EU to force daytime use of headlights?

John Pitcock wrote:
I've sent this to uk.rec.cycling as cyclists are concerned about the
drivers who can't see anything that doesn't have two bright lights -
as happens now in the dark.

Dipped lights waste most of the light by shining on the road, (and can
dazzle when badly adjusted, loaded or going over humps). Less powerful
running lights would use less power, LEDs would be ideal for this but
neither could easily be fitted to existing cars.

www.JohnPitcock.co.uk

Brilliant. If you'd crossposted it then everybody can join in. But it looks
like you've just started two separate threads...

I've crossposted it now.

in message , PC Paul
') wrote:

John Pitcock wrote:
I've sent this to uk.rec.cycling as cyclists are concerned about the
drivers who can't see anything that doesn't have two bright lights -
as happens now in the dark.

Dipped lights waste most of the light by shining on the road, (and can
dazzle when badly adjusted, loaded or going over humps). Less powerful
running lights would use less power, LEDs would be ideal for this but
neither could easily be fitted to existing cars.

www.JohnPitcock.co.uk

Brilliant. If you'd crossposted it then everybody can join in. But it
looks like you've just started two separate threads...

I've crossposted it now.

Please don't do that. Any thread crossposted to these two groups is doomed
to descend into a flame war.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

"PC Paul" wrote in message
.uk...
John Pitcock wrote:
I've sent this to uk.rec.cycling as cyclists are concerned about the
drivers who can't see anything that doesn't have two bright lights -
as happens now in the dark.

Dipped lights waste most of the light by shining on the road, (and can
dazzle when badly adjusted, loaded or going over humps). Less powerful
running lights would use less power, LEDs would be ideal for this but
neither could easily be fitted to existing cars.

www.JohnPitcock.co.uk

Brilliant. If you'd crossposted it then everybody can join in. But it
looks like you've just started two separate threads...

I've crossposted it now.

And I have un cross posted it for this response.

Scandinavian countries have been a head of the game on having a front light
source on on cars at all times of the day. Thats why SAABs and Volvos
allways have their lights on. (Whether its head lights or 21w side lights
(daytime running lamps)) Having lights on during the day does increase
visibility of cars to every road user looking in the right direction.
During day light hours if dipped head lights are bright enough to dazzle
someone then the most likely reason is that it is dark enough for lights to
be required anyhow. When it comes to cyclists it doesn't matter whether
lights are on or off if a driver doesn't see you its either because they
weren't looking at the road in the first place or you are wearing colours
that blend in with the surroundings too well.

As for suitable lamps for cars to use as daylight runing lamps.

Normal sidelights are 5w
The Daytime running lamps used in 80s SAABs and Volvos were 21W (not legal
for use as side lights hence why they only operated when the engine was
running)
Headlights have a legal maximum of 55/65w.

21W bulbs make a pretty decently bright marker thats is easily identified,
5w is rather dull, though some idiots seem ot think they are fine in dusk.

This means that for any car not built with lights specifically aimed at
daylight running will have to use the dim Parking Lights (what sidelights
really are) or use dipped beam. I would much rather see a car running on
dipped beams than sidelamps.

Niall

in message , Niall Wallace
') wrote:

As for suitable lamps for cars to use as daylight runing lamps.

Normal sidelights are 5w
The Daytime running lamps used in 80s SAABs and Volvos were 21W (not
legal for use as side lights hence why they only operated when the engine
was running)
Headlights have a legal maximum of 55/65w.

Note that all these are expressed in watts, which is a grave mistake. The
reason to set a legal /maximum/ is to prevent dazzling, yet many cars now
have lights which are substantially brighter than a 65 watt incandescent
bulb of the type available when the legislation was written. We need new
legislation expressed in maximum lumens, and probably needs to be around
900 lumens.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time.

