Ah yes, I'll enjoy reading that later as from memory they seriously outdated and only refer to filament lamps thus meaning that any motor vehicle fitted with LED or HID lamps don't actually comply with them.
General Daytime Running Lights
- Thread starter LittleLuigi
- Start date
Currently reading:
General Daytime Running Lights
Ah yes, I'll enjoy reading that later as from memory they seriously outdated and only refer to filament lamps thus meaning that any motor vehicle fitted with LED or HID lamps don't actually comply with them.
:Offtopic:
You are correct in saying that current Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations refer only to filament lamps. The use of HID's & LED's on new cars is covered by European Type Approval regulations - any aftermarket fitting must be to full OEM spec using labelled, type-approved parts.
The Department of Transport's official position is here.
So you've never had a silver or tarmacish coloured car just appear off in the distance where perhaps you'd have seen it earlier if it was using its headlights or had DRL's?
I'm sorry, but I think you're missing the point. DRL's on cars will enable you to see all cars earlier than you would if the cars were unlit or using sidelights. Now of course all of us are very sensible people and put our headlights on when they are needed for visibility and for us to be able to see, but sadly there are some people out there who don't do the same.
You can try and argue otherwise or deflect the issue by saying that Brussels is interfering again, but not one person has ever showed how DRL's are bad, I can kind of accept Dom's point, but I feel that a bike with its dipped beam on will still be very much visible although perhaps slightly less conspicuous than before. As a bike rider (or even as someone driving a car......) I think it's generally a good idea to never put your bike/car in a position where it blends into the car in front which results in someone pulling out and hitting you.
At the end of the day turning your DRL's off is perfectly legal and all that, but why would you go out of your way to make your car LESS visible on the road? Can someone answer that question?
babbo_umbro
Established member
Like most of these discussions, this one resolves itself into people who are interested in the topic discussing the minutiae and the rest of the great unwashed taking no part because they couldn't care less.
It's surely a question of playing the odds. If any vehicle is more visible, the chances of seeing it and not bumping into it are increased. Stating that it's never been a problem for you in n decades of driving may well be the case, but it's not a valid argument for not improving the overall odds of avoiding accidents.
At the moment it's particularly noticeable that there are sections of narrow roads that are very dark because they are essentially a tunnel going through mature trees in full leaf; seeing an unlit dark vehicle coming the other way can be - at least - delayed, either because the tunnel is dark if the day is overcast (and which aren't?) or because of the sharp contrast with any sunlight outside the tunnel. There are a couple of sections of the A303 that are good examples, and there are numerous examples here in Devon. Very few people put their dipped lights/DRLs on in these conditions, whereas 100% of people would do so if this lighting was obligatory.
It's surely a question of playing the odds. If any vehicle is more visible, the chances of seeing it and not bumping into it are increased. Stating that it's never been a problem for you in n decades of driving may well be the case, but it's not a valid argument for not improving the overall odds of avoiding accidents.
At the moment it's particularly noticeable that there are sections of narrow roads that are very dark because they are essentially a tunnel going through mature trees in full leaf; seeing an unlit dark vehicle coming the other way can be - at least - delayed, either because the tunnel is dark if the day is overcast (and which aren't?) or because of the sharp contrast with any sunlight outside the tunnel. There are a couple of sections of the A303 that are good examples, and there are numerous examples here in Devon. Very few people put their dipped lights/DRLs on in these conditions, whereas 100% of people would do so if this lighting was obligatory.
Exactly. By making your car well lit you lessen the chances of being hit. It really is as simple as that.
There comes a point where the legalities become irrelevant details in the bigger story. It seems these days it's cool to satisfy the bare minimum as required by the law and make a stand against supposed pointless bureacracy by doing lame crap like turning your DRL's off.
I've been to Finland a few times now and dipped beams are mandatory regardless of weather, lighting or season. Cars become visible a mile off when in the UK they would become visible at a closer distance, ie safety would be lessened.
Hands up who wants to be less safe?
Hands up who wants to poinlessly rebel against legislation which is there to make your life less risky?
:yeahthat:
Very true. If something is more visible, the chances of seeing it & not bumping into it are increased.
I think it's important to consider the bigger picture as well. It is also true that if you make something more visible, everything else around it will, relatively speaking, be less visible. And that everything else may include pedestrians, cyclists, dumb animals, debris on the road, whatever.
I'm all in favour of using whatever lighting you need to be seen. But if conditions are such that you can be seen clearly without lights, turning them on just makes unlit traffic, people, animals & objects less visible.
Your latter point here is very true. Was driving down in South Devon the other week and was on a narrow road which suddenly went into a full grown forest almost. Car was coming the other way and I barely saw it, however they would have seen me with my DRLs on.
I don't much see the fuss about them to be honest, nor do I feel like they are part of a giant Brussel diktat either. You can have them on or off, quite simple really, and I like mine to be on
. It's nothing to do with being a good or a bad driver, it's just a really simple feature that improves the visibility of your car to other road users/pedestrians.
Your latter point here is very true. Was driving down in South Devon the other week and was on a narrow road which suddenly went into a full grown forest almost. Car was coming the other way and I barely saw it, however they would have seen me with my DRLs on.
I don't much see the fuss about them to be honest, nor do I feel like they are part of a giant Brussel diktat either. You can have them on or off, quite simple really, and I like mine to be on
Personally if you ask me I don't think we should be able to switch them off, I think that DRL's are a great alternative to people running around with dipped beams on 24/7 which would be making other road users less visible for sure.
