Yes, I'm A Sad Git

[Brigadier]

Just driving home, dark and unlit lanes.

Woman in front, no lights on (likely that the daytime running lights tricked her into thinking her lights were on).
So, rear of car stays dark except for when braking.

Second time in as many days.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Just driving home, dark and unlit lanes.

Woman in front, no lights on (likely that the daytime running lights tricked her into thinking her lights were on).
So, rear of car stays dark except for when braking.

Second time in as many days.

I cannot understand why any designer thought that front only drl's were a good idea.

If the fronts need to be on, so do the rears !

 

[securespark]

Perhaps they just cannot be arsed to get the thing MOTd. Or maybe they are anarchists who believe the chancellor can go and do one .

Yes, if you look at the GOV MoT history site, it will suggest the MoT has expired.

But if you go to the GOV tax check website, it says the vehicle cannot be found. Other cars we have had destroyed display the same screen.

 

[Diver Fred]

I cannot understand why any designer thought that front only drl's were a good idea.

If the fronts need to be on, so do the rears !

EU requirements - however Swedish cars have rear lights on as we!l (or at least, Did!).

 

[Mottie]

Our A3 has DRL's front and rear. Not a particularly new one either.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

EU requirements - however Swedish cars have rear lights on as we!l (or at least, Did!).

It's not a requirement to have just front, no rear. It's down to car makers, designers. Nothing to do with EU requirements.

Nothing wrong with drl's. But if fronts are needed, so are rears.

 

[Avocet]

I think it's partly because it's easier to see a car that you're behind, than one you're in front of? In failing visibility, we all have to make the judgment of when to put our lights on. Generally, I leave it until the tail lights of a car a long way ahead of me in the distance, are as visible (or more visible) than the car itself. Most of the time, in daylight, you see the car LONG before you see the tail lights - which means that to actually have any real effect, DRL tail lights would have to be MUCH brighter than standard tail lights - which would then get confused with brake lights.

The other (and perhaps main) reason, I think, is because DRLs are largely there for pedestrians and cyclists - neither of those groups of road users would generally have much of a problem with vehicles that were ahead of them.

 

[securespark]

For most of my driving career, I have driven with dipped headlights all the time.

This is probably something that came from me doing a vast amount of commercial driving. A commercial driving assessor once told me "See and be seen!" He was preaching to the converted though, because at that time I was already using lights 24/7.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I think it's partly because it's easier to see a car that you're behind, than one you're in front of?

Any car which is going the same way, will have a much smaller speed differential, than one with DRL's coming towards you. So much more time to see them.

 

[Avocet]

For most of my driving career, I have driven with dipped headlights all the time.

This is probably something that came from me doing a vast amount of commercial driving. A commercial driving assessor once told me "See and be seen!" He was preaching to the converted though, because at that time I was already using lights 24/7.

I have mixed feelings about that. It works if EVERYONE is similarly illuminated, but in urban situations, it's hard to pick out pedestrians and cyclists (although increasingly, the latter have ultra-bright flashing lights these days) against the mass of dipped beam headlights. In the mid 1980s, we introduced "dim-dip", whereby the sidelights automatically became dipped beam headlights at half brightness once the car was started. i.e. switch on the sidelights, and you get sidelights, but start the engine and you get dipped beam but at half brightness. I thought that was quite a good idea, but it was killed-off in the early 1990s when we moved over to EU type approvals (in fact, it was the same set of regulations that killed-off the famous French yellow headlights and the German requirement for parking lights).

 

[Avocet]

Any car which is going the same way, will have a much smaller speed differential, than one with DRL's coming towards you. So much more time to see them.

Yes, that's true - although stationary ones would still pose a fair speed differential.

 

[securespark]

VAG cars still have a system where if you put the indicator on either side, then lock up, that side has the rear cluster and front lamp illuminated. Or at least used to into the 2010s.

 

[Avocet]

VAG cars still have a system where if you put the indicator on either side, then lock up, that side has the rear cluster and front lamp illuminated. Or at least used to into the 2010s.

Yes, parking lights. Still popular as an option in Germany, but no longer a legal requirement. If you put the (say) left indicator on as you describe, and lock the car up, it should illuminate only your left front and left rear sidelight. Handy for parking somewhere dark, when you're not in a line of parked cars. However, I think now largely redundant because of reflective number plates and better rear reflectors.