TOT: Modern car lights: reasoning?

[Another John]

A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.

It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.

What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?

BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.

Cheers
John

[David]

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.
Cheers
John

Where've you been ???

Look up daytime running lights

David

[Another John]

Post by David

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?

Where've you been ???
Look up daytime running lights

Why thank you David .... I did, and the AA article is exemplary. However
couldn't find the bit where it explains why front ones are lit, but not
rear ones.

Neither could I find the bit, whilst we're on about them, which says
that DRLs (to use the acronym) should be bright enough to dazzle
oncoming drivers (as opposed to merely being bright enough to fix the
vehicle's position in other drivers' circle of vision). (LED lights are
a thorough pain in the backside; or rather: retina.)

I ask this question, btw, as a former Volvo 240 driver (we used to get
flashed all the time by helpful fellow motorists). *That* car,
sensibly, had rear DRLs lit as well as front ones. (Or am I dreaming?
I'm sure that they had rears as well as fronts.)

John

[David]

Post by Another John

Post by David

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?

Where've you been ???
Look up daytime running lights

Why thank you David .... I did, and the AA article is exemplary. However
couldn't find the bit where it explains why front ones are lit, but not
rear ones.
Neither could I find the bit, whilst we're on about them, which says
that DRLs (to use the acronym) should be bright enough to dazzle
oncoming drivers (as opposed to merely being bright enough to fix the
vehicle's position in other drivers' circle of vision). (LED lights are
a thorough pain in the backside; or rather: retina.)
I ask this question, btw, as a former Volvo 240 driver (we used to get
flashed all the time by helpful fellow motorists). *That* car,
sensibly, had rear DRLs lit as well as front ones. (Or am I dreaming?
I'm sure that they had rears as well as fronts.)
John

Sorry John, I cannot remember about the older Volvos.

But the newer LED ones, I hate them.

On one of our cars, the LEDs cannot be turned off, and I have never had
so many other road users pull out in front of us, but I found that
turning on the sidelights dims the LEDs substantially.
Many other cars we have had, they were able to be turned off. Heck, my
neighbour's 14 plate Nissan can have them turned off.

As far as I can tell, they must be fitted on new cars from around 2012,
but in the UK, their use is not mandatory.

Also, in the UK, I believe it is an offence to have full dipped
headlights turned on when parked at the side of the road, especially
when parked on the 'wrong' side of the road, but when using 'auto'
lights, the car may have decided that it is dark enough for headlights
thus putting the driver in jeopardy of getting penalty points. The same
can happen with 'welcome lights'.

David

[Adrian]

Post by David

Post by Another John
I ask this question, btw, as a former Volvo 240 driver (we used to get
flashed all the time by helpful fellow motorists). *That* car,
sensibly, had rear DRLs lit as well as front ones. (Or am I dreaming?
I'm sure that they had rears as well as fronts.)

Sorry John, I cannot remember about the older Volvos.

Volvo and Saab both brought DRLs into the UK back in the '80s, possibly
earlier. On Saabs, they used a dual filament bulb in the sidelight
housing - 5w for parking, 21w for DRL.

But, yep, they definitely had the back lights on, too, not least because
the Scandi legal requirement included them. The current EU DRL
requirement is front only, so the manufacturers don't tend to put the
tail lights on. There really ought to be a requirement for autolights to
be fitted in parallel, if the tail lights aren't included in the DRLs.

[David]

Post by Adrian

Post by David

Post by Another John
I ask this question, btw, as a former Volvo 240 driver (we used to get
flashed all the time by helpful fellow motorists). *That* car,
sensibly, had rear DRLs lit as well as front ones. (Or am I dreaming?
I'm sure that they had rears as well as fronts.)

Sorry John, I cannot remember about the older Volvos.

Volvo and Saab both brought DRLs into the UK back in the '80s, possibly
earlier. On Saabs, they used a dual filament bulb in the sidelight
housing - 5w for parking, 21w for DRL.
But, yep, they definitely had the back lights on, too, not least because
the Scandi legal requirement included them. The current EU DRL
requirement is front only, so the manufacturers don't tend to put the
tail lights on. There really ought to be a requirement for autolights to
be fitted in parallel, if the tail lights aren't included in the DRLs.

I had forgot about the SAABs.

Volvo did stop fitting them (DRLs) for a while, and then brought us
amber lights on the sides of their cars.
I remember a report of an accident where a vehicle was waiting to emerge
from a side road and thought that the volvo driver was indicating to
turn into the side road - when it was not - and so pulled out of the
junction into the path of the volvo.

David

[Adrian]

Post by David
Volvo did stop fitting them (DRLs) for a while, and then brought us
amber lights on the sides of their cars.

US-style side-markers...

Post by David
I remember a report of an accident where a vehicle was waiting to emerge
from a side road and thought that the volvo driver was indicating to
turn into the side road - when it was not - and so pulled out of the
junction into the path of the volvo.

Since they're exactly the same as the side markers legally required down
the side of any vehicle longer than six metres long, and - rather more to
the point - THEY DON'T FUCKING FLASH, it seems as if somebody was trying
to come up with a slightly more elaborate way of saying "I wasn't
actually looking where I was going"...

[Chris French]

Post by Adrian

Post by David
Volvo did stop fitting them (DRLs) for a while, and then brought us
amber lights on the sides of their cars.

US-style side-markers...

Post by David
I remember a report of an accident where a vehicle was waiting to emerge
from a side road and thought that the volvo driver was indicating to
turn into the side road - when it was not - and so pulled out of the
junction into the path of the volvo.

Since they're exactly the same as the side markers legally required down
the side of any vehicle longer than six metres long, and - rather more to
the point - THEY DON'T FUCKING FLASH, it seems as if somebody was trying
to come up with a slightly more elaborate way of saying "I wasn't
actually looking where I was going"...

Indeed, but silly to rely on the indicators anyway in this situation.

[bm]

Post by Chris French

Post by Adrian

Post by David
Volvo did stop fitting them (DRLs) for a while, and then brought us
amber lights on the sides of their cars.

US-style side-markers...

Post by David
I remember a report of an accident where a vehicle was waiting to emerge
from a side road and thought that the volvo driver was indicating to
turn into the side road - when it was not - and so pulled out of the
junction into the path of the volvo.

Since they're exactly the same as the side markers legally required down
the side of any vehicle longer than six metres long, and - rather more to
the point - THEY DON'T FUCKING FLASH, it seems as if somebody was trying
to come up with a slightly more elaborate way of saying "I wasn't
actually looking where I was going"...

Indeed, but silly to rely on the indicators anyway in this situation.

Absolutely, drive defensively and expect every other road user to be a
moron, you won't go far wrong.

[Dennis@home]

Post by Adrian

Post by David
Volvo did stop fitting them (DRLs) for a while, and then brought us
amber lights on the sides of their cars.

US-style side-markers...

Post by David
I remember a report of an accident where a vehicle was waiting to emerge
from a side road and thought that the volvo driver was indicating to
turn into the side road - when it was not - and so pulled out of the
junction into the path of the volvo.

Since they're exactly the same as the side markers legally required down
the side of any vehicle longer than six metres long, and - rather more to
the point - THEY DON'T FUCKING FLASH, it seems as if somebody was trying
to come up with a slightly more elaborate way of saying "I wasn't
actually looking where I was going"...

They flash if there are pedestrian railings at the junction.

