Daytime running lights

[Avocet]

Were not in, and haven't been in the EU for a few years now.

Have you noticed how many manufacturers are building to uk specs and not EU specs. ? Any idea why?

To be fair, they were part of the "retained legislation" because it was already in place before we left the EU. o it's a GB requirement now. Though as you say, manufacturers selling into both territories aren't going to tool up for two different sets of lights, and if they did, the GB consumer would end up picking up the tab for GB-specific lights. But hey, that's what "taking back control" looks like...

 

[Avocet]

I agree. It's my pet hate with cars

But the powers that be, argue that's it's the need to be seen from in front.

To me if it needs lights on, they need to be on all around

It just doesn't really work. If you're looking at the front of a car, it's generally coming towards you. If you're looking at the back, either you're coming toward it or it's moving away from you.

The maximum brightness for tail lights, is very low. The maximum permitted brightness for DRLs is much higher. For rear DRLS to be as visible as front ones,they'd have to be about as bright as a brake or fog light - which means brake and fog lights would have to be even brighter still. That'll upset all the folk on here, who moan about getting dazzled by brake lights.

 

[Mottie]

The rear lights on our A3 comes on with the DRL's.

 

[aveatry]

DRL are dangerous for bikers. Before the stupid EU law in the daytime if you saw a light in the distance it was either a volvo or a biker - really easy to see but now the biker is lost in the sea of ever more stupid fancy pattens of DRL making it more difficult to see the biker that is actually way in front of the lights behind them and is closer than you may realise.

I'd be interested to see links to any studies that have found that?

Its bleedin odious isn't it. And that's the point no big study has been done -the affect on bikers has been sidelined but the bikers know it.

This from your own link. A small 1 paragraph section.

Effect of DRLs on Motorcyles​

Another anti-DRL argument is that their use in automobiles will negate the positive effects of motorcycles operating with their lights on. The following studies indicate that this argument has little statistical weight.

In the study in Norway, a 4-percent increase, not statistically significant, was found for motorcyclist crashes. There might be a "minor negative impact" of DRL son motorcycle crashes.

So they state "little statistical weight." and yet the study found a 4% increase. -- Like i said it has made the roads more dangerous for bikers and the study measured the danger to be 4% more

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It just doesn't really work. If you're looking at the front of a car, it's generally coming towards you. If you're looking at the back, either you're coming toward it or it's moving away from you.

The maximum brightness for tail lights, is very low. The maximum permitted brightness for DRLs is much higher. For rear DRLS to be as visible as front ones,they'd have to be about as bright as a brake or fog light - which means brake and fog lights would have to be even brighter still. That'll upset all the folk on here, who moan about getting dazzled by brake lights.

Agreed.

But I meant if it needs lights on at the front, standard tail lights ought to be on too

 

[morqthana]

it can look like the car approaching from the right has just flashed you to pull out when in fact it was their LEDs automatically coming on under the bridge.

So you don't believe in driving according to the Highway Code, then?

110
Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

111
Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

 

[morqthana]

So they state "little statistical weight." and yet the study found a 4% increase. -- Like i said it has made the roads more dangerous for bikers and the study measured the danger to be 4% more

You don't know what "statistically significant" means, do you.

 

[aveatry]

So you don't believe in driving according to the Highway Code, then?

110
Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

111
Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

I knew some jobs-worth would come up with that one.
The fact is that people DO use their lights in real life in the way I described and of course "Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully."
Are you a heed master of a primary school or somthing

 

[morqthana]

Wife is thinking of buying a newish Clio, I dont think DRL are a good idea, especially if they are dipped beam, ok if side lights.

Why do you think that pointless lighting is OK?

 

[Avocet]

Its bleedin odious isn't it. And that's the point no big study has been done -the affect on bikers has been sidelined but the bikers know it.

This from your own link. A small 1 paragraph section.

Effect of DRLs on Motorcyles​

Another anti-DRL argument is that their use in automobiles will negate the positive effects of motorcycles operating with their lights on. The following studies indicate that this argument has little statistical weight.

In the study in Norway, a 4-percent increase, not statistically significant, was found for motorcyclist crashes. There might be a "minor negative impact" of DRL son motorcycle crashes.

So they state "little statistical weight." and yet the study found a 4% increase. -- Like i said it has made the roads more dangerous for bikers and the study measured the danger to be 4% more

No. I've seen too many "it's bleedin' obvious innit" claims to want a bit more (and better) evidence. I learned that lesson when laws were passed to limit the number of paracetamols you could buy in one go. I thought that was bloody stupid because of someone wants to kill themselves, they can just got to multiple shops until they have enough to do the job. And yet, after that measure was introduced, suicides by paracetamol overdose really did fall.

You're reading more than is there into that paragraph. For all you know, there was one study showing a 4% increase in Norway, but there were another 10 that showed no increase. Unless you've got access to the bigger picture, you can't really draw any firm conclusions from one study, as another might contradict it:

" No indications were found of a lesser conspicuousness of vulnerable road users when near a car with DRL. On the contrary, results pointed in the opposite direction: road users without lighting in fact profited from DRL. It is also an advantage that vulnerable road users can see cars with DRL sooner than cars without DRL. "

https://cdn-nrspp-s3-aus.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/14211159/FS-DRL.pdf

 

[aveatry]

You don't know what "statistically significant" means, do you.

I would rather be 4% safer on the road than 4% at more danger -- wouldn't you. Biking is dangerous enough without it being 4% more so

 

[morqthana]

Are you a heed master of a primary school or somthing

No - I'm someone who doesn't think that the Highway Code is only meant for jobsworths.

But hey - if ever you're in trouble, and are being asked why you didn't do something the HC said you should do (or did something it said you shouldn't), tell them they're being jobsworths and roll your eyes at them. What could go wrong.

 

[morqthana]

I would rather be 4% safer on the road than 4% at more danger -- wouldn't you. Biking is dangerous enough without it being 4% more so

But you don't know that you'd be 4% safer. That's what "statistically (in)significant" means. It doesn't mean that the numbers are so small we shouldn't care about them, it means we have no idea if they are accurate, or even real. It means you might be no safer at all. It means you might be less safe.

 

[pcaouolte]

My pet hate is when you have been patiently waiting for a queue of traffic to pass so that you can pull out and the very last car in the queue flashes you to come out in front of them. If they just carried on and got out of the f'ing way then you could have pulled out anyway.

The only thing worse than that is when you are trying to turn right and someone in the lane nearest to you flashes you to come out into the path of the traffic in the other lane.

If people could simply follow the highway code everything would flow much better.

 

[aveatry]

" No indications were found of a lesser conspicuousness of vulnerable road users when near a car with DRL. On the contrary, results pointed in the opposite direction: road users without lighting in fact profited from DRL. It is also an advantage that vulnerable road users can see cars with DRL sooner than cars without DRL. "

That's a word salad that needs deciphering
But none of it seems relevant to bikers and is referring to users without their own lighting benefiting from the car with DLR proving my point that the car is being seen but not the other user.