Daytime running lights

[vindiboy]

In Countries such as Italy Hungary etc it is a requirement to drive on dipped headlights at all times which means that side lights marker lights. Number plate lights etc are all lit which is a big drain on the battery or power that is not being stored in the battery but used, I have thought of fitting daytime running lights to my van so that only they would be lit. And save power, but I wonder if this would be against the law in Countries that require daytime dipped headlights, Any ideas on this Please. 

[lennyhb]

Fairly certain EU countries that require dipped headlights is only the case if you do not have DLR's.

[dakota]

Some interesting reading here

 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/consultations/doc/2006_11_17_saving_lives_consultation_paper.pdf

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

dakota - 2013-11-16 1:33 PM

 

Some interesting reading here

 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/consultations/doc/2006_11_17_saving_lives_consultation_paper.pdf

 

I like this bit from above report.............................

 

Dedicated DRL and dipped headlamps do not cause glare

 

They've obviously never had an Audi coming towards them, bloody things are blinding. :-S how can that improve road safety.

 

 

[Gravemaurice]

Headlights on "Auto" don't always come on when drivers should use headlamps such as in adverse weather conditions.

 

Same with rain sensors.

 

 

[Tony Jones]

Quite TRUE, which is why I switch off the "auto" function sometimes. The driver should be in control of ALL lights, and if he/she can't handle that, they should move over and let someone else drive!

Nothing should be so automatic that the driver can't override it.

[david lloyd]

Brian Kirby - 2013-11-15 8:33 PM

 

I think David's statement relates only to when the engine is running, George. With the engine off, if the lights are turned on only the parking lights come on. At least ours do.

 

Yes, correct Brian. Sorry George, should have made it a little clearer.

 

I also agree with other members who say that having just sidelights on in dark,wet or foggy conditions is neither use nor ornament. Must admit, I don't mind having 'all' the lights come on having had a Volvo for the last year I think it's much safer to just leave the headlights on all the time.

 

David

[George Collings]

bolero boy - 2013-11-16 8:45 AM

 

George Collings - 2013-11-15 11:15 PM

 

 

Motorcyclists because of their small head on profile are easily missed by other road users. That why they run with headlights on. I have dealt with a number of collision where vehicles have been driven out of junctions into the path of motorcyclist. It will be harder to spot them because of all vehicles eventually getting running lights and I anticipatesome probably small rise in the motorcycle casualty rate.

George, i bow to your superior experience in these matters, am really struggling to see the difference between pulling out from a junction in front of a motorbike you cant see, or pulling out of the same junction in front of a car you cant see.

 

They all need to advertise their presence in adverse conditions. To ask cars not to put their lights on doesn't seem right.

 

Bolero Boy, The greatest danger for a motorcyclist is approaching a RH junction, due to the bikes/riders narrow profile it can be momentarily hidden from a car drivers view behind the vehicles RH windscreen pillar. Universal running lights make it harder to pick up the bikes headlight.

This probably applies to pedestrians as well.

 

The common driver error of only looking right once before pulling out is well known to experienced bikers.

 

I agree with Tony Jones in that I prefer to have control of as many of the vehicles functions as possible.

Vehicles have become far too complex for my liking. I have long maintained that the complexities and extra expense of dual circuit braking would have been better spent on better quality materials so the system would barring accident damage last the life of the vehicle.

[George Collings]

My comment on the EU report is that the basis for concluding that DRL would have little or no affect on motorcylists casualties was based largely on countries where due to the low temperatures in winter motorcycle usage is very low and roads far less congested at any time than the UK.

[bolero boy]

George Collings - 2013-11-16 10:02 PM

 

bolero boy - 2013-11-16 8:45 AM

 

George Collings - 2013-11-15 11:15 PM

 

 

Motorcyclists because of their small head on profile are easily missed by other road users. That why they run with headlights on. I have dealt with a number of collision where vehicles have been driven out of junctions into the path of motorcyclist. It will be harder to spot them because of all vehicles eventually getting running lights and I anticipatesome probably small rise in the motorcycle casualty rate.

George, i bow to your superior experience in these matters, am really struggling to see the difference between pulling out from a junction in front of a motorbike you cant see, or pulling out of the same junction in front of a car you cant see.

 

They all need to advertise their presence in adverse conditions. To ask cars not to put their lights on doesn't seem right.