[Bill]

Post by David
Also, in the UK, I believe it is an offence to have full dipped
headlights turned on when parked at the side of the road, especially
when parked on the 'wrong' side of the road, but when using 'auto'
lights, the car may have decided that it is dark enough for headlights
thus putting the driver in jeopardy of getting penalty points. The same
can happen with 'welcome lights'.

I've posted about this before, but here it's not auto lights, I don't
think, but just idiots.
The local council has approved the gradual conversion of a bunch of
shops into restaurants that attract the lower classes and footballers
with Ferraris to sit and pretend they are part of the cafe culture. The
shops lead up to the brow of the hill, over which the now
deserted-looking police station is situated.
We give someone a lift home every night and have to pass the taxis and
others at chucking out time, many double parked and many on the wrong
side of the road parked with sidelights on.
So cars sit forcing us out onto the wrong side of the main road with
their dipped headlights pointing at us down over the brow of the hill.
And we, of course are facing oncoming traffic coming over the brow.

It's an accident that is bound to happen. There is never any sighting of
any member of the local constabulary.

[David]

(snip)

Post by Bill
I've posted about this before, but here it's not auto lights, I don't
think, but just idiots.

I thought this, but was trying to be polite...

I'm 100% with Adrian when he says that drivers should be re-tested every
5 years.

David

[Harry Bloomfield]

Also, in the UK, I believe it is an offence to have full dipped headlights
turned on when parked at the side of the road, especially when parked on the
'wrong' side of the road, but when using 'auto' lights, the car may have
decided that it is dark enough for headlights thus putting the driver in
jeopardy of getting penalty points. The same can happen with 'welcome
lights'.

It is an offence after dark to park on the wrong side of the road
anyway, not just with your lights on. Lights just make the situation
worse.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Harry Bloomfield
It is an offence after dark to park on the wrong side of the road

When the law was brought in in Belgium (1982?), it was an offence at any
time. [Don't know about other countries.]

Actually that's not an offence if it's a recognised parking space.
HC 248.

Don't know about other countries.

[Another John]

Post by David
Also, in the UK, I believe it is an offence to have full dipped
headlights turned on when parked at the side of the road, especially
when parked on the 'wrong' side of the road...

Yes! But I often wonder how many people under the age of 60 (to pick a
random number, you understand), know, or care, about that (despite the
sophisticated modern driving tests)! Bloody annoying!

Post by David
But, yep, [Volvos and Saabs] definitely had the back lights on, too, not least because
the Scandi legal requirement included them.

Thanks Adrian! (So I'm not losing my mind!) ((yet))

Post by David
The current EU DRL requirement is front only,

Arses!! Reminds me of the Local Planning authorities work: "Hear no
Common Sense, See no Common Sense, Speak no Common Sense: we can only do
what we are "allowed" to do." (i.e. not what the people would like us to
do.)

Post by David

Post by Another John
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.

They also have no control over it, it is a cunning European Onion plan
to kill more motorcyclists in the interests of "safety".

Fair point. But again: manufacturers putting common sense behind profit
(in this case).

Post by David

Post by Another John

Post by David
I remember a report of an accident where a vehicle was waiting to emerge
from a side road and thought that the volvo driver was indicating to
turn into the side road - when it was not - and so pulled out of the
junction into the path of the volvo.

Since they're exactly the same as the side markers legally required down
the side of any vehicle longer than six metres long, and - rather more to
the point - THEY DON'T FUCKING FLASH, it seems as if somebody was trying
to come up with a slightly more elaborate way of saying "I wasn't
actually looking where I was going"...

Indeed, but silly to rely on the indicators anyway in this situation.

Yep: these days I never assume, waiting at any junction, that the car
approaching, indicating left, is going to turn left! Once the vehicle
starts to slow down appreciably, *then* I pull out :-)

Post by David

Post by Another John
But on the front only?

That is the more dangerous end.

Granted, but the PURPOSE of DRLs, in my view, is (as I said before) is
to "fix" a vehicle's presence and position in other drivers' circle of
vision. You do NOT need blinding LEDs to achieve that, but you DO need
the rear DRLs as well, if you're aiming at that objective.
<sigh> EU officials need some more meetings, n'est ce pas?

Post by David
Could it be the horn beeping and glaring look you give them as you
pass make them see the error of their ways?

Ha ha :-) I long ago stopped getting as it were "actively annoyed" with
other drivers, and have become much more philosophical. I've found that
it does me a lot of good! Can't speak for the wife, mind: god: one look
from her is enough to frazzle a Jaguar's DRLs :-(

John

[Tim Streater]

Post by Another John

Post by David
The current EU DRL requirement is front only,

Arses!! Reminds me of the Local Planning authorities work: "Hear no
Common Sense, See no Common Sense, Speak no Common Sense: we can only do
what we are "allowed" to do." (i.e. not what the people would like us to
do.)

There's really no point in whinging about the actions of people who are
constrained by law and the threat of the Planning Inspector.

["Nightjar]

On 17/09/2014 09:35, Another John wrote:
...

Post by Another John
Granted, but the PURPOSE of DRLs, in my view, is (as I said before) is
to "fix" a vehicle's presence and position in other drivers' circle of
vision. You do NOT need blinding LEDs to achieve that, but you DO need
the rear DRLs as well, if you're aiming at that objective.
<sigh> EU officials need some more meetings, n'est ce pas?

...

That rather depends upon whether or not they agree with you as to the
purpose of the lights. According to the World Health Organisation,
research showed that, in Europe, one pedestrian in three involved in an
accident had experienced difficulty seeing the approaching vehicle that
had subsequently struck them. To alleviate that problem, you only need
lights at the front and they need to be bright enough to be very obvious.

[Adrian]

According to the World Health Organisation, research showed that, in
Europe, one pedestrian in three involved in an accident had experienced
difficulty seeing the approaching vehicle that had subsequently struck
them. To alleviate that problem, you only need lights at the front and
they need to be bright enough to be very obvious.

Except, of course, there's one thing that's omitted from that seemingly
decisive statement. (And I'm not referring to pedestrians with eyesight
problems, or with cars travelling too quickly for the environment -
they're separate questions)

EVERY car manufactured for the last century or more has had lights
fitted, with a switch available for the driver to use them where they
would aid visibility*.

If the pedestrian did not see the car, and lights would have aided in
that, then the driver has already failed.

Turning the lights on at all times adds nothing, assuming competent
drivers.

If we can't make an assumption that all drivers can be deemed competent,
then whether cars have lights on or not is the least of the potential
issues arising.

* - visibility OF the vehicle, as well as visibility of the road from the
vehicle.

[Adrian]

BTW, nor do I think this is an "EU" issue. As usual, that's just a nice
piece of scapegoating by those with an axe to grind. DRLs were mandated
in the US years earlier, and have been rolling out across most of the
rest of the world ever since. Even if we weren't an EU member, DRLs would
be here, now.

[Capitol]

Post by Adrian
BTW, nor do I think this is an "EU" issue. As usual, that's just a nice
piece of scapegoating by those with an axe to grind. DRLs were mandated
in the US years earlier, and have been rolling out across most of the
rest of the world ever since. Even if we weren't an EU member, DRLs would
be here, now.

There is no legal requirement for DRL in the US. Some, mainly european,
cars have them.

