Daytime Running Lights - DRL's ?
Discussion
randlemarcus said:
Really? You truly cant see how it will lead to massively increased accident rates? Wow.
Really? You truly cant see how it will lead to a massive reduction in accident rates? Wow.
If people cannot tell if the light coming is a car or a bike, it does not matter, they will have seen it and acted accordingly.
tigger1 said:
vipers said:
I DO HAVE A PROBLEM with motorcyclist who have DRL's on FULL beam.
Unfortunately Vipers, this (for many bikers) isn't by choice. Many bikes have the light wired to the ignition nowadays I believe, so if the engine is on so is the headlight. Can be annoying, but certainly not as common as an occurence (to me anyway!) as people in 4x4's driving with headlights shining straight into my bloody rear window and burning a hole in the back of my head...why aren't 4x4s forced to have their lights lower down where they don't ruddy dazzle people!?!!
Edited by tigger1 on Monday 15th January 13:17
Think you missed something there, my objection is to bikes in day time having FULL BEAM on, not just the headlight. Whilst I appreciate they may be wired into the ignition, they cant be wired in on permanently FULL BEAM. I once had a bike behind me for miles, and I finally managed to get him to pull over, he thinking there was something wrong with his bike, pulled over. I explained that I was getting a little pissed off with his FULL BEAM right behind me for the last 10 miles or so, he apologigsed.
Whoooops just noticed this has been noted, but I'l leave the post in anyway. No harm done.
Edited by vipers on Thursday 18th January 03:00
DRL's have been a matter of law in Canada since '90 or '91 and I like them when it involves passing vehicles in oncoming lanes. It's much easier to spot a car hundreds of yards away headed towards to with DRL's on than no lighting at all. Moreover since I'll soon br driving a RHD car on the right hand side of the road, my vision for passing lorries and such will be even more obscured and dangerous when passing in an oncoming lane. I'm thankful for them.
As for people who think they're going to be blinded by DRL's in broad daylight, I'd suggest you get your vision tested. First of all they're not even AIMED at you so the
only way to get enough light to irritate your eye is to directly look into them, and that
I'd humbly suggest is NOT where you should be looking when you're driving.
Maybe I'm just taking the piss here, but after driving around Europe earlier this month I noticed the lighting and night-vision loss attitudes are different there. For instance, I noticed this one lady driver would hold her car at red lights with the hand brake. I asked her why she did that and the answer was to not blind the driver behind her with brake lights. I'd humbly suggest that anyone who can be blinded by a difused red light in broad daylight needs to surrender their licence due to poor vision. Moreover, red light is the one colour that doesn't rob your night vision like other colours do. A pointless waste of time IMHO. Maybe I'll stand corrected.
I also noticed while there a tendency to dim the high-beams far earlier than is required here. The Alberta's driver handbook where I live says to dim the lights 300m oncoming and 100m following. The tendency I noticed in Europe was probably at least double that distance from the cars and drivers I observed.
And my pet peeve.... not driving through fog at night? Turn the darned fog lights off.
Just my $0.02
As for people who think they're going to be blinded by DRL's in broad daylight, I'd suggest you get your vision tested. First of all they're not even AIMED at you so the
only way to get enough light to irritate your eye is to directly look into them, and that
I'd humbly suggest is NOT where you should be looking when you're driving.
Maybe I'm just taking the piss here, but after driving around Europe earlier this month I noticed the lighting and night-vision loss attitudes are different there. For instance, I noticed this one lady driver would hold her car at red lights with the hand brake. I asked her why she did that and the answer was to not blind the driver behind her with brake lights. I'd humbly suggest that anyone who can be blinded by a difused red light in broad daylight needs to surrender their licence due to poor vision. Moreover, red light is the one colour that doesn't rob your night vision like other colours do. A pointless waste of time IMHO. Maybe I'll stand corrected.
I also noticed while there a tendency to dim the high-beams far earlier than is required here. The Alberta's driver handbook where I live says to dim the lights 300m oncoming and 100m following. The tendency I noticed in Europe was probably at least double that distance from the cars and drivers I observed.
And my pet peeve.... not driving through fog at night? Turn the darned fog lights off.
Just my $0.02
henrycrun said:
DRLs are bloody irrirating esp with humpbacks and speedbumps.
Handbrake on when stationary is safe and courteous.
Handbrake on when stationary is safe and courteous.
Edited by henrycrun on Wednesday 28th February 13:45
Yes they are, pity they didnt realise that when they built the bloody humps, and I do recall reading some time ago, they have proved humps increase pollution, we all slow down for them, then put the foot down to speed up, and chuck out more exhaust gases than if we were to maintain a steady speed.
