Whatsnew | DaDRL UK - The Association of Drivers against Daytime Running Lights

September 2010
Impaired Perception in Driving and Sports by Prof. Peter Heilig graphically demonstrates why the neuro-physiological effects of DRL and HID Xenon lights can contribute to accidents.
This article published last month in the Austrian Police magazine "Rundschau Polizei Sport" provides the expert medical and ophthalmological evidence we need to send to politicians, lawmakers and auto manufacturers advising that they could be held legally liable for any a accident where blinding by DRL or HID Xenon vehicle lights are cited as a factor. We have sent a copy to Transport Minister Norman Baker appealing him to prevent the EU DRL law being implemented in February 2011.
If the Austrian Parliament can ban DRL on 01 January 2008 in defiance of the EU then surely the UK Government can follow suit.
To give more impetus to our appeal, please send a copy to your MP asking them to annul the laws that permit auto manufacturers to use dangerous blinding DRL and HID Xenon lights.

February 2010
The United Kingdom Independence Party have proposed an eminently sensible Transport Policy which supports a Thames Estuary Airport
and firmly opposes Daytime Running Lights - see www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1430-transport-ukip-policy

January 2010
Ireland's Road Safety Authority proposing to introduce DRL - see DaDRL response to Irelands DRL consultation
Also see this excellent submission by Write to Ride's Dr. Elaine Hardy and Trevor Baird http://www.writetoride.co.uk/drlresponsersarighttoridejan2010.pdf
This well researched document indicates that there is little difference in accidents between DRL using Sweden and the UK and Ireland's proposals for DRL will affect vulnerable road users

November 2009

EU: All 736 MEP's lobbied to annul the Dangerous DRL law.

UK: DaDRL join forces with Ken Perham a London Taxi Driver to campaign against night-time headlight glare particularly from Xenon High Intensity Discharge Lights

Blog http://blindinglightsetc.blogspot.com/

Web www.blindedbixenon.co.uk

June 2009

Poland: Report from DADRL Poland indicates an 6% increase in fatalities since DRL were introduced 17 April 2007:

May 2009

Bulgaria: This report from DADRL Bulgaria indicates an 8.1% increase in fatalities since DRL were introduced for only 33% of the time from November 2006:-

Subject: Bulgarian parliament is about to vote mandatory lights on

Hi Drivers against Daytime Running Lights!

As you know, since 2006 we are ought always to have switched on headlights from 1st November to 1st March (4 months per year).

Parking lights are not allowed, they are not recognized as daytime running lights. (For example, I've got a fine for using parking lights instead of my too-bright too-much-energy-consuming full-power low-beam head lights).

Here are the number of "saved lives" by this stupid law:

2002 – 959 dead

2003 – 960 dead

2004 – 943 dead

2005 – 957 dead

2006 – 1043 dead (mandatory low-beam head-lights on)

2007 – 1006 dead (mandatory low-beam head-lights on)

2008 – 1059 dead (mandatory low-beam head-lights on)

Now, the bad news:

Bulgarian parliament is about to pass a low to mandate lights on all the time, 365/7/24.

There is no specification about the maximum levels of brightness and the idiots who for the sake of "be seen" use their high-beams on full power and their fog-lights during the daytime will continue doing their arrogance.

There is no specification about what is a daytime running light and what is not. Everything which is not Audi LED DRL is considered as a light not bright enough as low-beam, therefore is a violation of the law.

After mandatory lights what's next? All time running horn?!

DaDRL - Bulgaria

dadrl.hit.bg

July 2008

Austria: since Daytime Running Lights were banned on 1 January 2008, less accidents for road users have been reported:

minus 5% fatalities

minus 25% biker-accidents

Weniger Verkehrsunfälle

Die Zahl der Unfälle, Verletzten und getöteten Verkehrsteilnehmer auf Österreichs Straßen war in den ersten neuen Monaten des Jahres 2006

geringer als im selben Zeitraum des Vorjahres. Die Statistik Austria verzeichnete um vier Prozent weniger Verkehrsunfälle (29.274) und um drei Prozent weniger Verletzte (38.130).

