Post by: Dazzler on March 27, 2015, 21:30:05
They've gotten rid of the cd player and also removed the button to turn off the display, still no DRL's either :rolleyes:
:head_butt:
Post by: rustynutz on March 28, 2015, 00:04:13
still no DRL's either :rolleyes:
No great loss here in OZ....
I see them as more of a "look at me, look at me" blingy kind of feature, not something that is really needed....
Post by: Phil №❶ on March 28, 2015, 00:33:57
Post by: rustynutz on March 28, 2015, 00:41:35
Much safer too as you'll also have your tail lights lit up, something you won't have if you are just relying on your DRL's... :)
Post by: Dazzler on March 28, 2015, 09:48:00
still no DRL's either :rolleyes:
No great loss here in OZ....
I see them as more of a "look at me, look at me" blingy kind of feature, not something that is really needed....
I like the look of DRLs ... :whistler:
Post by: CraigB on March 28, 2015, 10:00:33
They're a good safety feature, cars are much more noticeable with the DRL's and when travelling on the roads with shadows you can spot them from further away than standard headlights as they're non directional.still no DRL's either :rolleyes:
No great loss here in OZ....
I see them as more of a "look at me, look at me" blingy kind of feature, not something that is really needed....
Plus you don't have to remember to turn them on :)
Post by: The Gonz on March 28, 2015, 10:07:45
Plus you don't have to remember to turn them on :)You don't have to remember to turn them on when they're not fitted. :whistler:
Post by: CraigB on March 28, 2015, 10:12:47
Post by: Wingerdave on March 28, 2015, 12:30:00
Post by: beerman on March 29, 2015, 02:26:54
Awe! poor Gonz got no DRL's :Pout: :lol:
I have a feeling Gonz could whip up some DRLs that also double as some form of slow caravan in front removal device..... :evil:
I also remember when people used to break into cars to steal CD's, now you can't give them away....
Come to think of it, I remember when people used to break into and steal cars too....
Post by: rustynutz on March 31, 2015, 01:08:57
They're a good safety feature, cars are much more noticeable with the DRL's and when travelling on the roads with shadows you can spot them from further away than standard headlights as they're non directional.
Where do we draw the line, having a flashing light mounted on the roof would make cars more noticable too...oh, and what if we made everyone buy bright yellow cars???
It seems we would much rather cater for people with failing eyesight than to actually get these people off our roads... :undecided:
Post by: CraigB on March 31, 2015, 04:08:28
When you manage to get all non attentive drivers with failing eyesight of our roads then we can all be thankful to you Rusty! now we don't need to wear seatbelts either :whistler:They're a good safety feature, cars are much more noticeable with the DRL's and when travelling on the roads with shadows you can spot them from further away than standard headlights as they're non directional.
Where do we draw the line, having a flashing light mounted on the roof would make cars more noticable too...oh, and what if we made everyone buy bright yellow cars???
It seems we would much rather cater for people with failing eyesight than to actually get these people off our roads... :undecided:
Post by: rustynutz on March 31, 2015, 04:16:06
Now that you mention unattentive, no amount of look at me, look at me bling is gonna make any difference for those drivers that aren't actually looking... :lol:
Post by: CraigB on March 31, 2015, 04:22:23
Post by: rustynutz on March 31, 2015, 04:35:50
If you can't see a car or a motorcycle or even a truck in broad daylight, then perhaps you shouldn't be on the road.
As for giving everyone the choice....Europeans don't get a choice, and the way things are going, us Aussies won't have a choice for much longer either... :fum:
Post by: CraigB on March 31, 2015, 05:24:34
At a quick glance you'll notice a bright light more easily than a car or bike that is hidden behind another or blending into to road through shading, yes there is the option to turn on normal driving lights which would give the same benefit...though then that person also has to remember to turn on their driving lights.
DRL's come on automatically so no need to remember to turn them on and being LED's they use less power than the normal driving lights and will outlast standard bulbs.
Post by: rustynutz on March 31, 2015, 06:09:16
There is much info out there on the www showing that drl's aren't as fantastic as you may think (much of it posted elsewhere on this forum) so I won't bother posting it all up yet again...
Btw, If they are so great don't you think the Australian Government would have made them a legal requirement years ago? :undecided:
Just as an aside, one issue that has popped up with the use of drl's is the fact that some drivers aren't turning their lights on in adverse conditions, instead relying on their drl's....forgetting that rear tail lights aren't on as they would be if they used their headlights....
Post by: CraigB on March 31, 2015, 06:23:38
The Australian government probably will make them a legal requirement at some stage but being that our government/trends are usually so far behind everyone else it's no surprise that it hasn't been made so yet.
Those same drivers forgetting (relying) their DRL's are on and not the driving lights would still probably forget to turn on the driving lights also so at least they have some light turned on.
Post by: Phil №❶ on March 31, 2015, 07:46:39
Post by: Dazzler on March 31, 2015, 08:28:39
I see them as more of a "look at me, look at me" blingy kind of feature, not something that is really needed....
Post by: rustynutz on March 31, 2015, 08:57:08
The Australian government probably will make them a legal requirement at some stage but being that our government/trends are usually so far behind everyone else it's no surprise that it hasn't been made so yet.
Not on everything, Craig....Back in the 90's they made it compulsory for motorcycle headlights to be hard wired so they came on when the engine was running. This was later rescinded as there was very little evidence that it was of any benefit.
Those same drivers forgetting (relying) their DRL's are on and not the driving lights would still probably forget to turn on the driving lights also so at least they have some light turned on.
Then surely auto headlights would be a better option if people are that stupid then? :undecided:
Considering rear end shunts are the most common accident on our roads then I'd say they would rank way ahead of drl's in terms off safety.... :undecided:
Due to the uptake of the addition of DRL's across all manufacturer's and the requirement by authorities to insist on having them fitted, I would suggest that the road traffic authorities must disagree with your line of thinking, Rusty.
What works in Europe doesn't necessarily mean they will work in our conditions, Phil...
As most would know, conditions can be a lot more gloomy over there than the mostly bright days we have here.
excerpt from VicRoads website:
Quote
However, the merits of daytime running lights are yet to be demonstrated in Australian conditions. As Australia has not followed Europe in mandating daytime running lights, not all new vehicles are equipped with daytime running lights.
So, it would appear that the "safety" aspects of drl's in Australia aren't as clear cut as some would think....
Post by: Dazzler on March 31, 2015, 09:46:43
I reckon this post sums it up pretty well.. :goodjob:
Yeah, the ongoing "Have's" and "Have Not's". Guess who's a "Have"........... I luv them
Post by: rustynutz on March 31, 2015, 09:49:56
Post by: Wingerdave on March 31, 2015, 18:17:40
The Australian government probably will make them a legal requirement at some stage but being that our government/trends are usually so far behind everyone else it's no surprise that it hasn't been made so yet.
Not on everything, Craig....Back in the 90's they made it compulsory for motorcycle headlights to be hard wired so they came on when the engine was running. This was later rescinded as there was very little evidence that it was of any benefit.Those same drivers forgetting (relying) their DRL's are on and not the driving lights would still probably forget to turn on the driving lights also so at least they have some light turned on.
Then surely auto headlights would be a better option if people are that stupid then? :undecided:
Considering rear end shunts are the most common accident on our roads then I'd say they would rank way ahead of drl's in terms off safety.... :undecided:Due to the uptake of the addition of DRL's across all manufacturer's and the requirement by authorities to insist on having them fitted, I would suggest that the road traffic authorities must disagree with your line of thinking, Rusty.
What works in Europe doesn't necessarily mean they will work in our conditions, Phil...
As most would know, conditions can be a lot more gloomy over there than the mostly bright days we have here.
excerpt from VicRoads website:QuoteHowever, the merits of daytime running lights are yet to be demonstrated in Australian conditions. As Australia has not followed Europe in mandating daytime running lights, not all new vehicles are equipped with daytime running lights.
So, it would appear that the "safety" aspects of drl's in Australia aren't as clear cut as some would think....
:crap:
Post by: rustynutz on April 01, 2015, 00:12:38
:crap:
What's not to believe? :rolleyes:
Post by: Dazzler on April 01, 2015, 06:46:07
:crap:
What's not to believe? :rolleyes:
That you would let anyone else have the last word! :whistler: :rofl:
Post by: rustynutz on April 01, 2015, 07:00:35
Post by: Wingerdave on April 01, 2015, 09:53:03
Someone asked a question, it's only polite to reply, Daz... :P
I'm game..........
I've been driving with my headlights on since the early eighties. Yes, it's a European thing, mainstreamed by Volvo. Bikers were doing it before that, Daylight Running lights were in my Vetter Windjammer fairing in 1980.
No matter what any Australian local beer guzzeling officials might think (well, something must have impaired their mental capacity), lights on does work and help get you noticed under most conditions during daylight hours, and certainly during adverse weather, dusk, etc. It's not geographically based.
DRL's have been on up-market cars for a few years now, and yes, when they first arrived it was occasionly seen as a "look at me" thing. Now that almost every new car has them it's hardley noticable. You get used to it very quickly.
Same thing with cornrering lights (again, they were on motorbikes in the 80's). Now they're standard on cars.
If it becomes law in Australia (hopefully Federal and not just State) then it does, and there's nothing "Ferrous Oxide Fixings" can do about it.
I'll leave the last word to you :whistler:
Post by: rustynutz on April 01, 2015, 10:24:47
Now that almost every new car has them it's hardley noticable. You get used to it very quickly.
:whistler: :p
Post by: Asterix on April 01, 2015, 10:29:08
Now that almost every new car has them it's hardley noticable. You get used to it very quickly.
:whistler: :p
Yes Rusty, you get used to the light being on, meaning they don't annoy you (unless you want to be) but it certainly is much more difficult to notice an oncomming car without the DRL's, but how would you know when you don't live a place where they're mandatory.. :question:
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 01, 2015, 12:01:03
Post by: FatBoy on April 01, 2015, 12:08:20
There are many vehicles with DRL's fitted so we do have our fair share of exposure. I have them on my 1992 Commodore because it IS quite foggy where I live.. :D
Then wouldn't "fog lights" be better? Just saying.....
