Day Time Running Lights

L1011

Del2005 wrote: »

The reason I disagree for DRLs for cars is becase I believe that at the moment the majority of motorcyclist are using DRLs/Dip Beam and they are noticeable on the road. If all cars had DRLs them motorbikes and bikes would got lost in all the cars again. This is the reason used by FEMA to get the EU to stop the mandatory use of DRLs.

Cars being more visible due to having their lights on isn't going to make the bikes suddenly invisible. Would suggest you look for crash statistics from countries with DRLs, I'm going to make a wild and dangerous guess and assume they have the same or lower incidences of accidents involving motorbikes - although likely down to Irish drivers being, across the board, fecking terrible.

Gregor Samsa

Del2005 wrote: »

The reason I disagree for DRLs for cars is becase I believe that at the moment the majority of motorcyclist are using DRLs/Dip Beam and they are noticeable on the road. If all cars had DRLs them motorbikes and bikes would got lost in all the cars again. This is the reason used by FEMA to get the EU to stop the mandatory use of DRLs.

Daytime lights (DRLs or dips) are there to make the vehicle stand out from the background, not from other traffic. The fact that cars have their lights on doesn't diminish the visibility of motorbikes against the background. Sure, it might make it more difficult to know whether it's a bike or a car at first glance, but the fact is that when you see a light, you know it's some vehicle - car, bike or truck - and can take the appropriate care and then determine what kind it it.

Its more dangerous not to notice a vehicle at all than not to know whether it's a bike or a car at first glance.

L1011

phutyle wrote: »

Its more dangerous not to notice a vehicle at all than not to know whether it's a bike or a car at first glance.

And many people, intentionally or not, will give something they think to be a car a far wider berth thank a bike.

su_dios

Gegerty wrote: »

Very well spoken Peasant. If people are so concerned they should also look into getting these fitted rather than using their regular dipped headlights.

You cannot get oem conversion kits to do this, and there are about a handful of aftermarket options that require butchering. So its not really an option right now.

As I said before I specced daytime running lights on my car and they use the dipped beams(not reduced at all) but are always on. Only way to turn them off is to turn on the parking lights. They work well and during the day are not blinding.

cjt156

MYOB wrote: »

And many people, intentionally or not, will give something they think to be a car a far wider berth thank a bike.

Exactly; perceived danger. A driver is less likely to pull out in front of a HGV than a motorcycle; as I well know. I've had people stop, look, make eye contact and THEN pull out in front of me when I was on a bike. With some idiots it just doesn't register.

Gegerty

prospect wrote: »

Oh the irony

richie_rvf

I drive with my lights on always.

As soon as I get into my car I turn the lights on and put my seat belt on.

In my experience when driving I notice cars (and motorbikes) that have their lights on much sooner than a car/motorbike with no lights and in my opinion that is safer.

I rode motorbike for years before having a car and I would not dream of driving without having lights on.

Accidents happen so I like to minimize the risk where possible.

Del2005

cjt156 wrote: »

Good for you, but I won't make my journey less safe just because maybe in ten years time a biker might only be as safe as everyone else...did I get that right?

So you will knowing endanger someone else when driving. If a bike is less visable then they aren't as safe as everyone else.

Hence why I think it's safer for bikes to use DRLs and cars not to. If a person can't see a car on a clear day with DRLs on what chance has a motorbike got?

The way I look at it. When drving a car you have crumble zones, airbags and seat belts you have a good chance of surving a crash. Where as a motor bike has none of these and they have a very high chance of being severly injured or killed.

Steve

I drive with dips on all the time, it's safer.

If someone gets 'blinded' by this during the day then THB they have eyesight problems and shouldn't be driving - what happens if they see dipped headlights at night? their head explodes?:rolleyes:

Big hate of mine are the drivers that go around with their parking lights on in poor vis. thinking they can be seen:mad:

unkel

Gegerty wrote: »

I'm saying when visibilty is fine

No you weren't. Prospect gave a friendly warning to the motorist without his lights on at dusk. Visibility is not fine at dusk

Now stop digging. If anyone in this thread is trolling it is you

Saabdub

My Saab has the lights on all the time, no switch to turn them off:D

Saabdub

bonkey

Del2005 wrote: »

So you will knowing endanger someone else when driving. If a bike is less visable then they aren't as safe as everyone else.

