battery use and its life re DTL ?

[Basil]

Can't comment on your findings Mel, I'm glad you don't find any effect. All tests show there is an effect.

In the UK Government (who are not in favour by the way) response to the EU they actually state

 

""The compulsory use of headlights could therefore counteract over half of the carbon benefit of the RTFO for the UK.

 

(RTFO Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation.)

 

Increasing carbon emissions in the UK by around 0.4 to 0.6 MtC.""

 

So it would appear that your vehicle defies the laws of physics.

 

Bas

[Brian Kirby]

Basil - 2007-01-16 10:24 AM

bil h - 2007-01-16 12:54 AM Don't take the "Carbon emition" hype too seriously folks. How can one believe anything after the 'weapons of M/D' fiasco, they got the oil, now they want us to pay for air that surrounds us!! bil h

bil h, On this we do agree, it is just another way to control the masses with the 'Green Lobby' coming out winning which ever way it goes, for the first time they must be laughing all the way to the bank. When you say about WMD, it seems anyone who can confuse the PM and Cabinet with their outpourings get listened too, another one you can add is the damp squid 'Millenium Bug' that cost untold millions of government money filtched from you and me and moved into private coffers. Bas

OK, off topic, I know, but just a couple of questions for you two guys.

If those of us, like me, who are persuaded there is an effect on the atmosphere (dating back to the industrial revolution) are right, and we do nothing, what kind of world will our grandchildren inherit? 

If, on the other hand, we do all the things necessary to reduce carbon emissions, but then find it wasn't really neessary, what kind of world will our grandchildren then inherit?

I know which option I favour.

[Dave Newell]

I remain un-convinced of the global warming stories but I'm equally convinced that we need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels. The polution may not (or it may) be causing climate change but it is still polution, it is still causing health problems for many and it is a very limited resource.

 

Back on topic, I think that daytime running lights (not ordinary dipped headlights but a dimmed version thereof) are a good idea, I think the extra fuel burned to enable them is negligible and if we could convert to using renewable fuels it wouldn't be an issue.

 

plus the retro fitting of DTL could be a nice little earner for me, he he he! >:-)

 

D.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

To me there is only one issue regarding whether or not we should use lights in daytime and that is the safety issue. If driving on permanent running lights makes our roads safer then the modest amount of extra fuel used is irrelevent.

The only problem is that I'm totally confused now as to whether or not daytime lights are advantageous to safety! Some countries insist on them, some don't.

Who's right?

[breakaleg]

Stuwsmith - 2007-01-13 3:47 PM

 

I would like to add my vote wholeheartedly to Basil's argument. I have been a motorcyclist for over 50 years. I do use lights but only when I consider it necessary and when visibility is poor. I prefer to wear high visibility clothing and ride with the assumption that I am invisible to all other road users particularly those about to enter the road I am travelling on or to turn right across my path. On the occasions that I do ride with lights on, although I can't be sure how many other road users have seen me as a result of having lights on I know how many haven't and believe me it is quite a few. I have also had people pull out in front of me when having lights on who did see me but later admitted that they thought I had "flashed" them thereby inviting them pull out in front of me! Day time lights also can also be the cause of glare and dazzle particularly by what seems to be a large number of vehicles who in spite of MoT's etc have badly adjusted headlamps, not to mention the selfish and illegal use of "fog lights" in good daylight visibility. I also hope that DTL do not become mandatory. Lights should be used in poor visibilty.  road users should LOOK before they manoeuvre and as they drive. And yes driving with lights on does use fuel which will add to global warming etc. A far better solution would be the mandatory use of fluorescent yellow reflective paint for all vehicles!

 

hi wstuwsmith, seeing as you live near birmingham, i guess your familia with the redditch road?

i was riding my kawasaki along this road in broad daylight with my lights on reflective clothing, white helmet, and still got clobbered by someone comming out of a side road, but still, i have had four years to get over it.

personaly, i feel driving with lights on during the day is a waste of time.

pete

[Brian Kirby]

Dave Newell - 2007-01-16 1:37 PM I remain un-convinced of the global warming stories but I'm equally convinced that we need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels. The polution may not (or it may) be causing climate change but it is still polution, it is still causing health problems for many and it is a very limited resource. Back on topic, I think that daytime running lights (not ordinary dipped headlights but a dimmed version thereof) are a good idea, I think the extra fuel burned to enable them is negligible and if we could convert to using renewable fuels it wouldn't be an issue. plus the retro fitting of DTL could be a nice little earner for me, he he he! >:-) D.