[Vir Campestris]

Post by "Nightjar
That rather depends upon whether or not they agree with you as to the
purpose of the lights. According to the World Health Organisation,
research showed that, in Europe, one pedestrian in three involved in an
accident had experienced difficulty seeing the approaching vehicle that
had subsequently struck them. To alleviate that problem, you only need
lights at the front and they need to be bright enough to be very obvious.

Motorcyclists have known for years that lights help. They change
"SMIDSY" to an inability of the car to judge the speed and distance of
the bike. It seems they are better on than off.

Andy

[The Other John]

Post by Vir Campestris
Motorcyclists have known for years that lights help.

Not on the 2 occasions when I was knocked of my bike
(both times by women drivers!), I had my dipped headlight
on, my bike had a huge white fairing and I was wearing
a dayglo red riding suit with a reflecting yellow belt and
a white helmet and it was broad daylight. The trouble is
drivers (IMO) look past a motorcycle to see if there's a
car coming and if not they pull out!

[Murmansk]

I think DRLs are very good but they don't get around the problem of people not putting their lights on when it's dusk.

Because DRLs are very bright, in order to be seen well in bright daylight, they can seem too bright when it's dusk - but if it's dusk people should have turned their lights on, at which point DRLs go off (or go dimmer).

[David]

Post by Murmansk
I think DRLs are very good but they don't get around the problem of
people not putting their lights on when it's dusk.
Because DRLs are very bright, in order to be seen well in bright
daylight, they can seem too bright when it's dusk - but if it's dusk
people should have turned their lights on, at which point DRLs go off
(or go dimmer).

Imagine you are driving a busy urban street in daylight, with shops and
pedestrians.
The endless line of traffic coming towards you has LED DRLs blazing, how
difficult do
think it would be to see a small child run out from between parked cars
on the other side of the road, or an un-lit cyclist waiting to turn right ?
These are easily masked by the brilliant dazzling glare from the high
intensity lamps.

What next to be illuminated, DRLs for cyclists, kids scooters, postie
trollies ?

IMHO

David

[polygonum]

Post by David
What next to be illuminated, DRLs for cyclists, kids scooters, postie
trollies ?

We already have numerous shoes/footwear with various forms of built-in
illumination.

["Nightjar]

On 18/09/2014 18:33, David wrote:
...

Post by David
Imagine you are driving a busy urban street in daylight, with shops and
pedestrians.
The endless line of traffic coming towards you has LED DRLs blazing, how
difficult do
think it would be to see a small child run out from between parked cars
on the other side of the road,...

Not really your problem - the child will be hit by one of the cars
coming the other way.

Post by David
These are easily masked by the brilliant dazzling glare from the high
intensity lamps...

I think you need to see an optician if you find DRLs create glare.

[David]

Post by "Nightjar
...

Post by David
Imagine you are driving a busy urban street in daylight, with shops and
pedestrians.
The endless line of traffic coming towards you has LED DRLs blazing, how
difficult do
think it would be to see a small child run out from between parked cars
on the other side of the road,...

Not really your problem - the child will be hit by one of the cars
coming the other way.

Not if they are stationary.

As usual, I failed to express my thoughts exactly...

If pedestrians are being hit by cars they do not see, it is the fault of
the pedestrian, if the car is not travelling too fast ??

Maybe pedestrians should be wearing huge flashing hats...

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
These are easily masked by the brilliant dazzling glare from the high
intensity lamps...

I think you need to see an optician if you find DRLs create glare.

Not only DRLs, but badly aligned headlights and illegal Xenon
conversions, too.

I have been told that it is due to my brain chemistry.

I also find the LED brake lights from Audis and Mercedes far too bright,
with the idiot drivers who cannot / will not use the handbrake...

David

["Nightjar]

On 19/09/2014 12:03, David wrote:
...

Post by David
If pedestrians are being hit by cars they do not see, it is the fault of
the pedestrian, if the car is not travelling too fast ??...

Statistically, yes. For fatal and injury accidents involving pedestrians
reported to the Police in 2011, 57% had a contributory factor of
pedestrian failed to look properly, 32% pedestrian careless, reckless or
in a hurry, 17% pedestrian failed to judge vehicle's path or speed and
11% pedestrian impaired by alcohol. This adds up to more than 100%
because an accident may have up to six contributory factors attributed
to it, so some accidents will have had two or more of these factors
together.

Post by David

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
These are easily masked by the brilliant dazzling glare from the high
intensity lamps...

I think you need to see an optician if you find DRLs create glare.

Not only DRLs, but badly aligned headlights and illegal Xenon
conversions, too.
I have been told that it is due to my brain chemistry.

As the majority don't have that problem and DRLs have been shown to
produce significant reductions in accidents, that doesn't seem to be a
very good reason not to have them.

Post by David
I also find the LED brake lights from Audis and Mercedes far too bright,
with the idiot drivers who cannot / will not use the handbrake...

I haven't had a hand brake in any car I've owned this century. I do have
a parking brake, but that is foot operated. Not that I would normally
use it when driving. If the stop is only temporary, I like the drivers
coming up behind me to see very obvious brake lights. At a longer stop,
such as a level crossing, I will put the car into Park once I have
enough vehicles behind me to absorb an impact from somebody who can't
see that the queue is stopped.

I don't have a great deal of faith in the observational abilities of the
average driver. I've seen three different drivers only narrowly avoid
rear-ending a Police car that was sitting in the outside lane of a NSL
dual carriageway, with blue and red lights flashing, there being a clear
view of them from over a mile away.

[Tim Streater]

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
I have been told that it is due to my brain chemistry.

As the majority don't have that problem and DRLs have been shown to
produce significant reductions in accidents, that doesn't seem to be a
very good reason not to have them.

Ah good, so can we go back to sensible colours for wiring then,
earth=green, live=red, neutral=black?

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
I also find the LED brake lights from Audis and Mercedes far too bright,
with the idiot drivers who cannot / will not use the handbrake...

I haven't had a hand brake in any car I've owned this century. I do have
a parking brake, but that is foot operated. Not that I would normally
use it when driving. If the stop is only temporary, I like the drivers
coming up behind me to see very obvious brake lights. At a longer stop,
such as a level crossing, I will put the car into Park once I have
enough vehicles behind me to absorb an impact from somebody who can't
see that the queue is stopped.

You should be turning the engine off.

["Nightjar]

Post by Tim Streater

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
I have been told that it is due to my brain chemistry.

As the majority don't have that problem and DRLs have been shown to
produce significant reductions in accidents, that doesn't seem to be a
very good reason not to have them.

Ah good, so can we go back to sensible colours for wiring then,
earth=green, live=red, neutral=black?

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
I also find the LED brake lights from Audis and Mercedes far too

bright,

Post by David
with the idiot drivers who cannot / will not use the handbrake...

I haven't had a hand brake in any car I've owned this century. I do
have a parking brake, but that is foot operated. Not that I would
normally use it when driving. If the stop is only temporary, I like
the drivers coming up behind me to see very obvious brake lights. At a
longer stop, such as a level crossing, I will put the car into Park
once I have enough vehicles behind me to absorb an impact from
somebody who can't see that the queue is stopped.

You should be turning the engine off.

That would turn off too many other things as well. The latest version of
my car stops the engine off when stationery for longer than a few
seconds, but doesn't turn off other things, so that will be fixed when I
next replace the car.

[David]

(snip)

Post by "Nightjar
As the majority don't have that problem and DRLs have been shown to
produce significant reductions in accidents, that doesn't seem to be a
very good reason not to have them.

