PITER_PENN,
Ваши данные устарели, и Вам на это уже не раз было указано. Пролистайте внимательно предыдущие страницы, писатель.
приведите пожалуйста ссылки на законы а не просто слова - а я вот там был и все ехали значит положено
WasserKocher, начал искать но наткнулся на другое
Eddy,
судя по тому что кроме Дании никто не жалуется на проблемы с пешеходами
судя почему ? потому что вы так считаете ?
а я вот нашел как раз другой документ
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/consultations/dr ... l_fepa.pdf
Chairman Tom d’Hollander, Belgium (Flanders)
Honorary Treasurer Ole Thorson, Spain (Catalonia)
Secretary Terence Bendixson, United Kingdom
The European Commission
DG for Energy and Transport
Road Safety Unit
‘DRL’
TREN-E3-CONSULTATION@cec.eu.int
Fax 322 296 5196
16 November 2006
Dear Sir or Madam
DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS (DRL)
Thank you for inviting FEPA to comment on the Commission’s proposal to introduce daytime
running lights on vehicles throughout the European Union. FEPA is the umbrella organisation
for European non-profit organisations that campaign to improve conditions for pedestrians.
FEPA has member organisations in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, France, Switzerland,
Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.
FEPA represents the interests of people on foot in towns, cities, suburbs and villages. We put
importance on safety but we regard it equally important that European streets, squares and other
urban places are designed to cater for people of all ages as they walk, meet, talk and otherwise
spend time. The design of few streets responds to such human needs. All too often the
requirements of drivers of vehicles are given priority. As a result pedestrians face fear-inducing
motor traffic, distracting vehicle lights and dazzling head lights.
General
Pedestrian protection has been on the agenda of the European Commission for several years. The
main goal is to get motor manufacturers to design the fronts of vehicles to reduce the injuries
inflicted on pedestrians involved in collisions. While important work has been done in
establishing design criteria, the application of this knowledge still seems as far off as ever. In this
context, DRL can be seen as a proposal of dubious effectiveness designed to distract attention
from failure to protect people on foot via the more onerous action of modifying car fronts.
Furthermore daylight running lights, instead of being about drivers taking care not to harm
pedestrians, would oblige those on foot to look out for cars. This has wide ranging implications.
It could lead underwriters to refuse to pay damages to pedestrians involved in collisons with
cars. It could cause drivers to watch less carefully for pedestrians. And, if recent Austrian
findings apply generally, it could result in added pedestrian casualties and deaths. (See below.)
It is accordingly a matter of the greatest disappointment to FEPA that the European Commission
is making so little progress towards reducing the aggressive of vehicles towards pedestrians and
towards roads that are safe and comfortable for walking.
Via del Mille 58 802121 Nàpols-Itàlia
Barcelona Camina Rbla. Catalunya, 29, 4t 2a 08007 Barcelona-Espanya
2
FEDERATION OF
EUROPEAN
PEDESTRIAN
ASSOCIATIONS
Sea of lights
The introduction of DRL would require pedestrians, when seeking crossing gaps or other
indicators of safe conditions, to have to stare at ‘seas of lights’. Motor cycles could become
masked by cars. Bicycles could become less easy to detect – and so on. Unless convincing
research evidence can be produced by the European Commission that DRL will increase safety
for pedestrians, we urge the abandonment of this proposal.
Research
Research findings do not support the case for DRL. Only one large scale before and after
assessment of the effect of DRL has been undertaken. This impartial American study, done for
the insurance industry, covered over one million vehicles and found a 3.7% increase in injuries
following the introduction of DRL in the United States. (HILDI 1997)
New findings from University of Vienna point in the same usatisfactory direction. Dr Peter
Heilig MD (peter.heilig@univie.ac.at) reports that since the experimental introduction of DRL in
Austria collisions with children, particularly on crossings, have increased.
No research results that the Commission can quote point convincingly in a direction favourable
to DRL. Much is made of cost-benefit analysis by Elvik et al (2003) but there is wide agreement
that it does not meet the standards of proof normal in medical or road safety research.