533 Verkehrsteilnehmer wurden getötet, das entspricht einem Minus von cht Prozent.

Den höchsten Rückgang meldete die oberösterreichische Polizei: 700 Unfälle und 900 Verletzte weniger wurden registriert. Auch im Burgenland, der Steiermark und Wien ging die Anzahl der Unfälle im Straßenverkehr zurück.

June 2008

Despite representations to the European Commission Transport Commissioner from DaDRL UK, DaDRL USA, European Pedestrians, Cyclists and Motorcyclist Organisations the European Industry Commissioner has mandated Daytime Lights.

The UNECE WP29 committee have also ignored our representations and increased the light intensity from 400cd to 800cd and finally in June 2007 to a dazzling 1,200cd.

DaDRL make the perpetrators of dangerous DRL legally liable for their actions
see letters to Guenter Verheugen Vice President of the European Commission and Marcin Gorzkowski Chairman of UNECE WP29 Lighting Committee also the academic reports used to justify DRL have been discredited - see DRL Studies

December 2007

Austrian Parliament winds up 2007 session

Vienna. The Austrian parliament on Thursday held its final plenary session of the year.

On Wednesday 12 December 2007 formal approval was given to a wide range of legislation. The bills included ….

“an end to the required use of headlights during daylight hours”

www.wienerzeitung.at/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4082&Alias=wzo&cob=315900&currentpage=2 and http://ws4.orf.at/newspool/84383

November 2007

EC Drop headlight dipped beam Daytime Running Lights FEMA press release
The European Commission (EC) has decided not to call for the use of daytime dipped-beam headlights in Europe. This means that the point of view of motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users has finally been taken into account.

As announced by Mr. Zoltan Kazatsay, Deputy Director General of the DG TREN during the 4th ACEM Annual Conference held on Tuesday 20 November 2007, the EC proposal to harmonise the use of daytime dipped-beam headlights in Europe has been abandoned. High Intensity Discharge headlights cause chromatic aberration - see Health effects of Daytime Running Lights (Health) Sign the new Prime Minister's petition to prevent misuse of headlights at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dopey-dazzlers

October 2007

Ten years on - another request to Volvo Cars UK to stop importing cars with dangerous daytime headlights due to increased accidents to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists in Austria and Bulgaria
DaDRL request to Volvo to desist 12 Sept 2007 Volvo refusal 21 Sept DaDRL DaDRL issue of facts and figures 02 Oct 2007

September 2007

9/11/2007 - a bad day for proponents of Daytime Lights - their arguments collapse
The Austrian Transport and Interior Ministers to request Parliament to ban daytime running lights Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT)
"Lights on the day" will soon be history :

Transport minister Werner Faymann and Minister of the Interior Gunther Platter announced on Tuesday 11 September 2007 their intention to place an appropriate request before parliament. For the resolution a study, which certifies "light on the day" in bright sunshine has a diverting effect, is responsible.

Press Articles:         Voralberg Online          Kurier        Austrian Press

AUSTRIA 2007 Statistics increase in accidents since the introduction of Daytime Running Lights:

Key                          The chart side bars are Austrian states

Tote = deaths

Verletzte = injuries

Unfalle = accidents

The overall increase in accidents for Austria due to DRL is +12.2% (OST = Osteriech)

24,850 injured +11%,

324 subjects died +17%

Note the disproportionate increase to vulnerable road users since the introduction of DRL:

Children +13%

Cyclists 2,814 accidents + 43 %

Motorcyclists 1,400 accidents + 46%   fatalities + 51%

.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent: 18 September 2007 01:49
To: DADRL
From DADRL Poland
Subject: Another bloody set of numbers from Europe

Hello ,

I have another set of numbers from www.Interia.pl (based on FIA report) They introduce the statistics for victims of death for car accidents on European roads (first six months of this year), mainly for those countries require DRL.

SPAIN - decreased number of death bringing accidents down by 13%! No DRL required during all year!

