Road Safety: Headlight Glare

Debate between Jim Shannon and Martin Vickers

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered road safety and headlight glare.

It is always a pleasure to serve when you are in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I know I am not alone in believing that modern headlights on cars can be too bright, causing discomforting glare for motorists and potentially increasing accidents. Many of my constituents have made their views known, following an article in my local newspaper the Grimsby Telegraph, which detailed the findings of a study by the Royal Automobile Club.

I am sure successive Ministers have been aware of and considered this issue, but I am disappointed that no action appears to have been taken until recently, when the Government decided to commission an independent study, following a public petition. I hope that by bringing this matter before the House, a meaningful series of exchanges with motorist organisations, road safety campaigners and others will follow.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. Back home, this is a big issue for many of my constituents, when they observe what they refer to as one-eyed monsters coming over the hill. These new headlights seem to have almost a searchlight quality. On another issue, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that learner drivers learn to drive in the dark? For new licence holders, learning to drive at night when a car is coming towards them can be overwhelming. Does he agree that there should perhaps be time in the driving licence application and instruction process to practise nighttime driving?

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. Nighttime driving is very different from normal daytime driving. Perhaps consideration should be given to whether that should be part of the driving test.

It is a statement of the obvious that vehicle headlights are crucial in enabling drivers to travel safely in the dark or in poor weather conditions. They are required to identify signs, bends, obstacles and other road users, pedestrians in particular, and to make their vehicle visible to others. Over the last 20 years, however, vehicle lighting technology has changed rapidly, from halogen to high-intensity discharge to light-emitting diodes. I appreciate that they are slightly different technologies, but I will use LED as an all-encompassing shorthand for the various alternatives.

In general, LED vehicle headlights are advantageous for sustainability and the driver’s view of the road ahead, but they do also cause problems. Although I intend to focus on high-intensity headlights, it is worth highlighting that dazzling taillights, front and rear indicators, fog lights and reversing lights may also cause concerns about glare in various situations.

Dr John Lincoln of LightAware explains that, although the human eye can adapt to a wide range of light levels, from bright sunlight to almost total darkness, it cannot adapt in a short space of time. Comfortable vision requires a limited range of light levels at any particular time. LED vehicle headlights are much bluer and brighter than the halogen headlights of the past. Halogen headlights are usually around 3,000 lumens, but LED lights are commonly double that, with a colour temperature of 6,000 Kelvins, which is much bluer than that of halogen bulbs.

In January, the RAC published the results of research conducted with 2,000 drivers. It found that 89% of drivers think that some or most vehicle headlights on the UK’s roads are too bright, while 74% said that they are regularly dazzled by them while driving. What is more, it has probably not gone unnoticed that there are a lot more large cars on the roads nowadays. Sport utility vehicles sit high off the ground and are particularly likely to cause glare. About six in 10 drivers of conventional vehicles blame the higher angle of SUV headlight beams. All that ought to suggest that vehicle headlight design needs a rethink.

Although the hazard caused by headlights is primarily due to unregulated luminance and blue wavelength light, as existing standards largely predate modern vehicle designs, some may argue that it would be best simply to enforce the highway code, rule 114 of which states:

“You MUST NOT use any lights in a way which would dazzle…other road users”.

Personally, I would show caution here. Much of the issue is down to new, supposedly intelligent technology that largely takes control of the headlights from the driver. Although the driver can override the technology, it can be difficult to know when to do so. I would much rather see that resolved by fixing technology than by punishing motorists, who may be unaware of the issue that they cause, not to mention the fact that it would be practically impossible to police, as we know that officers cannot be on every corner.

In built-up areas, sleeping policemen, or speed bumps, cause oncoming vehicles suddenly to angle upwards, frequently shining their headlights directly into the eyes of oncoming traffic. Similarly, a driver properly in control on a dark country road can see vehicles approaching and dip their full-beam headlights, even if other vehicles are around the bend or over the brow of a hill. Matrix lighting systems are LED headlights made up of multiple units, and portions of the lamp can switch on and off automatically depending on road conditions, but they do not have human anticipation and switch off only when they directly sense the oncoming headlights, which can be too late to avoid blinding the oncoming driver.

