It's definately going to happen I think. I agree, it's another step towards removal of human decision-making. I usually turn mine on on twisty country roads, so that a chink of light may be noticed through a gap in a hedge etc....but on the way to work when it's mile-long snakes in two lanes, all with their lights on is daft, and people who normally see motorcycle headlights as they filter down the middle may now miss the them.
Our roads are generally of too poor a design to allowthe flow of traffic that warrants such a thing. They are likely to be turned off when the handbrake is on, and only operate at the front. It is expect that on new cars, they are also likely to be an array of three to five 1W LEDs using new generation Luxeon LEDs, I question whether these will be noticed as they give off a much whiter light and will be amongst the amber halogen lights of other cars which stand out during the day due to their unnatural hue.
Example:
ledsmagazine.com/articles/news/3/1/8/1/AudiRoadjet
|
|
|
DRL are a waste of time unless its on a Volvo.
Another stupid EC directive that they are trying to force upon us.
The ONLY good EC directive they have given us was the change in law over ABS fitment on new cars.
My car has auto headlights, apart from when its foggy the car sorts it own headlight requirements out.
Low light, rain, tunnels etc lights come on, daylight time lights go off. why should I be forced to give up a good system like that?
Wont be long before we are not allowed to drive anymore, that will be computer controlled at this rate.
I know what I would really like to do with the EC directive.
|
Compulsory DRL are a poor alternative to what we realy need, educated motorists who know when to turn their lights on (I could rant allday about the other poor driving that annoys me, but not now).
Instead of compensating for lack of common sense, why can't something be done to stop those morons getting behind the wheel?
Okay I think I know the answer, It would "infringe on their human rights", that and if it was law it wouldn't be enforced anyway.
|
|
For 10 months of the year I'm against DRL's then all of a sudden we get a few foggy morning and it appears a significant number of people on the road are not capable of turning on their lights and do indeed need it done for them and begin to warm to the idea.
|
|
|
|
I don't think it should be necessary to introduce compulsion but unfortunately 'human decision making' seems to be beyond the wit of all the drivers who hurtle around in fog with no lights, and leave it until they need lights to see before turing them on on a winter's afternoon. This is lowest common denominator stuff and unfortunately the lcd is very low indeed, so expect far worse. The fundamental problem of course is that the EC has to do something, even when it can't find anything useful to do.
And of course, the UK will gold-plate the directive as it always does, while most of southern Europe pays lip-service. Happy New Year - plus ca change...
|
|
|
Silly.
Horses, and pedestrians don't have lights, and because they don't have crumple zones - will come off worst in any collision with a car.
As it is, headlights can be too bright and distract from the off beam hazards.
Most vintage and veteran cars headlights are not as bright as moderns, and the battery and charging systems are not good enough to run with lights all the time. As most owners of such cars are not nocturnal and tend to use then during mostly daylight hours, not a problem. Added to that, you don't even have to have headlights, or any lights at all, if the car is only used in daylight and good visibility. Indeed it is this get out that owners of early twenties and older cars use with acetylene lights (the law generally regards them as decorative).
The very real danger is even if you force these cars to have non period lighting - you cannot do anything similar about pedestrian and equine hazards, and since you'll be geared up to not hit things with lights, I'd have thought the best of drivers could not possibly give non-lit hazards with the same consideration..
DRLs of a lower brightness is a slightly different but linked argument.
The Federation of British Historical Vehicle Clubs been on the case, and I knew from them about this proposal a while back. For an interest group they are pretty level headed, and not a bunch of luddites.
Ought to be a non-clicky link - cut and paste etc
fbhvc.co.uk/
|
A daft idea. Daytime headlights are an irritation, particularly the modern high density ones. It makes it much harder to judge closing speed and distance when an approaching vehicle has it's lights on, which is why the accident rate rises after dark.
--
|
|
|
As a cyclist and motorcyclist, I feel more and more vulnerable by measures introduced to further protect people who move around in cars.
Examples include speed bumps, '30' roundels painted on the road (on bends!), visibility reduction at roundabouts, ...
And because the result of the measures is a reduction in percieved risk, those car drivers respond by taking more and more risk - witness the rise in use of mobile phones, tailgating etc.
Cycle lanes are a poor measure to cut risk - round here they force you to stop every 50 yards and give way at junctions. And they disappear where you need them most - at the complex and fast-moving roundabouts. A far cry from the dutch system where the cyclists have priority at side roads.
We claim to be serious about cutting congestion, but almost every roads initiative makes me want to run from my bicycle and (jam busting, relatively small capacity) motorcycle to a car (or even a 4x4).
|
Arriva buses in my area have dipped headlights on all day, every day.