 

Bolero Boy, The greatest danger for a motorcyclist is approaching a RH junction, due to the bikes/riders narrow profile it can be momentarily hidden from a car drivers view behind the vehicles RH windscreen pillar. Universal running lights make it harder to pick up the bikes headlight.

This probably applies to pedestrians as well.

 

The common driver error of only looking right once before pulling out is well known to experienced bikers.

 

I agree with Tony Jones in that I prefer to have control of as many of the vehicles functions as possible.

Vehicles have become far too complex for my liking. I have long maintained that the complexities and extra expense of dual circuit braking would have been better spent on better quality materials so the system would barring accident damage last the life of the vehicle.

George, i'll go along with you, although i dont see your explanation as detailed enough to take at face value.

However, rgarding your second point, id much rather have the technology of ABS, seat belt tensioners, multiple air bags etc than the odd component that has a slightly longer lifespan.

Users change their cars far sooner than the bodywork lasts. The problem with building a 'car for life' is that as consumers, tastes change and vehicles are swapped. Not forgetting the reduction in residual value of vehicles these day.

 

[Rayjsj]

Gravemaurice - 2013-11-16 6:37 PM

 

Headlights on "Auto" don't always come on when drivers should use headlamps such as in adverse weather conditions.

 

Same with rain sensors.

 

 

Thats why God gave us Fingers and a Posable Thumb, and hopefully a Brain to choose WHEN to turn on lights/Wipers/screenwash/ Car radio etc., When everybody starts to rely on these 'Automatic' operations is when things start to go wrong, How many times have you driven behind a vehicle with 'Self Cancelling' turn Indicator lights, That havn't 'self cancelled' ? Wondering 'Does he mean to turn or Not' ? Ray

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I recently bought a second hand Ford Focus, after a few days I took it back because the slightest bit of drizzle set the wipers off on an almost dry screen, yes you guessed it, automatic.

[Rayjsj]

I agree with Tony Jones in that I prefer to have control of as many of the vehicles functions as possible.

Vehicles have become far too complex for my liking. I have long maintained that the complexities and extra expense of dual circuit braking would have been better spent on better quality materials so the system would barring accident damage last the life of the vehicle.

George, i'll go along with you, although i dont see your explanation as detailed enough to take at face value.

However, rgarding your second point, id much rather have the technology of ABS, seat belt tensioners, multiple air bags etc than the odd component that has a slightly longer lifespan.

Users change their cars far sooner than the bodywork lasts. The problem with building a 'car for life' is that as consumers, tastes change and vehicles are swapped. Not forgetting the reduction in residual value of vehicles these day.

 

 

 

 

 

I think the 'present Day' 'fashion cars' are a Stupid aberration, these are 'Durable means of transport' and shouldn't be treated as 'disposable', I agree about safety advances like ABS etc., but think we should be more 'considered' about our use of the Worlds resources, I like my cars to last 10 years at least, I had my last, a RAV4 Toyota for 14 years, and still sold it for over a £1000. It never EVER let me down or needed large amounts spent on it. It had done over 200,000 when it 'went'. To Me every car should last as long. My 'taste' has nothing to do with it. Needs mayby, but not taste. Ray

[Rayjsj]

Tony Jones - 2013-11-16 7:29 PM

 

Quite TRUE, which is why I switch off the "auto" function sometimes. The driver should be in control of ALL lights, and if he/she can't handle that, they should move over and let someone else drive!

Nothing should be so automatic that the driver can't override it.

 

 

I agree wholeheartly with this. Ray

[Guest Had Enough]

I really don't understand some of the logic on here. Yesterday at dusk I was driving along a busy road with lots of side roads where people were trying to get out. Nine out of ten had their dipped headlights on so there was no chance that they wouldn't be seen by drivers with dirty windows or even less than perfect vision.

 

One in ten idiots had forgotten to switch on lights of any kind, perhaps because when they began their journey they weren't necessary. If they'd had auto-switch-on their lights would have come on automatically and they'd have been far less dangerous drivers.

 

My car has auto lights but as with them all I know when they come on because there's a symbol on the display that tells me. So if I found myself in mist or fog and decide that I should be on dipped headlamps I just glance at the display. If the symbol is on I know that my headlights are on, but if it's not I turn them on. What could be simpler?

 

If you don't have auto lights or have turned off that feature you still need to make a conscious decision to turn on your lights, so what's the difference? However, people can be distracted from making that decision and they are then a danger to us all.