Having set out to raise the issue, I consulted with a range of organisations, such as the RAC, the College of Optometrists and LightAware, which have done their own research into the matter. I also point to the noble lady Baroness Hayter, who has been campaigning on this issue in the other place. All of them told me that this is a very real issue for all motorists, but particularly those over 60, about half of whom, according to the College of Optometrists, have early-stage cataracts in one or both eyes, which make them even more vulnerable to the glare from bright headlights.

LightAware reports that, as a result of headlight glare, many drivers are restricting themselves to driving in the daytime and purposely avoid driving at night. The RAC’s study found that as many as 14% of drivers aged 65 or over—more than one in 10—find glare such a problem that they have stopped driving at night. That has two primary impacts. First, the individual is less able to get out and less flexible in making medical appointments or seeing friends, leading to increased social isolation. Secondly, it reduces the number of reports into the issue of headlight glare, making it appear to be less of an issue than it really is.

Data from the United States shows that up to 15% of accidents are caused by glare from headlights—which, given its stance today, makes the Department for Transport look like it is frankly in a state of denial. The DFT has stated that its statistics show little or no contribution from dazzle to collisions, despite the fact that official Government data shows that, since 2012, there has been an average of 279 collisions a year where dazzling headlights were a contributing factor. Of those, six were fatal collisions. Given that many are no longer driving at night to avoid the problem, the figures would almost certainly be higher if those people were to travel after dark. The DFT’s stance is also unfounded given that, as far as I am aware, it has not undertaken any research. I am pleased that that is due to change once the independent study gets under way. When the Minister responds, I hope he will start by acknowledging the problem and expand a little on the Department’s plans for that research.

The Minister will be aware that others have done their own research already. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents states that

“between the ages of 15 and 65, the time it takes to recover from glare increases from one to nine seconds.”

When travelling at 30 mph, that equates to travelling 13 metres for a young person and 117 metres for someone aged around 65. At 60 mph, that equates to an older person travelling 229 metres. Imagine the potential damage that could be caused by travelling 229 metres while visually impaired.

Plainly, this is not a problem reported just by UK drivers. I have mentioned the case of the United States. Similarly, a number of RAC-equivalent organisations around the world have conducted their own studies and reached the same conclusions. Organisations in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are finding the same results across Europe, based on substantial levels of response from their club members, who are calling for effective measures to substantially reduce the glare caused by road vehicles.

I make that point to highlight the scale of the problem. However, I trust that the Minister will not present that as a reason why change is not possible. The UK can certainly play a part in addressing the wider issue, but it is also something we can address alone, using our own laws and regulatory frameworks. A group chaired by Baroness Hayter produced a report featuring contributions from drivers, light experts and consumer champions. They reviewed information from optometrists, medical experts and European specialists, as well as transport research, and made recommendations to Government—a number of which I will put to the Minister directly.

Christmas, Christianity and Communities

Debate between Jim Shannon and Martin Vickers

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing this very timely debate on the three C’s: Christmas, Christianity and communities, between which there is a clear link. Clearly, without Christianity there would be no Christmas, and it is the celebration of our saviour’s birth that brings communities together.

It is fair to say that not everyone who will be celebrating next week would acknowledge the Christian faith or the real reason we celebrate, but this Christmas festival can still work its magic in bringing communities together. It is also the time of year when the retail trade makes much of its profit, and with the decline of our high streets that is very welcome. Sadly, many gifts are now bought online, but we must also recognise the many people who work in the online community and deliver all those parcels. In recent days, we have heard the news that Royal Mail may give precedence to parcels over cards and letters—I hope not.

My hon. Friend and others recounted various Christmas traditions. I am old enough to remember a time when there were not hundreds of TV channels, and squeezed in after the Queen’s speech was “Top of the Pops” and Billy Smart’s circus, and then the Monopoly board came out before Morecambe and Wise came on.

For our churches, Christmas is an opportunity when the pews are much fuller than usual. There are carol services, Christingle services, nativity plays and Christmas morning services, and midnight mass is part of the seasonal ritual for so many. Those, like me, who are regular worshippers will be there because it is a major Christian festival. For the Church, it is a great opportunity to proclaim the Christmas message and perhaps—just perhaps—touch the hearts of those who doubt, who used to believe or who were dragged along by members of the family. There is magic in the Christmas story.

In a strange sort of way, the Church of England speaks for mainstream middle England. Although it annoys me at regular intervals—I want to say, “Please concentrate on preaching the gospel”—it represents communities up and down our land that do so much to keep our society together. It is the Women’s Institute, the parochial church councils and parish councils. It runs food banks, the scouts, the guides and so much more, and all those things involve the Church and the community.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to “Home Alone”, which gives me an opportunity to say, “Not Home Alone”. Nina Stobart and her team in my constituency provide Not Home Alone events for people who are alone. They can go along to a gathering of about 80 or 90 people for Christmas dinner, donated by a generous local hotel. There are so many opportunities.

The Sunday before last, I attended a service of lessons and carols at St Peter’s church in the beautiful village of Ashby cum Fenby, in the south of my Cleethorpes constituency. It was pleasant and uplifting, and epitomised the three “C”s that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley included in the title for today’s debate: Christmas, Christianity and community.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his wise words. I am mindful of his words about what we will all perhaps be doing this coming Sunday or Monday, in relation to Christmas day. There are many places across the world where the opportunity to worship God will not be available, which we need to be ever mindful of. I brought up the example of Iraq in a business question last week in the Commons Chamber. In Iraq, Christians will not be able to worship God in their churches, because of persecution. That is an example of what happens across the world, when we have the opportunity to worship right here.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Sadly, it is very much the case. He does so much work, along with the Prime Minister’s envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), to highlight persecution of Christians.

I return to the service in Ashby cum Fenby. A local businessman had donated Christmas trees, and various community groups and businesses had decorated the trees. The congregation were asked to vote for their favourite. I opted out of this, on the basis that there will be more losers than winners. It is not wise for the local Member of Parliament to get involved.

The Domesday book lists the manors of Ashby cum Fenby, together with a summary of their assets. In 1086, Ashby cum Fenby was in the hundred of Haverstoe in Lincolnshire. The village had three manors and 29 households, which is considered quite large for that time. St Peter’s church is grade II listed, and has an early English tower, aisle and belfry, a decorated chancel, and a perpendicular font. Beneath the tower are the remaining parts of a 13th-century rood screen. In the north aisle are monuments to Sir William Wray and his wife Frances, both from the 17th century, and to Frances’s sister, Susanna. The fact that they have plaques in the church suggests that they may well have been the elite of their community. Nevertheless, they were part of a village community that came together to worship, then as now. The Christian message had brought them together.

One of my favourite passages from the Bible—perhaps even my favourite—comes from the Christmas gospel: chapter 1 from St John. It begins with those immortal words,

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

For me, the most striking passage in that gospel is, as the authorised version says:

“He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew him not.”

That is sadly the case now, just as it was when St John wrote those words. How much better the world would be if we recognised that Emmanuel, God is with us. How the communities that we represent would be so much better if the Christian message reached deeper into them. Dame Maria, I wish you and all my colleagues a happy Christmas.

Do Not Attempt Resuscitation Orders: Guidelines

Debate between Jim Shannon and Martin Vickers

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue forward. When I saw it on the agenda for Westminster Hall, I just knew that I had to be here. As light is spread, Members like me had the same idea. That is why I wanted to be here. During the first wave of the pandemic, there were ongoing issues with DNAR orders. It has been stated that human rights may have been violated in over 500 cases. That is an enormous amount. Every one of us knows people who have found themselves in those difficult positions. The hon. Gentleman made a critical point: when decisions are made for DNAR orders, full protocol must be followed. Most importantly, the next of kin, who really need to know what is going on, have been ignored. That cannot happen again.

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman makes some powerful points, particularly, as I just mentioned, about the involvement if not of the patient themselves, certainly of the next of kin.

There have been examples of elderly people who reported that they felt pressured into signing these orders against their will. On 16 June, the Daily Mail reported that research carried out by the University of Sheffield found that 31% of the patients in its study who were admitted to hospital for covid were issued with do not resuscitate orders. That is unacceptable. Decisions of that nature are for the individual. They have the right to make their decisions without feeling unduly pressurised.

There have also been reports of care home residents having these orders imposed without consent and some reports speak of “blanket use”, which again is completely unacceptable.

Another report was of a 76-year-old man being issued a DNAR order following a heart attack, from which he made a full recovery. The order had not been discussed beforehand, but when his wife protested, she was reportedly told to “let him go with dignity.” The situation was only put right after the intervention of a more understanding member of staff and the order was revoked.

Throughout the pandemic, there have also been distressing reports of disabled people being denied vital medical treatment. According to the charity Mencap, a number of disabled people have died prematurely when intervention could have saved their lives. However, such intervention was denied owing to DNAR orders that should not have been in place.

Suffice it to say that some of the stories I have heard are frankly sickening, especially those involving the disabled or those suffering from mental illness. Having said that, I do not want to identify individuals in specific cases, although one widely reported case referred to a former Member of the European Parliament, which is sort of halfway to identifying the person involved. However, as I say, that case has been public for some time. She was admitted to hospital in Oxford for an operation on a broken pelvis. After being discharged, she was, of course, shocked to discover that a DNAR order had been in place, without her knowledge or consultation. In the event, her heart stopped during the procedure, supposedly owing to the fact that she suffers from Parkinson’s disease.

I am sorry to say that, as a result of reports I have read, I am able to come to no other conclusion than that clinicians are making assumptions regarding their patients’ quality of life and chances of survival that frequently are harsh and unnecessary. It is evident that a robust response is required from the Department of Health and Social Care. Any delay is unacceptable.

Ministers from the Department have rightly offered reassurance. However, it is time we saw action. Best practice guidelines are already in place, having been set by the Resuscitation Council UK. However, the examples I have given clearly show that the guidance does not appear to have been adhered to by some clinicians.

National Referendum on the European Union

Debate between Jim Shannon and Martin Vickers

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Many Members have referred to the part that they played in the 1975 referendum, and sadly I am one of those who is old enough to have participated. It is interesting to note that that referendum followed a renegotiation of our terms with the Common Market, as it then was, and the question put to the electorate was: “Do we stay in or do we leave?” I voted to leave, and I am pleased that I did so, because I have been consistent throughout. On my selection as a candidate and on the doorstep during the election, I said consistently that I had voted no and that I had not changed my mind, and that the Government position was one thing but mine was another. I am not prepared to break that bond of trust with the electorate.

It has been mentioned that the electorate are becoming disconnected. To a great fanfare of trumpets, the Government introduced the e-petition system, but within weeks they have destroyed the public’s confidence in it. It was as certain as night following day that a motion for an in/out referendum would result from an e-petition, but what have the Government done? They have cast it aside. There have been other distractions. We have been told that it is only eighth or 10th on the list of people’s concerns. This time last year, we were ploughing ahead with legislation on the alternative vote referendum. On the No. 45 from Cleethorpes to Immingham, people were not demanding a referendum on AV, but we allowed ourselves to be distracted.

I am pleased that my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), is in his place, because he will know that the scars run deep in our part of the world following the destruction of the fishing industry which resulted from the sacrifice made at the negotiations to enter the Common Market in the first place.

[Jim Shannon]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the national opinion poll today showing that 81% of those who voted Conservative, 62% of those who voted for the Liberal Democrats and 61% of those who voted Labour would vote for the motion? We ignore the electorate and national opinion polls at our peril.

[Martin Vickers]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman: the Government and the Opposition parties ignore the electorate’s view on this at their peril. We must consider the real people of England, as I like to call them. Yesterday I was at a civic service for a town mayor in Barton-upon-Humber. Members on both sides will have been to these occasions. The real people, those who run our community groups and churches—they are the big society—feel very deeply about this but think that they are being ignored and cast aside. Unless the Government come to terms with that in the near future, they will pay a high price.

I said earlier this year in the debate on votes for prisoners that all Governments take decisions that they know to be against the overwhelming views of those they represent. If they continue to refuse to grant the people a referendum, it will become one of those issues. In fact, it would be something more: it would take away two of their lives. The electorate are disillusioned and cynical about the body politic and the whole political process. If we deny them this opportunity again, the cynicism and disillusionment will grow. I am proud to say that I shall be supporting the motion this evening, and I urge all Members to do so.