A friend of mine reported an interesting incident to me the other day. He was followed into work by a white van that kept on flashing him. Thinking it was some kind soul trying to tell him that his Audi TT was leaking petrol or had a flat tyre, he slowed down to pull in. The van pulled alongside, so close that it forced him into the kerb. The driver then berated my friend for having just blinded him with the daytime running lights (DRLs) - that row of fairy lights you see on quite a few German cars.
Despite my friend’s protestations that this was the way the car was built he was told to get them fixed or else. So every time he sees a plain white van on his way into Blackburn, his heart is in his mouth…

Now, this raises an interesting point because more and more vehicles are being made with DRLs as standard and the ADAC (the German equivalent of the AA) is pressing for them to become compulsory. My friend contacted both the police and Audi for their views. He’s still waiting for a response from the former, but Audi maintained that its DRLs were extensively tested and approved and that they cut accidents at junctions by 50%.

However, there is apparently an increasing movement to have them banned. As long ago as 2007, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents published the following statement in its newsletter:
“RoSPA’s view is that if cars are fitted with Daytime Running Lights, then there is much concern that the conspicuity (sic) of other road users without DRL will suffer. The risk is that when drivers are making observations and looking out for other road users, that drivers will search for the DRL on other vehicles rather than surveying the whole scene and spotting vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians.

“This is a serious concern as research has shown that ‘looked but failing to see’ errors contribute to 23% of unimpaired drivers’ accidents during daylight, and a more recent report identified that 32% of all accidents were caused when road users ‘failed to look properly’. Cyclists are at a risk of suffering a serious injury if hit by a car and so being spotted by other road users is important to a cyclist’s safety.

“Although the counter argument would be that DRL may make it easier for cyclists to spot cars, enabling them to plan an ‘escape route’ to prevent an accident if the car were to pull out, it does not address the issue of drivers making poor or incomplete observations and failing to spot a cyclist.”

So the argument here is that cars with DRLs become too conspicuous compared to other vehicles. But there is another case against DRLs and that is the one for which my friend was berated – that they can dazzle other road users.

Rule 94 of the UK Highway Code states that: “You must not use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users.” Opponents of DRLs claim that full power ones, as used by Volvo for example, can cause glare and dazzle, particularly over crests and humps or when accelerating under load when the nose of the car raises up slightly.

It is the bright, 55 watt DRLs that opponents are most concerned about and advocate the use of energy efficient organic LEDs instead. The parking light headlamp-rim lighting system used by BMW is cited as an acceptable alternative.

This sounds like an argument that is going to run and run, and there is even an anti-DRL website calling for them to be banned. Who knows, there might even be a militant fringe of opponents, like the people who go around spray-painting speed cameras!