Daytime Driving Lights

Tommy-Darcy wrote:

SJR wrote:My view on DRL's is that they look really naff, factory fitted or aftermarket, but I have much bigger thing in my life to worry about!

SJR

Don't we all, but being dazzled IS one of my concerns

Thats fair enough, Tommy.

Some times though peoples moaning doesn't seem to add up. I have a 5.0 V8 Ford Mustang and its noisy (Its a Muscle car, its supposed to be noisy) I think I'm a fairly decent chap, who doesn't like to have a negative impact on peoples lives, so I don't take it out early/late or rev it too much, etc.
But the looks of utter disgust I sometimes receive from mainly older people is amazing and thats just when I trundle past and they get to hear my car for just a few seconds.
There is a guy in the Village that has a number of vintage/veteran cars that are as loud, if not louder, when he drives past these same people "enthusiastically" they smile?


SJR

Mustang ehh One of my dream cars

How anyone can complain about the sound of a V8 is beyond me, gives me a just thinking about it

The noise and the torque are lovely.

Its a shame that I don't get a chance to drive it much, I'm lucky if I do 500 miles a year.

Cheers,
SJR

Bet you enjoy it when you do though

It's a bit unusual to get that sort of reaction with the something like a Mustang. I've got a V8-engined British car, and it's not quiet, but most people are Ok with it as they were that way from new.

The ones that annoy me are the Subaru and Mitsubishi "imitation rally car" owners who insist on taking off the original exhaust and putting on something with a six inch diameter tailpipe. My neighbour's WRX has this. It's incredibly loud and it runs like a dog because he is too skint to pay for the remap that it needs to compensate for completely different engine gas flow.

Or there's another chap nearby with a rusty MR3 that he has fitted straight through exhausts to. I can hear his car coming literally half a mile away.

It makes me feel sorry for people that have to work shifts, as I can't believe it would be possible to sleep while that thing goes past...

Tommy-Darcy wrote:

SJR wrote:My view on DRL's is that they look really naff, factory fitted or aftermarket, but I have much bigger thing in my life to worry about!

SJR

Don't we all, but being dazzled IS one of my concerns

Not against the principle of making our roads a bit safer place to drive for all road users concerned and this must be something to do with clearly seeing other road users by whatever 'safe' means, particularly the ones coming directly towards you at speed in all conditions. (presumably that has always been the thinking objective in the end with those that finally legislated the use of DLRs for this country)

However here seems to be an interesting point with an unpleasant side effect as a direct result of this legislation as it stands now, particularly for those that now seem to more regularly report being 'dazzled'

The ECU regulation 87 (daytime running lights) state all the various points for the construction & approval -,purpose (to make a vehicle more visable when driving during daytime) and the brightness and angle
Now the interesting thing is that these DLRs are specified to be 'aimed' directly ahead in front of the vehicle (unlike dipped headlights that have always been required to aim downwards so as not to dazzle oncoming drivers)
Added to the fact that in brightness DLRs are permitted to be between 400cd and 1200cd maximum

Average dipped beam headlights are apparently around 800cd in brightness on avearge ,and in addition, must be aimed down as well. This probably may explain why this degree of 'dazzling' is happening .

An interesting ECU law that allows us to be dazzled on one hand by those 'brighter' intensity permitted DLRs , conflicting perhaps in principle with the other requirements for headlight dipping that by legislation should not dazzle oncoming drivers . ????

Each to their own....

But I still fail to see any proof that DRL's actually dazzle By dazzle I would expect a temporary loss of vision or impaired vision, the same as an oncoming vehicle that fails to dip their headlights.

I will admit to being dazzled by cars fitted with HID lights on occasions, and especially oncoming cars at night with badly aligned headlamps (of which I literally see dozens on every trip we take) these are a much worse hazard than DRL's in my opinion.

CruizingComet wrote:Each to their own....

But I still fail to see any proof that DRL's actually dazzle By dazzle I would expect a temporary loss of vision or impaired vision, the same as an oncoming vehicle that fails to dip their headlights.

I will admit to being dazzled by cars fitted with HID lights on occasions, and especially oncoming cars at night with badly aligned headlamps (of which I literally see dozens on every trip we take) these are a much worse hazard than DRL's in my opinion.

