|
Front Page
The MAG Annual Group Conference 2002
Annual Reports by National Officers to the
AGC 2002
Why Me?
Possible New NC Post - Network Communications Officer
Daytime Headlights
Vehicle Excise Duty - Where MAG Stands and Why
Henry Marks Gets MAG into Parliament!
Free European Bike
Events for MAG Members
How Your NC Really Works
MAG and the Motorcycle Industry Association
Communicating With Clubs
Running a Local MAG Branch
MAG Events
Previous Issues
|
Daytime Headlights
MAG is gearing up for this difficult campaign. There follows (on the next page) a suggested letter that we would like you to send to your MP.
Following the letter you will find a
transcription of an Australian report into the issue of daytime headlight use. You can check out the original report at this web page: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~parlrsc/mbch4.html or see below.
Compulsory daytime headlight use and compulsory hard wiring of motorcycle headlights are two separate but related issues.
Compulsory daytime headlight use has been mooted several times over the years
but Governments have never found sufficient proof to implement it. The Vienna Convention agreed that European governments were supposed to enact legislation to make daytime headlight use compulsory. That convention
however pre-dated the era of the active Riders' Rights movement in Europe, in other words bikers had no real input to it.
Hard wiring of motorcycle headlights as standard (i.e. so that the lights come on
automatically with the ignition) is in effect a back door to compulsory daytime headlight use. If all new bikes have hard wired headlights then the proportion of bikes using headlights during the day will steadily
increase as more new bikes come on to the roads.
The motorcycle industry supports hard wiring of motorcycle headlights. This consideration seems to be driven by the fact that some countries require hard
wiring and it is cheaper for manufacturers to eliminate such points of difference between the models they build for different markets. (Ideally manufacturers would like to have to build only one variant of each
model, not the numerous variants they currently have to supply to meet differing local requirements in the markets they sell to.)
MAG opposes compulsory daytime headlight use. MAG also opposes the hard wiring
of motorcycle headlights. MAG's position is simply that all motorcycle headlight circuits should be fitted with a switch so that the rider can decide if and when to turn the machine's lights on.
SUGGESTED LETTER TO SEND TO YOUR MP
Dear …
As you may be aware, motorcycle manufacturers are looking to hard wire the headlights of all new motorcycles in the near future. I am a member of the Motorcycle Action Group
(MAG) and we oppose this development. MAG's position is based on the following considerations:
1. MAG opposes any and all legislative measures that arbitrarily and unnecessarily remove
control of the functions of a motorcycle from its rider. In the case of technical measures
to remove control that are not driven by legislation (anti lock brakes for example), MAG
believes that there must be substantial and convincing evidence to show that the benefits
for motorcyclists vastly outweigh any disadvantages. Arguments solely or substantially
based on manufacturers' cost and convenience issues are not sufficient.
2. There is no conclusive proof that compulsory daytime headlight use reduces accidents. In
an in-dept report of 1992 The Road Safety Committee of the Parliament of the State of
Victoria, Australia specifically recommended against the compulsory use of daytime
running lights. To see this report for yourself please check the following web page:
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~parlrsc/mbch4.html
3. A bright light within a driver's field of vision can initiate a reflex response stopping his or
her scanning process and causing the eyes to fix in the direction of this bright light. This
increases the likelihood that objects within this now static field will be seen. Conversely,
fixation naturally stops the scanning process and may physically reduce the likelihood of
seeing other objects outside the now static field of vision. (In short, you see the lit object
but miss nearby unlit objects.)
4. Daytime lights cause glare, which inhibits vision by increasing blinking and aversion of the
eyes or even decreased visual capability.
5. Daytime headlight usage increases risk compensation on the part of motorcyclists
themselves. (Some riders have a tendency to believe that because they have their
headlight on, other drivers must have seen them.)
6. Compulsory daytime headlight use and/or hard wiring effectively transfers responsibility to
motorcyclists from other road users.
7. If hard wiring comes into force then there is a danger that motorcyclists riding older bikes
that are not hard wired will find themselves challenged in court to prove that they had their
lights switched on. This will be difficult to do and will unfairly disadvantage motorcyclists
involved in such cases. Other drivers involved in motorcycle collisions may try to attribute
liability to motorcycle riders by claiming the motorcycle's headlight was unlit. On the
other hand, motorcycle riders may assert that the light was on.
