Hatred for DRL's

[Haggisman]

If you need lights on a car during the day, so you can see it better may I suggest an eye test.

If people were smart enough to actually turn their lights on when it was required - e.g. twilight, heavy rain, night time etc. I'd agree with you; however with the number of complete idiots I've seen driving around in near darkness recently, anything that makes their cars actually visible that they don't need to remember to turn on, is a good thing in my book!

 

[OhEsEcks]

I remember my dad's Volvo 240 having DRLs. When we went on the continent most of the cars had yellow ones.

 

[DeanT77]

I don't understand the hatred for DRLs

Its not like they try to blind people, like HIDs do

 

[Participant]

If they save 1 life then they are worth it

/thread

That would depend on the life tbh.

And I hate it when people call "/thread" after their own mediocre sound bite, as though they've just saved the day with the most insightful comment ever.

 

[N43SP33D]

I think they should have been introduced years ago, why do motorbikes ride with lights on, simple fact, so they can be seen.

My GF hates the guts out of my A5 and the DRLs, she seems to think they are "showing off" "oh look at me" cars LoL.

 

[Conscript]

At first I was indifferent to them, but given how many people are so negligent in using their lights at appropriate times, I now support their use. But I wish that they also meant the tail lights were always illuminated too.

If you need lights on a car during the day, so you can see it better may I suggest an eye test.

If you can't see the value of having a car illuminated during the day, more fool you. Even someone with perfect eyesight might still miss a car that has no lights on during the day. Especially as DRLs will be more noticeable in your peripheral vision, so you are more likely to see them with a quick glance. That could make all the difference between you pulling out in front of someone, or not.

Also, do you not understand contrast? What about early in the morning/late in evening? It can still be bright daylight, but a car with the sun rising/setting behind it can be completely invisible without any illumination.

And finally, as others have said, they also ensure that the car is illuminated when the driver forgets the appropriate use of their lights.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Bling ones look tacky, non-bling ones are like a massive 'I bought the base model with no Xenons' advert, so its kinda hard to get a middle ground that works

 

[Millwall.FC]

At first I was indifferent to them, but given how many people are so negligent in using their lights at appropriate times, I now support their use. But I wish that they also meant the tail lights were always illuminated too.



1. If you can't see the value of having a car illuminated during the day, more fool you. Even someone with perfect eyesight might still miss a car that has no lights on during the day. Especially as DRLs will be more noticeable in your peripheral vision, so you are more likely to see them with a quick glance. That could make all the difference between you pulling out in front of someone, or not.

2. Also, do you not understand contrast? What about early in the morning/late in evening? It can still be bright daylight, but a car with the sun rising/setting behind it can be completely invisible without any illumination.

3. And finally, as others have said, they also ensure that the car is illuminated when the driver forgets the appropriate use of their lights.

1. If you 'have a quick glance' you've probably already made your move DRL will not stop a car hitting you from your ignorant manoeuvre.

2. Do you understand dusk and dawn? If you want to call this day time to make your point valid is up to you. In this setting I as many other considerate drivers used dipped or side lights, why? rear lights come on more than your DRL sport.

3. DRL should not be an alternative lazy inconsiderate potentially dangerous driving and again no lights on the back.

 

[Haggisman]

3. DRL should not be an alternative lazy inconsiderate potentially dangerous driving and again no lights on the back.

Correct, but they are better than nothing.

 

[hawker1986]

Basically I don't like them, they look good on some cars but not many. Most of them I find annoyingly bright and TBH people not using their lights in an appropriate manner is really the problem and this does nothing to address that.

Hawker

 

[Millwall.FC]

Correct, but they are better than nothing.

I do agree they are better than nothing but think more should be done in catching poor driving.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Correct, but they are better than nothing.

What about making all cars bright yellow at the front to increase visibility?

If it saves a life...?

 

[Destination]

But others (Audi) seem to make an Artform out of integrating them into the front light cluster

Indeed, I think the A4, with the xenon upgrade and front DRLs look lovely, granted that's what I have, but its a lovely light, set to auto with wipers on auto you need never annoy another road user with being too dim or too bright again.

Car looks like it would wink at you.

 

[lordrobs]

I couldn't care less whether a car I owned had them or not nor whether anyone else's car does or not.

What has set me off though is your numberplate screws, they have activated my OCD!

 

[Conscript]

1. If you 'have a quick glance' you've probably already made your move DRL will not stop a car hitting you from your ignorant manoeuvre.

The point was that DRLs make the car more visible than no illumination, which means they catch the eye easier and can make the difference between spotting a car in your periphery, or not. There is no dispute that a car with DRLs will be easier to spot than a car with no lights, and saying that you should be able to see an unilluminated car in daylight is no argument against not adopting them - they can only improve your visibility.

