Daylight Driving Lights

Jackmydad

Strider590 wrote: »

My argument would be that if people pay attention and use their lights appropriately, then DRLs would not make any difference.

Sad fact is that the authorities realise that the standards of driving in the country have taken a nose dive, but rather than tackle the problem at root cause, they prefer to do things like reducing speed limits (to pander to the dipsh*ts that drive through 60 limits at 40) and legislating for DRLs (pandering to the dipsh*ts who don't know how to use their lights).

Auto headlights seemed like a great idea, but manufacturers didn't make them a standard feature and they don't work in fog or snow, so DRLs are the "solution" to that.

Sounds as if you're about as impressed with the general standard of driving these days as I am.

Strider590

Apodemus wrote: »

Perhaps. But if there is a one-in-a-million chance that a child sees my dipped headlights (Volvo driver) out of the corner of their eye on a sunny day and doesn't run out in front of me, that is more than worth it for me.

I've always use headlights on all but the sunniest of days, more so when driving a darker coloured car. People used to flash to point out i'd left my lights on, or at least that's what I assumed they were doing until one followed me into a car park and had go at me for "driving illegally with lights on in daylight".

I imagine those people have died of heart attacks after buying cars with DRLs. :rotfl:

I can imagine though, that for the average Joe paying £25 to have a headlight bulb fitted, they won't want to have those lights on very often.

It raises a moral question about Crapfits "your all too stupid to change a light bulb" TV ads and how much they have contributed to the problem of people not using lights when they should.

Apodemus

Strider590 wrote: »

I've always use headlights on all but the sunniest of days, more so when driving a darker coloured car. People used to flash to point out i'd left my lights on, or at least that's what I assumed they were doing until one followed me into a car park and had go at me for "driving illegally with lights on in daylight".

I imagine those people have died of heart attacks after buying cars with DRLs. :rotfl:

I can imagine though, that for the average Joe paying £25 to have a headlight bulb fitted, they won't want to have those lights on very often.

It raises a moral question about Crapfits "your all too stupid to change a light bulb" TV ads and how much they have contributed to the problem of people not using lights when they should.

Agreed! But to be fair, the manufacturers don't help. In my view, changing a bulb should be a quick, easy, do-it-at-the-roadside issue, but that is increasingly a thing of the past. The owners pack for my wife's Golf reckons headlights are a garage-only repair! (They are not too far wrong, as bulb access without battery removal is really quite limited).

Retrogamer

I've came across a few driving instructors giving students lessons at night with only the DRL's on and no lights on the rear.

It's worth mentioning as well though that DRL's and sidelights are very different.
DRL's are very bright and cause a lot of glare. On cars that use the same bulbs / LEDs for the DRL's when you engage sidelights the rear tail lights come on and the DRL's dim to approx 50% or more as well so bright enough to still be seen, but not bright enough to dazzle or cause glare.

The driving factor seems to be that on virtually all modern cars the dashboard illuminates with the ignition. So on older cars you'd know your lights were off instantly due to a dim dashboard and clocks, it's not so obvious on modern cars so seeing lots of idiots on motorways and similar which have lights, only driving with DRL's engaged and no rear lights.

The best thing about all these decisions is they were made to increase safety. The irony.

Strider590

Retrogamer wrote: »

The driving factor seems to be that on virtually all modern cars the dashboard illuminates with the ignition.

I think your giving people too much credit, I think the vast majority of people glance at their speedometer as often as they check their mirrors, which is to say hardly ever.

Jackmydad

Strider590 wrote: »

I think your giving people too much credit, I think the vast majority of people glance at their speedometer as often as they check their mirrors, which is to say hardly ever.

Seems to me that most of 'em don't look through the windscreen that much either!
Perhaps it's time for heads up display for their smart phones, so they can update their FB page:rotfl:.

Robisere

ROY47 wrote: »

You are all missing the point
Drivers in rubbish weather NOT using their lights properly Why?

Because many new cars when you start the car the front "driving lights" come on ,the dashboard lights up like a xmas tree , giving a false impression that your "lights " are on

Think about it logically dashboard lights on = car lights on to most people

I see it everyday on the motorway be it darker in the morning or early evening or when visibility is rubbish due to rain and spray
People with no lights on driving like idiots thinking my dash lights are on ...so my lights are on !

I didn't miss the point: see my post #20 on Page 1.

Drivers need to be educated about "reduced visibility".

facade

James_N wrote: »

You seem to be unaware of extensive studies in Nordic countries that clearly make the connection between DLR and safety:

http://vti.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:670987/FULLTEXT01.pdf
https://www.vti.se/en/Publications/Publication/daylight-running-lights-in-sweden_670987

Quoting from the first article, a study done in countries with low sun conditions

The hypothesis tested was that the greater use of low beams should reduce multiple accidents in daylight but leave single accidents in daylight and both multiple and single accidents in darkness unaffected. A linear regression analysis of the accident development from 1968 — 1974 gave the following results:

Multiple accidents in daylight (MD) decreased by 32%
Multiple accidents at night (MN) decreased by 4%
Single accidents in daylight (SD) decreased by 4%
Single accidents at night (SN) increased by 6%

They then go on to fiddle with the statistics to try to get them nearer to what they wanted them to show in the first place.

James_N wrote: »

even wikipedia has an article - not hard to find!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp
"Safety performance
Numerous studies done worldwide since the 1970s have tended to conclude that daytime running lights improve safety.[2][3][4]"

The part that you didn't go on to quote was

A 2008 study by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration analysed the effect of DRLs on frontal and side-on crashes between two vehicles and on vehicle collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. The analysis determined that DRLs offer no statistically significant reduction in the frequency or severity of the collisions studied, except for a reduction in light trucks' and vans' involvement in two-vehicle crashes by a statistically significant 5.7%.[5]

James_N wrote: »

And - all the Volvos I have / friends / relations have dip dip front and rear lights wired as standard.

I'm not disputing that for drivers who don't look at junctions, a moving light source in their peripheral vision would mean they might just notice an oncoming car, I am disputing that they make any difference when driving along, and in fact the modern ultra intense LEDs could cause target fixation, and as everyone else is arguing, mean people try and drive in them in the dark, with no tail lights.

But, to be honest, I fail to see how a moving vehicle with no taillights is any more dangerous than a parked one with no lights at all