Newslink October 2021

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Special feature: Vehicle lights Continued from page 23 Detection, Conspicuity and DRL Generally, the greater the contrast between the vehicle and its background the greater the probability it will be detected. For light coloured cars, the contrast is generally greater than for dark coloured cars. But the contrast of a light coloured car against the background does not alter if the ambient illumination changes. Because the visual systems’ sensitivity to contrast diminishes with decreasing illuminance, the probability of detection will grow smaller as the ambient illumination drops. Even on sunny days, the ambient illumination can vary considerably. The driver is not only confronted by a diversity of background luminances caused by the background itself, but also by more marked changes as the background alternates between shade and full sun. As a result, a vehicle that should be clearly visible in direct sunlight becomes relatively difficult to see in dark shade. The luminance of a light source, on the other hand, is constant - if the source is bright enough, its luminance will be greater than that of unlit objects in the surroundings. As the ambient illumination decreases, the contrast between the light source and its background will actually increase. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot be properly detected for one reason or another, it is always advantageous for that vehicle to use lighting. This is particularly true during twilight, poor weather conditions and when the sun is very low on the horizon, eg, sunrise and sunset. Even on very sunny days, a car without lighting can easily disappear into the background, for instance, in the shade of buildings or trees. The use of lighting can ensure that – thanks to the heightened contrast – a vehicle can still be easily detected under such conditions. Recognition, identification and the role of expectations The most elementary form of perception is detecting whether something is there. It becomes more complicated when someone must also indicate the category of object that something belongs to: the recognition or identification of objects. The terms ‘recognition’ and ‘identification’ are often interchanged, and imply that an object is given the right label by an observer (this is a car). Some authors have noted that with recognition, one is only stating that the object concerned has been seen before, while identification implies more than that: the recognised object is identified as belonging to a particular category, eg, a car. In recognition and identification, experience and memory play a role. It is essential that road users see relevant objects (in this case implying detection). But the detection of something is generally insufficient to allow adequate decisions with regard to behaviour in traffic. This is why it is important that the correct interpretation is given to that which has been detected; the correct meaning or identification must be associated with the visual impression. An event or action can be generated by the surroundings, or by the observer who is looking for a particular part of the surroundings, or else by an interaction between these two processes. The distinction between the processing and perception of physical characteristics and the observer’s influence on this process of perception is also indicated by the terms for bottom-up versus top-down processes. Various researchers have shown that the observer himself exerts significant influence on whether a particular object is noticed. An observer, who expects to encounter objects with certain physical characteristics, will more readily see them than when he does not expect them. Hills emphasises the role of expectations in traffic: Another important factor affecting a driver’s detection and perception of a potential hazard is his perceptual set or his expectancies. These are formed both from long-term experience and by the short-term experience of the previous few minutes driving. These can profoundly affect the driver’s interpretation of various visual features and signals in a scene and also the various visual judgments he has to make. Conclusion Daytime Running Lights are a relatively new feature on most cars. Unlike headlights, DRLs are fairly dim and don’t illuminate the road ahead. Their purpose is to increase the visibility of your car, so that other drivers can see you on the road. At night, your headlights and tail lights are illuminated, which means that it’s easy for other drivers to spot you. However, during the day, most drivers turn their lights off and it’s not as easy to spot other vehicles quickly. However, DRLs’ popularity and usefulness has been debated for decades. They are most popular in countries further north, where there is less light (especially in winter). It makes sense, then, that countries such as Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Canada were among the first to require DRLs on all vehicles. In these countries, multiple studies showed that the addition of DRLs does reduce accidents. In other countries, however, DRLs are not as popular, particularly the USA. There were similar mixed reactions in the UK. From 2011, all new vehicles have been required to have daytime running lights. Although daytime running lights are intended to make the road safer for all drivers and pedestrians, there are many critics who argue that they do the opposite. The biggest concern for many drivers is the brightness of DRLs. Even though brightness regulations are put in place by each country, some groups have argued that these standards are too high, and that some DRLs are