I simply do not believe that they do reduce accidents significantly,
from my own experiences.
I must admit I do not know the 'official' statistics, nor the 'official'
testing method, but, I do not think that the test were completed "real
world" as there would be too many uncontrolled variables.

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
I also find the LED brake lights from Audis and Mercedes far too bright,
with the idiot drivers who cannot / will not use the handbrake...

I haven't had a hand brake in any car I've owned this century.

You know what I meant.

Post by "Nightjar
I do have
a parking brake, but that is foot operated. Not that I would normally
use it when driving.

So the rules do not apply to you, then ?

Post by "Nightjar
If the stop is only temporary, I like the drivers
coming up behind me to see very obvious brake lights. At a longer stop,
such as a level crossing, I will put the car into Park once I have
enough vehicles behind me to absorb an impact from somebody who can't
see that the queue is stopped.
I don't have a great deal of faith in the observational abilities of the
average driver. I've seen three different drivers only narrowly avoid
rear-ending a Police car that was sitting in the outside lane of a NSL
dual carriageway, with blue and red lights flashing, there being a clear
view of them from over a mile away.

Often seen on the TV programmes from the USA.

David

[Adrian]

Post by David
I simply do not believe that they do reduce accidents significantly,
from my own experiences.
I must admit I do not know the 'official' statistics, nor the 'official'
testing method, but, I do not think that the test were completed "real
world" as there would be too many uncontrolled variables.

I've already linked (up this thread somewhere) to the original report
from the consultation period, written by TRL.

["Nightjar]

Post by David
(snip)

Post by "Nightjar
As the majority don't have that problem and DRLs have been shown to
produce significant reductions in accidents, that doesn't seem to be a
very good reason not to have them.

I simply do not believe that they do reduce accidents significantly,
from my own experiences.
I must admit I do not know the 'official' statistics, nor the 'official'
testing method, but, I do not think that the test were completed "real
world" as there would be too many uncontrolled variables.

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
I also find the LED brake lights from Audis and Mercedes far too bright,
with the idiot drivers who cannot / will not use the handbrake...

I haven't had a hand brake in any car I've owned this century.

You know what I meant.

Post by "Nightjar
I do have
a parking brake, but that is foot operated. Not that I would normally
use it when driving.

So the rules do not apply to you, then ?..

What rules require me to use a parking brake when not parked?

[Another John]

Post by David

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
These are easily masked by the brilliant dazzling glare from the high
intensity lamps...

I think you need to see an optician if you find DRLs create glare.

Not only DRLs, but badly aligned headlights and illegal Xenon
conversions, too.

...

Post by David
I also find the LED brake lights from Audis and Mercedes far too bright,
with the idiot drivers who cannot / will not use the handbrake...

I second that. Colin - how old are you? 40s? 50s? If you're in your
60s, and do NOT find a problem with glare from the lights mentioned
above by David, then it's _you_ who's in the minority. LED lights are
far too bright for the purpose intended -- period.

And I bet you don't find a problem with the brake LEDs of cars in a
queue ahead of you because you're sitting in a high 4x4, i.e. higher
than us plebs! :-)

John

["Nightjar]

Post by Another John

Post by David

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
These are easily masked by the brilliant dazzling glare from the high
intensity lamps...

I think you need to see an optician if you find DRLs create glare.

Not only DRLs, but badly aligned headlights and illegal Xenon
conversions, too.

...

Post by David
I also find the LED brake lights from Audis and Mercedes far too bright,
with the idiot drivers who cannot / will not use the handbrake...

I second that. Colin - how old are you? 40s? 50s? If you're in your
60s, and do NOT find a problem with glare from the lights mentioned
above by David, then it's _you_ who's in the minority. LED lights are
far too bright for the purpose intended -- period.

I have never had a problem with glare from lights that other people
complain about. In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Post by Another John
And I bet you don't find a problem with the brake LEDs of cars in a
queue ahead of you because you're sitting in a high 4x4, i.e. higher
than us plebs! :-)

You would lose that bet. I don't have a problem with LED brake lights,
but I drive an estate car, not a 4x4.

[Another John]

Post by "Nightjar

Post by Another John
I second that. Colin - how old are you? 40s? 50s? If you're in your
60s, and do NOT find a problem with glare from the lights mentioned
above by David, then it's _you_ who's in the minority. LED lights are
far too bright for the purpose intended -- period.

I have never had a problem with glare from lights that other people
complain about. In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Halogen in the [19]60s? No - never a problem for me then -- not only
because "in those days" garages were required to test the alignment of a
car's beams (Cor! Imagine that!), but mainly because I've definitely
noticed an increased sensitivity to glare (from any lights)in *my* own
60s.

LED lights (or Xenon, or whatever these things are) aggravate this
naturally occurring problem, because -- as several others have remarked
-- they increase the brightness a great deal (without improving the
actual illumination).

John

["Nightjar]

Post by Another John

Post by "Nightjar

Post by Another John
I second that. Colin - how old are you? 40s? 50s? If you're in your
60s, and do NOT find a problem with glare from the lights mentioned
above by David, then it's _you_ who's in the minority. LED lights are
far too bright for the purpose intended -- period.

I have never had a problem with glare from lights that other people
complain about. In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Halogen in the [19]60s? No - never a problem for me then -- not only
because "in those days" garages were required to test the alignment of a
car's beams (Cor! Imagine that!), but mainly because I've definitely
noticed an increased sensitivity to glare (from any lights)in *my* own
60s.
LED lights (or Xenon, or whatever these things are) aggravate this
naturally occurring problem, because -- as several others have remarked
-- they increase the brightness a great deal (without improving the
actual illumination).

In which case, I suggest you visit an optician. Your iris is smaller
than it was in your youth, so bright lights should be less noticeable.
However, problems with glare could be due to the lens losing clarity and
may be an early sign of a cataract.

[polygonum]

Post by Another John
Halogen in the [19]60s? No - never a problem for me then -- not only
because "in those days" garages were required to test the alignment of a
car's beams (Cor! Imagine that!), but mainly because I've definitely
noticed an increased sensitivity to glare (from any lights)in*my* own
60s.

As I have said before, for me (in my fifties) that was a symptom of
hypothyroidism rather than age. It feels as if my sensitivity has
returned to how it always used to be. Mind, without any means of
measuring/calibrating that, it is obviously subjective.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

Post by "Nightjar
In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Good point, but erroneous.
The influx of halogens made much more noticeable the percentage of
cars with badly adjusted lights, that's all.

[Tim Watts]

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon

Post by "Nightjar
In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Good point, but erroneous.
The influx of halogens made much more noticeable the percentage of
cars with badly adjusted lights, that's all.

How do these headlights manage to go off so far after the last MoT?

["Nightjar]

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon

Post by "Nightjar
In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Good point, but erroneous.
The influx of halogens made much more noticeable the percentage of
cars with badly adjusted lights, that's all.

I disagree. My halogen headlights were meticulously adjusted, but I
would still regularly get people flash me when driving on dipped
headlights. Some even put their headlamps on full and left them on, at
least until I also went onto full beam.

[Tim Lamb]

Post by "Nightjar

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon

Post by "Nightjar
In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Good point, but erroneous.
The influx of halogens made much more noticeable the percentage of
cars with badly adjusted lights, that's all.

I disagree. My halogen headlights were meticulously adjusted, but I
would still regularly get people flash me when driving on dipped
headlights. Some even put their headlamps on full and left them on, at
least until I also went onto full beam.