>

ITALY - decreased number of accidents by 4,3%. DRL are required only outside of the cities. But Italy's got a lot of multi-lane freeways. On

these roads head-on accidents can't happen. I don't have to mention that Italians always have beautiful weather (I've been there twice). (editors note: Italy may ban DRL due to Austria's DRL ban)

>

DENMARK and FINLAND - a tragedy! 40% (!!!) more dead people on the roads this year. DRL are mandatory for many years. So you can imagine how many people have lost their lives in these

countries due to daytime the headlights - not only in 2007.

>

SWEDEN - increased number of tragic accidents by 7,3%. Sweden does not even need a comment.

>

POLAND - according to FIA 17,4% more dead people on the roads this year. I have exposed the situation in Poland so I don't have to comment this case. (http://bezswiatel.ath.cx/ )

>

CZECH REPUBLIC - since Summer 2006 DRL are required the all year 24/7. Increased number of deaths on the roads almost just like in Poland by 17% !

>

SLOVENIA - DRL are required outside of the towns like in Italy. Increased number of accidents by 12%.

>

I heard that DRL WILL BE required in Germany Summer 2008!

What the heck is wrong with these people?

Have they completely lost their minds?

>

Rafal

August 2007

Vulnerability and Risk Emergence in Complex Traffic Scenarios by University Professor Peter Heilig

Disturbance of the equilibrium of the smooth flow in complex traffic scenarios can be compared with some rather thoughtless human eco-system-interactions in the past. Minor changes may provoke catastrophes and sequences of undesired irreversible failures ('global dimming', climate change, etc.).

'Natural' brightness distribution within visual fields being just one of some prerequisites for the driver's optimized sight, attention and perception. Any accentuation or 'over'-accentuation of stimuli would cause unequal distribution of attention. Consequently some 'accentuated' traffic-relevant objects' Daytime Running Lights (DRL) catching more attention than the less conspicuous objects or 'weaker' traffic participants are creating interference factors thereby disturbing a delicately balanced vulnerable stability. The occurrence of traffic-accidents is probably not reflecting the true potential of induced hazard. 'Near misses' and the avoidance of crashes by preventive driver-reactions just in time may falsify the attempts of expert-evaluations and analysis.

The signalling effect of DRL functioning as distracter is only one factor causing imbalance and a kind of non-equilibrium. Side impact- and rear end crashes are indicating the effect of 'imbalance of attention' by accentuating the front of vehicles exclusively (in some countries).

All past attempts to increase the conspicuity of pedestrians and cyclists have failed.

Reflecting materials appear to be ineffective in connection with DRL. The illumination of bicycles suffers from systematic misconception: With decreasing daylight intensity, front and rear vehicle lights attract the attention of other traffic participants; however cyclists are hard to observe and to detect against a darkening background. The average bicycle illumination does not protect at all against the risk of (fatal) side impacts.

Deaths in mixed traffic are avoidable: blinding glare caused by the bluish High Intensity Discharge (HID) headlights can be observed with increasing frequency since the introduction of the experiment (Licht am Tag) in Austria. Additionally headlight misalignment and road undulations cause momentary dazzle.

Usually more factors than one are multiplied before the catastrophe of a traffic accident: sometimes a harmless (probably superfluous) traffic sign could be just one distraction too much and provokes cognition failures (overload of the visual short term memory).

July 2007

The Times 29 July 2007

'Sign crime’ revolt hits councils Road clutter is now safety hazard' - comment DRL is also visual clutter

Motoring Telegraph June 30 2007

"Deaths of child pedestrians in Britain rose by 13 per cent last year and child pedal cyclists by 55 per cent, according to the Department for Transport's national statistics on road casualties. The increase was denounced as "disastrous" by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents."

This is what RoSPA said about DRL in February 2007:

“RoSPA’s view is that if cars are fitted with Daytime Running Lights, then there is much concern that the conspicuity of other road users without DRL will suffer. The risk is that when drivers are making observations and looking out for other road users, that drivers will search for the DRL on other vehicles rather than surveying the whole scene and spotting vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians.