I like the look of DRLs, but I am yet to be convinced on their effectiveness in Australia. If the conditions require it, I turn on my headlights and/or fog lights.
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 01, 2015, 12:11:01
Post by: FatBoy on April 01, 2015, 12:24:48
There was never any provision for fog lights on my car. The DRL's fit nicely and naturally, are efficient led's.
A quick search for VN/VP Fog lights will prove otherwise. Regardless (or irregardless for our Queensland friends), having the DRLs would provide the same result.
Post by: Wingerdave on April 01, 2015, 12:52:21
There was never any provision for fog lights on my car. The DRL's fit nicely and naturally, are efficient led's.
A quick search for VN/VP Fog lights will prove otherwise. Regardless (or irregardless for our Queensland friends), having the DRLs would provide the same result.
The problem with DRL's is that they don't cut through fog like fog lights do. I certainly wouldn't use them as an alternative.
Post by: Wingerdave on April 01, 2015, 13:02:31
There are many vehicles with DRL's fitted so we do have our fair share of exposure. I have them on my 1992 Commodore because it IS quite foggy where I live.. :D
Then wouldn't "fog lights" be better? Just saying.....
I like the look of DRLs, but I am yet to be convinced on their effectiveness in Australia. If the conditions require it, I turn on my headlights and/or fog lights.
I'm sure there's a reason for being so Nationalistic about Oz, but what's so different? It rains, it's sunny, it snows (in places). It's a bit like Spain. If DRL's have proven their worth here, then there is no reason they shouldn't work on your continent. Unless sheer bloody-mindedness is part of your vehicular legislation.
When it comes down to it, they are cheaper to run than normal headlights and don't consume as much power either.
:victory:
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 01, 2015, 13:08:17
The idea of DRL's on MY car is to be seen by oncoming traffic, not to see in foggy conditions. I've yet to find any car whose fog lights were of any value to me when driving, especially in daylight.
Post by: rustynutz on April 01, 2015, 13:27:07
I'm sure there's a reason for being so Nationalistic about Oz, but what's so different? It rains, it's sunny, it snows (in places). It's a bit like Spain. If DRL's have proven their worth here, then there is no reason they shouldn't work on your continent. Unless sheer bloody-mindedness is part of your vehicular legislation.
:victory:
It's called ambient light....Our days are much brighter than you lot get over there...therefore drl's are less likely to be of benefit.
As for our legislators....If they had their way they'd have had them years ago....witness their failed attempt in making them compulsory on motorcycles back in the 90's.
I guess now they are a bit more cautious about introducing legislation without proof that it will actually be of benefit...
I'm sure it's just a matter of time though... :Pout:
I have them on my 1992 Commodore because it IS quite foggy where I live.. :D
Remember, Phil...as I pointed out earlier, you'll have no lit tail lights in these foggy conditions if you're relying just on your drl's...Could be a recipe for disaster! :wacko:
Post by: CraigB on April 01, 2015, 13:58:40
It's called ambient light....Our days are much brighter than you lot get over there...therefore drl's are less likely to be of benefit.How are our days more brighter than what they get in Spain :confused: they are very similar actually.
Whether you think DRL's are pointless or not...they are gradually being introduced to all vehicles so you'll just have to get used to it or stay living in the past and never again buy a new vehicle.
Post by: rustynutz on April 01, 2015, 14:22:01
Whether you think DRL's are pointless or not...they are gradually being introduced to all vehicles so you'll just have to get used to it or stay living in the past and never again buy a new vehicle.
I'm just questioning the supposed benefits and trying to get you buggers to possibly consider that there may be downsides with drl's, Craig... :whistler:
Obviously down the track I'll quite likely end up with a car with drl's, doesn't mean I have to like them.
We're also gonna end up with a dpf in the diesel i30, that doesn't mean I won't buy one either...
Btw, I'd much rather question what our bureaucrats deem "good for us" than to just accept what they say as gospel like many on here seem happy to do... :whistler:
Post by: CraigB on April 01, 2015, 14:32:25
Life's to short to question every little change that happens, especially when it's something as small as DRL's, I'd hate to see the stir you would have caused if you'd been around when we moved from horse & cart to cars :whistler: :mrgreen:
Post by: rustynutz on April 01, 2015, 14:55:34
I also can't see what downside there could be...none that I can think of.
I pointed out one just before... :eek:
I'd hate to see the stir you would have caused if you'd been around when we moved from horse & cart to cars :whistler: :mrgreen:
Would you have been in favour of the Red Flag Act (http://www.carhistory4u.com/the-early-history/general-information/britains-red-flag-act) then??? :lol:
Post by: CraigB on April 01, 2015, 15:08:32
We're getting miles of topic here but I wouldn't have bothered about the red flag act, as you can see they cancelled it soon after as the cars got faster :)
Post by: eye30 on April 01, 2015, 15:36:55
What downside...no taillights? DRL's are designed to make you visible to oncoming traffic and pedestrians, if you want rear lights turn on your park lights.
My drl's turn off when i put on my park lights.
And in daylight the front park lights do not stand out as the drl's do
Post by: CraigB on April 01, 2015, 15:51:32
My drl's turn off when i put on my park lights.Mine don't, they stay on with the parks and go off when I turn on the night driving lights.
I can also turn on separately my front and rear fog lights :)
Post by: eye30 on April 01, 2015, 18:05:52
My drl's turn off when i put on my park lights.Mine don't, they stay on with the parks and go off when I turn on the night driving lights.
I can also turn on separately my front and rear fog lights :)
Now you have me wondering as I always have the headlight low beam on at night.
Ill check again later
Post by: Shambles on April 01, 2015, 18:24:26
Quote from: CraigB
We're getting miles of topic here ...
Amen to that :scared:
Post by: eye30 on April 01, 2015, 21:08:14
Checked and drl's go off when park/side lights are switched onMy drl's turn off when i put on my park lights.Mine don't, they stay on with the parks and go off when I turn on the night driving lights.
I can also turn on separately my front and rear fog lights :)
Now you have me wondering as I always have the headlight low beam on at night.
Ill check again later
Post by: CraigB on April 02, 2015, 05:05:33
Checked and drl's go off when park/side lights are switched onMine don't, must be another difference between the Korean and the Euro models.
(http://i.imgur.com/T9fxBPF.jpg)
Post by: FatBoy on April 02, 2015, 06:17:11
Or is that the effin i30 that you go to the effin shops in?
Post by: CraigB on April 02, 2015, 06:20:49
Stop "effin" swearing, Craig!!:lol:
Or is that the effin i30 that you go to the effin shops in?
One of my mates has a 57 Chev and he want's my EFN plates :D
Post by: FatBoy on April 02, 2015, 06:22:47
Stop "effin" swearing, Craig!!:lol:
Or is that the effin i30 that you go to the effin shops in?
One of my mates has a 57 Chev and he want's my EFN plates :D
I'd sell him the EFN plates at an EFN premium!!
Post by: CraigB on April 02, 2015, 06:30:58
Post by: Wingerdave on April 02, 2015, 07:35:44
Checked and drl's go off when park/side lights are switched onMine don't, must be another difference between the Korean and the Euro models.
Mine stay on as well with side/park lights and it's a European. For 100 euro's i can have them stay on with the headlights too !!
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 03, 2015, 08:51:29
DRLs are a good thing. :goodjob2:
Volvo had it right when they introduced DRLs on Volvos in Australia in 1975. :goodjob:
DRLs make a car more visible to most people. :goodjob2:
There.
Done. :D
And by the way, not sure about a backward state like Tasmania, but in Western Australia (with the caveat that unless things have changed and I missed something), it's illegal to have fog lights on at the same time as headlights. One or the other.
This link may be helpful. :)
:link: Daytime running lights, headlights, fog lights and driving lights - Allianz Australia (http://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/daytime-running-lights-headlights-fog-lights-and-driving-lights)
Post by: Shambles on April 03, 2015, 09:32:51
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 03, 2015, 09:35:08
Post by: Surferdude on April 03, 2015, 10:23:27
Post by: Surferdude on April 03, 2015, 10:26:13
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 03, 2015, 11:06:36
Post by: Surferdude on April 03, 2015, 11:37:58
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 03, 2015, 11:48:29
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 03, 2015, 11:54:32
I tried but the 1st post is an Admin one, so no go, PM'd Shambles but he isn't around ATM.
He's not at the ATM?
Bugger.
I wanted paying. :(
Post by: Shambles on April 03, 2015, 12:06:05
Now, who gets the 50 points...
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 03, 2015, 12:09:02
Post by: FatBoy on April 03, 2015, 12:13:51
So to sum up then.
DRLs are a good thing. :goodjob2:
Volvo had it right when they introduced DRLs on Volvos in Australia in 1975. :goodjob:
DRLs make a car more visible to most people. :goodjob2:
There.
Done. :D
And by the way, not sure about a backward state like Tasmania, but in Western Australia (with the caveat that unless things have changed and I missed something), it's illegal to have fog lights on at the same time as headlights. One or the other.
This link may be helpful. :)
:link: Daytime running lights, headlights, fog lights and driving lights - Allianz Australia (http://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/daytime-running-lights-headlights-fog-lights-and-driving-lights)
I think you've missed something Dave. DRLs are one or the other, they are considered fog lights if they stay on when the headlights are on.
From the Road Safety WA web page (see the car with both headlights and fog lights on):
http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Traffic/Roadsafety/tabid/991/Default.aspx#foglights (http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Traffic/Roadsafety/tabid/991/Default.aspx#foglights)
But the penalty page says what Dave says:
A person shall not drive a motor vehicle displaying light from front fog light, if any other light of a power exceeding 7 watts and capable of showing a white light to the front is alight.
Points: 1 Modified penalty: 2 PU
http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/licensing/LBU_VS_IB_123.pdf (http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/licensing/LBU_VS_IB_123.pdf)
What happens if it is foggy at night?
In Tassie, like other states, you can only use fog lights "in fog or other hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility". This includes rain, fog, dust storms or snow fall.
:link: Front Fog Lights - Transport (http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/licensing/publications/tasmanian_road_rules/road_safety_rules/front_fog_lights)
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 03, 2015, 12:17:10
So to sum up then.