I think people need to be more sensible with regards to their safety and assume control rather than assuming that someone isn't going to drive into them. Accidents will happen, we've all stepped out onto the road when we shouldn't have once or twice, but if people look at every situation and assess the risk and react appropriately then the end result of DRL's on cars will be that other road users are slightly less visible rather than being INvisible.
Amen to that
. In my day, we called it 'defensive driving'.My philosophy is that it's my responsibility to drive in such a way as to avoid having an accident in spite of the best efforts of other road users to cause one.
Robnw67
New member
Based on this thread - I have just enabled my DRL's!! :idea:
I have no choice on my motorbike - the dipped beam headlights have no switch. While the engine is running, the lights are on. No debate - no choice and I'm happy with it.
I have no choice on my motorbike - the dipped beam headlights have no switch. While the engine is running, the lights are on. No debate - no choice and I'm happy with it.
It won't always stop someone from hitting you though, although I agree with defensive driving :devil:
Nothing worthwhile can ever be completely safe; life without risk would be excruciatingly boring but managing that risk gives you a better chance of seeing all of it.
The question I would always ask myself is why, rather than why not? Sure it's legal to run around without DRL's, sure you'll seem cool for making a stand against elf n safety and all that. But at the end of the reason no one has really presented a compelling argument as to why you'd intentionally want to make your car less visible to others and therefore possibly increase your risk of being in an accident.
Absolutely not my own work and I doubt for one tiny little bit that it will alter some of the hardened feelings of those that love them, but here are some reasons put forward in the argument against DRL's - has this been posted before?
http://www.motorists.org/drl/reasons-to-oppose
I find the last paragraph applies to me!
Next.........
http://www.motorists.org/drl/reasons-to-oppose
I find the last paragraph applies to me!
Next.........
Not only that if your unlucky to have a bump when someone pulls out on you.. the little box on insurance form that my mum got which was along the lines of "what lighting if any were been used at the time"........
(oh and in her case it was indicators and brake lights (indicator can be seen on the attached cctv footage cd rom )Absolutely not my own work and I doubt for one tiny little bit that it will alter some of the hardened feelings of those that love them, but here are some reasons put forward in the argument against DRL's - has this been posted before?
http://www.motorists.org/drl/reasons-to-oppose
I find the last paragraph applies to me!
Next.........
Thanks for posting this, I hadn't seen it before.
Absolutely agree with point 1 - I have dipped my rear view mirror when being tailgated by a Merc driver with his cool designer dazzling DRLs (and credit to Fiat for not making them a designer item).
Point 2 - agree, only the other day I struggled to pick up if a driver was indicating coming round a roundabout due to the DRLs.
All the other points are perfectly valid too.
My opinion is that DRLs are likely to cause as many accidents as they prevent.
It's not even a Europe link so some of the facts may be slightly different to ours in how their DRLs work.
Point two though, what rubbish. Audis and the like dim their DRLs when the directional indicator is on automatically to enable it to be seen and most idiots don't use indicators anyway
As for point one - no different to any incorrectly adjusted light source.
The rest are merely personal opinions just like everything else in this thread.
Point two though, what rubbish. Audis and the like dim their DRLs when the directional indicator is on automatically to enable it to be seen and most idiots don't use indicators anyway
As for point one - no different to any incorrectly adjusted light source.
The rest are merely personal opinions just like everything else in this thread.
It's not even a Europe link so some of the facts may be slightly different to ours in how their DRLs work.
Point two though, what rubbish. Audis and the like dim their DRLs when the directional indicator is on automatically to enable it to be seen and most idiots don't use indicators anyway
As for point one - no different to any incorrectly adjusted light source.
The rest are merely personal opinions just like everything else in this thread.
No disrespect to you whatsoever, but I guess that is about as pedantic as one can get! It wouldn't matter if the link was from Timbuktu. There have been plenty of links on this forum that have originated from outside of 'Europe' and they seemingly are no less relevant. Then again, I don't consider myself a 'European' from the Brussels diktat perspective, but that's a completely different subject! In my own very humble opinion, the points raised in that link are very relevant and I personally have suffered to some degree with each of those points made.
It is extremely obvious that there will be those who go with the whole 'safety' argument about DRL's and literally refuse to accept that there are others who don't necessarily share the same view.
As far as I'm concerned, yes, I accept that DRL's have/are being forced upon us, but I just wish that we could solve the issue of the large numbers of motorists driving around with failing eyesight who refuse to do anything about it, or with undeclared medical conditions who ruthlessly refuse to inform the DVLA and give up driving or the daily problem of people who drive under the influence of drink or drugs. DRL's aint never going to stop the idiots in any of the above three categories from T-boning you!
Robnw67
New member
Wow - I'm amazed how passionate people can become over just a pair of lights (illuminated or not) in the front bumper of a car. I'm considering starting world war III by posting a thread stating that I always drive with the cabin fan running (with or without aircron!!)
How not then??
The fact is their DRLs will possibly be complying to completly different regulations, meaning that for all we know they're designed to bloody dazzle people etc etc.
Going back to the T-boning senario, at least I'll have a fighting chance at avoiding the idiots before they hit me if seen.
Seen yet again far to many cars on the way to work this morning in this awful weather the country is being battered with at the moment with no lights on
and by the way I've no issue accepting that people have other view's - funny enough it's life, and would be very boring if it were otherwise, some people just like to debate - again life would also be boring if we were all push overs and just accepted what others post.