Likely.

I guess most of us are old enough to remember the headlamp wattage
limitation for Tungsten filaments of 65Watts full beam and 55Watts
dipped.

Heaven knows what the lumen comparison would be with what comes at you
over the speed humps today:-(

[Huge]

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by "Nightjar

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon

Post by "Nightjar
In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Good point, but erroneous.
The influx of halogens made much more noticeable the percentage of
cars with badly adjusted lights, that's all.

I disagree. My halogen headlights were meticulously adjusted, but I
would still regularly get people flash me when driving on dipped
headlights. Some even put their headlamps on full and left them on, at
least until I also went onto full beam.

Likely.
I guess most of us are old enough to remember the headlamp wattage
limitation for Tungsten filaments of 65Watts full beam and 55Watts
dipped.
Heaven knows what the lumen comparison would be with what comes at you
over the speed humps today:-(

I think there has been a change in behaviour among drivers such that they
don't believe you have dipped your headlamps unless they've seen you do
it. I routinely dip my lamps *before* the oncoming driver appears from
round the corner, but they wait until they see me, then flash me because
they think I haven't dipped them. Then I drill holes in their retinas.
And my headlamps are self-levelling. And it works.

["Nightjar]

Post by Huge

Post by Tim Lamb

Post by "Nightjar

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon

Post by "Nightjar
In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Good point, but erroneous.
The influx of halogens made much more noticeable the percentage of
cars with badly adjusted lights, that's all.

I disagree. My halogen headlights were meticulously adjusted, but I
would still regularly get people flash me when driving on dipped
headlights. Some even put their headlamps on full and left them on, at
least until I also went onto full beam.

Likely.
I guess most of us are old enough to remember the headlamp wattage
limitation for Tungsten filaments of 65Watts full beam and 55Watts
dipped.
Heaven knows what the lumen comparison would be with what comes at you
over the speed humps today:-(

I think there has been a change in behaviour among drivers such that they
don't believe you have dipped your headlamps unless they've seen you do
it. I routinely dip my lamps *before* the oncoming driver appears from
round the corner, but they wait until they see me, then flash me because
they think I haven't dipped them. Then I drill holes in their retinas.
And my headlamps are self-levelling. And it works.

I recall there was one chap who thought he could top my main beam by
putting on a couple of auxiliary lights; not a good strategy against a
car carrying four Cibie Oscar rally lights.

[Richard]

Post by "Nightjar

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon

Post by "Nightjar
In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Good point, but erroneous.
The influx of halogens made much more noticeable the percentage of
cars with badly adjusted lights, that's all.

I disagree. My halogen headlights were meticulously adjusted,

By whom?

Post by "Nightjar
but I would still regularly get people flash me when driving on dipped
headlights. Some even put their headlamps on full and left them on, at
least until I also went onto full beam.

["Nightjar]

Post by Richard

Post by "Nightjar

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon

Post by "Nightjar
In the 1960s, you would probably have been one of those
complaining about the glare from halogen headlamps, but I doubt you
consider those to be a problem today. I didn't then.

Good point, but erroneous.
The influx of halogens made much more noticeable the percentage of
cars with badly adjusted lights, that's all.

I disagree. My halogen headlights were meticulously adjusted,

By whom?

By the local garage, using what was then state of the art headlamp
adjusting equipment. That was at a time when I used to do motor rallying
and it was well to ensure that everything on the car was completely
correct; some Police forces had a habit of carrying out spot roadside
checks on cars arriving at the start, or leaving after the end, of a rally.

[Capitol]

Post by "Nightjar
I disagree. My halogen headlights were meticulously adjusted, but I
would still regularly get people flash me when driving on dipped
headlights. Some even put their headlamps on full and left them on, at
least until I also went onto full beam.

This makes my point that the beam spread of many modern headlights is
crap. ie, The peak intensity is much greater than in the past even
though the cumulative lumen output is likely similar. Meticulously
adjusting a crap beam spread achieves nothing. Discharge lamps I've
never seen the beam spread patterns for, but given the desire to self
level I guess that it's poor.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

Post by "Nightjar

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
Good point, but erroneous.
The influx of halogens made much more noticeable the percentage of
cars with badly adjusted lights, that's all.

I disagree. My halogen headlights were meticulously adjusted, but I
would still regularly get people flash me when driving on dipped
headlights. Some even put their headlamps on full and left them on, at
least until I also went onto full beam.

Which only means your headlamps weren't adjusted right. But of course,
as always, you're dead right and never wrong.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Another John

Post by David
I also find the LED brake lights from Audis and Mercedes far too bright,
with the idiot drivers who cannot / will not use the handbrake...

I second that.

I have an Audi with all LED rear lights, but I have retrofitted the
"hold assist" button which when engaged (once per journey) all I have to
do is come to a halt and then release the foot brake, the car will hold
itself on all four brakes using the ABS servo but brake lights are off,
rather than using the motor driven parking brake, as soon as I touch the
accelerator again, it releases and I'm off ... they really should make
it standard, but that's not the German way, you have to buy the options.

[fred]

Post by David

Post by "Nightjar
...

Post by David
Imagine you are driving a busy urban street in daylight, with shops and
pedestrians.
The endless line of traffic coming towards you has LED DRLs blazing, how
difficult do
think it would be to see a small child run out from between parked cars
on the other side of the road,...

Not really your problem - the child will be hit by one of the cars
coming the other way.

Not if they are stationary.
As usual, I failed to express my thoughts exactly...
If pedestrians are being hit by cars they do not see, it is the fault of
the pedestrian, if the car is not travelling too fast ??
Maybe pedestrians should be wearing huge flashing hats...

Post by "Nightjar

Post by David
These are easily masked by the brilliant dazzling glare from the high
intensity lamps...

I think you need to see an optician if you find DRLs create glare.

Not only DRLs, but badly aligned headlights and illegal Xenon
conversions, too.
I have been told that it is due to my brain chemistry.
I also find the LED brake lights from Audis and Mercedes far too bright,
with the idiot drivers who cannot / will not use the handbrake...
David

ISTR that a large percentage of pedestrians involved in raod accidents had alcohol taken.

My car has an automatic handbrake and I find it very annoying that it keeps the brake lights illuminated while it is on as prior to having this feature I was always very conscious of the drivers behind suffering from my brake lights

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

Post by fred
My car has an automatic handbrake and I find it very annoying that it keeps the brake lights illuminated while it is on as prior to having this feature I was always very conscious of the drivers behind suffering from my brake lights

Hah.
My ShiteOldCommerVan had the brake lights operated by the footpedal
(of course) and the handbrake. What a stunningly stupid idea that was.

[Tim Streater]

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
My ShiteOldCommerVan had the brake lights operated by the footpedal

What is a footpedal and how does it differ from an ordinary pedal?

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 07:55:25 +0100, Tim Streater

Post by Tim Streater

Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
My ShiteOldCommerVan had the brake lights operated by the footpedal

What is a footpedal and how does it differ from an ordinary pedal?

Piss off.

[fred]

Post by "Nightjar
...

Post by David
Imagine you are driving a busy urban street in daylight, with shops and
pedestrians.
The endless line of traffic coming towards you has LED DRLs blazing, how
difficult do
think it would be to see a small child run out from between parked cars
on the other side of the road,...

Not really your problem - the child will be hit by one of the cars
coming the other way.