DRLs are a good thing. :goodjob2:
Volvo had it right when they introduced DRLs on Volvos in Australia in 1975. :goodjob:
DRLs make a car more visible to most people. :goodjob2:
There.
Done. :D
And by the way, not sure about a backward state like Tasmania, but in Western Australia (with the caveat that unless things have changed and I missed something), it's illegal to have fog lights on at the same time as headlights. One or the other.
This link may be helpful. :)
:link: Daytime running lights, headlights, fog lights and driving lights - Allianz Australia (http://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/daytime-running-lights-headlights-fog-lights-and-driving-lights)
I think you've missed something Dave. DRLs are one or the other, they are considered fog lights if they stay on when the headlights are on.
From the Road Safety WA web page (see the car with both headlights and fog lights on):
http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Traffic/Roadsafety/tabid/991/Default.aspx#foglights (http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Traffic/Roadsafety/tabid/991/Default.aspx#foglights)
But the penalty page says what Dave says:
A person shall not drive a motor vehicle displaying light from front fog light, if any other light of a power exceeding 7 watts and capable of showing a white light to the front is alight.
Points: 1 Modified penalty: 2 PU
http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/licensing/LBU_VS_IB_123.pdf (http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/licensing/LBU_VS_IB_123.pdf)
What happens if it is foggy at night?
In Tassie, like other states, you can only use fog lights "in fog or other hazardous weather conditions causing reduced visibility". This includes rain, fog, dust storms or snow fall.
:link: Front Fog Lights - Transport (http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/licensing/publications/tasmanian_road_rules/road_safety_rules/front_fog_lights)
No, Jamie.
Fog lights and DRLs are two different things.
Cars with fog lights can only use them in inclement weather.
DRLs are on all the time.
They are not one and the same.
DRLs are not considered fog lights if they stay on with the headlights.
Post by: FatBoy on April 03, 2015, 12:23:56
DRLs can be used at all times, but only when the headlights are off. Fog lights can only be used in inclement weather.
From one of the links I posted, on how to differentiate between the two.
Front Fog Lights:- These are optional lights which are designed and fitted to improve the lighting of the road ahead during times of reduced visibility. If fitted they must be aligned to the front of the vehicle so as not to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to oncoming drivers and other road user.
They may only emit white or yellow light; and
They must be able to be switched on and off independent of the high and low beam headlamps.
There must be a non flashing tell-tale light displayed on the dashboard and visible to the driver which illuminates when the front fog lights are on.
If they stay on when the headlights are on they are fog lights
Day Time Running Lights:- These are optional forward facing lights which are designed and fitted to make the motor vehicle more easily visible to other road users when driving during daytime.
They must be aligned to the front of the vehicle so as not to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to oncoming drivers and other road user;
They may only emit white light;
They must switch off automatically when the headlights are switched on;
If they go off when the headlights are turned on they are daytime running lights.
:link: Front Fog Lights - Transport (http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/licensing/publications/tasmanian_road_rules/road_safety_rules/front_fog_lights)
BTW, I like DRLs (which I don't have), just like I like my fog lights (which I do have), which I put on during periods of reduced visibility (haze, rain, fog, snow).
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 03, 2015, 12:27:29
Post by: eye30 on April 03, 2015, 12:31:23
Drive with fog lights on over here in the Wild West when there's no inclement weather and you won't get very far.Do that here and plod takes no notice.
Seems fog lights on on a sunny day is the norn here for go faster boys
Post by: eye30 on April 03, 2015, 12:34:00
Will need to wait until next foggy to check otherwise i'll be done by plod
Post by: baroudeur on April 03, 2015, 13:05:57
Mine stay on as well with side/park lights and it's a European. For 100 euro's i can have them stay on with the headlights too !!
What does the €100 buy and what would be the point of DRLs and headlamps together???
Under EU regs DRL's must extinguish or dim to parking light level when headlamps are on .
Post by: eye30 on April 03, 2015, 14:35:08
Never checked mine whether drl's go off when fogs on.Flouting the law i checked mine.
Will need to wait until next foggy to check otherwise i'll be done by plod
Fogs only turn on when parkers/sidelights on and drl's go out......... because parkers/side lights are on.
So i can not have drl's on with the fogs on....
Post by: bumpkin on April 03, 2015, 15:06:40
Never checked mine whether drl's go off when fogs on.Flouting the law i checked mine.
Will need to wait until next foggy to check otherwise i'll be done by plod
Fogs only turn on when parkers/sidelights on and drl's go out......... because parkers/side lights are on.
So i can not have drl's on with the fogs on....
I wondered why the UK Hyundai switches them off when the Kia doesn't? So I went for a look......
It is model specific so whilst the i30 and Cee'd on the base and mid spec models have DRL arrangements they also have sidelights as well as dipped and main beam bulbs, hence when the sidelights go on, the DRL's are deemed no longer necessary and go out.
On my Cee'd and I assume the Premium Hyundai's the lamp cluster is the same but with the Xenon swivel headlamps the hole for the sidelight bulb is grommetted (is that a word??) and the DRL's shine at max intensity when no other lighting is on, when I switch on my lights (either manually or automatically) the DRL's reduce intensity and ACT as the sidelights but they never go out.
Looking at the pic of the Aus i30, it would appear that even with the headlights on the DRL's stay at max intensity which would take into account the different daylight level previously discussed and may be an attempt at proving that even in a traditionally brighter environment that they have a place.
Surely if they save even one person being involved in a fatal/serious incident then that is a good thing? If anybody has any evidence to show that they have CAUSED or created a problem then the discussion would be valid, I think the bling argument is long gone, as stated they are so commonplace now, jeez even Dacia have them!
EDIT: The mid range i40 DRL's also stayed on all the time, again with reduced intensity when normal lighting is on.
Post by: Johnno on April 03, 2015, 15:29:24
Like dave said volvo started it off with dimmed headlight's when you first switched on the ignition then they changed that idea to normal dipped headlights and now they've changed over to drl's.
Our roads in the UK are more congested than most other counties, and it's all about other road user's seeing one another, be it pedestrians, cyclist's, motorcyclist and vehicle's. A lot of the roads are so narrow if a car is parked on the side of the road and 2 vehicles are approaching from opposite directions the one car approaching the parked car on his side of the road as to give way to the other vehicle
What I have noticed say there'a a line of vehicle's coming in the opposite direction and say a car as dlr's about 3 or 4 cars down I seem to notice him more than the other cars.
Same goes for motorcyclists, when I switch my ignition on the dipped headlights come on and survey's have shown than motorcyclists are more prone to be hit by vehicles coming out of side roads where the driver has not seem them, its not stopped all the accidents but it as helped to reduce them.
Post by: CraigB on April 03, 2015, 15:35:36
Looking at the pic of the Aus i30, it would appear that even with the headlights on the DRL's stay at max intensity which would take into account the different daylight level previously discussed and may be an attempt at proving that even in a traditionally brighter environment that they have a place.That Pic is my Euro 3dr i30 in Aus :) the headlights aren't on either...they're the park lights, once the headlights switch on to low or high beam the DRL's go off
Post by: eye30 on April 03, 2015, 17:33:08
A lot of the roads are so narrow if a car is parked on the side of the road and 2 vehicles are approaching from opposite directions the one car approaching the parked car on his side of the road as to give way to the other vehicle
Not around here.
Had many a near miss when i have have right of way and car from other direction just steams through expecting you to give way........
The driver comes through and put hand up to thank you!
Post by: AlanHo on April 03, 2015, 19:04:01
Post by: Wingerdave on April 03, 2015, 19:06:27
Mine stay on as well with side/park lights and it's a European. For 100 euro's i can have them stay on with the headlights too !!
What does the €100 buy and what would be the point of DRLs and headlamps together???
Under EU regs DRL's must extinguish or dim to parking light level when headlamps are on .
It's an official Hyundai option from the dealer. I never said i was going to do it.
That being said, i do see Audi's, Mecedes and BMW's with the DRL's and headlights on at the same time. Now that is being blingy !!!!
Post by: Johnno on April 03, 2015, 22:22:09
Post by: Dazzler on April 03, 2015, 22:33:18
really we should be thanking the aftermarket sector for these Drl's, they started it off with the 'led strips' 'angel eyes' and the 5 watt projection lamp unit you could buy to fit onto the front of your chariot as a add on
True, although some will thank them more than others .. :snigger: :happydance: :happydance:
Post by: rustynutz on April 04, 2015, 02:18:25
And by the way, not sure about a backward state like Tasmania, but in Western Australia (with the caveat that unless things have changed and I missed something), it's illegal to have fog lights on at the same time as headlights. One or the other.
This link may be helpful. :)
:link: Daytime running lights, headlights, fog lights and driving lights - Allianz Australia (http://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/daytime-running-lights-headlights-fog-lights-and-driving-lights)
Pretty sure in Victoria it's not illegal to have both fog & headlights on at the same time...(obviously in adverse conditions) :undecided:
Also, thanks for that link, Dave....I found it very interesting that the info put up said drl's had a high potential to improve road safety....What!!! No proof??? :whistler:
Post by: constipated on April 04, 2015, 05:05:27
Headlights and tail-lights are OK in inclement weather, obviously because they increase visibility of the car but somehow DRLs are a disservice. Do they not increase visibility just like headlights?
Yes perhaps their benefit is less on a bright summer's day but that's not every day conditions. Heck it's been cloudy for the whole week in Sydney.
Even in sunny conditions, Rusty, haven't you driven at dusk or dawn directly into the direction of the sun and tried to make out oncoming cars against the glare, or had to look in your rear view mirror with the sun behind you as you tried to see if it was safe to change lanes. Take a moment to see whether DRLs make a difference then. I'm sure the 90% of us here who support DRLs don't all need our eyes checked.
Even today, pouring rain in Sydney. Yes 60% of people put their headlights on but 40% do not. DRL's make a big difference particularly as that 40% of drivers are just not accustomed to putting on their lights rather than forgetting.
Thankfully safety experts think differently to Rusty. ANCAP safety ratings will now award points when DRLs are present. That will add extra impetus for it to become a standard safety inclusion.
I wonder Rusty if you had the same opposition to high mount centre stop lights?
Post by: Surferdude on April 04, 2015, 10:02:13
But I wanted to tell a little story about the Volvo "lights on in daylight" thing. Back in the day when this was the go, I had a couple of people tell me something interesting about the practice.