8. Even where lights are hard wired the facts will be difficult to prove if the light is damaged
and there are no independent witnesses. Other drivers involved in motorcycle collisions
may still try to attribute liability to motorcycle riders by asserting that their light was unlit
due to a fault, e.g. a blown bulb.
9. If a vehicle is for what ever reason at the edge of the road and on the same side as
oncoming traffic it is an offence to have anything more than sidelights on. [Road Traffic
Act]. If headlights are hard wired then it will be impossible for motorcyclists to park facing
oncoming traffic during daylight hours without committing an offence.
10. Motorcycles with batteries in poor condition are difficult if not impossible to start with
headlights on. Hard wiring increases the risk of motorcyclists being stranded, unable to
re-start their machines. This could be particularly dangerous if for whatever reason a
motorcyclist were forced to stop on the hard shoulder of a motorway at night, or on any
other busy and narrow road. If the extra power drain of a headlight made bump starting
necessary then that is in itself hazardous. Many motorcyclists have been killed due to a
loss of control when attempting to bump start their machine.
It is our
position that all new motorcycles sold in the UK should be sold fitted with a switch to enable the headlight to be turned off when the ignition is on.
We ask that you contact the Department of Transport and
request that the Construction & Use regulations be modified to this end. To avoid affecting private 'grey' imports we request consultation on suitable measures.
Yours sincerely,
Report of the Road Safety Committee of the Parliament of the State of Victoria, Australia
The Case Against Daytime Running Lights
The arguments against compulsory, hard-wired running lights fall into seven categories:
1. The dangerous effect of the lights under some circumstances;
2. Unproven benefits;
3. The legal implications of compulsory daytime running light regulations on insurance and civil and criminal lawsuits;
4. Practical issues associated with maintaining permanent headlights on some vehicles;
5. Cost;
6. The discriminatory nature of the legislation which selects motorcycle riders for special consideration; and
7. Effective alternatives which are available.
These issues are discussed in detail in this chapter.
4.1 DANGEROUS EFFECTS OF DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS
The possible dangers associated with daytime running lights fall into three categories:
1. Effect on other drivers' vision;
2. Glare; and
3. Increased risk-taking.
4.1.1 Effect on other drivers' vision
A bright light within a driver's field of vision can initiate a reflex response. The
light stops his or her scanning process and causes the eyes to fix in the direction of this bright light. This increases the likelihood that objects within this now static field will be seen. Conversely, fixation
naturally stops the scanning process and may physically reduce the likelihood of seeing other objects outside the now static field of vision.
Thus, in particular cases, daytime running lights which
successfully attract attention may restrict peripheral sensitivity. Fear that general searching behaviour of motorists will decline in response to general daytime headlight use, has also been expressed in Australia
and by members of the International Daytime Running Light Steering Committee funded by the Directorate-General of Transport for the European Community.
Further, compulsory daytime running lights on motorcycles
can increase drivers' expectation that all motorcycles are lit. They will therefore be less likely to see unlit motorcycles.
From the point of view of road safety, it is important that drivers do not believe
that an oncoming vehicle is further away than it really is. Bright coloured cars appear to be closer than dark coloured cars when they are the same distance away. Daytime running lights below 300cd also increase the
likelihood that drivers will underestimate the distance to a vehicle, particularly if it is in traffic without running lights, but this likelihood declines with stronger lights.
Motorcycle riders alleged that:
...if a motorcycle appears as a silhouette against the setting sun then a headlight may render the cycle totally invisible.
The Committee was unable to determine the
validity of this assertion. The Federal Office of Road Safety released a report which included a series of photographs of lit and unlit motorcycles emerging from the setting sun. The Committee found this evidence
unconvincing.
The Committee therefore concludes that there may be a number of situations when daytime running lights are dangerous. This issue needs serious investigation.
4.1.2 Glare
Glare is the effect of light on the eyes which inhibits vision by increasing blinking and aversion of the eyes or even decreased visual capability. The negative effects of glare are intensified when viewed through a
mirror.
