What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
any - daytime running lights - mark.b

i have read all the for and against arguments for retro fitting drl's and believe as long as legal lights are used its up to the vehicle owner to decide,what i want to know is which forum members have retro fitted them to their vehicles and which drl's do you all suggest for build quality and light output

any - daytime running lights - Hamsafar

I put these www.hids4u.co.uk/Cree-LED-AR111-halospot-LED-Spotl...l into my foglights. I bought them from Hong Kong. I use a relay to turn them off at night. I instantly noticed how fewer people pull out in front of me or don't wait at roundabouts etc...

any - daytime running lights - unthrottled

I dare say painiting my car luminous pink would also make it more noticeable-unfortunately, pushing yourself into the limelight has the inevitable effect of pushing everyone else into the shadows so there's no net improvement in safety. In fact, dimly illuminated road users like pedestrians and cyclists become even less noticeable.

The result is an arms race. This is what happened in the USA where every soccor mom tried to buy a bigger SUV than every other soccer mom because of the belief that a bigger vehicle was safer. Since it is impossible for everyone to have a bigger vehicle than average, the average needlessly rises.

If I find my eyes being distracted by headlights in my rear view mirror in the daytime, I usually feel the need to put my fog light on.

any - daytime running lights - jamie745

I still feel if ever car had sidelights on at all times it would make every car more visible than it previously was.

Im pretty sure you're not allowed to have your fogs on in normal visibility unthrottled.

any - daytime running lights - unthrottled

No, I'm a naughty lawbreaker who should be shot. Adding illumination only helps when visibility is a limiting factor. In normal daylight, lack of visibility isn't an issue-the issue is lack of attention. DRL does not address this.

If one person walks around with a large letter 'A' stuck to their forehead they would be more noticeable. The simple but eroneous conclusion is that wearing a letter 'A' makes people more visible. The fallacy is exposed when you you then make everyone wear a letter 'A' on their forehead. Once again, strangers blend back into the background.

The point is not entirely pedantic. A lot of drivers are fitting very bright headlights because it makes driving in the dark more convenient. Unfortunately, they do not experience the dazzling effect of these lights. Their added visibility is coming at the expense of everyone else's and this is not a trait that we should be encouraging.

any - daytime running lights - jamie745

Every car has their lights on at night (or is supposed to anyway!) does this make them cars less visible? Or would you suggest being the only one with headlights off as a method of being seen due to being different?

any - daytime running lights - unthrottled

Now you're being silly again. Of course headlights are necessary. But I can't be the only one to notice that some cars have brighter headlights than others, and that some people often set the dipped headlights to a high level and this is dazzling to oncoming traffic. But think about it: brake lights only work because they are only used to signal braking. Now if you wired up your brake lights to operate all the time, no one would tailgate you. But if everyone tried the trick, then you wouldn't end up with safer roads; you'd end up with more rear end accidents. We do not need more intense illumination. If people were that concerned about visibility, why are cars with ludicrously thick A and C pillars, letterbox style rear windows, and privacy glas so popular? These all have a deleterious effect on visibility and DRLs don't help. DRL is an example of a 'me first' attitude that we can do without.

Edited by unthrottled on 07/07/2011 at 03:00

any - daytime running lights - Problem_Polo :-/

That was already addressed with the comment that adding illumination only helps when visibility is a problem - i.e. at night. The issue here is DAYTIME running lights!

I'd have to agree with unthrottled on this one, they are another pointless bit of Eurocrap legislation which we absolutely don't need. The overall effect on emissions won't be constructive either.

any - daytime running lights - Paul G1pdc

why is it, that drl are only on the fronts...if the idea is that you stand out more in cloudy conditions or through tunnels, why are there no illumination at the sides or rear...

.

my year 2000 volvo (my model first came out in 15 years ago) as standard has front and rear and side (orange) drls (if you wish can be manually turned off)

drls on volvos being standard fitment for years, then as soon as ford took them over they where dropped.....hey ho.....now there coming back...on the front only....strange.

Paul

any - daytime running lights - ddr

I think the main benefit of DRL's are to be seen when someone else is overtaking on a fast two lane road. Around town you are generally going slow enough and are close enough for DRL's not to make a difference.

It's nothing to do with standing out from other cars, it's all about knowing there is a car there!

