|
Daytime Lights
Daytime Headlights for Motorcycles
There has been considerable interest in recent years concerning daytime headlight requirements for motorcycles. It has been suggested that this measure may have considerable road safety benefits for motorcycle riders in the UK. However, MAG remains unconvinced of the benefits of compulsory daytime running lights (DRLs), or compulsory headlight use.
Summary of Main Arguments Against DRLs for Motorcycles.
* They can be annoying to other road users. When DRL-equipped motorcycles are behind a motorist, they can turn the rear-view mirror into a constant distraction. When a motorcycle is behind a motorist on an uneven or hilly they go from annoying to extremely annoying and distracting. This problem is less apparent in darkness as most cars are fitted with day/night setting on the rear view mirror. This cannot be used during the day.
* It would be more difficult for other motorists to see motorcycle indicators from the front if DRLs were implemented. There are already a disproportionate number of motorcycle accidents caused by other road users turning into the path of a motorcycle. DRLs would only compound this situation.
* DRLs only increase the visibility of the headlight itself. The motorcycle becomes less visible. This reduces the ability of the human eye to judge distance. A motorcycle with DRLs may appear to be further away than it really is.
* Motorcycle DRLs would increase road safety risks for other vulnerable modes such as cyclists. Other road users would expect to see lights on two wheelers. This would increase risk for cyclists as a motorists expecting to see a two wheeler with a light may ignore a cycle who does not have DRLs.
* Motorcycle DRLs could generate a sense of self-confidence in the motorcycle user. This form of 'risk compensation' could have adverse road safety effects.
* The common excuse that is given by a car driver after he or she has caused a motorcycle accident, is sorry mate I didn't see you. This adds weight to the calls for conspicuity aids such as DRLs. It must however be pointed out that these accidents 'causers' are hardly likely to admit that they were not paying attention to the road or that they didn't look for the motorcycle before pulling into its path. Compulsory DRLs will not solve this problem.
The European Transport Safety Council argued in February 1997 that mandatory DRLs for motorcycle should be implemented across the European Union. They claimed that nearly all the studies, the exceptions being those with methodological shortcomings, show that the use of motorcycle DRLs is even more important than DRLs for cars. A number of studies are quoted.
However, it can be shown that the vast majority of those studies that are quoted in favour of DRLs can themselves be shown to either have methodological shortcomings, or that other factors were in play that were not considered when the effectiveness of DRLs are evaluated.
The studies quoted have been brought into question after closer analysis (Prower 1997). Contrary to ETSC assertions, the case for compulsory DRLs is far from proven.
The European Parliament recently refused to adopt the ETSC proposal and instead decided that there should be a closer analysis of the claims made in research studies.
This is ongoing. Urban Accidents. Three studies (Whitaker TRL 1980, Oullet 1990 USA, Olson et al 1980 USA) found that the majority of motorcycle accidents occur on or near junctions, when another driver infringes the right of way of a motorcycle rider while only a short distance away from him or her.
Unless the driver has eyesight below the minimum standard allowed for driving, he or she can perfectly well see a motorcycle and rider who are 100yds away from him or her. DRLs will not solve the problems that are caused to motorcyclists by drivers who simply fail to look for motorcycles.
The majority of urban motorcycle accidents are not related to visibility issues, but issues of basic car driver standards. SWOV (quoted in support of DRLs by ETSC and PACTS)
The SWOV 1997 report 'Effectiveness of Daytime Motorcycle Headlights in the European Union' (Bijleveld) purports to be a comprehensive study of the of the effect of motorcycle daytime lights upon motorcycle accidents in the European Union.
However closer analysis (Prower 1998) shows that apart from a brief review of examples from other countries, it is essentially just a study of the effect upon motorcycle accidents of the hard-wired motorcycle daytime lights law that Austria passed in 1982. Bijleveld assumes that his Austrian example can be exported as an example for other European countries. Confining attention, to the Austrian study, it achieves no proof that the Austrian law reduced motorcycle accidents.
Prower found that Bijleveld's data-modelling exercise findings were exaggerated to an implausible degree and provide no hard evidence that motorcycle daytime lights, whether in Austria, or anywhere else in the European Union, have reduced motorcycle accidents.
Further details are available from MAG on request. Australian Motorcycle DRL Laws Australia repealed its Federal DRL laws in 1996 after the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) found no statistically significant evidence of a reduction in motorcycle crashes associated with the 'lights on' requirement. The 'Ride Bright' Experience. In 1976, a 'Ride Bright' awareness campaign in London, that encouraged the use of DRLs resulted in an increase in motorcycle accidents. (Lalani & Holden).
Incontrovertible Evidence?
Those who support compulsory motorcycle DRLs often argue that the evidence in favour is incontrovertible. However a closer analysis of the available studies show defects of methodology. In short, the available evidence and studies do not support compulsory DRLs once subjected to close scrutiny.
Conclusions.
This has only been a brief look at motorcycle DRL evidence. However, from this initial analysis, MAG can conclude that:
- The available evidence does not inconclusively support compulsory motorcycle DRLs.
- Additional studies with the aim of manipulating methodology simply to get the desired pro DRL result required by those who support such a measure is both undesirable and unnecessary. The same applies to proposals for experimental regulations.
- DRLs will not help reduce single vehicle motorcycle accidents.
- DRLs will not help reduce the numbers of motorcycle accidents at junctions. (Most urban motorcycle accidents occur at junctions). It is utterly scandalous that certain 'safety' interests are diverting attention from the real causes of the majority of motorcycle accidents (bad car driving and single vehicle motorcycle accidents) and, instead, are playing with motorcycle road safety by actively promoting unproven and dubious secondary safety measures, such as DRLs, as a 'quick fix' measure.
- Motorcycle DRLs may represent a threat to cyclist safety.
Recommendations.
- Proposals from road safety interests for compulsory motorcycle daytime driving lights in the European Union are without foundation and should be dropped.
- Proposals for an experimental period of compulsory DRLs in the UK should be dropped.
- The should be a closer scrutiny of car driver training standards, with a view to improving motorcycle awareness and perception among car drivers.
- Programmes such as 'Bikesafe 2000' need to extended to combat the recent increases in rural single vehicle motorcycle accidents (where DRLs would have absolutely no effect).
- Issues of motorcycle safety (among other motorcycle related issues) should be discussed a part of the full Government Motorcycle Advisory Group.
MAG UK© October 2001 All rights reserved.
|