Post by David
These are easily masked by the brilliant dazzling glare from the high
intensity lamps...

I think you need to see an optician if you find DRLs create glare.
--
Colin Bignell

Lets face it. The real object of LEDs is to let everyone know you have the latest model car.

[fred]

Post by Murmansk
I think DRLs are very good but they don't get around the problem of people not putting their lights on when it's dusk.
Because DRLs are very bright, in order to be seen well in bright daylight, they can seem too bright when it's dusk - but if it's dusk people should have turned their lights on, at which point DRLs go off (or go dimmer).

Yes but DRLs dont illuminate the dashboard so the pillocks with no side lights on are that way through ignorance. They would have had no lights on at all if they hadn't DRLs.
I see no valid use for DRLs on the rear of the vehicle. If following vehicles feel it necessary to have light on then the reflectors will pick up on them.

DRLS weren't a Volvo idea. Day time lights were compulsory during the Swedish change over from driving on the left to driving on the right. This APPARENTLY reduced accidents though how they established this is beyond me as they would have no statistics to go on.

Personally I think automatic lights would be far superior.

["Nightjar]

Post by The Other John

Post by Vir Campestris
Motorcyclists have known for years that lights help.

Not on the 2 occasions when I was knocked of my bike
(both times by women drivers!), I had my dipped headlight
on, my bike had a huge white fairing and I was wearing
a dayglo red riding suit with a reflecting yellow belt and
a white helmet and it was broad daylight. The trouble is
drivers (IMO) look past a motorcycle to see if there's a
car coming and if not they pull out!

Nearly half of all RTCs have driver failed to look properly as a
contributory factor. I have had drivers pull out right in front of a
large, red Land Rover Defender.

[Mike Barnes]

Post by "Nightjar

Post by The Other John

Post by Vir Campestris
Motorcyclists have known for years that lights help.

Not on the 2 occasions when I was knocked of my bike
(both times by women drivers!), I had my dipped headlight
on, my bike had a huge white fairing and I was wearing
a dayglo red riding suit with a reflecting yellow belt and
a white helmet and it was broad daylight. The trouble is
drivers (IMO) look past a motorcycle to see if there's a
car coming and if not they pull out!

Nearly half of all RTCs have driver failed to look properly as a
contributory factor. I have had drivers pull out right in front of a
large, red Land Rover Defender.

Unfortunately many modern cars have (for understandable safety reasons)
substantial A-pillars that even a Defender can hide behind, especially
when coming straight towards you as at a roundabout. This applies
especially to small drivers who are sitting that little bit closer.
Under those conditions all it takes (and I'm not justifying or condoning
it) is for the driver to depend on a glance rather than a proper look.
The size, colour, and lighting of the approaching vehicle are irrelevant
if they never reach the driver's retina.

["Nightjar]

Post by Mike Barnes

Post by "Nightjar

Post by The Other John

Post by Vir Campestris
Motorcyclists have known for years that lights help.

Not on the 2 occasions when I was knocked of my bike
(both times by women drivers!), I had my dipped headlight
on, my bike had a huge white fairing and I was wearing
a dayglo red riding suit with a reflecting yellow belt and
a white helmet and it was broad daylight. The trouble is
drivers (IMO) look past a motorcycle to see if there's a
car coming and if not they pull out!

Nearly half of all RTCs have driver failed to look properly as a
contributory factor. I have had drivers pull out right in front of a
large, red Land Rover Defender.

Unfortunately many modern cars have (for understandable safety reasons)
substantial A-pillars that even a Defender can hide behind, especially
when coming straight towards you as at a roundabout. This applies
especially to small drivers who are sitting that little bit closer.
Under those conditions all it takes (and I'm not justifying or condoning
it) is for the driver to depend on a glance rather than a proper look.
The size, colour, and lighting of the approaching vehicle are irrelevant
if they never reach the driver's retina.

That doesn't explain it happening when I could see the driver's face.
That LR was by far the worst vehicle I have ever had for people pulling
out directly in front of it. I suspect it was partly motivated by a
desire not to be behind what was perceived as a slow vehicle, combined
with a lack of speed judgement, which would have told them that I was
usually travelling faster than they wanted to.

[Dennis@home]

Post by Another John
Granted, but the PURPOSE of DRLs, in my view, is (as I said before) is
to "fix" a vehicle's presence and position in other drivers' circle of
vision. You do NOT need blinding LEDs to achieve that, but you DO need
the rear DRLs as well, if you're aiming at that objective.
<sigh> EU officials need some more meetings, n'est ce pas?

They are to make approaching vehicles more visible to other road users.

If you are driving you shouldn't be driving faster than you can see and
be able to stop before you crash into any object, lit or unlit.

IE. you don't need DRLs on the rear especially as there is a limit on
the distance you are allowed to drive in reverse.

[Another John]

Post by ***@home

Post by Another John
Granted, but the PURPOSE of DRLs, in my view, is (as I said before) is
to "fix" a vehicle's presence and position in other drivers' circle of
vision. You do NOT need blinding LEDs to achieve that, but you DO need
the rear DRLs as well, if you're aiming at that objective.
<sigh> EU officials need some more meetings, n'est ce pas?

They are to make approaching vehicles more visible to other road users.
If you are driving you shouldn't be driving faster than you can see and
be able to stop before you crash into any object, lit or unlit.
IE. you don't need DRLs on the rear especially as there is a limit on
the distance you are allowed to drive in reverse.

(Since it's you Dennis, and "slightly irritated response" is the default
action ...)

What about: you are driving on a motorway or dual carriageway at 60-70,
in the inside lane; it's twilight; you can see the cars stretching ahead
of you who have put their sidelights on[1]; but you don't see the dork
*just* ahead of you, because "I've got my DRLs on so I don't need my
lights on" [2].

J.

[1] Because it's good to get fixed in other drivers' field of vision.

[2] Or the more old-fashioned, but still very current, attitude
"Duhhhhh: I know it's twilight, but I can see fine, so I don't need to
put my lights on yet".

["Nightjar]

On 17/09/2014 22:29, Another John wrote:
...

Post by Another John
What about: you are driving on a motorway or dual carriageway at 60-70,
in the inside lane; it's twilight; you can see the cars stretching ahead
of you who have put their sidelights on[1]; but you don't see the dork
*just* ahead of you, because "I've got my DRLs on so I don't need my
lights on" [2]....

Are there modern cars that have DRLs but not auto lights? If so, it
wouldn't take much to mandate auto lighting as well.

[Adrian]

Post by "Nightjar
Are there modern cars that have DRLs but not auto lights?

Shitloads of them. DRLs are mandatory. Autolights are still spec-sheet
bling.

["Nightjar]

Post by Adrian

Post by "Nightjar
Are there modern cars that have DRLs but not auto lights?

Shitloads of them. DRLs are mandatory. Autolights are still spec-sheet
bling.

Auto lights have been on every car I've owned this century. As I said,
it really wouldn't be a problem to mandate them if, like DSLs, there
were compelling evidence that it would reduce accidents.

[Capitol]

Post by ***@home
They are to make approaching vehicles more visible to other road users.

Has anyone else found the modern trend to putting tiny indicator lights
in the front middle of the car instead of on the corners to be a hazard?
I find it very difficult in sunlight sometimes to actually see the
indicator working if it's more than 20ft away. Side repeaters are often
invisible.

