Would you expect rear lights on with Daylight Running Lights (DRL)?

[Cocijo]

Sometimes it is not a noise that people associate with a car and are surprised by it.
My observations are that pigeons are the worst for leaving it until the last minute! Perhaps programmed for ICE over the Years EV’s take them by surprise! Darwin please note.

 

[rotorhead]

Perhaps you should have a rotating and flashing red light on top of your car so we can all avoid you . You’ve completely misinterpreted and misunderstood the use and purpose of DRL’s.

Really?
I can understand the need for pedestrians to be able to see EVs especially due lack of engine noise, but no rear lights for the drivers that seem to fail to see your vehicle in 'bright conditions'....

 

[Gomev]

It could be my misinterpretation but the number of times pedestrians have been unaware is why I have my doubts.

Or people are just even more stupid than I thought.

There you go I've edited it for you

 

[awbugritt]

As I have already said DRLs are to help pedestrians, they can see an approaching vehicle far better if it has lights on. Trials have shown that DRLs tend to improve the judgement of the speed of an approaching vehicle.

Motorists have to undergo a period of instruction and tests to be able to drive. They must also be medically fit and have a minimum quality of vision, you should be able to see the car in front even without lights in daylight. What "moron" is going to drive into the back of a vehicle in broad daylight even if it has no lights on? Oh!... I forgot, 9 times out of 10 the one not paying attention and probably driving too close.

On the other hand the average pedestrian has no test to pass, no minimum physical ability to meet or a r**dy great steel box around him/her for protection. They are not at risk from cars when they are travelling away from them.

A 'moron' who can't see the back end of a vehicle when bright sunlight is in his eyes particularly in winter when the sun is low

 

[smokie]

A 'moron' who can't see the back end of a vehicle when bright sunlight is in his eyes particularly in winter when the sun is low

That's usually called "driving too fast for the conditions" Does it happen to you often then?

 

[Hairyfool]

A 'moron' who can't see the back end of a vehicle when bright sunlight is in his eyes particularly in winter when the sun is low

Although I have sympathy for the driver in the situation as smokie above intimates that would still be his responsibility to drive within the conditions at the time.

 

[awbugritt]

That's usually called "driving too fast for the conditions" Does it happen to you often then?

No, which is why I managed to survive 126,000 miles in the two and a half years I was a motorcycle courier without an accident.

 

[Rocinante]

There are people on here saying the reason for DRL legislation is related to pedestrian safety, and that is why only the fronts are mandated. I do not believe this to be the case, do you have any corroboration of these statements ?

The Government website, states "Daytime running lights (DRL) are purpose-made, low-wattage lights that can be fitted to a vehicle and used during the day to improve the visibility of a vehicle to other drivers as well as pedestrians, cyclists and other road users." it goes on to say
"Research has shown that DRLs are likely to reduce multiple vehicle daytime accidents and fatalities by up to 6% once all vehicles are equipped. "

Daytime running lights

www.gov.uk

Volvo has had the lights permanently lit on their cars, front and back for probably 40 years, because having lights on during the day reduces the number of accidents.
You can make all the arguments you want, that people should be responsible for their driving and paying appropriate attention, and turning on their lights when appropriate etc. But the simple fact remains that research shows, that lights on, on cars during the day, helps the visibility of cars and reduces accidents, and I can't think of a reason why you wouldn't want them on, so I've no idea why the legislation is as it is.
Why would you not want to reduce the risk of someone running in to the back of you ?

 

[Edoc16]

I'd like to think it makes me more visible and reduce the odds of getting rear-ended.

TBH, I've never really thought about it, just assumed if front lights were warranted, rear lights would be too? I don't think other road users like cyclists make a distinction between front and rear lights on their vehicles.

Oops, sorry - thought you were asking me the question.

If you notice whilst out in the daytime, the vast majority of DRL cars do NOT have their rear lights on until as mentioned before, its dark enough to trigger the auto lights. Why ? me no know ?

 

[Cocijo]

There are people on here saying the reason for DRL legislation is related to pedestrian safety, and that is why only the fronts are mandated. I do not believe this to be the case, do you have any corroboration of these statements ?

The Government website, states "Daytime running lights (DRL) are purpose-made, low-wattage lights that can be fitted to a vehicle and used during the day to improve the visibility of a vehicle to other drivers as well as pedestrians, cyclists and other road users." it goes on to say
"Research has shown that DRLs are likely to reduce multiple vehicle daytime accidents and fatalities by up to 6% once all vehicles are equipped. "

Daytime running lights

www.gov.uk

Volvo has had the lights permanently lit on their cars, front and back for probably 40 years, because having lights on during the day reduces the number of accidents.
You can make all the arguments you want, that people should be responsible for their driving and paying appropriate attention, and turning on their lights when appropriate etc. But the simple fact remains that research shows, that lights on, on cars during the day, helps the visibility of cars and reduces accidents, and I can't think of a reason why you wouldn't want them on, so I've no idea why the legislation is as it is.
Why would you not want to reduce the risk of someone running in to the back of you ?