“This is a serious concern as research has shown that ‘looked but failing to see’ errors contribute to 23 per cent of unimpaired drivers’ accidents during daylight, and a more recent report identified that 32 per cent of all accidents were caused when road users ‘failed to look properly’. Cyclists are at a risk of suffering a serious injury if hit by a car and so being spotted by other road users is important to a cyclist’s safety.

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

‘looked but failing to see’ some differentiation by University Professor Peter Heilig :

Overlooking' a 'traffic relevant object' (TRO) being less conspicuous than Daytime Running Lights (DRL) caused by:-

1) DISTRACTERS: moving light stimuli in the peripheral parts of visual fields are catching drivers' attention - provoking eye movements -'failing to see'.

2) CONSPICUITY: less conspicuous TRO's may become sub threshold stimuli for the visual system because of reduced 'signal to noise ratio' compared to accentuated or 'over-accentuated' TRO's (DRL) - again -'failing to see'.

3) PERCEPTION and RECOGNITION: 'Overload' of visual short term memory (VSTM) and disturbance of cognitive processes within visual pathways and visual centres may cause peculiar phenomena*: The image of an especially vulnerable TRO (child at pedestrian crossing) appears focussed and 'crystal-clear' (with sufficient contrast) at retinal level, the visual signal travelling undisturbed along visual pathways, though the visual memory disappeared virtually because of capacity (VSTM) and other functional deficits (cognitive processes) caused by overload (DRL) 'seeing but not perceiving, recognizing' (seemingly 'empty pedestrian crossing').

4) GLARE: Headlights, misaligned or not can cause retinal adaptation problems, prolonged retinal recovery time (following light 'stress' - 'Macula Stress Test'), especially in elderly or old drivers - worst case scenario: 'Disability Glare'.

5) GIST of the scene: Complex highly dynamic traffic scenarios require subtle and sophisticated analysis within very short periods of time and adequate reactions without delays. 'Overaccentuated spots' (DRL) within the (360°) field of required constant attention and alertness cause irritation, deficits and disturbance of the extremely vulnerable equilibrium. Higher complexity: 'Failed to see, to perceive, to recognize, to pay attention, outside the borders of he visual field, sub threshold stimulus, ..'

*Inattentional Blindness, Sustained Inattentional Blindness, Change Blindness, Motion Induced Blindness (Michael Bach's Computer Simulation), Repetitive Blindness etc. (Result of electrophysiological and magnetic resonance (MRI) examinations in the fields of sensory physiology, cognition psychology and brain research demonstrate and prove these functional dysfunctions)

Professor Peter Heilig University of Vienna 11 July 2007

--------

Resumé: In analogy to Clinical Studies (FDA) results* like the ones described above (and prognosticated) should cause immediate cessation of 'experiments' like DRL in Europe (and worldwide). Continuation of DRL (in spite of better knowledge) appears to be worse than the 'Omission of the Obligation of Protection' becoming more and more a topic of interest in law and jurisdiction.

*in a number of European countries

June 2007

The Austrian Ophthalmologic Society bans daytime running lights - English German Accentuating one group of 'traffic-relevant objects' makes all the other objects less conspicuous - worst case - they might turn into sub-threshold stimuli hence escaping attention - to be overlooked .....

May 2007
Road-safety figures The Times 11 May 2007 Figures for road deaths were almost unchanged last year. There were 3,150 deaths in 2006, down by 1.6 per cent on the previous year, according to figures published by the Department for Transport. Deaths and serious injuries among cyclists rose to 2,420, the highest for four years.

Extract of a message from DaDRL Bulgaria http://dadrl.hit.bg

January 2007 was the bloodiest one here in Bulgaria over past 10 years! - since mandatory DRL law November 2006.

There is no evidence, that DRL has increased safety on our roads.

Bulgarian fatalities since 1990:

Data from the Bulgarian Commission of Road Safety, published at the Police's press center since the introduction of DRL:

Extract from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) “Care on the Road” newsletter February 2007

“RoSPA’s view is that if cars are fitted with Daytime Running Lights, then there is much concern that the conspicuity of other road users without DRL will suffer. The risk is that when drivers are making observations and looking out for other road users, that drivers will search for the DRL on other vehicles rather than surveying the whole scene and spotting vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians.

