Introduction |
Expert Ophthalmological
Studies on blinding by DRL and Xenon-HID lamps
|
|
These expert
ophthalmological and neurological documents listed opposite
explain in graphic medical terms why DRL and HID lamps are
dangerous.
Whilst the
flawed DRL studies below claim accident reductions typically
11%,
in reality NO European country can produce evidence that DRL
save lives.
Tragically
DaDRL are collecting evidence that DRL KILL - see charts in
What's New
In mandating DRL
the European Commission and their traffic focussed advisers
have neglected to consider the ophthalmological and
neurological effects of blinding other drivers with High
Intensity Discharge (HID) Xenon headlamps and High Power
laser like LED DRL both of which emit light close to the eye
damaging 370nm UV end of the light spectrum.
To justify their
studies
EU traffic "experts" used slides in a laboratory which
cannot emulate the photon emissions beamed directly into a
driver's eye.
The EU then commissioned meta-analysis (studies of studies)
which compounded their errors to produced the desired
result.
Only the
Japanese Government have carried out real world tests and
they determined that 200cd was an appropriate intensity.
The EU have
mandated 400 - 1,200cd from February 2011 in a futile
attempt to compete with the power of the sun!
In analogy to the
Hippocratic oath some
particularly conscious scientists are swearing a voluntary
oath:
"I promise to
work for a better world, where science and technology are
used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my
education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or
the environment. Throughout my career I will consider the
ethical implications of my work before I take action. While
the demands placed upon me may be great, I sign this
declaration because I recognize that individual
responsibility is the first step on the path to peace."
Heather Stewart
"First, in all my scientific work I will be honest and I
will not do anything which in my view is to the obvious
detriment of the human race. Second, if later I find that my
work is being used in my view to the detriment of the human
race I will endeavour to nullify these developments."
Peter Reineker
DRL and
Xenon-HID light imply a Violation of Protection, offends
against the Equality Principle and violates Article Three*
of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
* Everyone
has the right to life, liberty and personal security
*
|
How Much
Light do we need? P.Heilig Nov 2010
- deutsch
Prof Heilig lucidly explains how vehicle lights affects the
safety of children, adults, the elderly and athletes
|
Safe Cycling P. Heilig Apr 2010 - english
Safe Cycling P. Heilig Apr 2010 - deutsch
Safe Cycling is a good introduction to the problems blinding
Xenon-HID and DRL lights cause vulnerable road users.
|
Impaired Perception - Driving and Sports P. Heilig Aug 2010
- english
Impaired Perception - Driving and Sports P. Heilig Aug 2010
- deutch
Impaired Perception takes a step further explaining how
blinding Xenon-HID and DRL lights cause change blindness,
inattentional blindness, effect on Visual Short Term Memory
and Capacitive Dysfunction
|
Why HID Xenon headlights bother older drivers
British Journal of Ophthalmology 2003
M A Mainster, G T Timberlake, Department of Ophthalmology,
University of Kansas Medical Center,
"Governmental regulations determine which headlights we
encounter. Acceptance or rejection of the current generation
of HID xenon headlights ultimately depends on their record
in traffic and litigation.
|
Can Xenon lights affect vision?
Dr. Edgar Leuenberger, Asian Eye Institute March 2009
|
Retinal Light Damage 2009 Dr. P. Heilig, Dr. Elena Rozanova,
Dr. Jasminka Godnic-Cvar
|
The CHILD and Daytime Running Lights Dr. P.Heilig Oct 2008
|
Light Pollution P. Heilig Sep
2010
- english
|
EPIGUS - Prof. Dr. Ernst Pfleger Sep 2007 Report
on the failed Austrian DRL experiment
|
Monitor
on Psychology - inattentional blindness - Siri Carpenter
|
The Morbid Philosophy of Advertising Dr. P. Heilig Oct 2010
Unrestrained Advertising Dr. P.Heilig Oct 2010 - deutsch
These publications describe how the cumulative effect of
roadside adverts diminish safety
|
|
Disability and Discomfort Glare of Headlamps - english
Locher, J.& Kley, F. (2009).
