GoogleCustom Search

Blinded By The Light - October 5th 2006


News Archives | WSB Results | British Superbike Results | MotoGP Results |

    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 assessments.

    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.
  4. 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."