Must be difficult not to spot a 38ft long single or double decker in residental areas...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
as has been said before its all because of the "few" idiots who drive in the dark/wet/fog without lights. To counter them the lcd is to force everyone to have their lights on.
A result of less traffic police on the roads I agree.
But I can only hope that the powers that be, with sufficient pressure from the electorate (means getting off backside and writing letter to mp etc) to allow 10w lights for daylight running rather than headlights maybe, such as volvo have.
Totally irrelevant for 10 months of the year but for 2 mon ths and the "I dont need lights brigade" looks like its essential ?
|
|
|
|
|
I can see the use of DRL's but not dipped headlights as DRL's. Even in bright daylight focused dipped headlights (which effectively become main-beam when vehicles approach over road undulations/ridges/hills) decrease the ability to judge distance & speed, as well as de-sensitising the eye to the ambient light. As other posters have pointed out, what then of the relative 'obscurity' of other road (or highway) users - the pedestrian, cyclist etc. when 4-wheeled vehicle drivers naturally attune to the new standard? It's not just about vehicles seeing (or 'registering') other vehicles, but other legitimate highway users as well.
Perhaps a beefed-up side-light regime would be more appropriate - a 'be-seen' rather than an 'illuminate-my-route' philosophy - what, after all, were/are sidelights for? (e.g. VW produces reduced wattage dipped headlight DRL's for mainland Europe) Imagine sitting in a jam with high-level SUV zenons burning holes in your retinas for half an hour, or being forced to endure the Blackpool illuminations just to pop down
the corner shop for a pint of milk ?
I wonder whether the Scandinavian experience has that much relevance to our driving environment? For a start, were the advantages more 'peaked' on the graph because of their generally more northern latitudes & were the traffic densities, pedestrian/cycle routes/provision comparable to ours?
More thinking required imo.
cheers (..hic!)
woodbines
|
I agree; it is basically a silly idea.
For one thing, like a couple of the above posters, I find it easier to judge distance to oncoming vehicles in daylight if they have not got their headlights on. The reason being that the glare of the lights is not as variable with distance as the shape of the vehicle itself is.
What is worse is that if they do introduce this then you can bet most people will use their full beams all the time thinking [ wrongly ] that because it is daytime they will not dazzle other drivers as much as at night...!!
A 3.7% increase in accidents? I'll be surprised if, in this country, we get away with less than a 5% increase, and I would fully expect it to be nearer 10%.
A far more useful rule to introduce would be one that does something about the 50% or so of drivers who do not seem to use their indicators at all.......
|
|
Our own MEP were opposed to it, but the UK accounts for just 3% of 'democracy' in the EU, so no matter how unanimous we are, we're barely trivial.
|
We still have the right to veto most eu directives, especially those that affect the benefits to ordinary people.
I am sure with enough pressure our mps can be persuaded to overirde this sort of directive!
|
I've just read about the village hall that has to do a "risk assessment" on home made mince pies. This falls into the same category. You can't argue with people as dim as this. Douglas Adams was right and the country is ruled by the descendants of the "B" ark. Revolution anyone?
JH
|
|
If it must happen bring back dim-dip,I have this and use it in preference to dipped beam on gloomy days,er,every day then.
|
|
I agree, the dim - dip system was good, no chance of driving on just sidelights alone.
|
|
|
|
" Douglas Adams was right and the country is ruled by the descendants of the "B" ark. "
Yes- one of the best bits of philosophy of the 20th Century.
Daylight lights - no thanks. The lights on my GS are hardwired to come on (although there is a hack to prevent it).
|
|
|
The dipped headlamp design is too much of a mess for me to be happy about using it as a running light.
It sprays light high up to the left --- which is down the road when the car it is going round a right hand bend (in UK) or parked on the wrong side of the road.
It bounces light up into oncoming motorist's faces on wet roads.
It puts light up into your driving mirror causing distraction when a following car goes over a bump.
It is just a damn silly light to have on in bright sunlight.
On the safety issue, I don't understand why black cars are bought, as they are not very visible and absorb heat. Or colours that blend in with road surfaces and hedgerows. And I don't understand why motorcyclists and often cyclist, wear dark (black) clothes.
If we paid more attention to using suitable colours there would be less need for lights.
And if we do need lights, let's have a suitable design. It could be as simple as choosing where and what bulb is placed in the headlamp unit.
|
|
Daytime Running Lights are not the same as dipped headlights, and different arguments apply. Which are the proposed EU rules talking about?
|
|
They are saying drivers of older cars should switch dipped lights on, new cars should have them come on automatically when engine is running and handbrake released, and newly designed cars should be designed with energy-efficient dedicated DRLs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