Incidently are DRL's going to be dipped heads, or sidelights, cant remember now?
vipers said:
Handbrake on when stationary is safe and courteous.
I would have to disagree. If you get rear-ended you have next to nil force applied to the braking end of the car with the least effect.
Your foot should be doing it for the very same reason you don't turn your wheels while stopped tomake a turn across oposing traffic.... if you get hit, you'll be pushed into oncoming traffic.
I've seen cars get rear-ended and get pushed right through a 4 lane intersection while four wheels locked.... imagine just a slight brake preasure on two wheels?
I beg to differ.
An interesting note.... I was looking at the UK driving tips at drivinghandbook.co.uk to:
"If you're stationary with a vehicle behind, take care not to dazzle its driver with your brake lights, foglights or indicator. Switch off fog lights and indicators while you're waiting, and use the handbrake rather than holding the car on the footbrake. "
It still makes no sense to me..... but then again what would I expect from the nation that teaches "push pull steering" (ie: jerky) instead of the much finer "hand over hand".
[edit]
Getting back the "dazzle" bit the rear lights alegedly induce...
(quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automoti )
"Stop lamps (brake lamps)
Red-colored steady-burning rear lights, brighter than the taillamps, are activated when the driver applies the vehicle's brakes. These are called brake lights or stop lamps. They are required to be fitted in multiples of two, symmetrically at the left and right edges of the rear of every vehicle. Outside North America, the range of acceptable intensity for a brake lamp containing one light source (e.g. bulb) is 60 to 185 candela. In North America, the acceptable range for a single-bulb brake lamp is 80 to 300 candela."
Our tail lights can be almost twice as bright, and NOBODY here worries about being blinded by them or "dazzled".
I think thou (UK'ers) doth protest too much. IMHO.
"If you're stationary with a vehicle behind, take care not to dazzle its driver with your brake lights, foglights or indicator. Switch off fog lights and indicators while you're waiting, and use the handbrake rather than holding the car on the footbrake. "
It still makes no sense to me..... but then again what would I expect from the nation that teaches "push pull steering" (ie: jerky) instead of the much finer "hand over hand".
[edit]
Getting back the "dazzle" bit the rear lights alegedly induce...
(quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automoti )
"Stop lamps (brake lamps)
Red-colored steady-burning rear lights, brighter than the taillamps, are activated when the driver applies the vehicle's brakes. These are called brake lights or stop lamps. They are required to be fitted in multiples of two, symmetrically at the left and right edges of the rear of every vehicle. Outside North America, the range of acceptable intensity for a brake lamp containing one light source (e.g. bulb) is 60 to 185 candela. In North America, the acceptable range for a single-bulb brake lamp is 80 to 300 candela."
Our tail lights can be almost twice as bright, and NOBODY here worries about being blinded by them or "dazzled".
I think thou (UK'ers) doth protest too much. IMHO.
Edited by brap_brap on Wednesday 28th February 19:02
I wasn't kidding.... in the UK you folks really are that pedantic! :P (j/k)
Here's what my compatriots say.... (Calgary Sports Car Club Forum)
[quote]
Quote from: Reijo on Today at 11:38:29 am
In the UK they are in rain and cloud so much of the year that any light blinds them...
Thanks for the comic relief Reijo! The first post had me smiling and shaking my head (i.e. the actual quote from the UK forum), and yours one sent me over the edge!
I think the whole concept just promotes road rage. In any case where there is a 'right' way to do something, there's always someone getting pissed off because someone is doing it wrong. Nuff said.
Rod [/quote]
I have to agree.
Here's what my compatriots say.... (Calgary Sports Car Club Forum)
[quote]
Quote from: Reijo on Today at 11:38:29 am
In the UK they are in rain and cloud so much of the year that any light blinds them...
Thanks for the comic relief Reijo! The first post had me smiling and shaking my head (i.e. the actual quote from the UK forum), and yours one sent me over the edge!
I think the whole concept just promotes road rage. In any case where there is a 'right' way to do something, there's always someone getting pissed off because someone is doing it wrong. Nuff said.
Rod [/quote]
I have to agree.
For the record, my Fazer1000 has hardwired on headlamps and tbh I'd prefer to have the option to switch it on/off myself - there are situations where I'd rather have no lights on (strong or low sunlight behind me for instance) and I don't think some Euro MP (or whoever) should be making the decisions for me on this particular matter. Whatever happened to having a choice?!
Still, all fair and valid points so far imo, I just thought I'd stick my oar in on the DRL for bikes issue.