 

I simply cannot fathom why anyone would wish to turn off a feature that could save a nasty accident. How would you feel if an old person stepped out in front of you because you'd forgotten to switch on your lights? And we are all capable of forgetting especially if we have passengers who are distracting us.

 

This macho 'I'm in charge' culture is dangerous and we should welcome every bit of technology which prevents us from making a mistake. Who on here uses cruise control? I do and welcome it on the long motorways of Europe. Is that stopping me from driving properly and safely? Who on here has doors that lock automatically when we drive off and prevents handbag snatching at traffic lights, or children opening a door? Should we turn all these things off? Not me, I welcome them. Next we'll be turning of ABS and central locking because 'I'm in charge'.

 

 

 

[Rayjsj]

Nothing 'Macho' about it, it's about being a 'Responsible Driver' and being 'Involved' in what is going on around you. Yes, I too get annoyed when someone doesn't turn on their lights, when they 'Really should',

but making it 'Automatic' doesn't make them better,or 'more aware' drivers, in fact the very opposite. It further 'Insulates them' from what is going on around them. Taking away responsibility. And obviously I wouldn't turn off 'ABS' even if it were possible. Far better to 'crack down' on drivers who knowingly drive around with only one Headlight (usually the nearside (drivers) side) one, which can be VERY dangerous, as they appear as a motorcycle coming towards you. BUT as has been said, there are hardly ANY Traffic cops about these days to stop them, and give them a 'friendly warning'. Ray

[bolero boy]

Rayjsj - 2013-11-17 10:44 AM

 

(Cars) are 'Durable means of transport' and shouldn't be treated as 'disposable',....... I like my cars to last 10 years at least, I had my last, a RAV4 Toyota for 14 years, ............ It had done over 200,000 when it 'went'. To Me every car should last as long. Ray

Guess what, my Audi is over 11 years old, has just clicked over 110,000 miles, has never let me down ever and it will break my heart to sell it, so I havent.

We have had 2 superminis and 3 cabrios to go alongside this, mainly to suit the OH but the Audi does what is says on the tin.

 

I agree with Had Enough in that its the 10% with no lights onwhen they should hav, rather those who use DRLS in the daytime that are the real danger.

I dont care if its a bike, a motorcycle, a lorry, or even a motorhome, if you want to seen put some decent lights on.

[dakota]

I use a volvo and I for one always have my lights on auto , at odd times as has been said some conditions warrant dipped headlights like daylight fog , and the system doesnt switch them on , i immediately see this has happened and switch them on manually , its not rocket science all you need to do is take notice of the warning lights or lack of , simples!! , in auto the lights adjust to the lighting conditions eg through tunnels , low light conditions etc and work exceedingly well and one other thing i have noticed is pedestrians as well as other drivers see you instantly , and thats got to be a good thing hasnt it ?

[Brian Kirby]

George Collings - 2013-11-16 10:02 PM..................The common driver error of only looking right once before pulling out is well known to experienced bikers..................

It would help a bit if half the drivers around here would look right first, as they approach T junctions! Most seem to pull up looking left. Very un-nerving if you're approaching from their right, even in a car. The thing that is coming from their right will hit them well before anything coming from their left, but that little gem just seems to escape them.

[bolero boy]

Surely drivers cant read their instruments in low light if they dont have their lights on?

Yes, i know that some parts of the dash glow in the dark, my speedo and rev counter needles do.....but the dials dont... *-)

 

[Guest Had Enough]

Rayjsj - 2013-11-17 2:08 PM

 

Nothing 'Macho' about it, it's about being a 'Responsible Driver' and being 'Involved' in what is going on around you. Yes, I too get annoyed when someone doesn't turn on their lights, when they 'Really should',

but making it 'Automatic' doesn't make them better,or 'more aware' drivers, in fact the very opposite. It further 'Insulates them' from what is going on around them. Taking away responsibility. And obviously I wouldn't turn off 'ABS' even if it were possible. Far better to 'crack down' on drivers who knowingly drive around with only one Headlight (usually the nearside (drivers) side) one, which can be VERY dangerous, as they appear as a motorcycle coming towards you. BUT as has been said, there are hardly ANY Traffic cops about these days to stop them, and give them a 'friendly warning'. Ray

 

But I still don't understand how anyone can sanction switching off auto-lights. If you're a responsible driver you will constantly check that your lights are on if they need to be on. So, if you come into mist and your lights don't come on what's the difference between switching them on manually from auto or switching them on manually from when they're switched off?