Dave

To repeat what I said above, the daytime running lights should be a separate type of light, such as the Hella units, that are the only lights illuminated when the ignition is on and the normal lights off. 

Visibility of the vehicle is improved, there is no dazzle, and the total additional connected power is only in the order of 30W.  It would cause a bit more pollution, but then so does an accident, and worse.  It still gets my vote, and I'd be more than happy for you to have exclusive UK fitting rights!

[Basil]

Brian Kirby - 2007-01-16 1:24 PM

Basil - 2007-01-16 10:24 AM

bil h - 2007-01-16 12:54 AM Don't take the "Carbon emition" hype too seriously folks. How can one believe anything after the 'weapons of M/D' fiasco, they got the oil, now they want us to pay for air that surrounds us!! bil h

bil h, On this we do agree, it is just another way to control the masses with the 'Green Lobby' coming out winning which ever way it goes, for the first time they must be laughing all the way to the bank. When you say about WMD, it seems anyone who can confuse the PM and Cabinet with their outpourings get listened too, another one you can add is the damp squid 'Millenium Bug' that cost untold millions of government money filtched from you and me and moved into private coffers. Bas

OK, off topic, I know, but just a couple of questions for you two guys.

If those of us, like me, who are persuaded there is an effect on the atmosphere (dating back to the industrial revolution) are right, and we do nothing, what kind of world will our grandchildren inherit? 

If, on the other hand, we do all the things necessary to reduce carbon emissions, but then find it wasn't really neessary, what kind of world will our grandchildren then inherit?

I know which option I favour.

Yep, the same reasoning was used to take us into Iraq on 'expert' advice. Despite a large proportion of other experts being ignored!And that we needed to spend millions to defeat Millenium Bug! I see a pattern emerging here!Bas

[Basil]

Since this was posted a petition was raised on the Number 10 Dowing Street site. There has been a response from Government as follows

 

DaytimeLights - epetition reply9 February 2007

 

We received a petition asking:

 

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure the continued safety of users of motorcycles and scooters by fighting EU proposals to introduce daytime running lights on motorcars."

 

Petitions home page

Read the Government's response

The UK Government is opposed both to mandatory daytime dipped headlamp use and to mandatory dedicated daytime running light (DRL) use (except where required by poor visibility, eg fog) for a number of reasons. These include questions over the safety of vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists, pedal cyclists and pedestrians. Other concerns are the accuracy of overall cost: benefit analysis figures, increased motoring expenses and increased carbon dioxide emissions.

 

The European Commission (EC) has been discussing daytime headlamp use and DRLs with Member States for quite some time. Research has been carried out into daytime headlamp use, as an aid to vehicle conspicuity: there are arguments both for and against. There are also arguments for and against the use of dedicated, low wattage DRLs (rather than dipped-beam head-lamps) which could be provided or mandated for new vehicles.

 

Mandatory daytime headlamp use or dedicated DRLs could have an adverse impact on the relative daytime conspicuity of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, who are not illuminated. In addition, motorcyclists currently make themselves more conspicuous in daytime (on a voluntary basis) by using dipped beam headlamps. If all vehicles were illuminated, this advantage might reduce or disappear altogether.

 

The costs of additional fuel expenses and pollution effects also need to be taken into account. The EC estimates, for instance, that the compulsory use of DRLs across the Union would lead to a 1.5% rise in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

 

The UK's response to the recent EC consultation on this subject highlighted these concerns. The UK's reply was informed by a study of the EC analysis, commissioned by the Department for Transport. The results support the view that the benefits have been over estimated while the additional costs to motorists have been underestimated.

 

Further to its consultation, recent discussions with the EC now lead us to conclude that it may not press for early adoption of mandatory daytime running lights. It is expected to reconsider the proposals during the coming year. In the meantime, the Department for Transport will continue to hold further talks with the EC to reiterate our main concerns.

 

Bas