allowed to be as bright as headlights, which can potentially blind other drivers. In theory, DRLs should be dim in comparison to your headlights, but this isn’t always the case. Additionally, DRLs on larger vehicles are more likely to be placed higher up, meaning that they could shine directly into the eyes of other drivers. Another argument commonly made is to do with geographical location. A lot of DRL critics live in the US or the UK, and they think that they’re less necessary in countries further north. In the US/UK, there’s more sunlight in the day, which obviously makes DRLs less useful. Considering the potential safety hazards caused by daytime running lights, certain groups have lobbied to ban them. In reality, there is some truth in the idea that DRLs aren’t needed in certain locations. Some studies have shown that daytime running lights are three times more effective at reducing accidents in Nordic countries than in the US, for example. Still, there is no evidence to suggest that daytime running lights are harmful in any way. 24 NEWSLINK n OCTOBER <strong>2021</strong>
For all the latest news, see www.msagb.com The turkeys didn’t vote for Christmas in DVSA’s unscientific poll on B+E testing Rod Came MSA GB South East The DVSA put out a public consultation document during the summer relating to the changes it was proposing to enable prospective HGV drivers to acquire a driving licence. Included was the suggestion that category B (car) licence holders should, without any formal training or a driving test, be able to tow a 3,500kg trailer. I want to concentrate on that aspect in this article. DVSA states that over 9,500 responses to the consultation were received and that of those, 4,618 were from professionals involved in the industry and 4,472 were from members of the public. On the vexatious question relating to trailer towing, 6,148 agreed that the proposed changes were a good idea, while 3,139 disagreed. I have to make some assumptions at this point, these being that each response carries the same weight and that people involved in the industry have some idea regarding the ramifications of the suggestion, while those responders listed as ‘Public’ have less, but possibly have a personal interest. Had the following question been asked I wonder if the balance of responses would have shifted to the point where disagreement would have been overwhelming. A Land Rover Discovery has a Maximum Authorised Mass of about 3,200kgs. Under the proposed new rules a driver with a car licence will be able to tow a 3,500kg trailer giving a train weight of 6.7 tonnes as opposed to 4,250 tonnes at present. There will be no requirement for the driver to undertake any training or a test before doing so. Do you think this is safe? When electric vans are introduced, they will be able to be driven by category B drivers up to an MAM of 4,250kgs. If the vehicles are able to tow trailers up to an MAM of 3,500kgs the train weight then becomes 7.75 tonnes. How can that be safe when the 17-year-old driver passed their car driving test in a Ford ‘‘ In the run up to the B+E test cut-off date some candidates failed because they were deemed as being unsafe to drive solo with a heavy trailer... did they suddenly become safe overnight because of a change in the rules? ‘‘ Fiesta only last week? Who from DVSA is going to explain the logic to a coroner after a fatal crash? I am sure that if the consultation included a question as to whether learner drivers, having had X number of lessons with an ADI, should qualify for a driving licence without taking a test there would be many respondents who would have agreed, the number being swelled by those currently taking driving lessons. That situation would be just about as farcical as this one. It is also likely that the figure of 6,148 was increased by those who thought ‘Oh goody, I won’t have to take a test after all’. As I have said before, DVSA makes decisions from statistics built on sand. Another aspect is that, in the run-up to the B+E test cut-off date of September 20, perhaps on September 19, some candidates will have failed their test by committing several minor errors or one serious error, consequently proving they were not able to drive solo with a heavier trailer because they were officially considered to be a danger to the public. What happened overnight to miraculously make them safe drivers while towing? Did they suddenly become safe because of a change of the rules? Allowing B+E trainers to certify their clients as being of test standard would be far preferable to this ridiculous decision, but that would have meant that trainers were then recognised as being equivalent to examiners and we can’t have that can we? Safe Driving for Life (or lives) only matters sometimes. CONTACT To comment on this article, or provide updates from your area, contact Rod at camedt@onetel.com NEWSLINK n OCTOBER <strong>2021</strong> 25
Page 1 and 2: msagb.com Newslink The Voice of MSA
Page 3 and 4: For all the latest news, see www.ms
Page 8 and 9: News TRAILER TRAINERS TRASHED The p
Page 10 and 11: News ‘‘ In 1997 46 people were
Page 12: News: B+E testing Minister responds
Page 19 and 20: Click here for more details
Page 22 and 23: Special feature: Vehicle lights Day
Page 26 and 27: Feature: Changes to the L-test The
Page 28 and 29: Regional News MSA GB Training event
Page 30 and 31: Regional News DVSA: Can they do mor
Page 32 and 33: News DVLA survey finds drivers blin
Page 34 and 35: News Former CDE dies, aged 72 Robin
Page 36 and 37: Q & A with Janet Stewart Former MSA
Page 38 and 39: Membership Members’ discounts and

Newslink October 2021

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?