Older drivers are more sensitive to glare than younger drivers.
The problems with glare which face designers of daytime running lights are different from those which face those who decide the
specifications of night-time headlights because the lights serve different purposes. Daytime running lights must be bright enough to increase visibility whereas night-time headlights must be bright enough to
illuminate objects at a distance which allows the rider to take evasive action.
The International Daytime Running Light Committee follows Attwood in inferring that there is risk of glare during the day when
the running light intensity is greater than 1 000cd. When viewed through the rear-view or side-view mirror at dusk, daytime running lights above 2 000cd present considerable discomfort. This effect can be minimised
by balancing the size of the light against its intensity but, even with an appropriate 150mm diameter, lights exceeding 2 000cd are not recommended.
Therefore the Committee concludes that the specifications for
daytime running lights should not exceed 2 000cd.
4.1.3. Increased risk-taking
It is alleged that daytime running lights have both immediate and long-term potentially dangerous effects on the
behaviour of other drivers.
Daytime running lights may increase drivers' immediate risk-taking behaviour. Motorcycles are over-represented in collisions in which the other vehicle attempts to turn against the
motorcycle's right of way. However, they are equally more likely to be involved in these crashes when the other driver approaches from the opposite direction or from the adjacent direction. These two types of
collision differ because one involves frontal vision and the other peripheral vision. They are similar in that both involve gap-acceptance or risk-taking behaviour. Therefore, the smaller, more dangerous gaps in
front of lit motorcycles accepted by drivers undertaking left-hand turns, but not accepted by drivers undertaking right-hand turns in front of motorcycles, is consistent with increased risk-taking.
In the
longer term, recent publications by the SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research in The Netherlands and the International Committee on Daytime Running Lights, argue that observational and behavioural processes may in
time lead to a decline in road safety, and that drivers' tendency to adjust to reductions in perceived risk will increase the average speed of drivers. Their comprehensive research into the effects of daytime
running lights in the Benelux countries will be completed by September 1993.
Therefore, the Committee concludes that these allegations have some validity and should be tested before daytime running lights on
motorcycles are made mandatory.
4.1.4 Summary and conclusion
Although the Committee accepts that overseas research is still inconclusive, it is concerned that motorcycle daytime running lights may
restrict other drivers' scanning processes, change drivers' long-term behaviour to accept greater risks, and increase drivers' underestimation of distance.
As well, daytime running lights with intensities over 2 000cd cause glare.
Considering the information available to it, the Committee does not support the decision of the Federal Minister for Land Transport to
require hard-wiring of motorcycle daytime running lights before these issues are resolved.
Also, the Committee recommends that the Minister for Transport does not introduce compulsory motorcycle daytime
running lights in Victoria.
4.2 UNPROVEN BENEFITS
Laboratory and off-road research provides theoretical information about whether visibility measures are capable of decreasing collisions between
motorcycles and other vehicles. However, this research does not allow for the real traffic and other environmental effects which determine whether or not a motor vehicle crash occurs. Therefore, it does not prove
that conspicuity measures will increase road safety in practice.
There has been extensive research into the safety effects of motorcycle daytime running lights in the United States and long-term evaluations
of general daytime running light legislation in Scandinavia. However, the safety effects demonstrated in these studies are inconclusive and inconsistent. This is due to different survey methods, lack of legitimate
controls, differences in external factors, particularly ambient light intensity and differences in the laws themselves and their compliance rates.
Therefore, the Committee concludes that it is not justified
in extrapolating any of these data to the 1992 Australian motorcycle situation. The Europeans are facing a similar problem. They have recently withdrawn proposals to introduce general daytime running light
specifications and established an International Steering Committee on Daytime Running Lights to reassess their safety potential.
4.3 THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMPULSORY DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS
In
Victoria, all vehicles must comply with Australian Design Rules in order to meet roadworthiness requirements. Most insurers have exclusion clauses to cover non-compliance with these roadworthiness or other vehicle
standard requirements and they may rely on their breach to refuse to pay a claim.
There is evidence to suggest that over 50% of all vehicles have faulty lighting equipment. That is, their intensity would not
comply with design requirements even after cleaning.