Motor cycles
Current practice on motor cycle visibility varies from country to country. In some motorcyclists
are obliged to use headlights by day to increase the ease with which they, as small vehicles, may
be seen. This is clearly of benefit to pedestrians. The introduction of DRL would reduce the
conspicousness of motorcycles and, in some cases, cause the headlights of motorcycles that are
preceding cars to appear to be one of the headlights of the car. This could lead pedestrians in
‘read’ the road incorrectly and so increase pedestrain casualties.
Road safety overall
How would DRLs affect pedestrian safety? As the only research into this realtionship that the
Commission can supply is the inadequate work of Elvic et al (2003), FEPA is unable to quantify
the extent to which DRL’s would reduce or increase pedestrian casualties. The Commission is in
the same position. In the absence of such knowledge FEPA believes it would be irresponsible for
the Commission to introduce DRLs.
Energy
FEPA, like many charitabile and commercial organisations, is concerned about the prospect of
climate change and therefore intent on seeing reduced CO2 emissions in Europe. DRLs, due to
their energy requirements, would cause fuel consumption to increase – eventually across the
entire European vehicle fleet. FEPA considers that any safety regulation that would lead to such
an increase is unacceptable. Given today’s awarness of the risks of climate change, DRL is an
obsolete concept. Road safety is important and measures to reduce road casualties are needed.
However it is essential to choose measures that would save lives and reduce energy consumption
and emissions.
Subsidiarity
Via del Mille 58 802121 Nàpols-Itàlia
Barcelona Camina Rbla. Catalunya, 29, 4t 2a 08007 Barcelona-Espanya
3
FEDERATION OF
EUROPEAN
PEDESTRIAN
ASSOCIATIONS
The Commission’s DRL consultation paper notes that 14 Member States already require DRL. It
also says that: ‘The benefits of DRL are...likely to be greater at latitudes further away from the
Equator than at lattitudes close to the Equator’. As is well-known, it was northern, Scandinavian
countries that pioneered DRLs and, even now, such lights are more widely used in the north of
Europe than the south. No stronger case could be made for the subsidiarity rule to be applied to
DRL. FEPA believes that no convincing case has been made for installing DRL all over Europe
and that their introduction should be, as now, left to Member States.
Pedestrian protection and energy saving
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the Consultation Paper on DRLs is the narrowness of
its approach. Walking has connections to both road safety and the quality of life. Of course the
roads of Europe need to be made safer for people on foot but, in countless cases, they need too
their role as corridors for vehicular movement needs to be made less dominant.
Bypasses can help achieve this objective in some cases but are only part of the answer. Vehicles
and driver behaviour need changing too. At present cars are, on average, too heavy, too
powerful, too noisy and too fast for use in urban and suburban conditions. And their headlights,
which consume energy unnecessarily, are designed to enable fast, rural, night-time driving. For
pedestrians they are dazzling by day and night.
The Commission’s efforts to increase road safety should address these issues. Reduced engine
power, reduced speeds and changes to driver behaviour coupled with new Light Emitting Diode
(LED) pedestrian-friendly lighting solutions should be tested.
Conclusions
FEPA considers that the pan-European introduction of DRL would be a backwards step.
Pedestrian safety needs to be persued by actions that would make drivers more aware of
pedestrians and by changing to the design of vehicle fronts that would make them more
yielding in the event of collisions with pedestrians.
Bearing in mind increasing concern about the effect of CO2 emissions on climate change,
only measures that would increase pedestrain safety and reduce fuel consumption should
be considered.
Yourts faithfully
Terence Bendixson
Secretary
FEPA
в общем и европейская ассоциация пешеходов тоже в заговоре с автопроизводителями и белорусскими пенсионерами
тоже против света днем
но вот им то зачем ? может у них в ассоции не взносы платят а наследства на них переписывают ?
заметьте не просто какая то ассоциация решила высказаться, а у них запросили их мнение
.
успел раньше.
Я? 