My main point (I think to be worth consideration on this subject) was that the 'maximum' 1200cd in brightnes measurement that is 'permitted' by the ECU regulations with DLRs have been found to be brighter in comparison with traditional dipped beam headlights. (We seem also to have a conflict with the legislation regarding the 'aiming' of the light source of the two )
A definition of being 'Dazzled' can only be taken from the individual recipients description of the effect caused. For drivers that have said they suffer migraines say in particular the resultant of 'spots before the eyes' from being affected by a direct bright beam can be a real concern surely.

There are some very latest model vehicles that would appear to have fitted the absolute maximum permitted brightness that are the ones I think we are now noticing more particularly on dull days . I have noticed recently (some) latest models Mercedes,Audis and Fords that I would say are not comfortable on the eyes to look at particularly as their beam is aimed directly at you !

Hi All. We cannot solve this problem IMHO.
As cars/vehicles come with badly adjusted lights in some cases,it may take 3 years before they are checked.
The main cause of dazzle would be that.
regards
Mike

Paulmold wrote:
I take it you mean you put your lights on full beam to show your disapproval. Trouble is, if the car is fitted with them, the driver can't do anything about them, they come on automatically. I can't stand them either but nowt you can do about it.

I managed to turn mine off in 'me fancy modern poncy motor' (1 year old Alfa) took quite a while going through the handbook but I did it.. (please can I have a star...).

If I can do it..... No, No, No, accept the fact that not everybody is that clever or set against these modern abominations....

DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS UK LAW

Daytime running lights (sometimes referred to as DRLs or daylight running lamps) are low-wattage bulbs that are fitted to a car to improve visibility during daylight hours.
* As of 7th February 2011 DRLs have become a mandatory fitting to all new type approved passenger vehicles (except trailers).


Out of interest, If they are fitted to your 1 yr old Alfa and you have disabled them could this be considered an offense? I thought it was a legal requirement for manufacturer to fit them..... so wondering if "technically" it's against the law to disable DRL's on a car that has them fitted as original equipment.... I also understood that the MOT test insisted that any lights fitted to a vehicle must light up and work? Are DRL's currently exempt from testing during the MOT?

Those against DRL's by the way, will find petitions online against their use should they feel that strongly about it

CC

-mojo- wrote:It's a bit unusual to get that sort of reaction with the something like a Mustang. I've got a V8-engined British car, and it's not quiet, but most people are Ok with it as they were that way from new.

The ones that annoy me are the Subaru and Mitsubishi "imitation rally car" owners who insist on taking off the original exhaust and putting on something with a six inch diameter tailpipe. My neighbour's WRX has this. It's incredibly loud and it runs like a dog because he is too skint to pay for the remap that it needs to compensate for completely different engine gas flow.

Or there's another chap nearby with a rusty MR3 that he has fitted straight through exhausts to. I can hear his car coming literally half a mile away.

It makes me feel sorry for people that have to work shifts, as I can't believe it would be possible to sleep while that thing goes past...

Sorry to go off thread, but what car is it you have? TVR?

SJR

CC, I know I'm being picky, but reversing lights are not part of the MOT so maybe DRL are also not a part of it.

SJR

SJR wrote:CC, I know I'm being picky, but reversing lights are not part of the MOT so maybe DRL are also not a part of it.

SJR

Fair point SJR, was just curious.... would be interesting to know though.

SJR wrote:CC, I know I'm being picky, but reversing lights are not part of the MOT so maybe DRL are also not a part of it.

SJR

Hi You may be wrong ,as i have just seen an owner remove his reversing light as it did not work and would be a failure.
I think all lights must work if fitted.
regards
mike

SJR wrote:
Sorry to go off thread, but what car is it you have? TVR?
SJR

No - though I have been tempted, despite their reputation for terrible reliability.

Mine's winner of the "ugliest UK 60's car" award - a Jensen C-V8 mk. III (actually that's unfair - in the flesh they look pretty impressive, but they aren't at all photogenic). 6.3 litres of throbbing, tank-emptying, wallet-bashing V8!

CruizingComet wrote:

SJR wrote:CC, I know I'm being picky, but reversing lights are not part of the MOT so maybe DRL are also not a part of it.