Cars having and using DRLs do not make bikes less visible.

As a simple comparison, recent studies showed that silver cars are less visible than red cars to other traffic. This has nothing to do with how many silver cars and red cars are on the road. It has to do with how our eyes and brains process colours, particularly when dealing with a moving background (given that we're talking about the perspective from other traffic, the background is not stationary) and objects moving within that.

Its the same logic that says that all pedestrians should wear reflective clothing at night, because it makes them all stand out from the background. Its not about picking some pedestrians out from other pedestrians...if they all wear them, it doesn't suddenly make them all invisible again defeating the purpose of the reflective clothing.

The same applies to DRLs. They increase the visibility of whatever they are on. Its not about what other traffic, it is (as with the red-and-silver-car example, as with pedestrians wearing reflective clothing) about picking the object out from the landscape, and identifying it as something other than part of the background.

If everything on the road had DRLs, then everything on the road would stand out more clearly from the background.

cjt156

Del2005 wrote: »

So you will knowing endanger someone else when driving. If a bike is less visable then they aren't as safe as everyone else.

Sorry but that's utter cobblers.
As has been posted time & again. Making my car more visible does not make another vehicle less so. By that reckoning I'd be doing bikers a favour if I drive without lights at night.

Cionád

I also drive with my dips on all the time. I drive a dark green car and use a lot of backroads so I feel safer with them on. Also I now have the habit of flicking on the lights just as I start the engine, so theres never an ambigous time between daylight and dusk, clear-sky & rain that I don't have the lights on.

Since I started this the amount of cars pulling out infront of me or cutting into my lane (sometimes without indicating) has decreased somewhat.

I'd like to see DRL introduced so that all cars would have the lower powered lights, thus being more efficient.

nialler

cjt156 wrote: »

Sorry but that's utter cobblers.
As has been posted time & again. Making my car more visible does not make another vehicle less so. By that reckoning I'd be doing bikers a favour if I drive without lights at night.

I have the computer set to have my lights on constantly. Car is very dark burgundy in colour, very wide and very long. Still got a smack on saturday, there's no accounting for someone turning a corner and looking the other direction and ploughing into the front wing and door of your car.

L1011

Wait, other cars make you *turn on* the lights?

Fiats don't. They cancel fogs and beams (the anti muppet device as I've heard it described) when you turn the engine off - and turn off the lights - but the dips or sidelights come back on when you restart...

The colour that makes mine go invisible in bad conditions is an extremely light blue ('azure' according to the colour code), its closer to silver than traditional blue.

biko

Saabdub wrote: »

My Saab has the lights on all the time, no switch to turn them off:D

Saabdub

What model is this?
I can turn my headlights on/off with the switch to the right of the steering wheel. If I leave it "on" the lights will stop when I turn engine off. 1995 900s.

craichoe

Not another DRL thread ... ARRGGGGGGGGHHHHH !!!!

Slidey

Mercedes vans now have it as standard.
I always switch my dips on now. Maybe if i had had them on a few years ago the plank who ran into me might have not done the uturn in front of me
I cannot understand how it is not mandatory.
A certain high profile delivery company now asks that it is turned off now as they reckon it is very hard on bulbs though

E92

Volvos and Saabs have have DRLs for years. Audi are now joining in, the facelifted A3 due here in a few months will have them, and I believe that the recently launched A4 and A5 have DRLs as standard equipment too. Presumably the rest of the VAG range will follow suit in due course. AFAIK BMW also are phasing in DRLs, AFAIK the current 3 series Coupé was the first BMW to have DRLs as standard equipment.

ergonomics

My Dad was always telling me that when I started driving I should always have my dips on. I didn't bother during the day until one day a driver overtook on the opposite side of the road as I was approaching, causing me to swerve into the ditch. Now to be fair, this happened at night time and I had my lights on. He was just an ass but it gave me a fear of not being see and now I drive with my dipped lights on at all times. I find that I see cars who have their dipped lights on a lot further away than other cars and I just think it's safer. It's not harming anyone so why not do it? And don't say they blind people. As someone said earlier, what do the people who get 'blinded' do at night time?