Having gone through the report mentioned by the Transport Minister, I have written to Francis Maude as follows:-

As a follow-up of my e-mail of 19/12/2008, I have now gone through the "Daytime Running Lamps (DRL): a review of the reports from the European Commission" and found several sections relevant to the points that I have been raising. (I see that the TRL report refers to "Daytime Running Lights" rather than lamps, and this raises the question in my mind that the use of the word "lamps" by the EC is perhaps more appropriate as lamps are not usually focussed emitters of light as "lights" tend to be.)

Referring to the first group of pages, section 5.1.4 raises the question of the degree to which the use of photographs in the research work can produce the same effect actually experienced by driver's eyes, in terms of light intensity, as is experienced in the actual situation being pictured. The implication is that such pictures will not produce the dazzling effect experienced in real life situations on the road and that therefore they do not facilitate a realistic assessment of the problem.

Section 5.1.5 raises in my mind, the need for cars to have six lamps to be truly effective: two (presumably whitish) on the front, two (perhaps yellowish) about one third of the way back along a car or on the side of a lorry cab, and two red lamps on the rear.

In section 5.2 comparisons are made with work done in Japan but also, towards the end of it, also goes into the question of the effect of high light intensities on cars and lorries possibly reducing the benefits of the current use of headlights by motorcyclists to enable them to be clearly identified as distinct from other vehicle types. This is very important in my opinion as I find that the use of headlights during daytime (preferably dipped) on motorcycles enables me to very quickly identify motorcyclists in my rear view mirror as well as those in front of me, and the current use of headlights by other vehicles during daytime much interferes with this. I agree with the points made in the penultimate and final paragraph, particularly with the last sentence, in this respect. I am in no doubt that the use of beamed headlights by cars is dangerous for motorcyclists.

In section 7, page 32 of the PPR170, the second paragraph, in particular the first two points listed, picks on "probable" weaknesses in the research done which, in my opinion, are very definite and quite unacceptable weaknesses. The next paragraph pages 32 and 33 of the PPR170, is one that I wholly agree with.

Section 8, Conclusions, on page page 35 of PPR170, point three, I entirely agree with: more research needs to be done on this and my feeling is that encouraging drivers of existing cars in particular to use headlights, whether dipped or not, as daytime running lamps, is downright dangerous for motorcyclists. The use of sidelights would, in my opinion, be adequate and much safer.

I hope that the Transport Minister will review his position on the daytime use of headlights on existing cars and encourage instead the use of sidelights of existing vehicles, but discourage the fitting by manufacturers, and the use by drivers of xenon sidelights. My feeling is that the idea of daytime running lamps is a good one if the lamps are properly designed to be suitable for the purpose. My own view is that vehicle lights should be to inform, to illuminate but never to intimidate.