Daytime Running Lights

The threat of daytime headlight use by all vehicles, as proposed by the European Commission, prompted The Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) to send a two man delegation to Brussels for intensive lobbying of MEPs.

Phil Neale, MAG Director of Public Affairs, and Henry Marks, MAG Chief Executive sailed after returning from working at MAG's Stormin' the Castle show for The Continent to begin emergency lobbying.

MAG see in this headlight proposal, a clear link to the expected directive on 'pedestrian-friendly' car fronts. It seems that the motor manufacturers have brokered a deal with the Commission to let them replace that expensive option with the cheap though unproven tactic of 'hard wiring' the lights to provide more warning to pedestrians. MAG fear that such a move would leave motorcycles and other vulnerable road users masked by a sea of daytime headlights.

MAG's Phil Neale 'It is estimated that safer car fronts would save around 2,000 lives and 18,000 serious injuries annually on EU roads. Despite a scientifically established research and development programme to, introduce this new technology in stages, the Commission would appear to be hell-bent on ignoring it! Most research projects on daytime headlight use for motorcycles have failed to prove their effectiveness. What we fear is that lighting up all vehicles will have negative safety implications for motorcyclists.'

MAG's Henry Marks 'As European consumers, bikers will demand that this process is transparent, fair, and open for debate'.

MAG is against compulsory daytime headlights because they can be irritating; are a constant source of distraction; don't work in many circumstances; mask other traffic signals; mask vulnerable road users; reduce the ability to judge speed and distance; and can generate a false sense of security.

If you think as MAG do then you will almost certainly wish to register your protest, but even if you think daytime lights are a good thing for bikers you will still wish to object because with all cars illuminated, bikes will have lost any edge they may currently enjoy.

The background to this, we believe, is that the Commission wanted all car manufacturers to build their cars with soft pedestrian-friendly fronts. The manufacturers realised this would be expensive so they came up with the idea that they would hard wire their cars, which of course costs them nothing, or next to nothing, and then pretend they are doing it for safety reasons on the basis that pedestrians are less likely to wander out in front of them if they have their lights on.

Remember, no legislation has been passed here, this is simply an Agreement between manufacturers and the European Commission. So a dubious road safety initiative will effectively be enacted without any examination of its merits by a democratically elected body like the European Parliament.

Daytime headlight laws have been tried in Israel where they have deliberately tried to assess the effectiveness of this measure by having periods when lights on applies and periods when it does not. The statistics concluded that it didn't make any difference.

What does seem more likely is that this will increase fuel consumption by increasing the loads on alternators, so there is a green card to play here. How much headlights will increase fuel consumption is uncertain, although estimates vary between 0.5% and 2%.

You might like to write to your MP and MEP about this or to the national press and the motorcycle press. Please mention you are a member of MAG.

Most MPs now have Email. To search for contact details and save time and effort please visit: http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/

Snail Mail: House of Commons, LONDON, SW1A 0AA

Tel. 020 7219 3000

MEPs are at: www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.htm

Snail Mail: European Parliament, rue Wiertz B-1047, Brussels, Belgium.

Tel 00 322 284 2111

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Pedestrian Protection Consultation: http://www.roads.dtlr.gov.uk/consult/pedestrian/index.htm

(Due 12th October 2001)

DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS FOR CARS

COMMISSION DEAL WITH AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ANGERS VULNERABLE USERS

The European federations representing vulnerable road users view very negatively the deal made between the European Commission (EC) and the European car manufacturers (ACEA) which includes Daytime Running Lights (DRL) for new cars produced from January 2002. FEMA, together with the European Cyclists' Federation and the International Pedestrians' Federation have formed a coalition in opposition against certain measures that have been thoughtlessly included in this agreement.

FEMA is concerned that many commentators believe that this offer from ACEA of a series of measures such as DRL, Anti lock Braking Systems and the ban of bull bars is in return for the EC accepting less stringent measures for car fronts being made more friendly for vulnerable road users.

FEMA is very surprised to see contradictory positions within the Commission itself. The Directorate General in charge of road safety declares that it is not appropriate to consider harmonisation on DRL, and is presently funding a project investigating the effect of DRL on the conspicuity of motorcyclists; while their colleagues from the Directorate General Enterprise advocate introducing DRL without waiting for the results of this research.

DRL is an issue that has generated a long term resistance from FEMA. The position of European motorcyclists remains the same: there is no room for European harmonisation on this matter. There is no scientific evidence showing the effectiveness of DRL in accident reduction. EU Member States have already set the most appropriate measures for their countries, which are generally supported by the road users and the national road safety authorities. Another major concern is that, if DRL become compulsory for all vehicles, motorcycles would loose the conspicuity that they presently have.

FEMA met with representatives of the Directorate General Enterprise of the EC and ACEA, where the arguments of vulnerable road users were clearly expressed. FEMA also undertook to provide the Commission with research evidence supporting that there was no positive benefit in accident reduction through DRL. This paper is now in the hands of the EC.

Unilateral deals are not the solution for having such important measures introduced. Though the text of ACEA's commitment will be presented to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, it will not fully involve them like it is the case when proposals go through the legislative process, and therefore also give the chance to all concerned parties to express their position.

FEMA national organisations are now making representations by their governments. FEMA, together with the other federations of vulnerable road users, will meet the European Parliament. The only acceptable outcome for motorcyclists: DRL must be removed from this agreement.