One was an advertising guy who worked on the Volvo account in Oz. The other was with Volvo Trucks.
Both said it was common knowledge in the company that the lights on thing was more about "look at me" than just safety.
Basically they judged the success of the practice by how many people saw a car with its lights on in daylight and said something like, "OH. That'll be a Volvo".
In other words, a marketing ploy as much as a safety factor - which of course it was as well.
Post by: Dazzler on April 04, 2015, 10:05:58
Post by: constipated on April 04, 2015, 10:15:54
In other words, a marketing ploy as much as a safety factor - which of course it was as well.
But correct me if I remember incorrectly but weren't the Volvo lights just like parking lights which are "dim as"!
I do think modern ones serve much better safety wise, so much so that I added aftermarket ones to my FD i30. Don't care anything for bling factor. I know they look nowhere near as good as OEM ones but that's not the point. I have a dark grey car, and I know how well it can blend into surroundings.
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 04, 2015, 10:17:28
In other words, a marketing ploy as much as a safety factor - which of course it was as well.
But correct me if I remember incorrectly but weren't the Volvo lights just like parking lights which are "dim as"!
I do think modern ones serve much better safety wise, so much so that I added aftermarket ones to my FD i30. Don't care anything for bling factor. I know they look nowhere near as good as OEM ones but that's not the point. I have a dark grey car, and I know how well it can blend into surroundings.
No, the Volvo DRLs on the 244 series cars were a lot brighter than the parking lights on the same cars.
I owned two Volvos from that era, a 244 GL and a 264 GLE - great cars.
Post by: Dazzler on April 04, 2015, 12:24:14
I liked the front on the 264, classy.. remember my Mum and Stepdad had a Volvo dealership in those days...
In other words, a marketing ploy as much as a safety factor - which of course it was as well.
But correct me if I remember incorrectly but weren't the Volvo lights just like parking lights which are "dim as"!
I do think modern ones serve much better safety wise, so much so that I added aftermarket ones to my FD i30. Don't care anything for bling factor. I know they look nowhere near as good as OEM ones but that's not the point. I have a dark grey car, and I know how well it can blend into surroundings.
No, the Volvo DRLs on the 244 series cars were a lot brighter than the parking lights on the same cars.
I owned two Volvos from that era, a 244 GL and a 264 GLE - great cars.
Post by: AlanHo on April 04, 2015, 12:44:23
1944 - safety cage
1944 - laminated windscreen
1957 - anchor points for two–point safety belts, front
1958 - anchor points for two–point safety belts, rear
1959 – three-point safety belt, standard in front seats
1964 - rearward–facing child safety seat, first prototype tested
1966 - crumple zones front and rear
1966 - safety door–locks
1969 - inertia-reel safety belts
1971 - reminder safety belt
1972 - three-point safety belt, outer rear seats
1972 - rearward–facing child safety seat
1974 - multistage impact absorbing steering column
1974 - bulb integrity sensor
1975 - braking system with stepped bore master cylinder
1978 - child safety booster cushion
1982 - "anti–submarining" protection
1986 - three-point safety belt, centre rear seat
1990 - integrated child safety cushion, centre rear seat
1991 - Side Impact Protection System
1991 - automatic height adjusting safety belt
1992 - reinforced rear seats, estate models
1995 - integrated child safety cushion, outer rear seats
1997 – Roll Over Protection System (C70)
1998 – Whiplash Protection System
1998 – Inflatable Curtain
2001 - SCC – Volvo Safety concept car
2002 – Roll Stability Control
2003 - Volvo Intelligent Vehicle Architecture, new front structure (S40, V50)
2003 - rear seat belt reminders (S40, V50)
2003 – Intelligent Driver Information System, a system that selectively blocks information to the driver in complex traffic situations and lets the information through once the situation has calmed down (S40, V50)
2003 - Volvo's Traffic Accident Research Team, inaugurated in Bangkok
2004 - Blind Spot Information System, informs the driver of vehicles in the blind spots, using a yellow LED in the A-pillars (S40, V50)
2005 – Door Mounted Inflatable Curtain (C70)
2006 - Personal Car Communicator (S80)
2006 - Collision Warning Brake Support, a system that warns the driver and gives brake support when a collision with another vehicle in front of the car is imminent (S80)
2006 – Electrical Parking Brake (S80)
2007 - Driver Alert Control, a driver drowsiness detection system that alerts the driver when the system detects that they are becoming tired (S80, V70, XC70)
2007 – Lane Departure Warning, a system that warns the driver for unintended lane departures (S80, V70, XC70)
2007 – Collision Warning with Auto Brake, a system that automatically brakes the car when a collision with another vehicle in front of the car is imminent (S80, V70, XC70)
2007 – Distance Alert, a system that helps the driver keeping a safe distance to the vehicle ahead, by continuously measuring the distance and lighting up the vehicle's head up display if the time gap becomes shorter than what the driver has specified (S80, V70, XC70)
2007 - Alcoguard, a hand-held device that the driver blows into before they can start the car, mainly aimed for the company-car sector, taxi operators, state authorities and municipalities (S80, V70, XC70)
2008 - City Safety, a system that automatically brakes the car at speeds below 30 km/h (19 mph) if an obstruction is detected in front of the car (new XC60)
2010 - Pedestrian Detection with Auto Brake, a system that warns the driver and automatically brakes the car when a collision with a pedestrian in front of the car is imminent (S60)
2012 - pedestrian airbag, covering the A-pillars and the lower part of the windscreen in case of collision with a pedestrian (V40)
2012 - knee airbag, for the driver (V40)
2012 - Upgraded City Safety, now working up to 50 km/h (31 mph) (S80, V70, XC70, XC60, S60, V60, new V40)
2012 - Lane Keeping Aid, a system that steers the car back into the lane again if it is about to unintentionally drift out of the lane (V40)
2012 – Road Sign Information, a system that reads road signs and displays them in the information display, thereby helping the driver to remember speed limits, no-overtaking stretches, low-speed areas, etc. (S80, V70, XC70, XC60, S60, V60, V40)
2012 - Enhanced Blind Spot Information System, now able to detect approaching vehicles up to 70 meters behind the car (V40)
2012 – Cross Traffic Alert, alerting the driver of crossing traffic approaching from the sides (up to 30 meters away) when reversing out of a parking space (V40)
2013 - Cyclist Detection with Auto Brake, a system that warns the driver and automatically brakes the car when a collision with a cyclist travelling in the same direction as the car in front of the car is imminent (S80, V70, XC70, XC60, S60, V60, V40)
The highlighted ones are Volvo inventions for which they hold patents
Post by: Johnno on April 04, 2015, 16:50:16
Post by: eye30 on April 04, 2015, 22:11:07
:link: Daytime running lights | AA (http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/safety/daytime-running-lights.html)Thanks but......
I've seen cars with drl's on with side lights on which according to the above should not occur as drl's become the sidelights......so have car manufacturers found a way around the eu regs....
Post by: FatBoy on April 04, 2015, 22:47:11
I don't understand Rusty's reasoning.
I believe that I might have some understanding, and he will correct me if I am wrong.
Headlights and tail-lights are OK in inclement weather, obviously because they increase visibility of the car but somehow DRLs are a disservice. Do they not increase visibility just like headlights?
Yes perhaps their benefit is less on a bright summer's day but that's not every day conditions. Heck it's been cloudy for the whole week in Sydney.
Even in sunny conditions, Rusty, haven't you driven at dusk or dawn directly into the direction of the sun and tried to make out oncoming cars against the glare, or had to look in your rear view mirror with the sun behind you as you tried to see if it was safe to change lanes. Take a moment to see whether DRLs make a difference then. I'm sure the 90% of us here who support DRLs don't all need our eyes checked.
Even today, pouring rain in Sydney. Yes 60% of people put their headlights on but 40% do not. DRL's make a big difference particularly as that 40% of drivers are just not accustomed to putting on their lights rather than forgetting.
He is not saying that lights on in these instances don't help. However, having these on during the bright daylight hours (yes it has been raining in Sydney for the week, but it doesn't always rain in Sydney) may be next to useless. Heck, even when it is raining here in Australia, even in Southern Tasmania, I have to wear sunglasses!! BTW, Southern Tasmania is the same distance from the equator as the French Riviera is. Surely educating the 40% of drivers to use their lights correctly (including indicators, or will we get automatic indicators too) would be a solution as well?
Now, while trolling the internet for information, I have found a report from ANCAP about the effectiveness of DRLs.
DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS
Fitted to all GM cars in the USA since the mid 1990s
Under European regulation dedicated bright white DRLs mandatory for cars from 2011
In a 2003 GM study dedicated DRLs were found to be much more effective than headlights

DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS
GM findings are supported by photometric theory
At best, headlights are marginally effective on bright, cloudy days
GM study was one of the few to look at different effectiveness
Most DRL accident studies have been based on use of headlights or older style DRLs
Not surprising that they found a “latitude effect”

DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS
Euro NCAP not interested in DRLs since they are required by regulation in Europe
Any cars intended to be sold in Europe will have dedicated DRLs
Many models now sold in Australia have DRLs
Fitted to some performance vehicles in Australia
Looking at ways to encourage early uptake
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/Divisions/Sydney%20Division/Southern%20Highlands%20and%20Tablelands%20Regional%20Group/INNOVATIONS/ancap-paine-25jul2013.pdf (https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/Divisions/Sydney%20Division/Southern%20Highlands%20and%20Tablelands%20Regional%20Group/INNOVATIONS/ancap-paine-25jul2013.pdf)
Notice how it does mention the "latitude effect", which is basically what I have been saying. Conditions in Australia are different to those in Europe. We get more sunlight and it is more intense. We are at the same latitude south as the Sahara is north. You are comparing apples to oranges.
While it is good that ANCAP are using a GM study to back up their claim that DRLs do help in visibility and the reduction of accidents, they also should also conduct a study in Australia to see if they get the same results as from the USA and Europe. From their webpage, they expect to get different results with the "latitude effect".
Remember, I like DRLs, and I think that they work well, but that is anecdotal evidence, not backed up by any peer reviewed paper. Also remember that the plural of anecdote isn't data, but anecdotes!!