“This is a serious concern as research has shown that ‘looked but failing to see’ errors contribute to 23 per cent of unimpaired drivers’ accidents during daylight, and a more recent report identified that 32 per cent of all accidents were caused when road users ‘failed to look properly’. Cyclists are at a risk of suffering a serious injury if hit by a car and so being spotted by other road users is important to a cyclist’s safety.

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

November 2006 Notable responses to the EC consultation paper which debunk the EC case for Daytime Running Lights:
FEPA Federation of European Pedestrians Associations - dangers to Pedestrians

CTC Cyclists Touring Club - dangers to Cyclists

ECF European Cyclists Federation and ETRA European Twowheel Retailers Association - dangers to Cyclists and Motorcyclists

Motorcycle Action Group UK - dangers to Motorcyclists - "countries that use DRL = NO benefit"

FEMA Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations - dangers to Motorcyclists

DaDRL UK Drivers against Daytime Running Lights UK - Why the EC proposal of mandatory motorcar daytime running lights is wrong

DaDRL USA Drivers against Daytime Running Lights USA - Flawed study methodology

National Motorists Association USA "any person, vehicle, animal, or object without DRL becomes less conspicuous"

Medical Evidence against Daytime Running Lights - reduced hazard perception - "change blindness"

UK Government Department for Transport - summary of submission to EC against DRL

October 2006
Safe Speed: Brussels plan threatens British lives

The Times Friday, 13 Oct 2006
The Times today reports that Roads Minister Ladyman is 'losing the battle' to prevent EU meddlers from imposing 'daytime running lights' on all motorised vehicles across Europe - including the UK.
Safe Speed believes that daytime running lights would increase the dangers experienced by vulnerable road user groups.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "It is completely obvious to us that making motorised vehicles more visible also makes pedestrians, cyclists and motorbike users relatively - and dangerously - less visible."
"I am certain that adoption of this rule would increase casualties amongst pedestrians, cyclists and motorbike users. We must not allow Eurocrats to have such effects on British citizens."
"EU harmonisation may be a good idea - but NEVER at the expense of British lives."
"We must not trust Brussels with our road safety policy - we must do whatever it takes to protect British road users."

Notes for editors
=================
The Safe Speed campaign provides free web space to the UK branch of 'Drivers Against Daytime Running Lights (DADRL) and has done for many years.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2401786,00.html

About Safe Speed
================
The Safe Speed road safety campaign is primarily the work of engineer-turned road safety analyst Paul Smith.
Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 51, an advanced motorist and road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience, has carried out over 10,000 hours working on the campaign with well over 5,000 of those hours researching the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety. In addition to those 10,000 hours, Paul has funded to campaign to the tune of £10,000.
1

0/19/2006

To whom it may concern,

My name is Harry Jennings and I am a police officer in IL. I have been a police officer since '98 and I am one of the most highly trained officers in my area.

I would like to take a minute to express my professional opinion on daytime running lights. They are a distraction to many drivers and affect glare.

There is no benefit to DRL. They only add to the expense of the vehicle and create yet another maintenance issue.

Please, reject any DRL requirement and allow the marketplace to decide if such devices are worth the price.

Sincerely,

Harry Jennings

DaDRL welcomes on behalf of it’s motorcar driving members the announcement by M. Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the EC to the official Belgian Press Agency, Belga on Thursday 5 October 2006 that full power dipped headlights are not to be used

September 2006
DaDRL UK issue a response to the EC Consultation Paper titled:

Why the European Commission's proposal of mandatory motorcar daytime running lights is wrong (full 28 page) (short 5 page version)

This has been submitted to the EC Directorate General for Energy and Transport and prominent members of the European Parliament and Committee on Transport & Tourism with the covering letter:

We thought that you might be interested in our response to the commission’s Consultation Paper and enclose a statement of position and short facts.

On the basis of flawed methodology, the Commission claim that daytime lights can save lives yet Jacques Barrot cannot produce (DaDRL request 31 March 2005) any concrete evidence of actual reductions in accidents in the countries the already using daytime lights. When introduced into the USA accidents increased.