As you’ve shown on the Gov website DRL’s ARE related to pedestrian safety.. not solely but related. Do you have any supported data/evidence to suggest having rear side lights on all the time improves safety?
All the data seems to relate to front DRL‘s. I’m not against having permanent rear lights. You also mention research that supports the use of rear lamps, can you send a link to this please?

 

[manictomb]

As the new highway code it is the responsibility of the driver when pedestrians or cyclists are around and should drive according to the road conditions and DRLs are an aid with driving and other road users it is the responsibility of the driver and sorry there is a few out there have no idea lol we have to think for all off them

 

[Rocinante]

As you’ve shown on the Gov website DRL’s ARE related to pedestrian safety.. not solely but related. Do you have any supported data/evidence to suggest having rear side lights on all the time improves safety?
All the data seems to relate to front DRL‘s. I’m not against having permanent rear lights. You also mention research that supports the use of rear lamps, can you send a link to this please?

My poor choice of words stating "related to Pedestrian safety". I agree that the measures relate to Pedestrian Safety, and will make vehicles more visible to pedestrians as well as other drivers, but it is principally aimed at other drivers, as per my quotation that you agree with.

HairyFool explicitly stated that the legislation was for pedestrians, which is why they didn't light up the rear. This is not true.

AS the DRLs were intended as pedestrian protection there is not a lot of point in the rear lights coming on as well.

You also seem to believe that they were brought in for Pedestrian Safety, when you state the below, but are less clear as to what you believe the purpose of DRLs. Perhaps you can explain ?

Perhaps you should have a rotating and flashing red light on top of your car so we can all avoid you . You’ve completely misinterpreted and misunderstood the use and purpose of DRL’s.

I do not state that "research supports the use of rear lamps" I do state "having lights on during the day reduces the number of accidents." and "that lights on, on cars during the day, helps the visibility of cars and reduces accidents" which is shown by the research. However, as you point out principally relates to front DRLs. It doesn't seem a far stretch to say that if increased visibility on the front reduces accidents, then increased visibility on the rear help as well, but I do not have access to research to back this up. Volvo seem to agree with this analysis though, as this is how they've set their cars up for 40 years, and Canada have brought in laws for rear lighting as well.

Whether you believe this argument or not, I'm not sure why you would argue against rear DRLs though ? Do you believe their is a negative impact on rear lights ?

 

[Hairyfool]

There are people on here saying the reason for DRL legislation is related to pedestrian safety, and that is why only the fronts are mandated. I do not believe this to be the case, do you have any corroboration of these statements ?

The Government website, states "Daytime running lights (DRL) are purpose-made, low-wattage lights that can be fitted to a vehicle and used during the day to improve the visibility of a vehicle to other drivers as well as pedestrians, cyclists and other road users." it goes on to say
"Research has shown that DRLs are likely to reduce multiple vehicle daytime accidents and fatalities by up to 6% once all vehicles are equipped. "

Daytime running lights

www.gov.uk

Volvo has had the lights permanently lit on their cars, front and back for probably 40 years, because having lights on during the day reduces the number of accidents.
You can make all the arguments you want, that people should be responsible for their driving and paying appropriate attention, and turning on their lights when appropriate etc. But the simple fact remains that research shows, that lights on, on cars during the day, helps the visibility of cars and reduces accidents, and I can't think of a reason why you wouldn't want them on, so I've no idea why the legislation is as it is.
Why would you not want to reduce the risk of someone running in to the back of you ?

I was also driving when they were introduced and can remember a) the criticism of Volvo for implementing them and b) the formal introduction of them on new cars in the UK and at the time the stated purpose was to improve road safety for pedestrians as these were considered to be the greatest risk.

I cannot comment on the written legislation either at the time or now (it could have been amended) as there was no internet then and it was solely from the publicity/motoring journalism that we had the information from.

I can also remember them being introduced on motorbikes as I would drive with dipped beam on during the day as a routine. There was little evidence that it helped reduce the number of "car on bike" incidents with the "I didn't see you" still being the prevalent excuse.

It didn't stop the brain-dead stewardess walk out in front of me over the A23 under Gatwick Airport. The police report was able to confirm that when I dropped the bike onto its side to mitigate damage that the headlight had been on. When somebody suggested that she sue me the handling officer warned that if she did they would charge her with causing an accident. (I doubt that would happen today)

 

[awbugritt]

In one respect as far as motorcycle safety is concerned, I consider it a retrograde step as bikes with headlights on at least stood out more before all vehicles had DRLs. Having said that it isn't proven that riders wearing hi Viz vests makes them any less vulnerable to a collision of the SMIDSY type, so who knows?

 

[Hairyfool]

And there was one thing that was absolutely certain, they were never my b***dy "mate"

 

[awbugritt]

With you there, Hairyfool!

 

[Pwlcarz]

That would be the auto lights that illuminate the rear side lights, so nothing to do with DRLs

No, the rear lights came on at the same time the DRLs illuminated. If it was auto lights function the headlamps would have come on and the info screen darkened to night time illumination. That didn't happen. And I specifically checked.

 

[Edoc16]

I was also driving when they were introduced and can remember a) the criticism of Volvo for implementing them and b) the formal introduction of them on new cars in the UK and at the time the stated purpose was to improve road safety for pedestrians as these were considered to be the greatest risk.

I cannot comment on the written legislation either at the time or now (it could have been amended) as there was no internet then and it was solely from the publicity/motoring journalism that we had the information from.

I can also remember them being introduced on motorbikes as I would drive with dipped beam on during the day as a routine. There was little evidence that it helped reduce the number of "car on bike" incidents with the "I didn't see you" still being the prevalent excuse.

It didn't stop the brain-dead stewardess walk out in front of me over the A23 under Gatwick Airport. The police report was able to confirm that when I dropped the bike onto its side to mitigate damage that the headlight had been on. When somebody suggested that she sue me the handling officer warned that if she did they would charge her with causing an accident. (I doubt that would happen today)

I remember that hairfool you always knew that it was a Volvo coming towards you from a distance then of course other maunfactureres started to copy e.g. Saab...

 

[Rocinante]

I was also driving when they were introduced and can remember a) the criticism of Volvo for implementing them and b) the formal introduction of them on new cars in the UK and at the time the stated purpose was to improve road safety for pedestrians as these were considered to be the greatest risk.

I cannot comment on the written legislation either at the time or now (it could have been amended) as there was no internet then and it was solely from the publicity/motoring journalism that we had the information from.

I can also remember them being introduced on motorbikes as I would drive with dipped beam on during the day as a routine. There was little evidence that it helped reduce the number of "car on bike" incidents with the "I didn't see you" still being the prevalent excuse.

It didn't stop the brain-dead stewardess walk out in front of me over the A23 under Gatwick Airport. The police report was able to confirm that when I dropped the bike onto its side to mitigate damage that the headlight had been on. When somebody suggested that she sue me the handling officer warned that if she did they would charge her with causing an accident. (I doubt that would happen today)

I'm going to sound like an A***e, but here goes anyway.
I'm begging you to please stop posting your misconceptions as fact. It's the principal thing that's wrong with the internet. People post things as fact with absolutely no evidence to back up these 'facts', when quite often they are wrong, and these things then become accepted as fact.
Now, I'm not guaranteeing I'm correct, but I have posted sources that state what you are stating as fact is not true, and have asked you to back up your statements of 'fact'. Instead of doing this you have again posted what you "remembered" as fact, again without any sources.

"In Sweden the use of daytime running lights (DRL) was made mandatory on 1 October 1977 for all motor vehicles at once, during all seasons and for all areas. According to a study conducted by Andersson and Nilsson (1981) [Andersson and Nilsson. VTI Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute, Report No. 208A; 1981] the introduction of DRL resulted in a reduction of 11% of multiple accidents during daytime. In many discussions on the effectiveness of DRL, these findings have been considered as the strongest evidence that the use of DRL is an effective vehicle collision countermeasure."

Daytime running lights as a vehicle collision countermeasure: the Swedish evidence reconsidered - PubMed

In Sweden the use of daytime running lights (DRL) was made mandatory on 1 October 1977 for all motor vehicles at once, during all seasons and for all areas. According to a study conducted by Andersson and Nilsson (1981) [Andersson and Nilsson. VTI Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So even back then, the discussion was on Vehicle accidents, not pedestrians.

As I said, I'm not in any way claiming, I can't be wrong, and I'd be delighted to see anything you have to back up your insistence that the driving factor behind DRLs is pedestrian safety. But until you provide any sort of reference to your assertations regarding DRL's being brought in for pedestrian safety, I have to rely on the evidence I have, rather than your assertations, and 40 year old memories.

 

[Hairyfool]

And I have said due to the availability of information at the time to the general public compared to now it may NOT have been authoritative. Even official documentation is subject to revision and change. One of my jobs within my own field was to maintain such documents and when a revision was released the original was disposed of, there would be no lasting record of the pre revision information