ISAL 8th International Symposium on Automotive Lighting (38
- 42) Munchen
This paper seeks to justify Xenon headlights - it concludes
in static laboratory conditions that there is minimal
difference between Xenon-HID, LED and normal
Tungsten-Halogen headlights if correctly aligned.
However if mis-aligned discomfort glare is present.
A major failing of this static
laboratory experiment is not
carrying out real-world tests on moving vehicles with
Xenon-HID headlamps - when they traverse legal speed humps
or potholes they temporarily blind drivers.
This is a real concern as the laboratory was Hella's who
make headlights for many vehicles.
|
Glare from oncoming traffic: Headlight properties -Visual
performance and glare – deutsch
Locher, J., Schmidt, S., Isenbort, A., Kley, F.& Stahl, F.
(2008)
Blendung durch Gegenverkehr: Der Einfluss
unterschiedlicher Scheinwerfereigenschaften af die
Sehleistung und das subjektiv empfundene Blendgefühl.
Zeitschrift für Verkehrssicherheit, 54 (1), 10 – 15.
|
|
Countermeasures for the effects of reducing Headlight Glare
AAA Foundation 2001 Mace, Garvey, Porter, Schwab,
Adrian
|
|
|
|
Pro DRL Study
|
Anti DRL Report,
Analysis, Response or Critique
|
|
NHTSA
September 2008 The Effectiveness of Daytime
Running Lights for Passenger Vehicles.
States "No
significant statistically associations" from DRL
#1.
Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#2. Under "Search
Document" enter the following document number:
NHTSA-2008-0153-0004 and then click on Go>> 116
page report
|
Extracts by DADRL indicating that the benefit of Daytime
Lights in the USA is inconclusive
|
SWOV Daytime Running Lights Factsheet
August 2008 - Claims a theoretical 15% reduction
in fatal crashes and 10% reduction in injury crashes.
However real word data show
accidents have increased and DRL are killing vulnerable road
users - see DaDRL critique >>
|
DaDRL UK critique of SWOV Daytime Running Light
Factsheet June 2008 |
|
European Commission August 2006
Saving Lives with Daytime Running Lights (DRL) Consultation
Paper
|
November 2006
FEPA Federation of European Pedestrians Associations
- dangers to Pedestrians
Cyclists Touring Club - Response to EC Consultation Paper
- dangers to Cyclists
ECF European Cyclists Federation and ETRA
European Twowheel Retailers Association
- dangers to Cyclists and Motorcyclists
Motorcycle Action Group UK - Response to the Consultation
Paper Saving Lives with Daytime Running Lights
FEMA Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations
- dangers to
Motorcyclists
National Motorists Association USA - Response to
Consultation Paper - dangers to Motorists
DaDRL USA Drivers against Daytime Running Lights USA
- Flawed study methodology
DaDRL UK Why the European Commission's proposal of mandatory motorcar
daytime running lights is wrong (short )
DaDRL UK Why
the European Commission's proposal of mandatory motorcar
daytime running lights is wrong (full)
Medical Evidence against Daytime Running Lights
- reduced hazard perception - "change
blindness
UK Government Department for Transport -
summary of submission to EC against DRL
|
|
Tessmer 2004 NHTSA
An Assessment of the Crash-Reducing Effectiveness of
Passenger Vehicle Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) for National
Highway Transport Safety Authority USA (NHTSA). This was an
in-house study
NHTSA daytime running lights
|
Comments on Tessmer DRL Study
by Association of Drivers Against Daytime Running Lights USA
- web link
Prower BMF 2004 (a)
How
Tessmer 2004 uses a method of that is inherently biased in
favour of motorcar daytime running lights yet still only
succeeds in making mixed findings that they reduce accidents
(200kb pdf)
|
|
The Association Drivers Against
Daytime Running Lights agrees with these papers and supports
the Japanese government in their quest to use low non
glaring 200cd DRL.