["Nightjar]

Post by Capitol

Post by ***@home
They are to make approaching vehicles more visible to other road users.

Has anyone else found the modern trend to putting tiny indicator
lights in the front middle of the car instead of on the corners to be a
hazard? I find it very difficult in sunlight sometimes to actually see
the indicator working if it's more than 20ft away. Side repeaters are
often invisible.

They can't really be in the front middle of the car, as they must be no
more than 400mm from the side of the car.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Capitol

Post by ***@home
They are to make approaching vehicles more visible to other road users.

Has anyone else found the modern trend to putting tiny indicator lights
in the front middle of the car instead of on the corners to be a hazard?

Cant say I have noticed any cars doing that and I do go thru some
roundabouts where you need to see the indicators quite often.

Post by Capitol
I find it very difficult in sunlight sometimes to actually
see the indicator working if it's more than 20ft away.
Side repeaters are often invisible.

[Another John]

Post by Capitol
Has anyone else found the modern trend to putting tiny indicator lights
in the front middle of the car instead of on the corners to be a hazard?

YES! That's another incomprehensible design "feature"! I wouldn't call
them tiny, nor even in the middle ... but some cars (I think I've
noticed VW being a culprit here?) have the indicators positioned
*inside* the front lights. If the lights are on (and if they're auto,
or DRL, they will be ) then it's often very difficult to see the
indicator flashing.

TBH, I don't know if they've started to back off on that one: I don't
notice them _that_ often.

I have noticed that ??Jaguars make the DRL flash off if the indicator
flashes on ... this makes for a (very noticeable) light show effect...
You have to wonder what sort of dorks have replaced the engineers in
some car design studios :-)

John

[Andy Burns]

Post by Another John
I have noticed that ??Jaguars make the DRL flash off if the indicator
flashes on ... this makes for a (very noticeable) light show effect...

With Audis, the DRLs are dimmed while indicating (not dimmed per flash,
but as long as the stalk is up or down).

The thing that annoys me most about modern car lighting are rear
clusters which have a circle of orange surrounded by a ring of red (or
vice-versa).

[Adrian]

Post by Andy Burns
The thing that annoys me most about modern car lighting are rear
clusters which have a circle of orange surrounded by a ring of red (or
vice-versa).

Yep, L322 Range Rover's about the worst.

[Adrian]

Post by Another John
I have noticed that ??Jaguars make the DRL flash off if the indicator
flashes on ... this makes for a (very noticeable) light show effect...
You have to wonder what sort of dorks have replaced the engineers in
some car design studios :-)

Audi were the originators of that particular admission of fuckwittery,
dimming the DRL when the indicator comes on.

[alan_m]

Post by David
On one of our cars, the LEDs cannot be turned off, and I have never had
so many other road users pull out in front of us, but I found that
turning on the sidelights dims the LEDs substantially.

Probably because a lot of people can see LEDs flashing they assume that
its a turn indicator and you are going to turn off before you reach them.

[Martin Brown]

Post by alan_m

Post by David
On one of our cars, the LEDs cannot be turned off, and I have never had
so many other road users pull out in front of us, but I found that
turning on the sidelights dims the LEDs substantially.

Probably because a lot of people can see LEDs flashing they assume that
its a turn indicator and you are going to turn off before you reach them.

More likely because they don't bother to look before moving:
"there is never anything coming at this time of day school of driving".

You don't see LEDs flashing as such except in your peripheral vision.

Mostly the effect is that you see a stream of images like a strobe
effect when you turn your head. Pedestrian crossing red man indicators
are particularly bad for this.

[David]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by alan_m

Post by David
On one of our cars, the LEDs cannot be turned off, and I have never had
so many other road users pull out in front of us, but I found that
turning on the sidelights dims the LEDs substantially.

Probably because a lot of people can see LEDs flashing they assume that
its a turn indicator and you are going to turn off before you reach them.

"there is never anything coming at this time of day school of driving".
You don't see LEDs flashing as such except in your peripheral vision.
Mostly the effect is that you see a stream of images like a strobe
effect when you turn your head. Pedestrian crossing red man indicators
are particularly bad for this.

On our car, the LEDs surround the headlamp unit and are so bright, I
suppose, if glanced at quickly, it *might* look like I flashed the
lights to *allow* them to emerge, maybe...

David

[Graham.]

Post by David

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.
Cheers
John

Where've you been ???
Look up daytime running lights
David

But on the front only?

["Nightjar]

Post by Graham.

Post by David

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.
Cheers
John

Where've you been ???
Look up daytime running lights

But on the front only?

That is the more dangerous end.

[Tim Watts]

Post by David

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.
Cheers
John

Where've you been ???
Look up daytime running lights

News to me - I have never seen a car that does not have its tail lights
on if the front lights are.

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Tim Watts

Post by David
Look up daytime running lights

News to me - I have never seen a car that does not have its tail lights
on if the front lights are.

Not if the "front lights" are DRL.

Chris

[Graham.]

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.
Cheers
John

I haven't noticed this phenomenon.
Could it be the horn beeping and glaring look you give them as you
pass make them see the error of their ways?

I remember the Volvos that were first to have daylight running lights
you couldn't turn off, although some drivers found it necessary to
retrofit a switch.

[Alan Braggins]

Post by Graham.
I remember the Volvos that were first to have daylight running lights
you couldn't turn off, although some drivers found it necessary to
retrofit a switch.

My parents had one. The manual told you what fuse to remove to disable
them, and you could still switch the sidelights on, so I'm not sure
why you would want switchable running lights.

[Martin Brown]

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.

Daytime running lights.

It is the road coloured silver grey cars that are the worst offenders.

Post by Another John
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.

Mine is inclined if left on auto to put the headlights on on sunny
midwinters days because the sun is so low in the UK that it doesn't hit
the sensor. It is fine apart from in Nov-Dec-Jan on sunny days.

Post by Another John
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp

The advantages of avoiding some head on collisions is tangible.

Post by Another John
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.

Volvo started the ball rolling. It has been required since ~2011 in UK.

[David]

(snip)

Post by Martin Brown
Mine is inclined if left on auto to put the headlights on on sunny
midwinters days because the sun is so low in the UK that it doesn't hit
the sensor. It is fine apart from in Nov-Dec-Jan on sunny days.

A while ago, I had a 10 year old Jag coupe behind me on a country lane,
the sun was low in the sky, about 08:50 hrs, and about every ten seconds
or so, its lights would turn on. At first, I thought I was being
repeatedly flashed and wondered what was wrong. Then I realised it was
the 'Auto' lights functioning.

In the handbook for one of our cars, it states that with regard to Xenon
lamps, if they are turned on and off frequently, then components will
have a reduced life. (As will some components of the 'Stop Start' system
if that is used all the time.)

David

[Dennis@home]

On 16/09/2014 21:27, David wrote:

8<

Post by David
if they are turned on and off frequently, then components will
have a reduced life. (As will some components of the 'Stop Start' system
if that is used all the time.)

i have experience of that.
The smart I use has stop start and the alternator/starter drive belt
doesn't last long.

[Capitol]

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.
Cheers
John

My objection to modern car headlights are that on some cars they are
crap. Her new Corsa has totally inadequate headlights from a visibility
viewpoint. It's almost as bad as a 1930s motorcycle unit. Her old one
1996 had superb lights. My impression is that small projector headlamps
cannot achieve the beam spread of the old single large headlights with
lensing built into the glass. On one foreign plastic headlamp car, I've
fitted xenon discharge bulbs to improve the lighting.