In some countries like Romania the law now requires you to use dipped beam during the day. It really does make a big difference to visibility, especially in bright sunlight/hot conditions.

any - daytime running lights - Ethan Edwards

If you can't see a whopping great car (coming towards you) unless it has lights on in broad daylight I suggest you quit driving and visit an opticians fast!

Stupid unnecessary chav-tastic lights ...imo of course.

any - daytime running lights - Bobbin Threadbare

It's the law in a lot of other countries. I recall my parents jump starting our Volvo in Denmark because they had the lights on for regular daytime driving, obviously not the norm for them, and dad left them on while we went round Legoland. Oopsy.

I don't think it's necessary to have your headlights on in the daylight - other drivers should have good enough eyesight to see a rolling metal death box coming at them without having the lamps ablaze. Although, a lot of cars have that automatic sensor which switches them on in dim light (damned annoying when you go into the Mersey tunnel with a new-ish Audi right behind you and you are blinded momentarily).

Edited by Bobbin Threadbare on 07/07/2011 at 12:48

any - daytime running lights - unthrottled

I know Bobbin. But don't you think it's odd that most of those countries have road safety statistics that are far worse than those of the UK-and rather than them taking a leaf from the UK's book, we are following them??

The UK's road safety is, I believe, amongst the best in the world, topeed only by Sweden and the Netherlands.

any - daytime running lights - ddr

The difference might be that we are fortunate enough to have already dualled the vast majority of our long distance routes. In countries like Sweden etc, they have hundreds of miles of single lane A-road between major cities.

Anyone who does not understand the benefit of DRL's has probably not done a lot of overtaking. Comments like 'you need to get your eyes checked' are not particularly helpful - or do we think that people have poorer vision in countries where DRL's are required?

DRL's improve visibility of oncoming vehicles, simple as that. If you are against that, why stop there? We can dispense with other modern fripperies such as properly adjusted headlights, window demisters, rear reflectors, regulations regarding condition of windscreen, wipers, dipping rear view mirrors, road markings, cats eyes... etc etc

Edited by ddr on 07/07/2011 at 15:53

any - daytime running lights - unthrottled

In countries like Sweden etc, they have hundreds of miles of single lane A-road between major cities.

Might that be more due to the fact that Sweden is a country has a popuation density far smaller than the UK-particularly England? Scotland didn't have any motorways until the late 198s for this reason.

Comments like 'you need to get your eyes checked' are not particularly helpful

I do plenty of overtaking-mainly of £25,000 luxo barges that are being pootled along at an inappropriately slow speed in a pathetic bid to save fuel. My eyesight isn't great-I wear glasses. I compensate by concentrating extra hard. I don't have any difficulty seeing overtaking vehicles. The only time I don't see something is when I have a lapse of concentration-which is entirely operator error.

I have driven vehicles where I did have problems noticing other vehicles. Reversing in a new honda civic, Vauxhall Corsa for instance. The A pillar in the Vauxhall Zafira obstructing my vision at junctions being another. Other than that no problems with visibility.

Ask any astronomer what happens when you put a brightly iluminated object (car) next to a dimly illuminated object (pedestrian/cyclist). They will all tell you that the dimly illuminated object becomes less visible. That's why I really don't like DRLs.

any - daytime running lights - TeeCee

why is it, that drl are only on the fronts...if the idea is that you stand out more in cloudy conditions or through tunnels, why are there no illumination at the sides or rear...

Couple that with the daft-as-<something beginning with F> trend for automatic headlights and permanently lit dashboards and a particular problem arises. Round these parts there's a trend for heavy, ground-hugging morning mist in the spring and autumn.You really need your lights on for visibility to other vehicles, yet the brightness of the morning sky keeps the auto headlight systems convinced they should be off. Cue the k****boxen drivers all happily waffling around with DRLs on and invisible from behind.

Just 'cos something's automatic, doesn't mean you don't override it when conditions demand.

Apparently the local legislation for the eurocobblers means that DRLs are considered an acceptable substitute for dipped headlights during daylight hours and someone forgot to qualify that, so the cops are powerless (mate's wife is in the business over here). Like the relevant bit of the UK's legislation, the requirement is for dipped headlights in mist or fog. Rear lights are assumed to be on with such rather than specifically required.

