Daytime Running Lights = stupidity?

Flyboy152

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

How? You wouldn't have been able to see them.

Flyboy152

Lum wrote: »

They're a bad idea IMO as the average driver gets used to all the cars being lit up, they're going to be less likely to notice cyclists and pedestrians.

There was a US state tried compulsory DRLs, they found it made no difference to vehicle accidents only that Volvos (which have DRLs already) were more likely to be involved in accidents than they were previously. I don't think there were any stats for accidents involving pedestrians though

Which state?

s_b

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.

totally agree

Flyboy152

AnythingButChardonnay wrote: »

Another piece of unnecessary and badly thought-out piece of legislation from Brussels. But as I keep saying, they have to keep themselves busy somehow.

Bad news for (motor)cyclists who will show up less. And far from helping with those people who don't put their lights on in bad weather, I suspect it will mean more people forget to put on their main lights at night time, because they'll assume they are already adequately illuminated with the DLRs.

And how the flip do you work that one out?

Flyboy152

marlot wrote: »

DRLs were the reason I finally gave up motorbiking. I felt that the bike was becoming even more invisible. It seems ironic that DRLs make cars safer, but bikes more dangerous, given that bikers are 30-odd times more likely to die each year.

How did that work?

grizzly1911

They had dim dip lights on the old "D" reg plates onwards, thought they were permanently on .

Then they stopped it when headlight leveling came in??

Those LEDs do show of your BM, Audi and Range Rover nicely a bit like a diamond encrusted Rolex I saw in Harrods once.

jase1

If the aim is to make cars more visible, mandate that all new cars are flourescent yellow in colour. Problem solved.

marlot

jase1 wrote: »

If the aim is to make cars more visible, mandate that all new cars are flourescent yellow in colour. Problem solved.

Why not go all the way and impose similar restrictions as for bikers in the name of increasing safety?

Make the cars wear flourescent jackets
Drivers have to do offroad training before they can even start their lessons
They can only drive cars up to 1.0L until they are 21
If they want to drive a more powerful car they have to take another test
Make the roads positively dangerous for cars in the same way they do for bikes (manholes and paint on corners works for bikes; I suggest mandatory oil slicks as the equivalent for cars)

only_mee

The Audi's are so bright they actually dim when the indicator is used.

marlot

Flyboy152 wrote: »

How did that work?

The biggest risk to bikers is people who 'look but don't see' - either because they didn't look properly, or becuase their mind is elsewhere (perhaps the phone call they're on).

There is an irony in that the faster you're going, the more likely you are to register on someone's brain, but the less space/time you have to react if they don't see you. And for some reason, the closer you are to them, the more likely they are not to see you (somehow the brain 'looks past' the oncoming motorbike).

Without DRLs all over the place, my headlight meant that I had a chance of registering on their brain as an unusual object coming their way. I felt that advantage was diminishing as more cars had lights on during the day,

http://www.righttoride.eu/virtuallibrary/ridersafety/MotorcycleConspicuity160611.pdf