When a motorcycle with comprehensive or third party property insurance is required to comply with Australian Design Rule 19/01 or compulsory daytime
running lights and is involved in an accident, two issues become relevant:
1. How does the insurance company determine whether the daytime running light was on?
2. If the insurance company believes the
light was unlit, under what circumstances may it use this fact to refuse the claim?
Other drivers involved in motorcycle collisions may try to attribute liability to motorcycle riders by claiming the
motorcycle's daytime running light was unlit. On the other hand, motorcycle riders may assert that the light was on. The facts will be difficult to prove if the light is damaged and there are no independent
witnesses.
If an insurer attempts to deny liability on the grounds that the motorcycle falls within the insurance policy's roadworthiness exclusion clauses, the Act places the onus on the insurer to prove
that, on the balance of probabilities, the light was off or did not comply with roadworthiness specifications so that, in legal terms, the holders of motorcycle insurance policies are protected.
Insurance
companies have indicated to the Committee that they are unable to refuse claims on the grounds of non-compliance if the act or omission could not reasonably have caused or contributed to the loss. The Act places the
onus on the policy holder to prove that the non-compliance did not cause or contribute to the collision.
However, s54(1) of the Act can be interpreted to limit even this protection for the insured. If the
unlit daytime running light increased the statistical, rather than actual, risk or if it made the investigation of the claim more difficult, the claim may be reduced by the amount which fairly represents this
increased risk or cost to the insurer. Alternatively, the insurer may calculate this reduction on the basis of the additional premium it would have charged or excess it would have imposed if it had known before the
event that the light was off.
These consequences also apply to civil suits in damages which road crash casualties may bring under the alternative provisions of the Transport Accident Act 1986. In those
cases, the injured party must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the light was off and that this act or omission caused or contributed to their injury and that the motorcycle rider knew that the light was
off and that this increased the risk.
Daytime running lights are unlikely to be implicated in criminal charges laid against motorcycle riders under s318 of the Crimes Act 1958 which result from a fatal
daylight collision. If they are, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the light was off and that this omission contributed to the crash.
Therefore, the insurance and legal
implications of daytime running lights for motorcycle riders depend on the frequency with which individual insurance companies attempt to deny liability, the way car drivers are alerted by the "lights on
debate" to try to avoid liability, and the degree to which the motorcycle riders are prepared to challenge assertions against them in the civil courts.
The Committee recognises that the parties to a
dispute involving these issues are unlikely to have equal negotiating power in an out of court settlement.
The Committee is therefore of the opinion that use of daytime running lights should not be the basis
for voiding of indemnity under property insurance cover. It urges insurance companies to specifically exclude daytime running lights from consideration in their policies.
Further, the Committee considers
that Australian Design Rule 19/01 should be excluded from the general roadworthiness requirement in Victoria that motorcycles comply with Australian Design Rules.
Other insurance issues will be considered in the Committee's Second Report.
4.4 PRACTICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTAINING PERMANENT HEADLIGHTS
Two important practical issues associated with
compulsory daytime running lights were raised before the Committee. These are the effects of dirt and difficulties with maintenance.
4.4.1 Dirt
Theoretical minimum daytime running light
intensities which have been shown to improve motorcycle visibility under the ambient light intensities expected in Victoria, must be increased to allow for dirt and faults. Dirt can reduce daytime running light
intensity by 50% and between 8% and 34% of forward-facing lights on English vehicles deliver less than their specified minimum intensity. In The Netherlands, about 10% of daytime running lights are malfunctioning.
Between 16% and 28% of dipped headlamps exceed glare specifications.
The Committee concludes that it is impossible for daytime running light specifications to be established, because of practical problems
with maintaining daytime running light intensities within the 1 600cd to 2 000cd range required to achieve visibility effects without causing glare.
4.4.2 Maintenance
The Australia Post
Victoria submission to the Committee said it would be difficult to implement compulsory daytime use because of the limited battery charge on their Honda CT110 fleet. Other submissions claimed similar problems for
older machines.
