see you. DRL v's Motorcyclists, I thought they were compulsary for motorcycles already and have been for many years. If motorcyclists are running DRL's, I don't see how they become less visable just because cars run DRL's too? As for pedestrians and cyclists, given how close they would have to be to the driver by day for the driver to miss them, eyesight testing is a more appropriate tool for addressing this risk and yes I do think all road users should have compulsary eye screening every 2 years or so.

Borzoi

unkel wrote:

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

I suppose that's a fuel cost vs lives saved argument

On the second issue Osram claim their bulds designed for DRL have the same overall lifespan as a standard bulb only used at night, for a 'slight' increase in cost so really it shouldn't be an issue.

But I think that maybe like you and your Afla friend, we might agree to disagree

unkel

alias no.9 wrote:

Fiat and Alfa are about the only company who've actually got their lights sorted. You can just leave the dipped headlights switched on all the time, when you kill the ignition, the lights go out

Maybe now, but I'm referring to some fairly old cars here

Borzoi wrote:

Osram claim their bulds designed for DRL have the same overall lifespan as a standard bulb only used at night, for a 'slight' increase in cost so really it shouldn't be an issue.

Their marketing doesn't convince me once again, I suspect further economies with the truth

Borzoi wrote:

I suppose that's a fuel cost vs lives saved argument

As I said I wouldn't mind paying 3% more for fuel if this is a life-saver

My point is that I don't believe it is a life-saver, in Sweden maybe, but not here. Especially not if it would lead to an increase in bikers killed

erin

Wait to see the report that the French authority will issue in 6 months time as since 01/11/04 it is now mandatory in France to drive with your light on during the day- don't forget to switch your lights if you are driving in France or you will get a fine !!!!!

parsi

erin wrote:

Wait to see the report that the French authority will issue in 6 months time as since 01/11/04 it is now mandatory in France to drive with your light on during the day- don't forget to switch your lights if you are driving in France or you will get a fine !!!!!

Hmm.. http://www.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/depliant_feux_jour.pdf
seems to say that it is an experiment for 4 months from 31/10/2004 which will allow the Government to measure the numbers of cars who have responded to the invitation to light up during the day and theereby develop a policy...

edit: Q^ on that faq says "if one really believes that this measure saves lives why not make it obligatory now and not have an experimental phase?"

unkel

Will someone remember to post the conclusion of the French report on this thread in March?

echomadman

magpie wrote:

Erm, yes? Your point being?



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)

I'll bite on this little hook. bitter much there magpie about being stuck in traffic?
Generally its knackers on scooters who drive around with their helmets up on their heads, feel free to knock them down, you'll be doing society a favour.

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.

rofl, i'm eternally pissed off i dont have a camera mounted on my bike to keep a vidoelog of the retarded behaviour of most car drivers, your sweeping generalistions about the behaviour of motorcyclists shows your ignorance of the subject, all we do while driving is try to pre-empt the zany antics of oblivious car drivers.
FWIW i'm in favour of DRL's on cars, I'm more in favour of incredibly stiff penalties for car drivers with only one functional headlight, especially if its the drivers side one thats broken, a car thats halfway over the white line at night like this looks like a motorbike in the middle of the correct lane, I knew one guy that was killed off his bike like this.

Technoi

I find it slightly strange all this mention of using headlights, dips yes. I don't use my full beams ever but then I live in the city. As an argument for using dips during the day time - I drive a car slightly lower than most( nightmare in big carparks) and it happens to be dark metallic grey so unless I drive with my lights on i find that I tend to be invisible to some people who just pull out in front of me. So by my reckoning I am saving myself and other drivers the hassle of near misses.
In response to motor bikes using headlights the point is well taken where they can be confusing however they are invisible at the best of times. A good point in a lot of motor cyclists have taken to wearing hi-vis vests for city biking but I think having their lights on is relevant during the day.
The most important thing really is to be aware of other drivers, people often tell me they drive defensively which is a nonsense, awarness and a touch of courtesy is all that is required!