HC Deb 12 July 1988 vol 137 cc140-1W
Mr. Simon Coombs

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to implement the decision of the European Court of Justice about dim-dip lighting devices on vehicles.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

In the light of the court's decision I shall shortly issue for comment draft regulations amending the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1984 to exempt from the requirement to fit dim-dip systems and side-marker lamps vehicles which have been fitted with lighting and light-signalling devices in accordance with the EEC vehicle lighting directive and fully meet all the requirements of that directive.

The effect of this amendment will be that motor vehicles will be required either to be equipped with headlamp levelling systems in accordance with the EEC requirements or with the more simple dim-dip requirements. Both systems, if use correctly, can be helpful in reducing glare from headlamps.

Motor vehicles sold since 1 April 1987 are required to have headlamps with a dim-dip system.

There has been a long-standing controversy about the use of lights at night in towns where there is good street lighting. Side lights are not always bright enough to make a moving vehicle readily visible, but modern dipped headlights can be too dazzling, especially in wet weather, and negate the benefits of street lighting.

The purpose of dim-dip is to improve road safety by providing a light more visible than a side light but without the glare associated with a dipped headlight. Dim-dip comes on automatically whenever a vehicle is driven with only the side lights switched on.

Some EC countries (Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark) forbid driving on side lights, a problem which dim-dip overcomes automatically in the United Kingdom. Apart from the problem of dazzle, a difficulty these countries face is that in marginal lighting conditions some vehicles are completely unlit while others use dipped headlights. The remaining EC countries (United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece) do not suffer from this difficulty to the same extent.

The dim-dip requirement was challenged by the European Commission. The Commission pleaded that the intention behind the vehicle lighting directive was to prohibit member states requiring the fitting of further devices not listed in that directive.

The United Kingdom argued in the court that the articles of the directive, which define its scope, plainly confined the scope to the installation of the vehicle lighting devices which are listed in the directive and that it therefore did not prohibit a requirement for any further device such as a dim-dip device or a side marker lamp. Side marker lamps had been required in the United Kingdom, to the full knowledge of the Commission, for many years.

The court decided that the directive had been intended to prohibit the requirement of further devices not imposed by that directive, since motor vehicles complying with the technical requirements laid down therein must be able to move freely within the Common Market.