Re: Daytime Running Lights

Lanny Chambers <lanny@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In article <1ich8o1.8j4nbx1uivfwgN%robraitxxxxx@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  robraitxxxxx@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Rob) wrote:
> 
> > > And, I'm sure, that makes it harder to see them as they weave
through
> > > traffic at high speed. So, what's the problem? You got something
against
> > > natural selection?  :-)
> > 
> > Yup. It's called a motorcycle licence :-)
> 
> I have one, too. But I never felt it would immunize me against the 
> consequences of riding like I had a death wish.

Found the article. It wasn't about DRLs causing more accidents after all
:-( More of a rant against EU politics. Here it is anyway fwiw:

Blinded By The Light

 

Issued 5th October 2006

 

The EU consultation proposal to impose daytime lighting (DRL - Daytime
Running Lights) requirements for all vehicles is desperate gimmickry say
The Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) UK.

 

Having scrutinised available statistical evidence on the subject MAG
recognises the reservations expressed by those carrying out that
research, that there is no clear evidence that daytime lights will make
a jot of difference.

 

MAG is concerned that the European Commission has chosen to ignore the
reservations expressed by the very people tasked with making these
*****sments.

 

MAG recognises that the statistics comparing DRL countries with others
reflects no clear picture of DRL having any effect one way or the other.

 

What is clear is that the call for daytime light use is being
politically rather than objectively driven. Those driving this demand
are clutching at straws in a desperate effort to be seen to be trying to
reach accident reduction targets.

 

MAG is concerned on several levels.

 

1. This false panacea is being given credibility because it provides the
car industry with a cheap alternative to the pedestrian impact standards
for car construction that had been proposed by Brussels.

 

2. Focussing attention on this 'Red Herring' distracts attention from
the real causes of accidents between cars and vulnerable targets such as
motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.

 

3. The proposal ignores the environmental damage that extra CO2
emissions will cause through increased fuel consumption. This is a
certainty, while the claimed benefits of DRL are entirely speculative.

 

MAG President Ian Mutch said. "This is EU lunacy at its cynical worst. A
serious issue is being trivialised by politicians posturing for
credibility against a background of cosy commercial concessions through
grasping the simple baton of a sad gimmick. The plus points are
speculative, while the environmental downside is admitted. In terms of
global safety the real future of the planet is being jeopardised for a
benefit that is almost certainly illusory. The contempt for real safety
and intellectual integrity that is manifest in the pro DRL campaign is
breathtaking."

 

Ends

 

Notes

 
1. MAG response to European Commission – Directorate - General For
Energy And Trans****t Consultation, "Saving Lives With Daytime Running
Lights (Drl)"  

http://www.network.mag-uk.org/DRL/MAG%20UK%20response%20to%20EU%20Commis
sion%20on%20Daytime%20Running%20Lights.pdf

2. EU Consultation
http://ec.europa.eu/trans****t/roadsafety/vehicle_safety/introduction_en.
htm 
 
3. DaDRL website http://www.safespeed.org.uk/~dadrl/
 
Issued by
 
Trevor Baird
Director Of Public Affairs
-- 
Rob - Shrop****re
So many cats,
So few recipes...