DRL - safety?

Mercdriver

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Are you being stupid?

Awkward?

Or have you genuinely totally misunderstood the post, somehow?

I don't think it's the 3rd one since it's not that hard to grasp so that leaves only 2 other possibilities. I don't know which one of those it is so you tell me.

Did you not get what you wanted for Christmas? Why else would you choose to be so utterly rude?

securityguy

JP1978 wrote: »

You infer in your OP that its easy to drive with only side lights on under certain circumstances - and the way its written also infers you have done it on occasion. Yet you are berating others for driving with just DRL's showing.

So maybe its you thats just stupid?

At least with sidelights the tail lights will be on.

What happened to LInda Chalker's "dim dip" legislation, which would have forced all cars sold in the UK to use a reduced-output dipped headlight when moving with the sidelights on?

wba31

I have often thought about why DRL's doesnt include a few lights on the rear of the car too? If it's all about increased visibility that should include the rear of the car too? I often see people in the rain not switching on any extra lights so although the front of the car has DRL's on there is nothing on the back - especially concerning in spray on a motorway for example...

GabbaGabbaHey

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

*reads first 5 replies with people focusing on the minor point of dashboard lighting & skipping around the main issue of no lights on the rear of the car*

But surely that's the whole point. The reason that people seem to be driving around without any rear lights on is primarily because their dashboard is lit, so (in conditions of good lighting) they are unaware that they don't have their rear external lights on.

In fact, the whole issue of DRLs is pretty well irrelevant - it's not having DRLs on that's causing people to drive without their rear lights; it's having their dashboard lit up, which is leading them to incorrectly believe that they are showing appropriate external lighting.

(Personally, I started driving before cars came with so many automatic aids - automatic wipers, automatic lights, cruise control, parking sensors, etc, etc - which meant that a driver had to think much more about what they were doing.)

GTE_Boy

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

But surely that's the whole point. The reason that people seem to be driving around without any rear lights on is primarily because their dashboard is lit, so (in conditions of good lighting) they are unaware that they don't have their rear external lights on.

In fact, the whole issue of DRLs is pretty well irrelevant - it's not having DRLs on that's causing people to drive without their rear lights; it's having their dashboard lit up, which is leading them to incorrectly believe that they are showing appropriate external lighting.

(Personally, I started driving before cars came with so many automatic aids - automatic wipers, automatic lights, cruise control, parking sensors, etc, etc - which meant that a driver had to think much more about what they were doing.)

It didn't really take a lot of thought.

It went dark you put your lights on. It started to rain........

GabbaGabbaHey

GTE_Boy wrote: »

It didn't really take a lot of thought.

It went dark you put your lights on. It started to rain........

Yes, and by taking those simple actions away from drivers, it appears that many no longer seem to put even that small amount of thought in - hence the number of drivers who do not show appropriate lighting in poor visibility, which was the subject of this thread.

EssexExile

If we're going to always have to have lights on whenever we drive, wouldn't it make sense for the lights to always come on when we drive? No switch needed, no separate DRLs needed, no automatic light sensing gizmos needed.

patman99

Don't forget, different manufacturers take different views on DRLs. Some just wire a single bulb in each headlight as a DRL, whilst others have a ring of lights.

I passed my test in the mid-80's and even back then it was illegal to drive with just sidelights on (in poor light conditions). Now, cars have to have DRLs fitted if built after a cerain date, so they are more visible. The law needs to be changed to limit the brightness of these DRLs to below that of a sidelightbulb.

That way it would be obvious to the driver that they have no lights on at night.

The other problem is that a lot of councils are retro-fitting LED bulbs to their streetlights. Thes operate at the same light spectrum as car headlight bulbs so it is easy to think you have your headlights on when you don't.

GTE_Boy

patman99 wrote: »

Don't forget, different manufacturers take different views on DRLs. Some just wire a single bulb in each headlight as a DRL, whilst others have a ring of lights.

I passed my test in the mid-80's and even back then it was illegal to drive with just sidelights on (in poor light conditions). Now, cars have to have DRLs fitted if built after a cerain date, so they are more visible. The law needs to be changed to limit the brightness of these DRLs to below that of a sidelightbulb.

That way it would be obvious to the driver that they have no lights on at night.

The other problem is that a lot of councils are retro-fitting LED bulbs to their streetlights. Thes operate at the same light spectrum as car headlight bulbs so it is easy to think you have your headlights on when you don't.

It wasn't then and it isn't now. Perfectly legal to drive on side lights in a lit built up area.

GTE_Boy

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

Yes, and by taking those simple actions away from drivers, it appears that many no longer seem to put even that small amount of thought in - hence the number of drivers who do not show appropriate lighting in poor visibility, which was the subject of this thread.

Thankfully not everyone thinks the same way as you do.