3 Facelift??

[Mindis]

However, think of it this way:

How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?

Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.

If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.

Surely that's a bit of Daily Mail thinking? Oh noes, the increased fuel usage due to DRL will outweigh the savings made by having less accidents.   

The increased fuel usage due to DRL is infinitesimal especially with all the other bits of electronics in modern cars. Sure over all new cars fitted with DRL it will all add up, but it's nothing to get excited about.

Do you have a reputable source that shows DRL's won't reduce accident rates?

IMHO the simple way to cause less accidents and to increase fuel economy is to fit a wooden block underneath the loud pedal on every vehicle. 

+1   sometimes is very hard to see grey cars through mirror then it's raining

[daunorubicin]

I understood that the main point of DRLs was to allow pedestrians, not other cars, to see that a car was not parked but moving. This seemed to be based on the fact that pedestrians look and make a very snap judgement as to where a car is, whether its moving or not and how fast it is moving. Front DRLs are therefore seen as an easy way to allow pedestrians to tell the difference between a parked (stationary and engine turned off) and a moving or about to move car.

Whilst I understand the need for a genuine cost benefit analysis, generally a human life is valued quite high and DRLs will not cost a lot to either install or to run. Especially if you factor in the damage that will occur to a car if it is hit by a pedestrian!

[Anth]

I think it will.  Odd argument to state that because some folks won't have DRL, they'll be proportionately more likely to have an accident.

As you say, hard to tell really as so many other things are also being introduced to try to drive down the accident rate.

I think that bikes (motor and cycle) will also be forced to use some from of DRL in the future as well.  We all know just how easy it is to not "see" a cyclist.  If I was still cycling I've no doubt I'd be running pair of the brightest flashing DRL's you can get.

As an aside, maybe the anti-DRL brigade should consider aircraft.  I've no idea how long they've had to have nav and anti-coll lights, but I 100% know for sure they have saved lives.  When I was serving in the RAF in the eighties there were a number of mid-air collisions that the accident board felt could have been avoided with better anti-coll lights on the Tornados.

Speaking about cycling... I'm thinking about getting a new bike and cycling instead of driving - having this car has made my belly grow.

That is my major issue though... it's already hard enough to see motorbikes and bicycles, if (in ten years) the majority of cars have DRL's, it will be much harder to see motorbikes and cyclists.

I think there should be a minimum standard for cycle lights, as many of them are not bright enough. If they aren't as bright or brighter than the cars in front of you, it's likely they'll blend in....

Perhaps a different colour rear light for cyclists would be good... green would be good.

Although the basic idea is the same, it's different for aircraft in that they are travelling at much higher speeds... also correct me ifI'm wrong, but the anti collision lights actually pulse on and of, don't they?

This would be incredibly effective on the road,but could you imagine it...?

The nav lights are solid... but in your opinion, is it the anti collision beacon or the nav lights that provide the most assistance in spotting aircraft at a distance?


I like the idea of DRL's... but my concern is that motorists (and cyclists) who are more vulnerable,will be put at more risk....

[Anth]

However, think of it this way:

How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?

Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.

If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.

Surely that's a bit of Daily Mail thinking? Oh noes, the increased fuel usage due to DRL will outweigh the savings made by having less accidents.   

The increased fuel usage due to DRL is infinitesimal especially with all the other bits of electronics in modern cars. Sure over all new cars fitted with DRL it will all add up, but it's nothing to get excited about.

Do you have a reputable source that shows DRL's won't reduce accident rates?

IMHO the simple way to cause less accidents and to increase fuel economy is to fit a wooden block underneath the loud pedal on every vehicle. 

+1   sometimes is very hard to see grey cars through mirror then it's raining

I agree, but in fairness, you should have your sidelights on in the rain anyway

[Anth]

I understood that the main point of DRLs was to allow pedestrians, not other cars, to see that a car was not parked but moving. This seemed to be based on the fact that pedestrians look and make a very snap judgement as to where a car is, whether its moving or not and how fast it is moving. Front DRLs are therefore seen as an easy way to allow pedestrians to tell the difference between a parked (stationary and engine turned off) and a moving or about to move car.

Whilst I understand the need for a genuine cost benefit analysis, generally a human life is valued quite high and DRLs will not cost a lot to either install or to run. Especially if you factor in the damage that will occur to a car if it is hit by a pedestrian!

It's a very good idea, but in my opinion the logic is flawed.

If a car is close enough to hit a pedestrian should they attempt to cross the road, then surely  the pedestrian would be able to tell whether the car is moving without the assistance of DRL's?