|
Japanese Government position on
DRL
Japan's comment on
TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2001/6/Rev.3
(176kb pdf p15)
Daytime Running Lamp in Japan
1 page comment (11kb pdf)
|
|
Japanese Government: Study on
the Effects of Four-wheeled Vehicles' Daytime Running Lights
on the Improvement of Their Conspicuity and on the
Impairment of Conspicuity of Motorcycles
TRANS WP29 GRE 51 10e
(245kb pdf)
|
|
Japanese Government: Study on
the Effects of the Daytime Running Lights of Four-wheeled
Vehicles on their Discernibility (and on the Impairment of
Conspicuity of Motorcycles)
TRANS WP29 GRE 53 08e
Report No. 2 (163kb pdf)
|
|
|
|
|
EU IR3 Brouwer Janssen TNO + Theeuwes Vrije
Universiteit 2004 (1,135kb 31 pages)
Do other road users suffer from
the presence of cars that have their daytime running lights
on?
|
Milnes DaDRL UK 2005 (a)
Critique of the Methodology of IR3
How laboratory tests cannot
replicate real life situations (27kb pdf 2 pages)
|
|
EU IR1
State of the art with respect to DRL installations Commandeur
2004 (947kb 69
pages)
EU IR4
DRL Implementation Scenarios Commandeur+Mathijssen 2004 (302kb 19 pages)
EU DRL Final Report Deliverable 3 TNO 2004
(240kb 10 pages)
|
Milnes DaDRL UK 2005 (b)
Critique of “Daytime Running Lights Final
Report by TNO 2004”
A summary of the flawed and
inconsistent methodology used by the EU Commission and its
experts to impose dangerous daytime running lights on an
unwitting population. (57kb pdf 7 pages)
Perlot FEMA 2005
Comments on the Final Report on Daytime Running Lights
(37kb pdf 2 pages)
|
|
Wells et al 2004
Susan Wells, Bernadette Mullin, Robyn Norton, John Langley,
Jennie Connor, Roy Lay-Yee, Rod Jackson 'Motorcycle rider
conspicuity and crash related injury: case-control study'
BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.37984.574757.EE (23 January 2004) |
|
|
Cairney & Styles 2003
Peter Cairney and Tanya Styles 'Review of the literature on
daytime running lights (DRL)' Department of Transport and
Regional Services, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, ARRB
Transport Research CR 218 October 2003 |
|
EU IR2 Elvik Christenson Olsen 2003 (2,175kb pdf 124 pages)
Daytime running lights A
systematic review of effects on road safety
|
Hardy MAG 2004
Critique of the Methodology of IR2: Daytime Running Lights -
How data is misused and duplicated (199kb pdf)
Prower BMF 2004 (b)
Why the method of Elvik et al 2003 is
unscientific; its findings unreliable; and its cost-benefit
calculation baseless (149kb pdf)
|
|
General comment on DRL
|
Perlot & Prower 2003
“Review of the evidence for motorcycle and motorcar daytime
lights” (437kb pdf)
|
|
Lassarre 2001 Sylvain Lassarre
'Évaluation de l'expérimentation
des feux de croisement de jour dans les Landes' Rapport de
recherche INRETS Septembre 2001 (from Lavoisier press
€15.24)
|
Prower BMF and Thiollier FFMC 2005
Lassarre 2001 A critical review.
