Daytime Running Lights = stupidity?

AnythingButChardonnay

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

(actually there is a way to switch them off on the Golf but if I told you they would probably wipe my post.)

Hammer?.......

Outpost

AnythingButChardonnay wrote: »

Hammer?.......

Does he have strong feelings regarding daytime running lights then?

Lum

Strider590 wrote: »

Because we have too many f**king morons driving about at night, in snow, in fog, in rain with NO lights on! OR at best they have the damn parking lights on, which are about as effective as a candle in a jam jar!!

Thing is on 80s, and even some early 90s, cars the sidelights are just fine for visibility. They wern't very bright but they were large so you could still see them.

Today's sidelights are often a single, excessively bright spec, less likely to get noticed and even if you do see them, a lot harder to judge speed and distance.

tomatoe_2

I have day running lights on my old volvo, no switch to turn them off, they are only single fillament 4 watt bulbs. The glass goes dark/blackish after about 2 yrs of use and I change them then.

pitkin2020

GlynD wrote: »

It's because it's been proven that some colours make cars difficult to spot, even in strong sunlight. As far as I'm concerned, if running lights give me a chance to react even a split second faster then they're worth having and they'll save lives.

Sorry but that is complete rubbish, it reminds me of the statistic a few years ago when they said that Red cars are more likely to be involved in an accident. What they failed to mention was manufacturers were selling more Red cars than any other colour, something stupid like nearly 40% were red.....law of averages.

when did DRL become law anyway?? ANy links

d.ross_2

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Sorry but that is complete rubbish, it reminds me of the statistic a few years ago when they said that Red cars are more likely to be involved in an accident. What they failed to mention was manufacturers were selling more Red cars than any other colour, something stupid like nearly 40% were red.....law of averages.

when did DRL become law anyway?? ANy links

Actually it was green cars that were more likely to be involved in accidents. Res cars are less likely.

pitkin2020

d.ross wrote: »

Actually it was green cars that were more likely to be involved in accidents. Res cars are less likely.

this was about 10 years ago they said that, I suspect the new statistic of car that is likely to involved in an accident relates to the most popular colour car sold......shockingly

d.ross_2

pitkin2020 wrote: »

this was about 10 years ago they said that, I suspect the new statistic of car that is likely to involved in an accident relates to the most popular colour car sold......shockingly

Well if a survey came up with red cars then it obviously wasn't done properly. The should have cross matched it with proprtions of colours sold.

pstuart

KingElvis wrote: »

My old Volvo S40 had these and it drove me mad, they also eat bulbs like it's going out of fashion.

You could switch them off by going to sidelights but then there was no warning buzzer to say sidelights left on and it then ran the battery down...mad things

The new cars with DRL's are LED's.

vikingaero

There are pros and cons to everything. Canada, a country in part on the same latitude as the UK, introduced DRLs and found a reduction in casualities and deaths.

Sometimes I think there is a good case for DRLs - grey/dark cars on a murky rainy morning where the driver doesn't have the skillset/mindset to turn his/her lights on.

The cons are that manufacturers such as Audi and Citroen have made DRL's to be visual trinkets/jewellery which overstates DRLs and causes over distraction.