SJR

Fair point SJR, was just curious.... would be interesting to know though.

DLRs are apparently not subject to annual MOT testing at present as no section appears for them in the present MOT testers manual.

Brand new vehicles that have them fitted by legislation therefor don't need an MOT until the vehicle is of the necessary age that requires it anyway, so there is presumably no test requirement that can be met until then. There is the possibility that this could become a test requirement after or within that sort of timescale. So disabling newly fitted DLRs is not an offence (presumably) until such time that they may become an MOT test requirement??

Interestingly the MOT testers manual does recognise and refer the term 'dazzled' in part 1.8 (Headlamp Aim)
an MOT 'failure' will be issued if as follows "1.8 A.1. A headlamp that does not conform to diagrams 1-2 or 3 that has a beam image which is aimed so it 'dazzles' other road users"

There is an argument that having lights on helps other road users to see you, even in daylight conditions. That argument could hold a little water for a bicycle or even a motorbike, (although I very much prefer to imagine I have fitted an invisibility cloak and every other road user is a blind moron, when I get 'on me bike' - non have yet managed to knock me off though a few have tried).

Anybody who has difficulty seeing a large white van in broad daylight really shouldn't be allowed to drive.

I think many drivers nowadays get too cocooned in their little boxes and are oblivious to the outside world. This especially applies to the chelsea tractor brigade.

In terms of dazzling lights, I am as much concerned about the momentary inability to see the bicycle or pedestrian as the longer term effect of badly adjusted lights. Rounding a corner on a country lane and being confronted by a moron who blinds you, making you take avoiding action, into the pedestrian you cannot see, is my nightmare. Even at 20 mph the result could easily be fatal.

I think people need to take ownership of their actions. I make sure I have been seen on my bike, by riding in a place where I am visible. I also always assume I haven't been seen until it becomes blindingly obvious that I have. I would rather rely on my skills and observations to keep alive than put blind faith in a headlight vs a moron looking the other way. I have often heard the cry 'I didn't see him' which translates as 'I wasn't looking', for which there is a good cure - a 'ban'.

Found these:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/placement_requirements_for_retro

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/dft-information-sheets/daytime-running-lights.pdf

PB

matchlessman wrote:There is an argument that having lights on helps other road users to see you, even in daylight conditions. That argument could hold a little water for a bicycle or even a motorbike, (although I very much prefer to imagine I have fitted an invisibility cloak and every other road user is a blind moron, when I get 'on me bike' - non have yet managed to knock me off though a few have tried).

Anybody who has difficulty seeing a large white van in broad daylight really shouldn't be allowed to drive.

I think many drivers nowadays get too cocooned in their little boxes and are oblivious to the outside world. This especially applies to the chelsea tractor brigade.

In terms of dazzling lights, I am as much concerned about the momentary inability to see the bicycle or pedestrian as the longer term effect of badly adjusted lights. Rounding a corner on a country lane and being confronted by a moron who blinds you, making you take avoiding action, into the pedestrian you cannot see, is my nightmare. Even at 20 mph the result could easily be fatal.

I think people need to take ownership of their actions. I make sure I have been seen on my bike, by riding in a place where I am visible. I also always assume I haven't been seen until it becomes blindingly obvious that I have. I would rather rely on my skills and observations to keep alive than put blind faith in a headlight vs a moron looking the other way. I have often heard the cry 'I didn't see him' which translates as 'I wasn't looking', for which there is a good cure - a 'ban'.

Very much agree I use a bike fairly regularly and probably the worse thing I find time and time again is the laziness of drivers when on roundabouts they do not seem to think it is at all necessary to signal that they intend to exit the roundabout at the point when as a cyclist you have just started to cross, and the speed they appear as if from nowhere onto and expect to navigate the roundabout is extremely frightening especially small commercial van drivers almost on two wheels sometimes!! This is in spite of my clear hand signals lights in poor low light visibility and the brightest yellow flourescent top I could find. These particular morons are indeed isolated in their own selfish world and don,t seem to be aware in the slightest of cyclists or pedestrians presence. What worries me slightly is that when 'white van man' has to have DLRs on all their new van issues soon and it will be the rule for all commercial vehicles as well as new cars they will think they each have even more right of way over us on roundabouts in particular, as they probably mutter "git out of me way" to us that happen to be on a bike !!

