Over-powerful LED lights

[Jdsk]

I'm pleased to report that the petition on the government website, asking for a review of headlight brightness at

https://petition.parliament.uk/petition ... o%20bright

.... has now reached 10,278 signatures! The website says the "Government responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures". I wonder what that means.

If the petition reaches 100,000 signatures before July 15, it "will be considered for debate in Parliament", so please consider signing if you haven't already.

Unfortunately the obligatory effects are restricted to what it says, and every time that I reread it it becomes more obvious how little that is. The response will probably be "I hear what you're saying".

But it's a useful step in campaigning. How about reviewing all of the bodies/ experts/ whatever who have spoken out? Has any MP joined in?

Is anyone on the forum a member of the AA? If so, could they contact the AA to ask what they are going to do about their report on blinding car lights ( https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom ... headlights ) ?

I suggest asking directly:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-cousens-91173460/
jack.cousens@theaa.com (probably)

Jonathan

[axel_knutt]

report on blinding car lights ( https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom ... headlights )

"27% say the design of brake lights on cars are ‘more style over substance’"
This is a problem in general, not just with lights, or even just cars. These days the design of almost everything is mainly determined by what makes a winning marketing gimmick, and less and less by what's safe, or practical to use, or even useful. Another example would be the touch screens that take 30 seconds of searching in a menu to find something you could previously reach out and feel for without even taking you eyes off the road. Even when there is a prima facie reason to suppose that something has a safety benefit, there's scant regard payed to investigating the possibility that its presumed benefit may be completely undermined by risk compensation in practice before it gets put into production.

"there is an acceptance that having brighter lights is better for road safety"
Better at shifting responsibility from those who want to drive faster onto those who are dazzled by the lights.

[Diatom]

I suggest asking directly:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-cousens-91173460/
jack.cousens@theaa.com (probably)

Jonathan

Thanks Jonathan. I tried following the link but it told me that to send him a message, I had to sign up for a month's free trial - something I don't want to do!

[Traction_man]

just had this response to the petition:

Government responded:

The Government has taken action internationally to address concerns raised about headlamp glare. Recognising the need for further evidence, we intend to commission independent research shortly.

All vehicle headlamps are designed and tested to follow international standards to ensure that they are both bright enough to illuminate the road but don’t affect the vision of other road users. The standards define the beam pattern and include maximum and minimum light intensities. We know that lots of people raise concerns about headlight glare – but also that the police collision statistics don’t show any underlying road safety issue.

Because of that lack of evidence, the Department for Transport (DfT) raised the issue at the United Nations international expert group on vehicle lighting. Proposals to amend headlamp aiming rules were agreed in April 2023, together with requirements for mandatory automatic headlamp levelling which automatically corrects the aim of the headlamps based on the loading of the vehicle e.g. when passengers are sat on the back seat or there is luggage in the boot.

The transitional provisions permit sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers to redesign their products and adapt the manufacturing process, with the tighter tolerances expected to come into effect in September 2027.

Once implemented, these tougher requirements will help alleviate the number of cases where road users are dazzled. In addition, the DfT also plans to commission independent research to better understand the root causes of driver glare and identify any further appropriate mitigations.

Department for Transport

[Greystoke]

I got that, sounded like a fob off to me

[Pinhead]

The government are slow to do anything about anything these days

Car driving lights, the IDIOTS in cars use day and night, ON at the front NO lights on at the rear

Great following these morons in rain, dark they thing because they can see in front they don't need lights on at the back, what prat invented them

[Jdsk]

just had this response to the petition:
...

Thanks for sharing that.

First thoughts:

1 I don't think that I knew that were maximum intensities in the regulations already. Have we discussed that?

2 It nearly falls into the trap of equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence (of effect), but then recovers with:

3 The plan for future independent research. This may be the route to improvement and I've written to Cycling UK.

Jonathan

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/653793

[axel_knutt]

1. I wonder whether police stats are sufficiently detailed to reveal an effect that my be small in terms of all-cause road deaths but quite large in terms of deaths related to headlamp design. I also think that any advantage of better visibility will have been consumed in the form of faster driving rather than reduced accident rate, and that that possibility won't have been researched.