 

And why do we need ABS? Surely a good driver will never get into a position where he needs it? And why can't you learn to cadence brake should the occasion arise? But of course you and I know the answer, which is that none of us is perfect and we can easily be distracted and get too close to the car in front or forget to notice that the light, which was fine when we began our journey, has now dimmed somewhat.

 

Automatic lights are a boon to poor drivers such as the ones I see every day driving without lights when conditions demand them. Not everyone is a good driver who is always 100% attentive, that must be obvious to us all.

 

I'm a very enthusiastic driver who is interested in the science of driving. I drive performance cars and will go out over the moors on a nice day just for the pleasure of driving but I will never understand anyone who turns off auto lights. Why? What's the point? If drivers are as attentive as some claim to be they'll know exactly what's happening with their lights as there's an indicator on the control panel that informs them.

 

Where do we stop with all these things that supposedly 'insulate' us from the driving experience? ABS and anti-skid technology - should we switch them off so that we can enjoy the thrill of our back-end sliding out as we negotiate that wet roundabout a bit too quickly.

 

I'm sorry, but it's macho cleverness. 'I'm such a good driver that I don't need all this stuff!' The problem is that there aren't that many really good drivers! Next time you're in a traffic light queue at night notice how many drivers keep their foot on the brake dazzling the person behind and reducing his night vision. I don't but nine out of ten do! Notice how many drivers indicate just as they're leaving a motorway exit, instead of three hundred metres before. It's a Pavlov's dog automatic reaction, not a thinking driver's action. But again it's nine out of ten!

 

Auto lights and similar functions are good because so many drivers are bad and the more ways we can make them safer the better.

 

And yes, I know that they shouldn't behave like this but many drivers are on auto-pilot and you'll never change that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Just one of many similar tyre reviews that I encountered when looking to replace my own tyres.

 

Writing about the Dunlop SP Sport 600 DSST given 70% (225-45-17-)

Driving on a combination of roads for 18000 spirited miles

They lasted much longer than expected with aggressive driving. ;-)

 

 

[George Collings]

I have no arguements with ABS. It allows drivers to retain steering while still utilising maximum braking. I attended one collision where a vehicle pulled into the path of a vehicle approaching from the right on the main road. The main road driver used emergency braking and swerved left left avoiding T boning the vehicle but striking it a glancing blow on its front. Unfortunatly this took the main road car off the the road where it collided with a massive stone milepost that served as a launching ramp but that another story.

 

What impressed me is the light curved tyre mark left by the main road cars NSF tyre. It was almost a dotted line indicating where the ABS released the brakes momentarily several times a second. Without ABS the tyre mark would have been a strait line leading to the offending cars passenger compartment.

 

Cadence braking is a much misapplied term. I understand it was originally developed by drivers in the 1960s coping with unsurfaced roads on the East African Safari rallies. It involved braking at the same frequency as the front suspensions natural bounce rate. Unde these conditions dampers suffer fade and the amplitude of the bounce was consireable and could be used to brake harder during the down stroke.

 

I doubt many drivers can better more than 5 dabs on the brake pedal a second. I must check the ABS rate

[Colin Leake]

1footinthegrave - 2013-11-17 10:39 AM

 

I recently bought a second hand Ford Focus, after a few days I took it back because the slightest bit of drizzle set the wipers off on an almost dry screen, yes you guessed it, automatic.

 

I'm not sure if the same thing applies to a Ford Focus but on my Honda CR-V there is provision on the wiper stalk to adjust the sensitivity of the rain sensors. May be worth checking. Having said that I must admit that in very light drizzle I prefer to us the wiper control to give a single stroke when I think there is enough water on the screen to clear it properly.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Colin Leake - 2013-11-17 5:06 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-11-17 10:39 AM

 

I recently bought a second hand Ford Focus, after a few days I took it back because the slightest bit of drizzle set the wipers off on an almost dry screen, yes you guessed it, automatic.

 

I'm not sure if the same thing applies to a Ford Focus but on my Honda CR-V there is provision on the wiper stalk to adjust the sensitivity of the rain sensors. May be worth checking. Having said that I must admit that in very light drizzle I prefer to us the wiper control to give a single stroke when I think there is enough water on the screen to clear it properly.

 

thanks for that, I'll check it out......................perhaps because it's a Ford it seems to have a mind of it's own sometimes, starts wiping with merest hint of drizzle, then on other occasions I'm thinking come on then do something to help me . ;-) to be honest I just wish they would just leave it to my judgement whether it's raining or not :D