If the issue is judging whether a car is moving from a distance, thens sure, it is useful... but then, the car isn't a danger anyway.

I've never struggled to tell whether a car is moving or not.... my vision is crap too!!

[185sport]

Although the basic idea is the same, it's different for aircraft in that they are travelling at much higher speeds... also correct me if I'm wrong, but the anti collision lights actually pulse on and of, don't they?

This would be incredibly effective on the road,but could you imagine it...?

The nav lights are solid... but in your opinion, is it the anti collision beacon or the nav lights that provide the most assistance in spotting aircraft at a distance?

Pretty much the strobing anti-colls IMHO.  I remember seeing a diagram showing the size of another Tornado when coming at you head-on at 600 knots.  At 2 seconds to go it was a fly-spec on the windscreen.  At 1 second it was an orange.

I like the idea of DRL's... but my concern is that motorists (and cyclists) who are more vulnerable,will be put at more risk....

Well those that currently don't have DRL but will do so in the future will be moved from the "high" risk category to a lower risk category.  It doesn't follow to me that those without DRL then face a riskier life.  If somehow it does then natural selection will ensure a swift elimination 

[Anth]

Although the basic idea is the same, it's different for aircraft in that they are travelling at much higher speeds... also correct me if I'm wrong, but the anti collision lights actually pulse on and of, don't they?

This would be incredibly effective on the road,but could you imagine it...?

The nav lights are solid... but in your opinion, is it the anti collision beacon or the nav lights that provide the most assistance in spotting aircraft at a distance?

Pretty much the strobing anti-colls IMHO.  I remember seeing a diagram showing the size of another Tornado when coming at you head-on at 600 knots.  At 2 seconds to go it was a fly-spec on the windscreen.  At 1 second it was an orange.

I'm quite interested in Aircraft and stuff, so that's pretty interesting. I was in the cadets for ages, did wanna join the RAF as a pilot, but had Asthma as a kid, so could only join as everything but a pilot.

Two of my Uncles were in the RAF in the 80's, Dave Stephens and David Daglish - one was RAf Police the other was a Painter (Aircraft).

I like the idea of DRL's... but my concern is that motorists (and cyclists) who are more vulnerable,will be put at more risk....

Well those that currently don't have DRL but will do so in the future will be moved from the "high" risk category to a lower risk category.  It doesn't follow to me that those without DRL then face a riskier life.  If somehow it does then natural selection will ensure a swift elimination  

O0Natural selection indeed...

I think cyclists and motorbike riders will be at a higher risk as they'll not be relatively inconspicuous in comparison to cars and more so to cars with DRL's....

If fuel prices continue to rise the problems may even out as the roads will be less congested... or it'll be even worse as we'll all be driving our Nissan Leafs into trees whilst trying to avoid the cyclist who didn't hear us coming as our car runs on fairy dust.

[daunorubicin]

I understood that the main point of DRLs was to allow pedestrians, not other cars, to see that a car was not parked but moving. This seemed to be based on the fact that pedestrians look and make a very snap judgement as to where a car is, whether its moving or not and how fast it is moving. Front DRLs are therefore seen as an easy way to allow pedestrians to tell the difference between a parked (stationary and engine turned off) and a moving or about to move car.

Whilst I understand the need for a genuine cost benefit analysis, generally a human life is valued quite high and DRLs will not cost a lot to either install or to run. Especially if you factor in the damage that will occur to a car if it is hit by a pedestrian!

It's a very good idea, but in my opinion the logic is flawed.

If a car is close enough to hit a pedestrian should they attempt to cross the road, then surely  the pedestrian would be able to tell whether the car is moving without the assistance of DRL's?

If the issue is judging whether a car is moving from a distance, thens sure, it is useful... but then, the car isn't a danger anyway.

I've never struggled to tell whether a car is moving or not.... my vision is crap too!!

Try reading http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm
My logic may be flawed (plus my eye sight ) but I don't understand the hostility to DRLs?
There are enough cars out there with them on the show that they don't have to look crap and with modern LEDs the energy energy consumption and carbon emissions is negligible.
I strongly suspect that the carbon emissions used to make a new car after the old is crashed will more than make up for it.

Oh, and as for distance, there are studies that show that kids and teenagers in particular fail to judge the distance of moving cars accurately and consequently get run over for it.

[Anth]

Try reading http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/DRLs/studies.htm
My logic may be flawed (plus my eye sight ) but I don't understand the hostility to DRLs?

I quite like them as far as style goes... especially the BMW ones, but I don't think they'll make the UK's roads much safer. Countries like Canada and the Scandanavian ones who are really far North and consequently have very poor levels of natural light have apparently benefited from them, but the UK has a relatively normal level of natural light.