[DerbyBorn]

Post by Capitol

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo
and behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights
on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to
make sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point
in only being seen from the front?
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.
Cheers
John

My objection to modern car headlights are that on some cars they are
crap. Her new Corsa has totally inadequate headlights from a
visibility viewpoint. It's almost as bad as a 1930s motorcycle unit.
Her old one 1996 had superb lights. My impression is that small
projector headlamps cannot achieve the beam spread of the old single
large headlights with lensing built into the glass. On one foreign
plastic headlamp car, I've fitted xenon discharge bulbs to improve the
lighting.

Xenon Discharge Bulbs - Really? Or just bulbs with a Xenon name. A full
xenon conversion is more than a bulb change as they work on a very high
voltage - think arc light.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/37127/xenon-test

[Adrian]

A full xenon conversion is more than a bulb change as they work on a
very high voltage - think arc light.

Where've you been hiding for the last decade?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271469154792

£22 for a complete bi-HID conversion for a pair of H4s, posted. Almost
every other bulb fit available.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Adrian

A full xenon conversion is more than a bulb change as they work on a
very high voltage - think arc light.

Where've you been hiding for the last decade?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271469154792
£22 for a complete bi-HID conversion for a pair of H4s, posted.

And where's the self-levelling motors and lens washers?

[Adrian]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Adrian

A full xenon conversion is more than a bulb change as they work on a
very high voltage - think arc light.

Where've you been hiding for the last decade?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271469154792 £22 for a complete bi-HID
conversion for a pair of H4s, posted.

And where's the self-levelling motors and lens washers?

In several of my previous cars, built in from the factory.

Hey, I never said those kits were _legal_, did I?

[DerbyBorn]

Post by Adrian
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271469154792

A lot of kit for the money. A lot of bulbs are labelled as Xenon though and
could not be construed as a HID conversion.

[Adrian]

Post by DerbyBorn

Post by Adrian
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271469154792

A lot of kit for the money.

It's about the going rate these days. HID kits have been coming down in
price very sharply over the last decade or more - they started off around
£600 or more, back in the early noughties.

Post by DerbyBorn
A lot of bulbs are labelled as Xenon though and could not be construed
as a HID conversion.

Yes, I'm well aware of the xenon-gas incandescents, and the difference
between the two.

[DerbyBorn]

Post by Adrian

Post by DerbyBorn

Post by Adrian
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271469154792

A lot of kit for the money.

It's about the going rate these days. HID kits have been coming down
in price very sharply over the last decade or more - they started off
around £600 or more, back in the early noughties.

Post by DerbyBorn
A lot of bulbs are labelled as Xenon though and could not be
construed as a HID conversion.

Yes, I'm well aware of the xenon-gas incandescents, and the difference
between the two.

Unfortunately not everyone is - some will fit a set of bulbs and think they
have xenon lights.

[Dennis@home]

Post by Adrian

A full xenon conversion is more than a bulb change as they work on a
very high voltage - think arc light.

Where've you been hiding for the last decade?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271469154792
£22 for a complete bi-HID conversion for a pair of H4s, posted. Almost
every other bulb fit available.

Don't HIDs produce a lot of UV?
Are your plastic lamp housings UV proof on the inside?

[Capitol]

Post by DerbyBorn

Post by Capitol

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo
and behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights
on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to
make sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point
in only being seen from the front?
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.
Cheers
John

My objection to modern car headlights are that on some cars they are
crap. Her new Corsa has totally inadequate headlights from a
visibility viewpoint. It's almost as bad as a 1930s motorcycle unit.
Her old one 1996 had superb lights. My impression is that small
projector headlamps cannot achieve the beam spread of the old single
large headlights with lensing built into the glass. On one foreign
plastic headlamp car, I've fitted xenon discharge bulbs to improve the
lighting.

Xenon Discharge Bulbs - Really? Or just bulbs with a Xenon name. A full
xenon conversion is more than a bulb change as they work on a very high
voltage - think arc light.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/37127/xenon-test

Yes, discharge. The results are excellent.

[David]

(snip)

Post by Capitol
My objection to modern car headlights are that on some cars they are
crap. Her new Corsa has totally inadequate headlights from a visibility
viewpoint. It's almost as bad as a 1930s motorcycle unit. Her old one
1996 had superb lights. My impression is that small projector headlamps
cannot achieve the beam spread of the old single large headlights with
lensing built into the glass. On one foreign plastic headlamp car, I've
fitted xenon discharge bulbs to improve the lighting.

The Ford Kas we had, had brilliant headlamps. Well defined beams and
just from normal incandescent lamps. Actually better than the 2003 and
2005 Audis we had after with Xenons, which rather put me off them.

David

[Peter Parry]

Post by Another John
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.

They also have no control over it, it is a cunning European Onion plan
to kill more motorcyclists in the interests of "safety".

[Mr Fuxit]

My 1970 Saab 99 had DRLs. There was a switch on the dash marked "Corner Lights" to give me the option. A moron pulled out in front of me in broad daylight, and explained that he did so because I had my lights on. I suppose the fact that he was still alive meant that he had never driven at night.

[Peter Crosland]

Post by Another John
A year or so back we started noticing, when driving in twilight, that
"That car in front hasn't got its lights on -- pillock!". Then lo and
behold when we'd overtaken it, it *did* have its [front] lights on.
It began to dawn on us that many, many cars now display front lights,
but no rear lights.
What's the reasoning here? I mean: you have lights on in order to make
sure your vehicle is seen by other road users: what's the point in only
being seen from the front?
BTW I'm not moaning about the drivers, who presumably have no control
over this: I'm moaning about the manufacturers.

The legislation simply requires running lights at the front. I assume
the fact that there should be reflectors at the rear is why rear running
lights are not deemed necessary. On balance it seems better to have the
running light at the front than non at all. Personally I would prefer
front and rear lighting at all times.

[unknown]

I wonder how much it costs (in fuel) to have all cars in teh EU (or in
the UK) running with their lights on and also, how much extra carbon
this puts into the atmosphere?
- Mike

[Tim Watts]

Post by unknown
I wonder how much it costs (in fuel) to have all cars in teh EU (or in
the UK) running with their lights on and also, how much extra carbon
this puts into the atmosphere?
- Mike

Ah - that doesn't count because:





Official form to leave lights on all the time regardless of energy
wastage/climate change impact:

Tick all that apply
-------------------

a) Health and safety (eg motor vehicles);

b) Business impact (eg shops);

c) Procedural convenience (eg office blocks, guard rounds);

d) Government properties;

[Adrian]

Post by unknown
I wonder how much it costs (in fuel) to have all cars in teh EU (or in
the UK) running with their lights on and also, how much extra carbon
this puts into the atmosphere?

All considered in this TRL report for the consultation period, back in
'06.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/vehicles/doc/consultations/
drl_trl.pdf

Roughly 0.5% additional CO2.

[Adrian]

Post by Adrian

Post by unknown
I wonder how much it costs (in fuel) to have all cars in teh EU (or in
the UK) running with their lights on and also, how much extra carbon
this puts into the atmosphere?

All considered in this TRL report for the consultation period, back in
'06.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/vehicles/doc/consultations/
drl_trl.pdf
Roughly 0.5% additional CO2.

Oops, sorry - assuming entirely daytime use. Assuming a mix, less than
0.3% additional.