I do so love the Law of Unintended Consequences......

any - daytime running lights - mark.b

all the stuff about front or rear,volvo etc,unthrottleds comments(stick my rear fogs on)read your highway code please unless you are one of our elderly members of society who have forgotton to turn them off from winter, have been posted before guys,this thread was posted to give me two pieces of info i wanted, whats been retro fitted by members and what turned out to be a quality product,please keep the childish stuff for lesser forums,and for info purpose i have incorporated red smd led strips into my rear lights already to aid rear visibility hazy,rainy conditions and my car is silver which tends to blend into the background in stormy conditions etc

Edited by mark.b on 07/07/2011 at 22:56

any - daytime running lights - jamie745

This topic has been done to death before. It seems people hate the DRL law coming in because its an EU one, if the UK Government decided all cars sold in Britain from 2013 have to have them, there wouldnt be as much fuss. In my view, it cant make the roads any less safe can it so why not give it a go? A car with lights on it is more visible than one which isnt, you can forget the semantics and over complicated scientific theoretical explanations the fact is lights make things more visible, end of. Ive always thought it should be law to have your lights on in the rain, on an overcast day, with moderate rain, something like a Grey Golf may take a second look to see sometimes, something like a motorbike maybe even more so, if they just had sidelights on it would solve that. Most people do put their lights on in the rain to be fair but as far as im aware there is currently no law for not doing so, and how do you define rain? Difficult to enforce when the amount required to reduce visibility is a matter of opinion, so to cut out the need for opinion, if all cars are built with lights on anyway it'll take that out of the drivers hands. Still too many people think their lights are to help them see, when in reality just as important is how it makes you visible too.

Ive come across cars with these DRL's, i saw a Golf with them yesterday and although i'd like to think i definatley wouldve seen it without the lights, i know it didnt make the car any LESS visible anyway. To me most of the time it'll make no difference, but if it saves even one life then i suppose it'll be worthwhile. While on one hand i dont like the idea of responsibility being removed from individuals, the fact is theres too many idiots in this country to be trusted with responsibilty, people used to think it was fine to use their phones while driving, and to not wear seatbelts, until laws were made forcing them to stop. If people had common sense those laws wouldnt of been required. But i dont see why anybody is getting out of their tree, its not us who have to do anything, its the vehicle manufacturers job to make sure these things are installed. What does it have to do with us?

On the subject of drivers fitting extra dazzling stupid lights i agree its unneccessary, in my view it should be illegal for people to tamper with lights or to alter them from the manufacturers specification. If it needed light-house style Xenon million watt things then they'd have built the car with them!!

any - daytime running lights - unthrottled

...forget the semantics and over complicated scientific theoretical explanations the fact is lights make things more visible, end of.

There's nothing complicated about the fact that you don't see stars in daylight. Extra light does not everything more visible-thats the nub of my argument.

any - daytime running lights - unthrottled

and for info purpose i have incorporated red smd led strips into my rear lights already to aid rear visibility hazy,rainy conditions

Have you actually bothered asking other drivers whether they have difficulty seeing your car, or are you just one of those drivers who think that everyone bar themselves is incapable of operating a motor vehicle? I had hoped that tthe comments might give you pause for thought regarding festooning your vehicle in fairy lights. Clearly not.

What I find really hypocritical is that you will criticise me for selectively using my fog lights to illustrate how distracting extraneous illumination is, but you're planning on adding extra lighting to use all the time!!

Edited by unthrottled on 08/07/2011 at 00:05

any - daytime running lights - jamie745

Again, i still think it should be illegal to tamper with the lights aside from changing manufacturer approved bulbs. How it comes out of the factory should be fine enough, if it needed ten million watt Xenon glowing Sun's it wouldve been made with them.

Although i must say i have found when driving a silver or grey car i do appear to be invisible. Has anybody else felt they're invisible in a certain colour of car? Its like people just dont see you!

any - daytime running lights - unthrottled

Your point about tampering with lights is eminantly sensible.

Silver cars less visible? Are white cars hard to see in the snow?! Yellow cars in the sun? Blue cars against the horizon? green cars in the countryside? Who knows! Perhaps there's some accident stats to support the hypothesis. Maybe there should be an exemption for silver cars. Anything, that doesn't have unintended consequences.

Remember, the US brought in fuel economy standards in 1973. Europe has never had them. The average European car gets better fuel economy than the average American one.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) did not raise the fuel economy of the US vehicle fleet. It kick-started the SUV boom because SUVs were not classified as cars and hence not subject to gas-guzzler tax. The SUVs were more thirsty than the station wagons they replaced. That's called the law of unintended consequences. It tends to be evoked every time a socialist politician decides that only their unwanted intervention can make the world a better place.

any - daytime running lights - mark.b

unthrottled as i stated in an earlier post i asked for two items of info,not pointless repetitive stuff and not your opinon on everything you wish to jump on your soap box about,unless you have answers to my questions,keep your opinions to yourself please

Edited by mark.b on 08/07/2011 at 02:02

any - daytime running lights - jamie745

Your point about tampering with lights is eminantly sensible.

unthrottled seems to agree with me. Hell shall freeze.

I think common sense would say a bright pink Range Rover will stand out more than a grey VW Golf, i know you'll say "yes but if everybody had a bright pink...." ok true, but its not like roads and buildings around it will be bright pink so it'd still stand out even if everybody had one (which i hope they dont) but i do think the suit colours of cars (grey, silver, dark blue, black etc) does blend in so much in the concrete jungle now that if they were to do a study into it i wouldnt be surprised if it turns up interesting results, mind you most cars are plain neutral colours these days and as you say we have some of the safest roads in Europe so perhaps it isnt a big issue.

The point about CAFE and SUV's is very valid, i dont think anybody objects to any plans to make vehicles more efficient, or that any "socialist politician" as you put it who wants to impliment such policies to be a bad thing but that was an example of the US Government really not thinking something through. At the time fuel was cheap and a Lincoln Navigator was a viable purchase, upping the tax on normal cars led to SUV popularity, about a ten year boom i'd say but overall Americans have long been keen on Japanese and German cars anyway. If you take the Ford Mustang and the Ford F150 (classified as a light truck, not a car) out of the sales equation, Americans cars are not a magnificent seller in their native land anymore. Not classifying SUV's as cars was a mistake, in the same way classing the G-Wiz as a "quadracycle" to get around EU safety regulations was also a mistake, no "car" built like that would be legal to sell in Europe. SUV's were not subject to the emissions and safety laws which their cars are, you could also argue the fact people switched to SUV's which in turn became a fashion item has both provoked hostility and prejudice towards the vehicle and those who buy them and has enforced SUV manufacturers to make vehicles to appeal to such clients at the same time (such as your favourite car the Evoque, which maybe would never of gotten built 15 years ago). make no question SUV manufacturers in the US saw this coming and made their SUV's more "car-like" to hook in buyers put off by gas guzzling taxes, terrific sales figures and a bonus for them but it was unsustainable as the rising oil prices has done what CAFE never managed which is to cut its usage. I also feel its further demonstration that just taxing something to try and solve an issue doesnt work, to think people will stop driving a car due to tax when an SUV is not included in higher tax is flawed, where as European firms like VW, BMW, Merc, the French companies etc have been investing time and money in fuel saving technologies and efficient ways of building cars the likes of General Motors carried on churning out the same stone age engineering they were in the 80s and i feel really paying the price for it now as several sides of its division falls apart.

There are other things to take into account when comparing fuel economy averages of America to Europe such as the Americans generally use a lower octane fuel than us, the majority of cars have automatic transmission which will always dent average fuel economy figures, the fact diesel is still primarily used only in the haulage business there and not in civilian vehicles to the degree it is in Europe and as mentioned earlier American engineering has been far behind some of the Europeans in terms of both power outputs and fuel economy for some time. Ive found the Germans are able to screw out both much better bhp figures and better fuel economy than equivalent American models, but American cars have their own trump card of being cheaper.

Perhaps the Us shouldve been looking at those issues rather than just someone putting a tax on cars. Who knows, SUV's might never of become fashionable and the Evoque wouldnt of ever been made.

Edited by jamie745 on 08/07/2011 at 02:03

any - daytime running lights - davmal

A colleague of mine recently expressed some concern over his approaching MOT. His windscreen was covered with a blanket of tiny stone chips/abrasions and was not as clear as it ought to be. A coincedental visit to Boots opticians and pair of spectacles cleared the screen up nicely. That it a true story.

I think the DRL debacle would have been better if instead of the beaurocracy being aimed at making cars more visible, it ensured drivers were more able to see these 4 to 5 metre long, often shiny, often colouful, leviathans. Maybe part of an MOT/ insurance renewal should be a passed eye test certificate.