As for the eyes - I feel your paint matey... The sun is my driving enemy. Had some contacts for months, but haven't tried them yet... I'll stick to my austin powers specs.

There's no argument that  lights make a vehicle more visible in situation where it is a) really sunny or b) really dark.

There are enough cars out there with them on the show that they don't have to look crap and with modern LEDs the energy energy consumption and carbon emissions is negligible.
I strongly suspect that the carbon emissions used to make a new car after the old is crashed will more than make up for it.

If you add up the extra fuel burnt by all the cars in the country with DRL's,the carbon emission would be far from negligible IMO. There are leafs a'fallin' of them trees as we speak

As for the carbon emissions needed to make a new car, well obviously not everybody who doesn't have DRL's will crash. Not everybody who has a crash will get a new car in replacement...

Given that all new cars from now on need DRL's, if someone crashes  in a non DRL's car, they will likely get a used replacement or a new car with DRL's and we'll all be safer

Oh, and as for distance, there are studies that show that kids and teenagers in particular fail to judge the distance of moving cars accurately and consequently get run over for it.

The studies show that they fail to judge distance. I though the DRL's were meant to help them judge motion, not distance....

[185sport]

I quite like them as far as style goes... especially the BMW ones, but I don't think they'll make the UK's roads much safer. Countries like Canada and the Scandanavian ones who are really far North and consequently have very poor levels of natural light have apparently benefited from them, but the UK has a relatively normal level of natural light.

Do you know that where I live (Aberdeenshire) is further north than most of the inhabited parts of Canada, 800 miles further north than Toronto and only 120 miles south of Oslo and Stockholm?  Grab a globe and have a look, the UK is quite far north as far as inhabited places go.

There are enough cars out there with them on the show that they don't have to look crap and with modern LEDs the energy energy consumption and carbon emissions is negligible.
I strongly suspect that the carbon emissions used to make a new car after the old is crashed will more than make up for it.

If you add up the extra fuel burnt by all the cars in the country with DRL's,the carbon emission would be far from negligible IMO. There are leafs a'fallin' of them trees as we speak

As for the carbon emissions needed to make a new car, well obviously not everybody who doesn't have DRL's will crash. Not everybody who has a crash will get a new car in replacement...

I have no way to relate it to extra fuel consumption, but DRL's will run at about 5W max load.  This is less than a radio and is very small related to the normal running load of a car.  Any extra fuel used will be infinitesimally small. Given that they will be fitted to newer vehicles which are more efficient than the vehicles they replace the net result will be that DRL's won't increase fuel usage across the nations vehicles.

Oh, and as for distance, there are studies that show that kids and teenagers in particular fail to judge the distance of moving cars accurately and consequently get run over for it.

The studies show that they fail to judge distance. I though the DRL's were meant to help them judge motion, not distance....

AFAIK the human eye has evolved to be sensitive to movement (to spot potential predators on the plains of Africa).  If the other vehicle is heading straight towards (or away) then judging the rate of closure is an acquired skill rather than a natural ability.  A similar issue occurs when vehicles are approaching at right angles to each other, if both a moving at a similar speed then there is very little relative movement between them and the eye doesn't tend to pick the other vehicle up.

[The Bun-yip]

Whilst I would not not expect unbiased information from a commercial organisation Osram has some interesting things to say about DRLs here.

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/index.html

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/Why_should_I_use_light_at_day/index.html

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/Automotive_Lighting/See_and_be_seen/Daytime_running_lights/Legal_requirements/index.html

I will be happy to fit some suitable LED DRLs to my 1st Gen in due course.

[shearer27]

Why bother with DRL's as everyone seems to drive with fogs on nowadays whatever the weather!

[daunorubicin]

Why bother with DRL's as everyone seems to drive with fogs on nowadays whatever the weather!

[Willpower]

I was travelling to a 24hr Supermarket recently. When I pulled into the car park and parked up, I was approached by a Police officer who informed me that I should not be driving with the foglights on unless there was fog and that when I started off again I was to ensure that they were switched off. Knowing that they usually park and wait on a nearby roundabout I obviously obliged.  
So just to put this into perspective, it is illegal to drive with foglights on unless the weather warrants it. Now this is purely arbitrary and down to the discretion of the driver. However it's also down to the discretion of the Police officer who stops you. So be warned.

[Metric]

Getting back on topic - if there is to be a facelift as "Autocar" have flagged up for June this year, what would you like to see changed, improved or added?

My suggestions, a six speed gearbox for all models and get rid of that stupid front grille.

And, as a bonus, bring back the sedan please!