Niall Wallace wrote on 14/10/2006 01:32 +0100:

Scandinavian countries have been a head of the game on having a front light
source on on cars at all times of the day. Thats why SAABs and Volvos
allways have their lights on. (Whether its head lights or 21w side lights
(daytime running lamps)) Having lights on during the day does increase
visibility of cars to every road user looking in the right direction.
During day light hours if dipped head lights are bright enough to dazzle
someone then the most likely reason is that it is dark enough for lights to
be required anyhow. When it comes to cyclists it doesn't matter whether
lights are on or off if a driver doesn't see you its either because they
weren't looking at the road in the first place or you are wearing colours
that blend in with the surroundings too well.


Perhaps if cars were painted in colours that didn't blend in with the
surroundings, they too would not need daytime lights.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

"Simon Brooke" wrote in message
...
in message , Niall Wallace
') wrote:

As for suitable lamps for cars to use as daylight runing lamps.

Normal sidelights are 5w
The Daytime running lamps used in 80s SAABs and Volvos were 21W (not
legal for use as side lights hence why they only operated when the engine
was running)
Headlights have a legal maximum of 55/65w.

Note that all these are expressed in watts, which is a grave mistake. The
reason to set a legal /maximum/ is to prevent dazzling, yet many cars now
have lights which are substantially brighter than a 65 watt incandescent
bulb of the type available when the legislation was written. We need new
legislation expressed in maximum lumens, and probably needs to be around
900 lumens.

Yep, I really struggle to see when a car with Xenons is comming towards me
because oif how bright the light is. though not as bad as when I go into a
blind left hander and the sun is conveiently in position to make it shine
directly into my eyes at the Apex.

It took me a wee bit of time to stop showing cars with Xenons dipped beams
(high beam is still hallogen on most cars) an extra set of lamps (hella 550
driving lamps) thinking they had their high beam on.

Niall

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
Niall Wallace wrote on 14/10/2006 01:32 +0100:

Scandinavian countries have been a head of the game on having a front
light source on on cars at all times of the day. Thats why SAABs and
Volvos allways have their lights on. (Whether its head lights or 21w side
lights (daytime running lamps)) Having lights on during the day does
increase visibility of cars to every road user looking in the right
direction.
During day light hours if dipped head lights are bright enough to dazzle
someone then the most likely reason is that it is dark enough for lights
to be required anyhow. When it comes to cyclists it doesn't matter
whether lights are on or off if a driver doesn't see you its either
because they weren't looking at the road in the first place or you are
wearing colours that blend in with the surroundings too well.


Perhaps if cars were painted in colours that didn't blend in with the
surroundings, they too would not need daytime lights.


It's not a daft suggestion, but likely to be un popular. Have you ever
noticed how much more obvious a bright pink car is to a green one?

Niall Wallace wrote on 14/10/2006 11:37 +0100:
"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
Niall Wallace wrote on 14/10/2006 01:32 +0100:
When it comes to cyclists it doesn't matter
whether lights are on or off if a driver doesn't see you its either
because they weren't looking at the road in the first place or you are
wearing colours that blend in with the surroundings too well.

Perhaps if cars were painted in colours that didn't blend in with the
surroundings, they too would not need daytime lights.


It's not a daft suggestion, but likely to be un popular. Have you ever
noticed how much more obvious a bright pink car is to a green one?


But you wouldn't blame the green car driver for the colour of his car if
another driver hadn't seen him so why blame the cyclists for the colour
of the clothes they wear?


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Niall Wallace wrote:
"Tony Raven" wrote in message


Perhaps if cars were painted in colours that didn't blend in with the
surroundings, they too would not need daytime lights.



It's not a daft suggestion, but likely to be un popular. Have you ever
noticed how much more obvious a bright pink car is to a green one?



ISTR that back in the days of BL, the Metro was available in 'safety
colours' for a slight reduction in price.

See how well that caught on.

In article , Tony Raven wrote:

Perhaps if cars were painted in colours that didn't blend in with the
surroundings, they too would not need daytime lights.

Are drivers of grey and silver cars actually worse at turning on lights
when it is foggy, or do I simply notice them more because they are more
startling being closer once they are visible?