How Lassarre 2001 fails to
demonstrate a plausible dose-response relationship between
the usage rate of motorcar daytime running lights, and the
incidence of fatal accidents, as a result of a campaign in
les Landes (161kb pdf)
|
|
|
|
|
Tessmer 2000 NHTSA
A preliminary assessment of the crash reducing effectiveness
of passenger car daytime running lamps (DRLs) (71kb pdf 34
pages)
for National Highway Transport
Safety Authority USA (NHTSA)
|
Johnson DADRL USA (b)
response to Tessmer 2000 (web link)
Prower BMF 2001 (b)
How NHTSA 2000 fails to overcome the problems of method of
the daytime running light studies (98kb pdf)
|
|
|
Hendtlass 2000
Inquiry into Motorcycle safety in Victoria Australia
- The
Case Against Daytime Running Lights
This report by Dr. Jane
Hendtlass was commissioned by the State of Victoria
Melbourne Australia, found daytime lights for motorcycles
dangerous and advised the Australian Government against
adopting them.
|
|
General Motors 1999
General Motors Daytime Lights
Field Effectiveness Study
|
Johnson DaDRL USA (a)
response to General Motors 1999
This was an in house study by GM
who have a self interest in claiming benefits or they could
loose millions of dollars for choosing the wrong DRL system.
(web link)
|
|
HILDI 1997 Note:
This confidential document was
unofficially shown to a DADRL member.
For a copy apply to
HILDI under the freedom of information act.
(Now merged with USA’s Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety IIHS)
Conveniently, the 2005 HILDI/IIHS
website ignores the existence of this report and recommends
DRL as a benefit.
|
HILDI 1997 Highway Insurance
Loss Data Institute
This report was produced after
the introduction of DRL in the USA during 1995 and 1996 by
General Motors, VW Saab and Volvo. This anti DRL study is
more authoritative than any other report on this page.
Document summary:
Data was collected from 13 major
USA insurers pre DRL and post DRL. HILDI analysed 780,611
pre-DRL and 659,816 post DRL insurance policies and found a
3.7% increase in motor car and SUV injuries after DRL were
introduced, excluding extra injuries to pedestrians,
cyclists and motorcyclists.
|
|
Koornstra et al SWOV (EU) 1997 R97-36
(901kb pdf 179 pages)
The safety effects of daytime
running lights
|
Prower BMF 2001 (a)
How Koornstra et al 1997 only achieved consistent findings
in favour of daytime running lights from their re-analysis
of the Swedish and Norwegian data by the adoption of an
inconsistent methodology. (45kb pdf)
|
|
Bijleveld 1997
|
Prower BMF 2000
Bijleveld 1997: Calculation of odds ratio values for Austria
1976–1995 Note on Graphs
|
|
General comment on DRL
|
Prower BMF 1996
Answers to six points that are frequently put forward in
favour of motorcycle daytime lights
|
|
Elvik 1996 A
meta-analysis of studies concerning the safety effects of
daytime running lights on cars (from Elsevier Press $30.00)
|
Prower BMF 2000 30
Years on – Do Motorcar Daytime Headlights reduce accidents?
(63kb pdf)
|
|
Williams
AF, Farmer CM 1996. 'Comment on Theeuwes and
Riemersma's revisit of daytime running lights' Accid Anal
Prev. 1996 Jul;28(4):541-42 (not available on the internet)
|
Theeuwes, J. & Riemersma, J.B.J 1996
'Comment on Williams and Farmer's claims regarding Day Time
Running Lights' Accident Analysis & Prevention, 28, 799-800
(171kb pdf 2 pages)
|
|
Andersson & Nilsson 1981 'The
effect on accidents of compulsory use of running lights
during daylight in Sweden', Statens Väg- och
Trafik-Institutet (VTI), Linköping, Sweden, Rapport Nr208A,
198 (not available on the internet)
|
Theeuwes J & Riemersma JBJ, 1995
'Daytime running lights as a vehicle collision
countermeasure: The Swedish evidence reconsidered. Accident
Analysis and Prevention 27(5) 633.642 (1,081kb pdf 10 pages)
|
|
NTR 1976 The Nordic Road
Safety Council (Nordisk Trafiksikkerheds Råd NTR)
recommended that Denmark, Norway and Sweden mandate daytime
running lights for motorcars.
|
Lund 1979 conducted
a monitoring study of the effect of the Danish motorcycle
law. But embarrassingly, Lund found as a result of the law a
slight increase, not the expected decrease, of motorcycle
accidents.
|
|
|
|