2. There is no sharp binary boundary at the edge of the beam pattern, lamps that are brighter in the middle of the beam will also be brighter at the margins.

3. Degree of dazzle doesn't just depend on the location of the viewer relative to the beam, it also depends on the direction of the viewer's gaze. From any given position, you may be able to see to the side, but the vicinity of the car with the offending lights is obscured, and that makes it difficult to be sure of avoiding hitting it. If you increase the brightness within the beam too much when the light level around the car remains unchanged then this difference will exceed the dynamic range of the eye.

4. I didn't know that the UN had a finger in the vehicle regulation pie, considering that we left the EU so that we don't have to be told what to do by forriners, it's interesting that we're happy to be involved with them. Mr. Konstantin Glukhenkiy is the contact, I wonder if he's amenable to submissions from lay road users.

[Jdsk]

1. I wonder whether police stats are sufficiently detailed to reveal an effect that may be small in terms of all-cause road deaths but quite large in terms of deaths related to headlamp design. I also think that any advantage of better visibility will have been consumed in the form of faster driving rather than reduced accident rate, and that that possibility won't have been researched.
...

I don't think that they are sufficiently detailed.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

...
4. I didn't know that the UN had a finger in the vehicle regulation pie, considering that we left the EU so that we don't have to be told what to do by forriners, it's interesting that we're happy to be involved with them. Mr. Konstantin Glukhenkiy is the contact, I wonder if he's amenable to submissions from lay road users.

https://unece.org/introduction-24
https://wiki.unece.org/display/trans/Ho ... egulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... for_Europe

and, from upthread:

The regulations (which are UN ECE), history and dates of change for selective yellow headlights:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_yellow

Jonathan

[al_yrpal]

The intent of selective yellow is to improve vision by removing short, blue to violet wavelengths from the projected light. These wavelengths are difficult for the human visual system to process properly, and they cause perceived dazzle and glare effects in rain, fog and snow.[7] Removing the blue-violet portion of a lamp's output to obtain selective yellow light can entail filter losses of around 15%,[8] though the effect of this reduction is said to be mitigated or countervailed by the increased visual acuity available with yellow rather than white light in bad weather.[7]

Interesting bit from Wiki. Enjoying my yellow night driving glasses which enable me to drive with confidence at night. Dazzle no longer a problem...

Al

[Bmblbzzz]

1. I wonder whether police stats are sufficiently detailed to reveal an effect that may be small in terms of all-cause road deaths but quite large in terms of deaths related to headlamp design. I also think that any advantage of better visibility will have been consumed in the form of faster driving rather than reduced accident rate, and that that possibility won't have been researched.
...

I don't think that they are sufficiently detailed.

Jonathan

Any inquiry into headlamps that restricts its research to crashes, whether fatal or not, is going to be useless. The largest effect of overly bright headlights is probably to alter people's behaviour by avoiding roads (including as pedestrians) after dark.

[Traction_man]

worth a read

https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/ap ... complaints

hope that link works

[mattheus]

worth a read

https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/ap ... complaints

hope that link works

Government figures show that, since 2013, there have been an average of 280 collisions on Britain’s roads every year where dazzling headlights were a contributory factor. Of these, six a year involved someone losing their life.

Jeepers

[Bmblbzzz]

worth a read

https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/ap ... complaints

hope that link works

Government figures show that, since 2013, there have been an average of 280 collisions on Britain’s roads every year where dazzling headlights were a contributory factor. Of these, six a year involved someone losing their life.

Jeepers

But what was the economic cost of those lost lives and how did it compare to the economic benefit (increased sales at retail and supply chain level, improved transport efficiencies, etc, etc) of brighter lighting?

This question is both sarcastic and serious, of course.