I qualify as a GOM so ill put my opinion in and will admit not having read all the threads in this post.

I am in favour of DRLs having owned & run Volvos in the past and left fuse 7 in position as I think DRLs are a good safety feature.

I am not however in favour of the stupid led strips being used by posers on their toys that are just out and out
dangerous and dazzle even in daylight and am of they opinion they should be banned.

matchlessman wrote:I make sure I have been seen on my bike, by riding in a place where I am visible. I also always assume I haven't been seen until it becomes blindingly obvious that I have. I would rather rely on my skills and observations to keep alive than put blind faith in a headlight vs a moron looking the other way.

I totally agree.... I watch everyone on the road regardless of the vehicle I'm driving, not a day goes by where I don't see examples of poor driving skills. I'm amazed at the volume of drivers in their quest to get from A to B as quickly as possible whom when approaching junctions are so busy looking left that they overshoot the junction as you approach from their right! As well as chancers who are just too impatient to wait and will happily pull out in front of a motorhome because they don't wont to be sat behind you, but it's OK for them to force you to slow down as they pick up speed

I think it's unfair how all owners of vehicles with DRL's get branded in the way they do as some of the comments on this forum suggest. My priority is to be as visible to others as possible, if I'm acting within the law and others don't like it then tough, sorry.... My daytime lights are mounted low and despite being very bright 600k white they do not dazzle oncoming drivers.

I don't buy into the argument that If people can't see a big white motorhome they shouldn't be driving, you could use the same argument for fire engines or ambulances we can see them so why do they need flashing lights and sirens? There is a huge number of visually impaired and careless drivers on the roads. I don't care about them, but I do care about my own safety and those of my passengers.

Before fitting DRL's I drove everywhere in our motorhome with dipped headlamps on in daylight except on bright days, this is not great for the economy of the vehicle but with DRL's its not a concern... If these lights were so dangerous to others and dazzled as suggested then surely legislation of such would be altered..

The subject of so many driving in poor lighting conditions, without any lights on, was discussed in a previous post ..... I vented my feelings at that time.

It seems to me that either DRL's are the answer or making everyone run on 'dipped' headlights day & night ..... and I say to anyone worried about 'wasting' a bit of extra fuel "Tough"

"Safety before economy"

Time for my morning nap, methinks

Brian

deckie wrote:The subject of so many driving in poor lighting conditions, without any lights on, was discussed in a previous post ..... I vented my feelings at that time.

It seems to me that either DRL's are the answer or making everyone run on 'dipped' headlights day & night ..... and I say to anyone worried about 'wasting' a bit of extra fuel "Tough"

"Safety before economy"

Time for my morning nap, methinks

Brian

I agree with all that - and with the original EC ruling principle of DLRs being stated as 'to help make a vehicle more visible in daylight' .(Similar to the principle to the fitting of rear fog lights to modern vehicles for the use in foggy conditions ) My wifes car has DLRs factory fitted and I know by looking at them head on that they are not as bright and 'dazzling' to me as some of the latest brand new models that have appeared in the last few months.

There seems alongside this an unfortunate gaining number of vehicle owners that do not have any clue or even seem to care about responsible maintenence of headlights, headlight beam, and also the use of foglights etc in a purely selfish way.

But the issue on DLRs still remaining to be answered to me is :-
( more a technical question I think, rather than an emotional one perhaps to be seen as 'branding' any driver unfairly having simply 'aquired' by law the version of factory fitted DLRs on their particular chosen model of new car)
Q. "Is the maximum permitted brightness of 1200cd, as within the ECU permitted rulings, actually too bright when applied to some latest patterns of DLRs specifically when this maximum permitted figure DLRs are aimed directly ahead of the vehicle into the eyes of oncoming drivers (the driver of an oncoming car will be lower than the average motorhome probably is worth noting perhaps) The accepted av. figure for traditional dipped beam headlights are 800cd in comparison and their aim has to be aimed down by legislation (unlike the brightest DLRs) including the highest 1200cd intensity are 'required' to be directed straight ahead???
Again for me its not all DLRs I am personally bothered with, but I do question the logic of the rulings on the maximum permitted brightness and the beam 'aiming' legislation.