We believe they are a marketing gimmick with one group of drivers cocooned in airbag cushioned impact resistant metal boxes trying to gain pecuniary advantage over pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.

Besides polluting the environment, daytime lights increase the danger to vulnerable less conspicuous road users, thus DaDRL are opposed to their introduction. If the Commission really wanted to improve European road safety, why don’t they encourage all drivers to have regular eyesight and advanced driving tests?

We hope that you will consider our submission and form you own opinion on the validity of daytime lights.

Yours sincerely, Roy Milnes DaDRL UK

US Quarto format: Why the European Commission's proposal of mandatory motorcar daytime running lights is wrong (full 28 page US) (short 5 page version US)

This posting from an American NHTSA website in 2000 sums up what many feel about Daytime Running Lights:

8/13/00 5:58:58 PM

Colonel William Dumar Dumar

Police/Enforcement Agency
As a veteran and a long career in law enforcement I would like to draw your attention to a peculiar irony in the use of drls. As a way of extracting information from enemies and criminals we used to put people in a bright room and then shine a harsh light on them! And that was the most effective technique we could find to cause the most discomfort in a person, in effect it was torture. The reason it worked so well is that bright glare increases stress level, produces intense discomfort, and is in fact unbearable for any length of time. The technique is now considered inhumane and is no longer allowed. The effect of daytime running lights on a driver is the exact same thing. You have turned the American roadways into a torture chamber where the driver is forced to endure glaring lights in front and behind him with no way to escape. I think we are now beginning to see the effects of this as I read these comments. Every year it seems their are more and more cars with drls and they seem to be getting even harsher and brighter. I would strongly urge whoever is making the rules here to put an immediate end to the use of all daytime running lights.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/driver-distraction/Topics013660998.htm#A998

August 2006
The European Commission launch a Consultation Paper titled Saving Lives with Daytime Running Lights (DRL) inviting responses to tren-e3-consultation@cec.eu.int by 17 November 2006. The EC undertake to publish all comments and hold a meeting.

As August tends to be the low news silly season, to demonstrate what little regard a DRL user has for vulnerable road users we sometimes get abusive messages like this one from Grahame Hunt who runs the Volvo Club Queensland Australia:

From: Grahame Hunt [mailto:hghunt@onthenet.com.au]

Sent: 07 August 2006 23:46

To: 'dadrl'

Subject: RE: Volvo Cars A danger at any speed

You are just a pack of ratbags. Please keep your stupidity to yourselves.

July 2006
USA Motorcyclists Deaths increase

To combat this the USA's NHTSA has set up funding for a solution see http://dms.dot.gov/search enter 23700 also see docket 4124 for over 800 complaints about DRL

June 2006
Cyclists Deaths rise by 10% in 2005 and 18% in 2004 - Times 30 June 2006

"Cycling was the only mode of transport with an increase in deaths up 10% to 148 in 2005 from 134 in 2004 which increased by 18% from 114 on 2003" see cyclists

May 2006
Yamaha has developed a new phosphorescent coating to make vehicles more visible in the dark

A thin, even layer of the glow-in-the-dark film is applied to bumpers, engine covers and cowlings. Like the phosphorescent materials used on watch dials, the polymer in the film absorbs sunlight and then releases the energy slowly at night to produce a soft glow.
The aim is to make small, vulnerable vehicles safer to drive in low-light conditions and the technology is due to be launched on Yamaha’s ECO2 Electric Scooter. Cost will be around $2,000 US approx £1,100.
If Yamaha can use this film on a relatively inexpensive scooter if Volvo were really concerned about safety why are they not using it? see solution

April 2006

Change blindness

Any 'overaccentuation' ie. DRL in a visual field (especially moving bright stimuli) are attracting attention.

The eye is forced to fixate these objects thereby distracting attention from less prominent objects.

No 'scientific' study will be able to disprove these facts. Change blindness, inattentional blindness even inattentional amnesia, crowding phenomena, multitask problems, interference of too many inputs worsen the situation additionally.

Univ.Prof. Dr. Peter Heilig (see Health)

U.S. Traffic Deaths Reach 15-Year High

Date posted: 04-22-2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said U.S. traffic deaths rose 1.3 percent last year, despite record-high seatbelt use, while motorcycle fatalities increased for the eighth consecutive year, this time by 8 percent.
It's strange then that DRL have had no benefits.

March 2006 Burning headlamps during the daytime can be expensive - bulb change costs of £120 are quoted for VW/Audi cars - other popular new designs also have a high cost.

February 2006

Sunday Times: "In 2004, the latest year for which figures are available, 134 cyclists were killed on Britain’s roads, a rise of 18% on the previous year" (cyclists)

Vienna: In Austria not only DRLs are being in use recently but also dipped headlights are causing glare, discomfort and probably driving disability for short periods in elderly drivers (Macula-Stress-Test). DRL "Change Blindness" linked to pedestrian death (pedestrians)

December 2005

Comment received from a driver:

> Running lights over which I had no control almost got me killed once.

> I despise them for that and for the distracting glare they present to my eyes and brain.

> I am in the process of learning how to disable DRL's on my car now. Thanks for your work.

November 2005

The EU Energy Commissioner agrees decisions on intensity of dedicated DRL need further consideration (EU Energy Commissioner letters) and DaDRL response 30 Nov 05

A positive response from UK Government. The Dft are sceptical about the benefits of DRL and aim to ensure that glare and energy use are minimised (Response from Dft 10 Nov 05)

Letter to Margaret Beckett about environmental pollution from DRL affecting UK's target of 20% CO2 saving by 2010 and a letter to Dft Road and Vehicle Safety Division asking for renewed action to ban DRL (letter to DTLR and Beckett 02 Nov 2005)

October 2005

The Sunday Times Driving Magazine publish a much shortened letter from DaDRL:

DARK MATTERS: There is united opposition to daytime headlights from UK and EU pedestrians, ramblers, cyclists, motorcyclists and driver organisations. Increased safety is not achieved by lighting a car up like a Christmas tree, putting vulnerable road users at risk.

The EC are unable to provide any real world accident reduction statistics (letter to EU vice president 31 March 2005)

Letter to Osram GMBH CEO re dangers of Light@day product

August 2005

New Scientist have published an article Turned off by Daytime Driving Lights well written and researched by Caroline Williams. It looks at both sides of the argument.

The publicity was beneficial, it has generated more DaDRL supporters, a good letter was sent by Mr. B.W.B. and the comment received below is particularly poignant:

"Daytime running lights on anything bigger than a motorcycle are a monument to man's stupidity.

Seeing a Volvo with headlights on in dazzling sunlight confirms my suspicion that the inventor was an idiot,

or so visually challenged that they deserve sympathy and early retirement." - CJC

May 2005

We are pleased and honoured to be able to add these prominent people and organisations to our list of campaign supporters:

The Ramblers Association www.ramblers.org.uk

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals www.rspca.org.uk

Philips Automotive Lighting announce a newly regulated 13 watt lamp for use in dedicated DRL lamps with a maximum of 500cd - see Action Centre / Lighting Manufacturers.

Updated DaDRL website launched.

April 2005

We are pleased and honoured to be able to add these prominent people and organisations to our list of campaign supporters:

ECF European Cyclists' Federation www.ecf.com

Norman Baker Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary see famous Quotes

The Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden are investigating the "Swedish Vision Zero road safety policy" for the DfT. Whilst the overall aims to improve road safety are commendable, DaDRL have responded because even their own graphics depict glare and the masking effect of DRL, Vision Zero being a very apt name.

If you wish, you can view this and comment on Vision Zero including Swedish DRL road safety policy in general at http://www.sei.se/visionzero/

USA:

Overall traffic fatalities in the US increased slightly last year and motorcycle fatalities increased again for the 7th year in a row.

It's been 7 years since the NHTSA opened the 4124 docket for DRL intensity comment.