Post by: Surferdude on April 04, 2015, 23:16:54
That's all very well, Jamie. Yes, anecdotal I agre.
However, there are a number of experienced and careful Australian members who have made observations on hre which indicate they can see the benefits.
Technically that's anecdotal but I would suggest that their observations are valid.
As you know I have a history in motor sport. A number of my friends are now involved in drivr training and I'm unaware of any of them who dispute the benefits of DRLs.
Also, most of the reports I've read highlight that the most benefit is gained around dawn and dusk. With significant improvements in single vehicle/ pedestrian accidents and car/ motorcycle accidents.
These are north American surveys. I have an interest in Canada obviously, but most reports include the USA.
Post by: FatBoy on April 04, 2015, 23:44:18
^^^^
That's all very well, Jamie. Yes, anecdotal I agre.
However, there are a number of experienced and careful Australian members who have made observations on hre which indicate they can see the benefits.
Technically that's anecdotal but I would suggest that their observations are valid.
As you know I have a history in motor sport. A number of my friends are now involved in drivr training and I'm unaware of any of them who dispute the benefits of DRLs.
Also, most of the reports I've read highlight that the most benefit is gained around dawn and dusk. With significant improvements in single vehicle/ pedestrian accidents and car/ motorcycle accidents.
These are north American surveys. I have an interest in Canada obviously, but most reports include the USA.
I agree, Trev. I like DRLs, and I think that they do make a difference. Even the theory behind the type of light that they emit suggests that they are better seen than normal lights, particularly during bright, overcast days. However, I still stand by my comment that the views and opinions by everybody on here constitute anecdotal evidence, not data. I also stand by the evidence that Australia is at a different latitude to that of Europe and North America, therefore the results on the effectiveness of the DRLs in each of the places would be different. I'm not saying that they would be detrimental to safety in Australia, just that the results would be different.
Post by: Dazzler on April 05, 2015, 03:20:24
Some are certainly brighter and more noticeable than others. I am quite happy with the brightness and orientation of the DRLs on our two cars.
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm103/dazzling_darryl/dazzling_darryl051/vfssvute4_zpstbj4da8p.jpg~original) (http://s294.photobucket.com/user/dazzling_darryl/media/dazzling_darryl051/vfssvute4_zpstbj4da8p.jpg.html)
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm103/dazzling_darryl/dazzling_darryl051/maxresdefault_zpsxjzfbbtt.jpg~original) (http://s294.photobucket.com/user/dazzling_darryl/media/dazzling_darryl051/maxresdefault_zpsxjzfbbtt.jpg.html)
There are some cars about that due to their location and size the DRLs aren't as noticeable. The RAV4 springs to mind.. 3 fairly small LEDs next to the grill on each side. Some other cars have small vertical strips mounted low down...
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm103/dazzling_darryl/dazzling_darryl051/2013_toyota_rav4_eu-version_1_zps7pqz3vdo.jpg~original) (http://s294.photobucket.com/user/dazzling_darryl/media/dazzling_darryl051/2013_toyota_rav4_eu-version_1_zps7pqz3vdo.jpg.html)
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm103/dazzling_darryl/dazzling_darryl051/maxresdefault%201_zpsysg7xbju.jpg~original) (http://s294.photobucket.com/user/dazzling_darryl/media/dazzling_darryl051/maxresdefault%201_zpsysg7xbju.jpg.html)
Post by: Surferdude on April 05, 2015, 04:37:46
But I guess my point is that I put more faith in anecdotal evidence than some do. And I think we tend to over analyse things scientifically sometimes.
Often the simple solution or initial observation is t he best.
The further you delve into something the more opportunities for twisting the facts arise.
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 05, 2015, 04:49:52
Post by: Surferdude on April 05, 2015, 04:52:48
Do you have scientific proof of that? :undecided:Of course. :P
Post by: Johnno on April 05, 2015, 11:50:46
:link: Daytime running lights | AA (http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/safety/daytime-running-lights.html)Thanks but......
I've seen cars with drl's on with side lights on which according to the above should not occur as drl's become the sidelights......so have car manufacturers found a way around the eu regs....
mine stay on when I put the side lights on, but go off when I try any of the other lights. Don't forget that the Drl's are brighter than the sidelights so it wouldn't make any difference
side lights are really marker lights, one on each corner or as near as possible.
In the UK, it was or maybe still is illegal to park a vehicle on a road that as a 40mph speed limit at night with out lights, hence the sidelights / marker lights.
Each country as different rules on Drl's before these new style led one's came out, e.g Italy when driving through tunnels you must use dipped headlight's or on urban country roads or when it's raining. All this comes under Drl's.
If you look at the European directive and what is stated that Drl's are not for the driver to see better but to aid other road user's to see his vehicle
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 05, 2015, 12:41:28
I'm getting a bit Rusty. :neutral:
Post by: Johnno on April 05, 2015, 12:59:09
I'll have to do a bit of reading up on the regs.
I'm getting a bit Rusty. :neutral:
Me too, and I use to be a I.A.M observer/instructor
Post by: Dazzler on April 05, 2015, 12:59:49
I'll have to do a bit of reading up on the regs.
I'm getting a bit Rusty. :neutral:
Don't you swear at me.. :whistler:
Post by: Lakes on April 06, 2015, 09:57:20
Some people have poor eyesight judging by the things I've seen happen so DRL has to be safer especially on a black car
Post by: Wingerdave on April 06, 2015, 20:49:30
Post by: Wingerdave on April 06, 2015, 20:54:38
Post by: Dazzler on April 06, 2015, 20:57:29
Oh, BTW, i was driving home this evening and a car doomed up in my rear view mirror with headlights on AND DRL's (not dimmed at all). Guess what..... A Volvo V40.
Seems a bit odd? :undecided: Maybe someone has altered the wiring?
Post by: Wingerdave on April 06, 2015, 21:03:36
Post by: Dazzler on April 06, 2015, 21:13:04
Difference in regulations between NL and AUS ?
Possibly, but can't see the point of having them all on (I would have thought DRL's might create too much glare at night time?)
Post by: Wingerdave on April 06, 2015, 21:17:47
Post by: rustynutz on April 07, 2015, 05:18:17
^^^^
That's all very well, Jamie. Yes, anecdotal I agre.
However, there are a number of experienced and careful Australian members who have made observations on hre which indicate they can see the benefits.
Technically that's anecdotal but I would suggest that their observations are valid.
This is the problem, there is much anecdotal "evidence" out there as to drl's effectiveness but, surely, if drl's really are so effective, then it shouldn't be too hard to find hard "evidence". Most "evidence" though would appear to be either theoretical studies or "evidence" using flawed methodology to produce favourable results.... :undecided:
Post by: rustynutz on April 07, 2015, 05:44:16
I don't understand Rusty's reasoning.
Headlights and tail-lights are OK in inclement weather, obviously because they increase visibility of the car but somehow DRLs are a disservice. Do they not increase visibility just like headlights?
The difference though is that if you are using daylight running lights in inclement weather, you are driving without taillights on at a time when they would be very beneficial... :)
Post by: rustynutz on April 07, 2015, 06:42:36
Surely if they save even one person being involved in a fatal/serious incident then that is a good thing?
This comment seems to pop up quite regularly to try to justify so called safety features.... :head_butt:
Okay, so how about we fit flashing lights on all cars and also require cars to be painted in fluoro green paint??
Surely if it saves just one person it has to be a good thing.... :p
Post by: Surferdude on April 07, 2015, 06:45:09
As for whether or not having parking lights (including tail lights) on instead of DRLs that's probably valid. But whilst I suspect nose to tail accidents feature prominently in the list of causes, most serious accidents are front on (head on) or pedestrians or cyclists (both pedal and motor) who either don't see or aren't seen by oncoming vehicles, then DRLs would seem to be a worthwhile consideration.
Post by: CraigB on April 07, 2015, 06:53:00
You only have to turn on the park lights to get the benefit of rear lights as well which means that full driving lights don't need to be on.I don't understand Rusty's reasoning.
Headlights and tail-lights are OK in inclement weather, obviously because they increase visibility of the car but somehow DRLs are a disservice. Do they not increase visibility just like headlights?
The difference though is that if you are using daylight running lights in inclement weather, you are driving without taillights on at a time when they would be very beneficial... :)
Your not being very realistic are you :rolleyes:Surely if they save even one person being involved in a fatal/serious incident then that is a good thing?
This comment seems to pop up quite regularly to try to justify so called safety features.... :head_butt:
Okay, so how about we fit flashing lights on all cars and also require cars to be painted in fluoro green paint??
Surely if it saves just one person it has to be a good thing.... :p
Post by: Wingerdave on April 07, 2015, 09:29:23
Surely if they save even one person being involved in a fatal/serious incident then that is a good thing?
This comment seems to pop up quite regularly to try to justify so called safety features.... :head_butt:
Okay, so how about we fit flashing lights on all cars
Getting there.......... if you brake hard, then on some modern cars (i30 included) the brake lights flash first to maximise attention.
This is getting boring but......... on my 1989 Honda Goldwing I have Modulating Brake lights (along with cornering lights and DRL's), they flash first then stay on.
In fact, in some US States modulating headlights are on the table for acceptance (they don't flash on and off, they dim slightly)
Post by: bumpkin on April 07, 2015, 09:46:09
Surely if they save even one person being involved in a fatal/serious incident then that is a good thing?
This comment seems to pop up quite regularly to try to justify so called safety features.... :head_butt:
Okay, so how about we fit flashing lights on all cars
Getting there.......... if you brake hard, then on some modern cars (i30 included) the brake lights flash first to maximise attention.
This is getting boring but......... on my 1989 Honda Goldwing I have Modulating Brake lights (along with cornering lights and DRL's), they flash first then stay on.
In fact, in some US States modulating headlights are on the table for acceptance (they don't flash on and off, they dim slightly)
Yep, my Cee'd is the first one I have had that has ESS, same as this
:link: Kia Pro cee'd GT Emergency Stop Signal - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2uUFitNY5I)
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 07, 2015, 11:07:10
The difference though is that if you are using daylight running lights in inclement weather, you are driving without taillights on at a time when they would be very beneficial... :)
No, the tail lights are only 5 watts @ standard bulb consumption. Their brightness compared to 5 watt LED's is considerably less, almost useless actually.
A rear fog light is 21 watts IIRC.
Post by: Dazzler on April 07, 2015, 11:10:44
The difference though is that if you are using daylight running lights in inclement weather, you are driving without taillights on at a time when they would be very beneficial... :)
No, the tail lights are only 5 watts @ standard bulb consumption. Their brightness compared to 5 watt LED's is considerably less, almost useless actually.
A rear fog light is 21 watts IIRC.
But to be fair DRL's only in bleak weather probably isn't enough. Tail Lights might only be 5 watts but there needs to be some rear lighting in these conditions. :cool:
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 07, 2015, 11:12:27
Post by: rustynutz on April 07, 2015, 11:13:53
There is plenty of evidence of the effectiveness of DRLs. There's little proof it is flawed. Except in the arguments put forward by opponents.
Where is this "evidence", Trev?
There is much talk about this supposed evidence but there's very little of it forthcoming... :undecided:
And who do you suppose is gonna point out the flaws in the evidence other than these "opponents"... I'm sure the ones pushing for drl's aren't gonna shoot holes in their own "evidence"... lol
As for whether or not having parking lights (including tail lights) on instead of DRLs that's probably valid. But whilst I suspect nose to tail accidents feature prominently in the list of causes, most serious accidents are front on (head on) or pedestrians or cyclists (both pedal and motor) who either don't see or aren't seen by oncoming vehicles, then DRLs would seem to be a worthwhile consideration.
Rear end shunts hold the number one position, Trev....
:link: Number 1 cause of Car Crashes in Australia for 2011-2012 (http://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/number-1-cause-car-crashes-australia-2011-2012)
You only have to turn on the park lights to get the benefit of rear lights as well which means that full driving lights don't need to be on.
And what is the advantage of drl's then, Craig? You may as well just turn your headlights on and be done with it... :head_butt:
Your not being very realistic are you :rolleyes:
You don't recognise sarcasm??? :lol:
The difference though is that if you are using daylight running lights in inclement weather, you are driving without taillights on at a time when they would be very beneficial... :)
No, the tail lights are only 5 watts @ standard bulb consumption. Their brightness compared to 5 watt LED's is considerably less, almost useless actually.
A rear fog light is 21 watts IIRC.
How is this related to drl's, Phil? :undecided:
Post by: Dazzler on April 07, 2015, 11:15:33
Disagree, a 5 w tail light in daylight is next to useless. that's why fog light are 21 w to cater for diminished visibility.
I'm talking bleak or overcast conditions.. not so necessary on a bright day.. :cool:
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 07, 2015, 11:20:23
How is this related to drl's, Phil? :undecided:
Ref YOUR reply #37
Post by: CraigB on April 07, 2015, 11:25:21
As mentioned previously DRL's are more noticeable in daylight, DRL's also use less current have a much longer lifespan than headlight bulbs which are expensive to replace so that's a very good reason to not want to use standard headlight during daylight hour.You only have to turn on the park lights to get the benefit of rear lights as well which means that full driving lights don't need to be on.
And what is the advantage of drl's then, Craig? You may as well just turn your headlights on and be done with it... :head_butt:
Post by: rustynutz on April 07, 2015, 11:27:40
How is this related to drl's, Phil? :undecided:
Ref YOUR reply #37
So how come you didn't quote reply #37? :eek:
Post by: rustynutz on April 07, 2015, 11:30:14
As mentioned previously DRL's are more noticeable in daylight, DRL's also use less current have a much longer lifespan than headlight bulbs which are expensive to replace so that's a very good reason to not want to use standard headlight during daylight hour.You only have to turn on the park lights to get the benefit of rear lights as well which means that full driving lights don't need to be on.
And what is the advantage of drl's then, Craig? You may as well just turn your headlights on and be done with it... :head_butt:
Me thinks it would be easier for manufacturers to just wire rear tail lights to come on with drl's... :undecided:
Post by: CraigB on April 07, 2015, 11:33:45
Me thinks it would be easier for manufacturers to just wire rear tail lights to come on with drl's... :undecided:That I agree with :goodjob2: be much better if they also convert the rear lights to LED's at the same time to increase their lifespan if being used at all hours.
Post by: Surferdude on April 07, 2015, 11:40:32
Post by: CraigB on April 07, 2015, 11:54:39
Post by: bumpkin on April 07, 2015, 12:07:23
There is plenty of evidence of the effectiveness of DRLs. There's little proof it is flawed. Except in the arguments put forward by opponents.
Where is this "evidence", Trev?
There is much talk about this supposed evidence but there's very little of it forthcoming... :undecided:
And who do you suppose is gonna point out the flaws in the evidence other than these "opponents"... I'm sure the ones pushing for drl's aren't gonna shoot holes in their own "evidence"... lol
There is lots of evidence, a quick Google (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=drl+effectiveness+study&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=GLcjVYTLOoGusQHm64Bo (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=drl+effectiveness+study&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=GLcjVYTLOoGusQHm64Bo)) brings them up
BUT
As stated they are all NA or Northern European studies which I think is the point of this thread anyway, what is being argued is whether these studies readily translate to other locales, specifically the "different" lighting conditions experienced in Australia.
What does it say about your own leadership and motoring organisations that they are prepared to stand back and accept the results of the existing studies without thinking "Hold on we have different light to them, perhaps we should fund a couple of studies of our own, cos we have a public who need that kind of reassurance before they will believe the result is truly transparent".
OR
They don't think there is ENOUGH difference in your lighting conditions to make any argument valid?? (Are there studies to show this or otherwise)??
NA and Europe have their opposition groups to the studies also, however basic paretto, if 80% of the studies are positive about the benefits and 20% are not then the arguments against become less effective.
Even looking at this thread, if we strip out the Southern Hemisphere members and look at what the opinions are we see more support for than against, even with the argument about lighting, perhaps the money which might be spent on studying DRL's would be better spent elsewhere?
Post by: rustynutz on April 07, 2015, 12:38:11
There is plenty of evidence of the effectiveness of DRLs. There's little proof it is flawed. Except in the arguments put forward by opponents.
Where is this "evidence", Trev?
There is much talk about this supposed evidence but there's very little of it forthcoming... :undecided:
And who do you suppose is gonna point out the flaws in the evidence other than these "opponents"... I'm sure the ones pushing for drl's aren't gonna shoot holes in their own "evidence"... lol
There is lots of evidence, a quick Google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=drl+effectiveness+study&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=GLcjVYTLOoGusQHm64Bo (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=drl+effectiveness+study&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=GLcjVYTLOoGusQHm64Bo)) brings them up
BUT
As stated they are all NA or Northern European studies which I think is the point of this thread anyway, what is being argued is whether these studies readily translate to other locales, specifically the "different" lighting conditions experienced in Australia.
What does it say about your own leadership and motoring organisations that they are prepared to stand back and accept the results of the existing studies without thinking "Hold on we have different light to them, perhaps we should fund a couple of studies of our own, cos we have a public who need that kind of reassurance before they will believe the result is truly transparent".
OR
They don't think there is ENOUGH difference in your lighting conditions to make any argument valid?? (Are there studies to show this or otherwise)??
NA and Europe have their opposition groups to the studies also, however basic paretto, if 80% of the studies are positive about the benefits and 20% are not then the arguments against become less effective.
Even looking at this thread, if we strip out the Southern Hemisphere members and look at what the opinions are we see more support for than against, even with the argument about lighting, perhaps the money which might be spent on studying DRL's would be better spent elsewhere?
Thanks Brian...
I checked out that list, I selected the first one and it seems to be saying that drl's make bugger all difference... :whistler:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811029.pdf (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811029.pdf)
Quote
The analysis evaluates the effects of daytime running lights (DRLs) against three types of target crashes: (1) two-passenger vehicle crashes excluding rear-end crashes, (2)single-passenger-vehicle to pedestrians/cyclists crashes, and (3) singlepassenger-vehicle to motorcycle crashes.
Each crash type was examined at three crash severity levels–fatal, injury, and all severity.
The basic approach is a control-comparison analysis of real-world crash involvements for DRL-equipped vehicles and non-DRL vehicles.
Ratio of odds ratios were used to derive the DRL effects. A 95-percent confidence interval was used to infer statistically significant conclusions.
The Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the State Data System were the crash data sources used for this analysis.
The analysis found that DRLs have no statistically significant overall effects on the three target crashes. When combining these three target crashes into one target crash, the DRL effects were also not statistically significant. When examined separately for passenger cars and light trucks/vans (LTVs), DRLs in LTVs significantly reduced LTVs’ involvements in the target two-vehicle crashes by 5.7 percent. However, the remaining DRL effects on these three target crashes were not statistically significant. Although not statistically significant, DRLs might have unintended consequences for pedestrians and motorcyclists. Particularly, the estimated negative effects for LTVs were relatively large and cannot be completely ignored.
Post by: Surferdude on April 07, 2015, 13:03:49
Post by: CraigB on April 07, 2015, 13:09:52
Post by: Wingerdave on April 07, 2015, 13:54:22
Post by: bumpkin on April 07, 2015, 15:11:35
"This study estimates the effectiveness of passenger vehicle daytime running lights in reducing two-vehicle opposite direction crashes, pedestrian/bicycle crashes, and motorcycle crashes. The authors chose the generalized simple odds, a conventional statistical technique, to analyze the data.
Results based on simple odds indicate that from 1995 to 2001:
•DRLs reduced opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by 5 percent.
•DRLs reduced opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal crashes by 5 percent.
•DRLs reduced non-motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, daytime fatalities in single-vehicle crashes by 12 percent.
•DRLs reduced daytime opposite direction fatal crashes of a passenger vehicle with a motorcycle by 23 percent.
Reviewers of this paper required the inclusion of results using the odds ratio technique. The estimated the effect of DRLs are
–6.3 percent, –7.9 percent, 3.8 percent, and 26 percent, respectively. None of these results were statistically significant. "
I think we would agree that whilst "None of these results were statistically significant", there are data sets proving reduction available.
Further down those links we find http://mpainesyd.com/idisk/Public/carsafety/paine_drl_nrma_racv.pdf (http://mpainesyd.com/idisk/Public/carsafety/paine_drl_nrma_racv.pdf)
In this document there are specific sections dedicated to Australia stating;
"The Best Type of DRLs for Australian Conditions
If any modifications are to be conducted to a vehicle (either on the production line or by retrofit) then dedicated DRLs offer the best all-round performance under the range of lighting and road conditions typically encountered in Australia. This is because they direct the light in the most appropriate direction and are therefore much more energy efficient than headlights.
In 1993 an expert working group of Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) made a strong recommendation for dedicated DRLs and pointed out why alternatives such as low beam headlights and dimmed high beam headlights are less desirable.
Issues with introducing dedicated DRLs in Australia
Several issues need to be addressed before motorists (and vehicle manufacturers) are encouraged to fit dedicated DRLs:
a) The maximum permitted intensity specified in ADR76 (actually ECE Regulation 87) needs to be reviewed. An intensity of 1200cd for a universal system (bright day to dusk) is considered appropriate, based on scientific recommendations and signal range theory for road conditions generally encountered in Australia. For example, on cloudy days (or early dusk) such lights could be expected to be highly effective for overtaking situations on 100km/h roads whereas 800cd lights are likely to be marginally effective.
b) A light sensor should be used to automatically switch from DRLs to headlights at dusk. This would eliminate concerns about DRLs being left on at dusk and producing undue glare. There could also be provision for increased intensity (beyond 1200cd) where a light sensor is provided to detect bright ambient lighting conditions.
c) The minimum area of illumination required by ADR76/ECE87 should be reviewed to provide for the possible use of new technology such as LEDs
d) Dedicated DRLs should have priority over fog lights as a purchase decision.
Some of these issues are currently being discussed in Europe as part of a review of ECE Regulation 87.
Conclusion
Daytime running lights have been proven to make an effective contribution to the reduction of daylight accidents and overall road safety. Pending the introduction of suitable dedicated DRLs for Australian vehicles, it is considered that the voluntary (manual) use of headlights during the day should continue to be encouraged. "
Is it also fair to suggest that since these articles date from 2004 and 2003, that also advancements in LED technology and their placement may also have improved the incident/accident reductions?
This of course is something which has also not been mentioned, whilst analysis of accidents can be measured, it is less easy to measure incident reduction, probably otherwise known as "realising that adrenaline is brown moments".
Post by: rustynutz on April 08, 2015, 04:41:28
however clicking on the second link reveals;
A report by the same Government agency as the first one that was produced 4 years earlier...
How can they get such differing results when analysing the same "evidence"?
This seems to be the issue with "so called" proof, it all depends on the modelling method.
Not getting the answer you want? Hey, lets change to another modelling method and see if we now get the "proof" we're seeking... :snigger:
For an example, check this out: http://www.lightsout.org/docs/30yrs.pdf (http://www.lightsout.org/docs/30yrs.pdf)
I see the author of http://mpainesyd.com/idisk/Public/carsafety/paine_drl_nrma_racv.pdf (http://mpainesyd.com/idisk/Public/carsafety/paine_drl_nrma_racv.pdf) quotes "a study" by General Motors USA....This has been discredited here: :link: DADRL - News Releases (http://www.lightsout.org/news.html) & here: :link: DADRL - Studies (http://www.lightsout.org/studies.html)
He also makes much of the "evidence" here: :link: Daytime running lights | Australasian College of Road Safety (http://acrs.org.au/about-us/policies/safe-vehicles/daytime-running-lights/)
I could go on but figure that's enough of an example to bring into question reviews of the so called evidence and also to point out the danger of continuing to quote this "evidence" as proof that drl's are a worthwhile safety measure....
Oh, and I notice these reports are big on using words like "potential"....so to me, when studies say that, that suggests to me there is no conclusive proof....am I wrong??? :undecided:
Post by: rustynutz on April 08, 2015, 05:13:43
I wonder Rusty if you had the same opposition to high mount centre stop lights?
I find them of benefit as you can usually see cars in front braking before the actual vehicle that you are behind applies the brakes...
In my opinion this "benefit" has been erroded to a certain extent due to the popularity of SUV's etc and the increasingly smaller rear windows of modern cars.
In saying all that though, have these high mounted stop lights actually reduced the number of rear end crashes???
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the most common car crash on Australian roads (and probably elsewhere) is the nose-to-tail... :whistler:
Hmm, a topic for another time, perhaps??? :D
Post by: FatBoy on April 08, 2015, 07:06:59
Can we all just agree that some of us like DRLs, others of us don't, some think they make a difference, other think that they don't. Everybody has an opinion.
Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.
Post by: bumpkin on April 08, 2015, 07:46:28
Problem with measuring accidents and trying to attribute causes/preventions/cures is that any analysis cannot take into consideration the definition of accident ie something going wrong when you least expect it to, there are to many contributors to the definition for absolute understanding, which is where the "surely if it saves one person it is worth doing" comes from.
I would take issue with you being worried about potential, if we don't examine and push potential we would still be driving Model T's. Good or bad thing?
Anyway, safety - perhaps the elf and safety police have numbed us all, and perhaps we are too wrapped up, if I was in charge I would ensure that idiot accidents would be eradicated by replacing the airbag in the steering wheel with a big metal spike, if that doesn't make you think twice about speeding / tailgating then Paterson's Theory of Natural Selection will make the world a safer place.
Post by: Wingerdave on April 08, 2015, 07:48:01
Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.
Actually, i do care about other peoples opinions (not their rear-ends). Some can be intimidating, others down-right dangerous, while a few are very uplifting and inspiring.
As long as opinions are formed in a responsible manner, according to verifiable, empirical facts, they can be usefull talking points.
Unfortunately, some people forget that Google is not a synonym for research, and the hits at the top of the list probably paid to get there.
Post by: Surferdude on April 08, 2015, 07:56:59
Nice new avatar, Trev. Are you doing a little bit of stirring?Not me , Jamie. :happydance:
Just doing research. You noticed, so DRLs must work. :goodjob2:
Post by: Dazzler on April 08, 2015, 08:03:54
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 08, 2015, 09:54:37
Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.
I care, Jamie, I care.
I would have thought that from our brief catch up in Perth a while ago you would have known that I do care about rear ends. :mrgreen:
Post by: bumpkin on April 08, 2015, 09:57:35
The points you make about the same body using evidence which suits in order to promote a standpoint is well made, however you should recognise that the same can be said in the opposite direction, the various studies trying to prove the alternative (which you have pointed to yourself) are also written with an agenda, this is why discussion takes place, the very idea you are against which is that we all accept what we are being told without question also applies to the alternative which you are promoting, why should we blindly accept that?
We don't, it forms a basis for discussion and as you point out separate studies 4 years apart may be at odds with each other, that is about discussion and further analysis allowing people to change their minds which is the very basis of why a discussion takes place, however we need to recognise that there may still be an agenda from either "side".
With regard to this particular topic then if we become really blunt, why do we care? Is it worth worrying about? It doesn't add cost to the customer, it might or might not be of benefit, but it is there.
Real world problems.
Post by: FatBoy on April 08, 2015, 10:06:36
Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.
I care, Jamie, I care.
I would have thought that from our brief catch up in Perth a while ago you would have known that I do care about rear ends. :mrgreen:
And they were quite some rear ends too!! I didn't see any DRLs, but I did see a few high beams!!
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 08, 2015, 10:08:39
Remember that opinions are like ar$3holes, everybody has one, and nobody cares about anybody else's.
I care, Jamie, I care.
I would have thought that from our brief catch up in Perth a while ago you would have known that I do care about rear ends. :mrgreen:
And they were quite some rear ends too!! I didn't see any DRLs, but I did see a few high beams!!
A few cracks in tail lights too!
Post by: tohis on April 08, 2015, 10:47:46
In countries where DRLs or headlights are not mandatory for daytime and hence not widely used, these people are better about seeing cars without lights on, so they may not see the benefits of DRLs same way. Now if DRLs become more common, it will eventually lead to people getting used to them and not spotting 'dark' cars as good as earlier.
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 08, 2015, 10:54:14
Post by: Dazzler on April 08, 2015, 10:55:04
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 08, 2015, 11:13:35
Post by: eye30 on April 08, 2015, 12:16:09
To me vehicles with drl's stand out more than those without.
Just like bikes with headlights on stand out more than those without.
Post by: FatBoy on April 08, 2015, 13:39:40
Just as an aside, I did a quick trip up the highway today. Now where I am at the moment is so flat you can watch your dog run away for three days, and you will still see him!! I noticed a few cars on the road into Broome (one every km or so). Because of the distances that you could see the car, and light level at the time, I couldn't tell whether the car had DRLs or not UNTIL it got closer (about three out of ten did have them). So in that situation, DRLs are useless. I saw the car BEFORE I saw the lights.
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 08, 2015, 13:56:53
One reason I have them on my car is for summer conditions. Heat shimmer and a grey roof can make my vehicle invisible on a hot summer day. I hope my DRL's are assisting people to see my car.
Given that it's a VP, grey and the paint is showing it's age, I don't use DRL's as a "Look at me, device."
Post by: FatBoy on April 08, 2015, 14:08:13
I think it's been pretty well agreed that these lights are intended for low light and marginal conditions.
A quick review of all of the pro-DRL posts indicate that the majority of people say they benefit ALL OF THE TIME. :head_butt:
Post by: CraigB on April 08, 2015, 14:11:12
Personally I don't need some stupid government review wasting taxpayer dollars to prove to some sceptic the obvious benefits of what visual advantages can be had with DRL's, I've experienced and seen the benefits myself :)
Post by: FatBoy on April 08, 2015, 14:18:01
Oh hang on, I should substitute "cyclist" for "pedestrian". :victory:
Post by: Phil №❶ on April 08, 2015, 14:27:40
I think it's been pretty well agreed that these lights are intended for low light and marginal conditions.
A quick review of all of the pro-DRL posts indicate that the majority of people say they benefit ALL OF THE TIME. :head_butt:
:lol:
I would suggest to you that "all of the time" means that during a trip, there are possibly low light scenarios where they are particularly useful, however, as your example demonstrates, there are times when they are not particularly effective, due to high glare, shimmer and ambient light. If you want to split hairs and take the statement literally, well. :headbang: ;)
Post by: rustynutz on April 09, 2015, 03:00:33
I would take issue with you being worried about potential, if we don't examine and push potential we would still be driving Model T's. Good or bad thing?
When people say there is "proof" of daylight running lights making driving safer and research shows this so called proof is showing nothing but having the "potential" to make roads safer, is it then actual proof??? :undecided:
It's a bit like me buying a ticket for Lotto...I have the potential to be a millionaire but it doesn't mean it's gonna happen though... :lol:
>which is where the "surely if it saves one person it is worth doing" comes from.
This concerns me...why are people so happy to just accept something blindly because it may save one person??
What if, upon examination of the evidence, there are concerns that daylight running lights may put other road users at a higher risk???
Do we just ignore these concerns??? It would seem so going by some of the responses on here.... :undecided:
@Rusty
The points you make about the same body using evidence which suits in order to promote a standpoint is well made, however you should recognise that the same can be said in the opposite direction, the various studies trying to prove the alternative (which you have pointed to yourself) are also written with an agenda, this is why discussion takes place, the very idea you are against which is that we all accept what we are being told without question also applies to the alternative which you are promoting, why should we blindly accept that?
You don't have to accept it, but actually reading it is a start...You can then make a more informed decision. It would seem though that many will not even consider doing that as, because they can see drl's out on the road they then aren't willing to consider the possibility of any downsides....
Personally I don't need some stupid government review wasting taxpayer dollars to prove to some sceptic the obvious benefits of what visual advantages can be had with DRL's, I've experienced and seen the benefits myself :)
If things were as clear-cut as you believe, then surely there wouldn't need to be one....and there wouldn't be these other concerns regarding other road users... :head_butt:
Post by: Wingerdave on April 09, 2015, 07:28:35
I would take issue with you being worried about potential, if we don't examine and push potential we would still be driving Model T's. Good or bad thing?
When people say there is "proof" of daylight running lights making driving safer and research shows this so called proof is showing nothing but having the "potential" to make roads safer, is it then actual proof??? :undecided:
It's a bit like me buying a ticket for Lotto...I have the potential to be a millionaire but it doesn't mean it's gonna happen though... :lol:>which is where the "surely if it saves one person it is worth doing" comes from.
This concerns me...why are people so happy to just accept something blindly because it may save one person??
What if, upon examination of the evidence, there are concerns that daylight running lights may put other road users at a higher risk???
Do we just ignore these concerns??? It would seem so going by some of the responses on here.... :undecided:@Rusty
The points you make about the same body using evidence which suits in order to promote a standpoint is well made, however you should recognise that the same can be said in the opposite direction, the various studies trying to prove the alternative (which you have pointed to yourself) are also written with an agenda, this is why discussion takes place, the very idea you are against which is that we all accept what we are being told without question also applies to the alternative which you are promoting, why should we blindly accept that?
You don't have to accept it, but actually reading it is a start...You can then make a more informed decision. It would seem though that many will not even consider doing that as, because they can see drl's out on the road they then aren't willing to consider the possibility of any downsides....Personally I don't need some stupid government review wasting taxpayer dollars to prove to some sceptic the obvious benefits of what visual advantages can be had with DRL's, I've experienced and seen the benefits myself :)
If things were as clear-cut as you believe, then surely there wouldn't need to be one....and there wouldn't be these other concerns regarding other road users... :head_butt:
1. If you win will you then shut up ?
2. If something MAY save someones life it is a good thing. Imagine it was yours.......
3. You have been misinformed, believe me. Ask just about anyone on the forum
4. What concerns ?
And will you now please give it a rest? This is just turning into a slogging match. You hate them, everybody else loves them or couldn't be bothered. There are no winners. I'm surprised so many members (myself included) have held out this long.
Either that or you really enjoy winding people up :crazy1:
Post by: rustynutz on April 09, 2015, 09:12:26
At the end of the day, if you don't like what I type, don't bother reading it...it's as simple as that. :fum:
Post by: Surferdude on April 09, 2015, 09:13:57
My opinion is as valid as any one elses. Dave... :rolleyes:We get it Rusty.
At the end of the day, if you don't like what I type, don't bother reading it...it's as simple as that. :fum:
It's as valid as anyone else's.
We get it. You've told us 53 times.
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 09, 2015, 09:26:22
Post by: bumpkin on April 09, 2015, 09:28:47
Post by: FatBoy on April 09, 2015, 09:32:46
Without going back and reading everything that has been written and posted, I'd just like to say that I've personally never used a Dog Retractable Lead, but I do believe they are very good as a behaviour modifier for some dogs. :neutral:
But I don't want to modify your behaviour, Doggie 1! I liked how you pointed out the sights to me as we sipped our soy lattes and solved the problems of the world, which I believe was that the ladies should wear less clothes.
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 09, 2015, 09:39:11
Without going back and reading everything that has been written and posted, I'd just like to say that I've personally never used a Dog Retractable Lead, but I do believe they are very good as a behaviour modifier for some dogs. :neutral:
But I don't want to modify your behaviour, Doggie 1! I liked how you pointed out the sights to me as we sipped our soy lattes and solved the problems of the world, which I believe was that the ladies should wear less clothes.
I really think you're confusing me with someone else. :whistler:
Post by: FatBoy on April 09, 2015, 09:45:13
Without going back and reading everything that has been written and posted, I'd just like to say that I've personally never used a Dog Retractable Lead, but I do believe they are very good as a behaviour modifier for some dogs. :neutral:
But I don't want to modify your behaviour, Doggie 1! I liked how you pointed out the sights to me as we sipped our soy lattes and solved the problems of the world, which I believe was that the ladies should wear less clothes.
I really think you're confusing me with someone else. :whistler:
Don't make me modify your behaviour!!
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 09, 2015, 09:49:43
Without going back and reading everything that has been written and posted, I'd just like to say that I've personally never used a Dog Retractable Lead, but I do believe they are very good as a behaviour modifier for some dogs. :neutral:
But I don't want to modify your behaviour, Doggie 1! I liked how you pointed out the sights to me as we sipped our soy lattes and solved the problems of the world, which I believe was that the ladies should wear less clothes.
I really think you're confusing me with someone else. :whistler:
Don't make me modify your behaviour!!
:mrgreen:
Post by: Johnno on April 09, 2015, 10:41:39
It will be useless in this country :D
:link: Glow-in-the-dark car absorbs the sun's rays during the day and lights up at night | London - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-02-12/glow-in-the-dark-car-absorbs-the-suns-rays-during-the-day-and-lights-up-at-night/)
Post by: Wingerdave on April 09, 2015, 11:57:01
My opinion is as valid as any one elses. Dave... :rolleyes:
At the end of the day, if you don't like what I type, don't bother reading it...it's as simple as that. :fum:
Balls out, m8.... I never implied that your opinions lack validity (there are always Yays and Nays in any discussion), or that i haven't enjoyed the manner in which you have fought the concensus tooth and nail.
We get it Rusty.
It's as valid as anyone else's.
We get it. You've told us 53 times.
:whsaid: I rest my case.
Post by: rustynutz on April 09, 2015, 12:56:09
Balls out, m8.... I never implied that your opinions lack validity (there are always Yays and Nays in any discussion), or that i haven't enjoyed the manner in which you have fought the concensus tooth and nail.
It was the tone of your reply, Dave.... :head_butt:
We get it Rusty.
It's as valid as anyone else's.
We get it. You've told us 53 times.
:whsaid: I rest my case.
That was just Trevor's personal issues with me coming out, he can't help himself, please don't encouage him... :crazy1:
Post by: The Gonz on April 09, 2015, 13:20:12
Post by: Surferdude on April 09, 2015, 13:25:19
And you still can't see it.Balls out, m8.... I never implied that your opinions lack validity (there are always Yays and Nays in any discussion), or that i haven't enjoyed the manner in which you have fought the concensus tooth and nail.
It was the tone of your reply, Dave.... :head_butt:We get it Rusty.
It's as valid as anyone else's.
We get it. You've told us 53 times.
:whsaid: I rest my case.
That was just Trevor's personal issues with me coming out, he can't help himself, please don't encouage him... :crazy1:
Post by: Wingerdave on April 09, 2015, 13:25:44
It was the tone of your reply, Dave.... :head_butt:
I get it. It's one reason why i actually don't like flat text..... It's sometimes a fine line we wander..... I'm no Chaucer, Keats or Churchill, just a guy from Birmingham (and if that's not the best excuse, i don't know what is) :goodjob:
Post by: rustynutz on April 09, 2015, 13:30:09
And you still can't see it.Balls out, m8.... I never implied that your opinions lack validity (there are always Yays and Nays in any discussion), or that i haven't enjoyed the manner in which you have fought the concensus tooth and nail.
It was the tone of your reply, Dave.... :head_butt:We get it Rusty.
It's as valid as anyone else's.
We get it. You've told us 53 times.
:whsaid: I rest my case.
That was just Trevor's personal issues with me coming out, he can't help himself, please don't encouage him... :crazy1:
Don't worry, Trev...I see things fine....
Post by: neptune on April 09, 2015, 13:37:37
Without going back and reading everything that has been written and posted, I'd just like to say that I've personally never used a Dog Retractable Lead, but I do believe they are very good as a behaviour modifier for some dogs. :neutral:
But I don't want to modify your behaviour, Doggie 1! I liked how you pointed out the sights to me as we sipped our soy lattes and solved the problems of the world, which I believe was that the ladies should wear less clothes.
You know, Jamie...totally agree with you there , when Doggie was showing Daz and myself the same sights.....
Post by: Doggie 1 on April 10, 2015, 02:38:03
Without going back and reading everything that has been written and posted, I'd just like to say that I've personally never used a Dog Retractable Lead, but I do believe they are very good as a behaviour modifier for some dogs. :neutral:
But I don't want to modify your behaviour, Doggie 1! I liked how you pointed out the sights to me as we sipped our soy lattes and solved the problems of the world, which I believe was that the ladies should wear less clothes.
You know, Jamie...totally agree with you there , when Doggie was showing Daz and myself the same sights.....
:lol:
Gee thanks.
But trust me, the sights in Rockingham are definitely NOT the same as the sights in Perth. :snigger: