Daytime Running Lights

Matt Simis

Carson10 wrote: »

Does anyone else find the daytime running lights on most new cars both stupid looking and dangerous? I've lost count of the number of new cars like golfs, polos Audis and the new astra driving in heavy rain on a dark day or dusk time with dipped headlights on and no tail lights at all on the back. Surely this is a road safety issue.

The problem is, when you start up these new cars the dash lights up as if you have your lights turned on.

I know when i get my new golf next year iam making the dealer switch off the automatic lights.

Good god could you be more wrong or ignorant.

- DRLs are not Dipped Beams firstly, the point is they are additional lights
- Those drivers you see with minimal lights on, if they are indeed equipped with DRLs, without them they would have no lights on at all.
- Finally, how can you criticize people for have too little lights on then advocate the removal of DRLs

DRLs are becoming mandatory as research shows they saves lives. They provide minimal light in situations when a driver may think they dont need lights (as "they can see fine"). The point of DRLs is to allow others see you better. They do not replace headlights. Users of DRLs (OEM) do not manually enable them so you cannot make the case people "choose" them over Low Beams (dipped is a oft confused term, "High" and "Low" Beams are more descriptive).

Ive rewired my Sidelights to run 21watt DRLs, though unlike real DRLs I have to manually switch them on via Sidelight switch (so rear lights come on). What they allow is others to see me faster when over taking, in the distance, pulling out of corners, pedestrians crossing the road.


Internet arguments aside, I implore you to look into the purpose of DRLs (as you have not understood this) and do not screw around with their operation. If you want rear lights on (and I agree they should be on in the rain) then just turn them on yourself. They are absolutely a life saver. Your gripe isnt DRLs, its the fact Irish drivers dont turn on any lights at all. You just notice the DRL enabled drivers as the lights are making up for stupid drivers and making them stand out.


PS: The logic behind DRLs not also lighting up rears is there is evidence to show that rear lights can confuses drivers, making them think the car in front braking (or is not braking when they are). There is also a legal and obvious onus on the car behind to see the car in front, you should not be relying on their rear lights. Again, not the "fault" of DRLs.

Carson10

DRLS are basically the same as dipped headlights in my eyes, there not parking lights nor full headlights??, and yes i know all about them as we got 2 new cars with them with whom the drivers are fully aware. You say you re-wired yours, good that you are mechanically minded, however i dont think an old women driving a brand new polo is going to start re-wiring her lights or have a clue about putting the switch to automatic to be honest. It just gets to confusing for those drivers who have no interest in cars and just see them as a piece of metal. Its Ok for the likes of us who notice these things and actually know what they are.

Iam all for road safety, but if people are too mindless to know when they should have their lights on that the car automatically does it for them then they should not be on the road.?? whats next automatic brakes incase the driver thinks they dont need to brake??

CiniO

Carson10 wrote: »

DRLS are basically the same as dipped headlights in my eyes, there not parking lights nor full headlights??, and yes i know all about them as we got 2 new cars with them with whom the drivers are fully aware. You say you re-wired yours, good that you are mechanically minded, however i dont think an old women driving a brand new polo is going to start re-wiring her lights or have a clue about putting the switch to automatic to be honest. It just gets to confusing for those drivers who have no interest in cars and just see them as a piece of metal. Its Ok for the likes of us who notice these things and actually know what they are.

Iam all for road safety, but if people are too mindless to know when they should have their lights on that the car automatically does it for them then they should not be on the road.?? whats next automatic brakes incase the driver thinks they dont need to brake??

I think you still didn't get it.
Daytime lights are not the same as dipped headlights.
Dipped headlights do 2 functions - lit an area in front of your car so you can see in darkness, and make you car visible to others.
Daytime lights make only the second function.

As I said in most cases daytime lights will go on on their own (without tail lights, dashboards lights, etc).

Pretty much Daylights are to be used only in conditions, when other drivers wouldn't use lights at all.
Whenever conditions require to use lights (night time, rain, fog, etc) you are obliged to turn on proper lights (dipped headlights, fog lights, etc).

here.from.day.1

My 02 S40, lights turn on and off with the engine so when I start it the lights are on, day or night, rain or shine.

Oh and if you see somebody flashing you very early in the morning or during lashing rain on the M50, it means turn your lights on!! :mad:

robbie99

Lot's of good information here:

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Vehicle%20Std%20Leg/Consultations/Daytime%20Running%20Lights%20Consultation.pdf

no1beemerfan

opinion guy wrote: »

You're not going to be happy when they become mandatory are you ?

Personally I like em - I especially like the Audi ones. Awesome design:D

I actually think some of the VAG ones are tacky. They look cheap take away from a nice looking car....the A3 and A6 spring to mind.

mailforkev

Another Volvo here so don't have this problem luckily.

It should also be mandatory for drivers to turn on their headlights when it's raining.

One or two penalty points would soon sort out a lot of people who seem to be afraid of wasting their bulbs.

Cookie_Monster

mailforkev wrote: »

One or two penalty points would soon sort out a lot of people who seem to be afraid of wasting their bulbs.

sounds like another law that would just go un-enforced to me tbh

gebbel

Carson10 wrote: »

Does anyone else find the daytime running lights on most new cars both stupid looking and dangerous? .

I find the Audi lights very classy...and like DRLs on any car, they can only help road safety.

af_thefragile

I don't like the Audi's as to put it in Clarkson's words, it looks like a council house on christmas.

Though some other cars have more subtle lights of it which look rather nice.

biko

DRL FTW, I've had them on Saabs and S40 and tbh, they make a world of difference - particularly this time of year when people driving to work in the rain aren't as visible as they think they are.

Conor_M1990

I just made a habit of driving with my lights on all the time more people should do it

af_thefragile

I drive with my sidelights on...
I don't know if it makes any difference...

CiniO

af_thefragile wrote: »

I drive with my sidelights on...
I don't know if it makes any difference...

Any difference to DRL? Huge!!!
Side lights (front) are barely visible to others.
By turning on your sidelights, you turn on front 2 sidelights, 2 rear taillights, numberplate lights, and dashboards lights. All this can consume up to 100W of power. And pretty much this power goes nowhere, because no one can really see you better if you have your sidelights, in comparision to situation you wouldn't have any lights at all.

What stops you to turn on you dipped headlights? At least you would be seen then.

PS. During the day in good weather noone need your tail lights, numberplate lights. You also don't need you dashboards lights.

Saruman

I drive with my dipped headlights on all the time. Sometimes some idiot flashes me. I wish it was mandatory like it is in some other EU countries.
I go through bulbs a little quickly but it is a small price to pay to be visible on the road.

I think the most dangerous time is actually a very bright sunny day. The reason is that is because it is so bright I notice drivers can't see as well so the extra nano second of visibility they get from my lights might be the difference between me driving safely by and them pulling out in front of me.
Also coming up to sunset and sunrise is lethal even though it is still bright out.

R.O.R

Saruman wrote: »

I drive with my dipped headlights on all the time. Sometimes some idiot flashes me. I wish it was mandatory like it is in some other EU countries.
I go through bulbs a little quickly but it is a small price to pay to be visible on the road.

I think the most dangerous time is actually a very bright sunny day. The reason is that is because it is so bright I notice drivers can't see as well so the extra nano second of visibility they get from my lights might be the difference between me driving safely by and them pulling out in front of me.
Also coming up to sunset and sunrise is lethal even though it is still bright out.

I've got in to the habit of turning my lights on whenever I get in the car.

Half the year it's required beacuse it's dark (is in the morning now when I set off), and the other half the year it's not needed to light the road, but does make me more visible to other traffic.

Coming on to the M50 Southbound from the M1 at sunrise, it would be great if everyone had their lights on. The rising sun bounces off all the mirrors until Ballymun and it'very difficult to see if anyone is behind you.

Saruman

Indeed, so many people think that lights are there to let you see when its dark. They are not, they are there so other people can see you coming. That is far more important.

I almost never even use my high beams as I can see perfectly with just my normal dipped headlights on (good night vision).

opinion guy

af_thefragile wrote: »

I don't like the Audi's as to put it in Clarkson's words, it looks like a council house on christmas.

Though some other cars have more subtle lights of it which look rather nice.

I like the Audi ones - particularly the A5 designs.
I also like the newer BMW ones - bright circles of light - pretty cool you can't really make out any bulb

R.O.R

The new 9-5 has LED rear DRL's right across the back of the car. Helps that the lights are always on being a Swedish car.

Looked fairly cool during the day and probably makes quite an impact in the dark.

CiniO

Saruman wrote: »

I almost never even use my high beams as I can see perfectly with just my normal dipped headlights on (good night vision).

What would be the fastest you drive at night?

GalwayKiefer

I always turn my lights on when I'm driving regardless of the time of day, whether in my jeep or on my bike. Anything can that make me more visible to other drivers is a plus, automatic drl are a great idea in my opinion - though the design of some mentioned here (on at the front and not the back) seems a bit stupid.

CiniO

robbie99 wrote: »

Lot's of good information here:

http://rsa.ie/Documents/Vehicle%20Std%20Leg/Consultations/Daytime%20Running%20Lights%20Consultation.pdf

Interesting article.
I actually read it all.

Every person who read's it, will be probably convinced, that DRL is a good thing. But is that right?
I think, that whole article (or consultation - whatever it's called) is intentionally written in that way.
I wouldn't trust the facts from it.
There's lots of statistics, but how can we know they are right?
Most of the statistics that were there, I can't deny, but also can't corraborate.

Only few thing's I knew before, and they are not correct in the article.

1. It states that additional fuel consumption with dedicated DRL is about 1% and with normal dipped headlights is 1.6%.
How is that possible? If you turn dipped headlights, you need at least 150W up to 200W of power. For dedicated DRL it's 40W or less. So difference in fuel consumption is much bigger between these two.

2. Cyclists and pedestrians. According to that consultation, because of car's use DRL they are safer. It was tested in many different countries - and that's not true. In the situation when all vehicles use DRL, cyclists and pedestrians will always be worse visible on the road (because drivers mind subconsciously will just be scanning only for lit objects).
And that will obviously cause more cyclists and pedestrians killed.
That was actually the reason, why Austria canceled the regulations for obligatory DRL, after less then 2 years them being obligatory.

3. That has actaully nothing to do with statistics, but it states (in the table within other countries) that Poland had obligatory DRL from October to February on outside-urban roads. The truth is, that DRL are obligatory at all time (since 2007). OK - before it was October to February, but it's been over two years since it changed. Also it never was only on outside-urban roads. It was always on all road. I know this is little mistake, but considering there is lot's of that kind of mistakes, the whole data from that consultation is not reliable to me at all.


Personally, I'm against making DRL obligatory, but I'm absolutely for Guards to start checking, enforcing, and penlising drivers for improper use of lights. (using fogs when there's no fog, not using dipped lights during rain, snow, late in the evening, in the tunnels, etc).

On a nice sunny day, using your lights doesn't really make any sense.

CiniO

GalKiefer wrote: »

- though the design of some mentioned here (on at the front and not the back) seems a bit stupid.

Why?

GalwayKiefer

CiniO wrote: »

Why?

I suppose its just in my head that if you are putting on lights to make your vehicle more visible, rather than to actually help you see where you're going, then do it with the lights front and rear.

Eric Cartman

GalKiefer wrote: »

I suppose its just in my head that if you are putting on lights to make your vehicle more visible, rather than to actually help you see where you're going, then do it with the lights front and rear.

the easiest method - pretend the DRL's arent there, if you need light turn on your dipped lights , if not, dont,

Cookie_Monster

Saruman wrote: »

Indeed, so many people think that lights are there to let you see when its dark. They are not, they are there so other people can see you coming. That is far more important.

I almost never even use my high beams as I can see perfectly with just my normal dipped headlights on (good night vision).

Any lights on will destroy your night vision, even a cigarette tip glow will.
Driving on unlit roads with no high beams is just stupid IMO

-Corkie-

opinion guy wrote: »

I like the Audi ones - particularly the A5 designs.
I also like the newer BMW ones - bright circles of light - pretty cool you can't really make out any bulb

I like the bmw and the opel ones are nice too. The A5 and the A8 are class looking but the A6 ones look tacky and aftermarket looking. I drive with my dipped headlights on all the time though.

CiniO

GalKiefer wrote: »

I suppose its just in my head that if you are putting on lights to make your vehicle more visible, rather than to actually help you see where you're going, then do it with the lights front and rear.

Tail lights don't make your vehicle visible any more then without them, during the good weather during the day. That's why there's no point for the to be lit.
Whenever it get's darker, or weather get's worse, you are supposed to turn on your dipped lights, and this turns your tail lights on automatically.

Sofiztikated

Wow. Just wow.

Op, you complain about cars not having lights visible on the back, so you want to have the lights on the front turned off? I really don't get that argument at all!

They don't have them on the back (I would imagine) because that side of the car is going away from you. Its not so much a danger. The front of the car, which is coming towards you needs the extra light to warn you of an incoming vehicle.

Back, going away. Front, coming towards.

The first thing I do when I get into my car, is stick my low beams on. Sunshine, rain, snow, whatever. If it gives other people an indication that I am there, happy days. It also lights my way, should I happen to enter a dark area, due to shadow. Does it put an extra load on my car? Yes. Do I care? Nope. They are consumables. If that was the case, I wouldn't brake, in case I wore out my brake pads, I wouldn't use my window pishers, in case I used up the washer fluid.

Gah, this country annoys me. (Secondary rant, I was parking a car for someone the other day, an 08 5 series. The engine management light was on. The onboard computer was worried because there were no brake pads. The pisher bottle was empty. And when I got out, I checked, the tyres on the back, wires coming through, and the front tyres were down to minimal thread. But the car was polished. God, you have to have a shiny car.)

Merch

Carson10 wrote: »

whats next automatic brakes incase the driver thinks they dont need to brake??

I'm sure i've seen that on top gear, I've definitely seen it, just not sure what programme, think it was a Merc with auto brakes in case you get too close too quickly

CiniO wrote: »

Any difference to DRL? Huge!!!
Side lights (front) are barely visible to others.
By turning on your sidelights, you turn on front 2 sidelights, 2 rear taillights, numberplate lights, and dashboards lights. All this can consume up to 100W of power. And pretty much this power goes nowhere, because no one can really see you better if you have your sidelights, in comparision to situation you wouldn't have any lights at all.

What stops you to turn on you dipped headlights? At least you would be seen then.

PS. During the day in good weather noone need your tail lights, numberplate lights. You also don't need you dashboards lights.

By side lights (front) I assume you mean parking lights? mine light up the whole lens albeit at 5watts each

I'd be happy if people ran with side/parking lights on rather than nothing in dull/rainy weather
As for penalising, I wouldn't be for it, wouldn't be enforced,
I would go for enforcing switching off fogs when they are not needed, particularily front fogs.
Asked a guy I knew that drove with them on, why do you have them on?
He says he thinks it looks cool! wtf??