2. Do you understand dusk and dawn? If you want to call this day time to make your point valid is up to you. In this setting I as many other considerate drivers used dipped or side lights, why? rear lights come on more than your DRL sport.

Yup, I do understand dusk and dawn....evidently you don't though, because the very definitions of dusk and dawn are those periods of twilight when the sun is not above the horizon. So whether you use your lights at these times or not is irrelevant - I'm talking about once the sun is over the horizon, and it's pretty much broad daylight, but it's still low enough to be directly in your eyeline if you're heading east/west.

For the record "sport", I ensure my headlights are on at these times, but again, the point is that many people won't because it's daylight, so they don't think. DRLs at least mean these people will be more visible in your mirrors.

3. DRL should not be an alternative lazy inconsiderate potentially dangerous driving and again no lights on the back.

I absolutely agree, but whilst we have a road network that is infested with such people, and whilst DRLs have pretty much no disadvantages, I'll continue to consider their adoption a good idea.

 

[Haggisman]

What about making all cars bright yellow at the front to increase visibility?

If it saves a life...?

Well if you want to be silly about it, why don't we make all cars bright neon colours all over?

If it saves a life...?

 

[Rich_L]

Incredibly useful in California, cars driving out of the low sun are virtually invisible without DRLs

 

[Millwall.FC]

The point was that DRLs make the car more visible than no illumination, which means they catch the eye easier and can make the difference between spotting a car in your periphery, or not. There is no dispute that a car with DRLs will be easier to spot than a car with no lights, and saying that you should be able to see an unilluminated car in daylight is no argument against not adopting them.



Yup, I do understand dusk and dawn....evidently you don't though, because the very definitions of dusk and dawn are, respectively, those periods of twilight when the sun is not above the horizon. So whether you use your lights at these times or not is irrelevant - I'm talking about once the sun is over the horizon, and it's pretty much broad daylight, but it's still low enough to be directly in your eyeline if your heading east/west.

For the record "sport", I ensure my headlights are on at these times, but again, the point is that many people won't because it's daylight, so they don't think. DRLs at least mean these people will be more visible in your mirrors.



I absolutely agree, but whilst we have a road network that is infested with such people, and whilst DRLs have pretty much no disadvantages, I'll continue to consider their adoption a good idea.

How can you say I don't understand twilight when an encyclopaedia agrees with me? "Twilight is the time between dawn and sunrise, or between sunset and dusk." for me sunrise/setting is when you start thinking about lights off/on. Edit I include twilight when talking of dusk and dawn as most people commonly don't distinguish between twilight at dusk/dawn.

DRL may make a difference to you but in my experience it makes no difference to me people are different and not all of us require DRL to see cars in daylight if it helps you out I'm chuffed to bits. Maybe as fox said lets put high-vis vests on cars too. The fundamental problem with a car is the driver DRL will not make a car with an idiot in it any safer.

 

[mattyfez]

How can you say I don't understand twilight when an encyclopaedia agrees with me? "Twilight is the time between dawn and sunrise, or between sunset and dusk." for me sunrise/setting is when you start thinking about lights off/on.

DRL may make a difference to you but in my experience it makes no difference to me people are different and not all of us require DRL to see cars in daylight if it helps you out I'm chuffed to bits. Maybe as fox said lets put high-vis vests on cars too. The fundamental problem with a car is the driver DRL will not make a car with an idiot in it any safer.

They let you know the car is 'on' and moving or may possibly move, that alone is enough to warrant having mandatory lights, hence why it is now a legal requirement for new cars.

My issue is that some cars are making a show out of it (way too bright) which is detrimental (more so in bad weather) to the main purpose as some are more distracting than indicative.

 

[Conscript]

How can you say I don't understand twilight when an encyclopaedia agrees with me? "Twilight is the time between dawn and sunrise, or between sunset and dusk." for me sunrise/setting is when you start thinking about lights off/on.
.

Precisely. Twilight is the time between dawn (first light) and sunrise (when the sun comes over the horizon), or sunset and dusk. Therefore, the sun is below the horizon at these times and irrelevant to the point I was making, which was about the sun being in your eyes....which means it has to be over the horizon.

DRL may make a difference to you but in my experience it makes no difference to me people are different and not all of us require DRL to see cars in daylight if it helps you out I'm chuffed to bits. Maybe as fox said lets put high-vis vests on cars too. The fundamental problem with a car is the driver DRL will not make a car with an idiot in it any safer.

You're still missing the point. No one is saying that DRLs are required to spot a car in daylight, only that it can only make things easier. Illuminating an object will make it easier for the human eye to detect and for your brain to process it's existence that little bit quicker, and it also makes spotting an object in your peripheral vision (which is far more sensitive to movement) easier.

You may think it makes no difference to you, but I can pretty much guarantee that you would spot a car with DRLs more quickly than one without, whether subconsciously or not, and that speed of detection might make all the difference in a driving situation. That is where their value lies.