Still, all fair and valid points so far imo, I just thought I'd stick my oar in on the DRL for bikes issue.
Fouga said:
I recall reading somewhere that by doing so you can reduce your chances of being involved in a traffic accident by 35% ???
Yeah okay. I am 85% less likely to run over a hedgehog by not having my tyres at 29psi.
Do you reckon having your windscreen wipers and foglights on at the same time will say, reduce the chances by 50%?
Twenty-ish years ago the military experimented with light as a form of camouflage.
By way of demonstration they parked a Scorpion tank right up on a hill so it was blatantly silhouetted against the skyline. It stuck out like a bulldogs balls from miles away.
Then they placed a grid of bright lights (facing the camera) in front of the tank. At close quarters it was visible but as the camera panned back the tank disappeared proving that under certain conditions lights can do more harm than good and not just when they dazzle and distract.
By way of demonstration they parked a Scorpion tank right up on a hill so it was blatantly silhouetted against the skyline. It stuck out like a bulldogs balls from miles away.
Then they placed a grid of bright lights (facing the camera) in front of the tank. At close quarters it was visible but as the camera panned back the tank disappeared proving that under certain conditions lights can do more harm than good and not just when they dazzle and distract.
Having driven in Denmark / Sweden I am 100% behind DRL's. Most the time you would of course see the car anyway, but the odd time a car is in the mottled sun/shadow of over hanging trees or hidden in heat haze on a straight road could make a big difference. Also it would completly do away with the numpties who drive in the rain or half light without lights on.
I completely fail to see how it makes it more dangerous for motorcyclists. "I can only see one headlight, that must mean it's safe to pull out"
I completely fail to see how it makes it more dangerous for motorcyclists. "I can only see one headlight, that must mean it's safe to pull out"
Flintstone said:
Twenty-ish years ago the military experimented with light as a form of camouflage.
By way of demonstration they parked a Scorpion tank right up on a hill so it was blatantly silhouetted against the skyline. It stuck out like a bulldogs balls from miles away.
Then they placed a grid of bright lights (facing the camera) in front of the tank. At close quarters it was visible but as the camera panned back the tank disappeared proving that under certain conditions lights can do more harm than good and not just when they dazzle and distract.
This is a well known phenomenon in automotive lighting (called disability glare). The human eye can't cope with extreme differences in brightness in the field of view, so if you stick a dimly lit object next to a brightly lit one the dim one becomes invisible. Can be a very serious issue at night, but DRLs aren't bright enough to cause a problem during the day. By way of demonstration they parked a Scorpion tank right up on a hill so it was blatantly silhouetted against the skyline. It stuck out like a bulldogs balls from miles away.
Then they placed a grid of bright lights (facing the camera) in front of the tank. At close quarters it was visible but as the camera panned back the tank disappeared proving that under certain conditions lights can do more harm than good and not just when they dazzle and distract.
paulsm said:
Having driven in Denmark / Sweden I am 100% behind DRL's. Most the time you would of course see the car anyway, but the odd time a car is in the mottled sun/shadow of over hanging trees or hidden in heat haze on a straight road could make a big difference. Also it would completly do away with the numpties who drive in the rain or half light without lights on.
Don't forget the sun is lower there, them being up north and that.paulsm said:
I completely fail to see how it makes it more dangerous for motorcyclists. "I can only see one headlight, that must mean it's safe to pull out"
imbecile said:
paulsm said:
Having driven in Denmark / Sweden I am 100% behind DRL's. Most the time you would of course see the car anyway, but the odd time a car is in the mottled sun/shadow of over hanging trees or hidden in heat haze on a straight road could make a big difference. Also it would completly do away with the numpties who drive in the rain or half light without lights on.
Don't forget the sun is lower there, them being up north and that.paulsm said:
I completely fail to see how it makes it more dangerous for motorcyclists. "I can only see one headlight, that must mean it's safe to pull out"
paulsm said:
imbecile said:
paulsm said:
Having driven in Denmark / Sweden I am 100% behind DRL's. Most the time you would of course see the car anyway, but the odd time a car is in the mottled sun/shadow of over hanging trees or hidden in heat haze on a straight road could make a big difference. Also it would completly do away with the numpties who drive in the rain or half light without lights on.
Don't forget the sun is lower there, them being up north and that.paulsm said:
I completely fail to see how it makes it more dangerous for motorcyclists. "I can only see one headlight, that must mean it's safe to pull out"
You only have to go for a spirited drive in a classic mini to see what the effects of close together headlights are at night: prepare to have plenty of dangerous overtakes towards you, as people misjudge your distance. This is many times worse in a motorbike.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff