Excessive lighting is safety issue

A UK-based group has set up an Internet-based petition to tackle the safety issue of drivers being dazzled by lights from other vehicles. The organisation, Lightmare, is the combination of two road sector groups that have campaigned against the improper use of vehicle lights in daytime and against the particular hazard posed by high intensity xenon lighting. The issue is a key one as there is a move towards all EC nations requiring the use of daytime running lights on vehicles. At present only a few Europea
May 21, 2012 Read time: 2 mins
A UK-based group has set up an Internet-based petition to tackle the safety issue of drivers being dazzled by lights from other vehicles. The organisation, 5657 Lightmare, is the combination of two road sector groups that have campaigned against the improper use of vehicle lights in daytime and against the particular hazard posed by high intensity xenon lighting. The issue is a key one as there is a move towards all EC nations requiring the use of daytime running lights on vehicles. At present only a few European nations such as Sweden have a requirement for the use of daytime running lights. However some European countries, such as Austria, did introduce regulations requiring the use of daytime running lights on all vehicles but later reversed this move following a 12% increase in accidents amongst vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.

According to Lightmare, the issue of drivers being dazzled is a hazard that is a cause of many accidents, particularly at night and in rural areas where there is no street lighting. In such areas, the powerful beams from high intensity lights can easily dazzle drivers in oncoming vehicles and result in perception failures that lead to dangerous, high impact, head-on crashes. Meanwhile the use of daytime running lights results in light pollution that rather than improving conspicuity, in fact reduces the chances of vulnerable road users from being seen.

There is concern that a European-wide requirement for daytime running lights amongst vehicle users will increase accident levels and prove a negative effect on road safety. Lightmare believes that vulnerable road users will then bear the brunt as drivers will fail to see high visibility clothing due to the excessive light pollution. In Austria, data from traffic experts helped in the removal of the daytime running light regulations. This information provided statistics on children and cyclists being involved in accidents and this showed that compulsory daytime running lights provided an additional hazard rather than a safety benefit. Other safety campaigners in the USA and Australia have compiled similar information according to Lightmare, which says that driving while dazzled is becoming a major road safety issue worldwide.

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Groups seek electronic collision alert devices on big trucks
    February 20, 2015
    The US Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the Truck Safety Coalition, the Center for Auto Safety and Road Safe America have filed a petition with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking to require forward collision avoidance and mitigation braking (F-CAM) systems on all new large trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more. F-CAM technology uses radar and sensors to first alert the driver and then t
    Read More
  • Canadian authorities convinced of enforcement safety benefits
    November 28, 2012
    Cost-benefit analysis invariably finds highly in favour of speed and red light enforcement, particularly so in Edmonton in the Alberta province of Canada, where authorities need no convincing of the merits of road safety engineering. Justification of enforcement efforts on economic grounds has been reinforced this year, by a study of the costs and benefits of red light enforcement. New York-based economic research firm John Dunham & Associates carried out this latest analysis for American Traffic Solutions
    Read More
  • Legalities of in-vehicle systems and cooperative infrastructures
    February 1, 2012
    Paul Laurenza of Dykema Gossett PLLC discusses the paths which lawmakers may go down on the route to making in-vehicle systems and cooperative infrastructures a reality. The question of whether or not to mandate in-vehicle systems for safety and other applications is a vexed one. There is a presumption on some parts that going down the road of forcing systems' fitment is somehow too domineering or restricting. Others would argue that it is the only realistic way of ensuring that systems achieve widespread d
    Read More
  • Auto-braking cars: government should meet motorists halfway
    March 25, 2014
    A UK Government incentive for drivers buying cars with anti-crash technology would save 60 lives and result in 760 fewer serious casualties reported to the police, in just three years. Over ten years, such an incentive would save 1,220 lives and nearly 136,000 casualties, according to Thatcham Research, the insurance industry’s automotive research centre. At a briefing seeking support from senior politicians, health organisations, insurers and vehicle manufacturers at the House of Commons today, Peter S
    Read More

Highlighted Content