The National Highway Transport Safety Authority (NHTSA) has denied a petition on docket 19529 for a DRL height exemption on the Toyota Lexus LX470 4x4 due to representations by DaDRL members. Previously the NHTSA has denied a DRL exemption on docket 11041 for the Toyota Celica. Ford still do not normally provide DRL on their vehicles. General Motors vehicle sales are low, their stock price is at a 13 year low with bond ratings just above junk status.

This comment was posted 11 April on docket number 17243:

Please NHTSA, get with the highway safety program that you were hired for and order auto and truckmakers to quit with the daytime headlights.

All day long driving my truck, I can see vehicles WITHOUT headlights MUCH BETTER!! They do NO GOOD to help to be seen.

 But they sure are a distraction and a hazard. Why in the world do trucks and buses need them on for?

As big as they are, you can see them a mile away. That really shows your lack of safety-savvy. I'll go along with the amber running lights,

 but those damn headlights should be off till visibility warrants them on. TQ.

March 2005

DRL: Situation in France. The French Government recommended on 30 October 2004 motorcar drivers nationally in France to use daytime lights outside towns
There is virulent opposition to this dictat: see http://www.ffmc.asso.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=155 and http://www.sang-neuf.fr/pilotage/edition/lanar/FFMC/Zyeucodejour.html

We have heard that the EU commission intend to mandate DRL within the next 18 months.

EU DRL information is at http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/road/roadsafety/equipment/daytimerunninglights/index_en.htm

OSRAM Lighting are actively advising the use of daytime running lights in order to sell more gas guzzling tungsten halogen lamps at http://www.osram.com/products/automotive/lightatday/index.html . We have expressed our concerns to their Chairman Jürgen Radomski and we hope will respond favourably. A similar letter has been sent to Philips Mr. G. J. Kleisterlee President and CEO.

Letters have been sent to Jacques Barrot Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Transport, Andris Piebalgs EU Commissioner for Energy, Prime Minister Anthony Blair, Adrian Burrows DLTR UK, Mr Yoshiji Nogami UK Ambassador of Japan and Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth.

Living Streets – The UK Pedestrians Association and the Federation of European Pedestrians Associations FEPA have kindly agreed to join our

alliance with the motorcyclists groups to combat the spread of DRL.

Critiques of EU reports IR3, IR4 and Final Report have been issued:

Critique of “Daytime Running Lights Final Report by TNO 2004”

This report summarises the flawed and inconsistent methodology used by the EU Commission and its experts to justify dangerous daytime running lights on an unwitting population. By Milnes DADRL UK (57kb pdf 7 pages)

Critique of the Methodology of IR3 How laboratory tests cannot replicate real life situations By Milnes DADRL UK (27kb pdf 2 pages)

The web page DRL Studies has been redesigned to list Pro DRL and anti DRL studied for ease of reference for press and Google.

February 2005

Critiques of EU report IR2 Elvik Daytime running lights “A systematic review of effects on road safety” were issued to DTLR UK, EU Transport Commission and NHTSA USA

Critique of the Methodology of IR2: Daytime Running Lights - How data is misused and duplicated by Hardy MAG (199kb pdf)

Why the method of Elvik et al 2003 is unscientific; its findings unreliable; and its cost-benefit calculation baseless by Prower BMF (149kb pdf)

USA:  The National Highway Transport Safety Authority (NHTSA) have docket number 17243 open for public comment on DRL glare.

To view or submit comments visit http://dms.dot.gov/search and type in docket number: 17243.

A good system of open government except the NHTSA are mysteriously dragging their feet on a ruling.

While it appears that NHTSA has withdrawn the 4124 docket, it's status remains open and people can still post comments to it but 17243 is the later docket.
There is also a ban DRL petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/BANDRLs/petition.html This petition stands at #951

January 2005

The Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations respond to the EU Daytime Running Lights Final Report

FEMA Comments on the Final Report on Daytime Running Lights Perlot 2005 (37kb pdf 2 pages)

USA:

When Motor Manufacturers submit vehicles for the EPA Combined Average Fuel Efficiency tests (or C.A.F.E.) used to determine official fuel consumption, they are not required to use daytime lights.