Safe Speed Forums

We recently had a lively discussion as to whether it would improve safety if all vehicles were required to use dipped headlights at all times, regardless of conditions or visibility.

This is already a requirement in the Scandinavian countries, but the EU recently decided not to extend the idea across its entire area.

What do you think?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

What data is there to back this up?

I recall seeing a programme once about camouflage. They took a Scorpion tank and parked it on a ridge about half a mile from the camera. Voila, silhouette. Stuck out like a bulldog's nadgers.

They then arranged a rack of lights positioned between the tank and the camera, pointing toward the camera. As they panned back the bloody tank disappeared.

IMHO I don't think headlights make much difference in clear driving conditions. I'll consider any evidence to the contrary though.

My experience is that,. unless forced by law to do so, there will be people in twilight will think it is clever to use no lights. On a narrow bridge (alternate line traffic) I've nearly hit a green cavalier on several occasions in inclement light because he's just come off night duty asnd thinks it's clever to go without lights.

Since you ask what I think...

I think a slight worsening but I aslso think more research is needed. proper research, not research which has it's findings "blinded" by the prospect of future funding (or lack of).



What is needed there is someone to take Mr Numpty Green-Cavalier to one side and point out the error of his ways. Even if it becomes mandatory to have lights on all the time Mr Numpty Green-Cavalier will be able to switch his off because he knows there is nobody around to put him straight.

Of course he may just have a bad memory.

Automatic lights? You still have to have a manual over-ride. There are times they don't come on (bright but foggy) and times you might want to have them switch off (stopped with engine running).

Being part of that "lively debate" my views are well known but I will restate them here.

Since I purchased my Subaru in 2000 I have almost always driven with the headlights permanently turned on (they turn off completely with the ignition).

I noticed an immediate improvement by way of a reduction of people pulling out in front of me (inappropriately). On a couple of occasions the headlights have been off (the car had been in for service and I had not noticed they had been turned off) and could not understand why this started happening again, until I noticed my lights were off.

I'm not saying that people pull out all the time, every day, but I did notice a genuine reduction in the number of times I have needed to brake because a car has pulled out in front of me.

I know there are arguments about other vulnerable road users being missed, pedestrians, horses, cyclists, motor cyclists etc but I have never encountered any issues where I felt those other road users were in jeopardy. Sure, it is possible but I do not believe that the extremely small potential increase in risk to other road users outweighs the benefits to those who have their lights on.

Of course, anyone who does use their lights has an obligation to ensure they are correctly aligned and that they are on low beam as any glare they inflict on other drivers will have a negative effect on both their safety and anyone around them.

I have never found glare to be a problem during the day unless the other vehicles headlights were badly aligned.

I know my opinion is anecdotal but it is backed up by at least two other family members who also drive with their headlights on at all times.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

I hope you feel I have stated the question in a fair and unbiased manner.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Absolutely.

Just because I disagree doesn't mean I am completely one-eyed. I have already taken on board the motorcycle issue and will be much more aware if I see a motorbike near me.

You are never to old to learn ways to improve your driving, both in terms of car control and awareness of the needs of others.

Try these links for my view:

NRMA (Australia)
Michigan State Police

And for the other view:

FEMA

There are many other links I found both for and against but these were reasonable examples.

I have been enlightened by some of the links to the potential dangers of DRL's. As they are actually using the high beam (dimmed) they can definitely cause glare but I have seen very little against low beam headlights being used.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

I believe that compulsory or universal DRLs would make UK road safety significantly worse. The main effects that concern me are:

1) Distraction. A lit vehicle draws attention away from 'something' unlit.
2) Glare and masking. A lit vehicle actually reduces our ability to see other unlit road users.
3) We're talking about starting a 'visibility arms race'.

But during the last stretch of my drive back from the M4 Protest, conditions required dipped headlight yet at least 20% of oncoming cars were not showing them.

On the mostly single carriageway A9, north of Perth, it was raining - often heavily. There was considerable spray from tyres giving that 'mist' effect. Dipped headlights increased the 'visible range' of oncoming vehicles by at least a couple of hundred yards. Oncoming unlit vehilces made overtaking much more difficult.

Time for a public information film:

If you're driving out of town and need your wipers, you need dipped headlights too!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

it should be compulsory for bikes but not for other vehicles. too many pepole would spend half their driving time looking to see if there is a police car behind them or an emergency vehicle. its bad enough having volvos running around with them on.
incidentally, why is it that volvo have lights on but not saab? they are both made in the same country arent they?

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

'Cos Saab are better cars!

i dont know about the cars but their trucks are in my top 3. then again, so are volvo

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Now this could (note: not saying should) be done. I'll have to check the manual again but I believe the headlights (in auto mode) come on when the wipers are active.

Twighlight is often subjective and can often appear darker heading in one direction than another.

The question was about dipped headlights and not DRLs. DRLs use the high beam with a reduced voltage and so they are directed in such a way as to glare oncoming traffic. Dipped headlights are directed towards the road and are very unlikely to cause glare during daylight.

I also oppose DRLs.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

A DRL is simply some form of lighting that is always on while the car is running.

DRLs can be either always-on dipped headlights (as on Volvos sold in the UK) or some other form of lighting.

Some US manufacturers use reduced voltage high-beam lights, which I agree is a daft idea adopted purely for cost saving. I think others have dedicated DRL bulbs.

If some form of DRLs were to be made compulsory I would prefer them to have much less intensity than dipped headlights, something like the dim-dip lights that used to be required on UK market cars but were banned by the EU.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

My mistake. Everthing I read when I googled talked about the use of the high beam globe on reduced voltage and I saw nothing about using low beam.

For clarity: I oppose the use of any form of lighting that could cause an oncoming motorist to endure glare. IMO low beam during the day does not cause glare and so I support low beam usage.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

DRLs???

that does annoy me. these idiots think that since they can see, everyone else can see them

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

I personally choose to ride with my lights on, but would object to it being compulsory. There are some examples where it is not a good idea to have your lights on for example:

- when passing horses I always switch my lights out to avoid spooking the horse.

- when riding over speed bumps it can give the illusion that you are flashing people to come out.

If DRLs were compulsory bikers would probably switch theirs off or ride with full beam on.

I would like to make it clear that I would strongly object to making it compulsory to use lights during the day.

I use them because I am in the minority and therefore other drivers notice me sooner than if my lights were off. This gives me a slight advantage over the majority and I like it that way.

As long as my advantage does not genuinely disadvantage others (motorcycles) I see no problem with using them for myself. Note: It is up to pedestrians to choose when it is safe to cross and so I see no disadvantage to pedestrians from using headlights.

Since this poll started I have been taking note of how many other cars drive with lights on and it would probably be as low as 1%. I have taken my sunglasses off to see if the lights cause any glare at all and so far I have not come across a single car, with headlights on , that has generated glare.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Not many Volvos down-under, then?

Any car imported into Australia has to pass Australian Design Rules and if they preclude DRLs then the cars coming in will not have them fitted. If I privately import a car from the UK I would have to make quite a few modifications before it could be registered here.

As I have not noticed DRLs on any volvos I would assume that ADRs do not allow them.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!