Recent publicity has indicated that these considerations are also influencing the new motorcycle market. Yamaha TT250 and TT350 machines will not be imported after 1 March 1992 because their
six volt electrical systems are unable to carry the load of daytime running lights. The Committee is concerned that choice of motorcycles with small engine size will be restricted when special Australian design
requirements make their manufacture commercially unviable.
Accelerated wear and tear on lamps resulting in more vehicles on the road at night with defective lighting, has now been raised for consideration by
the International Committee on Daytime Running Lights.
Therefore, the Committee considers that road safety measures which encourage use of motorcycles with smaller engine sizes (discussed in the Committee's
Second Report on this Inquiry) should not be compromised by a requirement to have sufficient capacity to maintain daytime running lights.
4.5 COST OF COMPULSORY DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS
Evidence
before the Committee and a study of the literature suggests that hard-wired daytime running lights may add to the cost of motorcycles.
In addition, compulsory, full time use of motorcycle daytime running
lights will require the same standard of wiring as hard-wired running lights and will therefore incur additional modification costs to some motorcycles.
Hard-wired and compulsory daytime running lights will
both also add to motorcycle maintenance and running costs and increased bulb and petrol consumption.
The Committee has been unable to determine the size of these increased costs to individual motorcycle
riders.
Only managers of large fleets have access to the aggregated expenses of many vehicles which enable their accurate determination. In Sweden, fleet owners have criticised the cost of compulsory daytime
running lights. In Canada, a study of non-military National Defence Department vehicles showed that daytime running lights cost the equivalent of $(A)2 per year in extra in electrical maintenance costs alone. No
calculation of running costs or other maintenance costs was included.
The Federal Office of Road Safety estimates that the total cost of daytime running lights to individual motorcycle owners is between
$(A)10 and $(A)12 per year. They did not itemise these estimates and, therefore, the Committee is unable to explain the discrepancy between the Australian and Canadian calculations.
The International
Committee on Daytime Running Lights has now raised this issue for consideration.
The Committee considers the real expense of hard-wired daytime running lights to motorcycle riders will depend on the way
manufacturers of both motorcycles and their lighting components decide to impose the costs, and on the pattern of motorcycle use Victorians adopt in the future.
4.6 DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MOTORCYCLE RIDERS
Drivers consider motorcycle riders are risk-takers who operate outside the usual road rules and motorcycle riders believe that compulsory daytime running
lights on motorcycles confirms their opinions. They say it implies riders are at fault and places the onus for safety initiatives on the shoulders of motorcycle riders to the exclusion of other road users.
Accident analyses and visibility research supports the motorcycle riders fears.
There is no difference in the proportions of drivers involved in motorcycle-car and car-car accidents who failed to see the
other vehicle. Further, the positive effects of daytime running lights on detection distance and time, noticeability and gap acceptance are generally greater for vehicles other than motorcycles.
The
Committee is of the opinion that there is no justification for motorcycles only to have compulsory daytime running lights.
4.7 EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES
In Victoria, 84% of multi-vehicle
motorcycle accidents occur in metropolitan Melbourne or rural towns. Further, collisions involving right turns against motorcycles comprise the greatest single category (25%) of motorcycle injury crashes in
Melbourne and 78% of these accidents occur at signalised intersections.
Right turn against collisions are successfully managed by introducing right-turn phase control measures (for example, the right turn
arrows).
The Committee is of the view that these traffic management measures which are known to be effective and do not discriminate between drivers of different vehicles should be encouraged.
4.8 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends that:
4. The Minister for Transport advise the Federal Government of the possible dangers inherent in specifying daytime running lights for motorcycles be
hard-wired, and request they delay implementation of Australian Design Rule 19/01 until the report of the International Committee on Daytime Running Lights is available and its implications for Australia are
examined.
5. The Minister for Transport advise the Federal Government that the light specifications included in Australian Design Rule 19/01 are inappropriate for Australian conditions.
6. The
Minister for Transport amend the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 1988 to exclude Australian Design Rule 19/01 from roadworthiness requirements for motorcycles registered in Victoria.
7. The use of daytime running lights for motorcycles remains voluntary.
Road Safety Committee, Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3002, Australia.
Telephone +61 3 9665 6644. Facsimile +61 3 96556858.
|
