[alanmeaslesisace]

DRLs too bright as well as headlights?
why do we need any bright vehicle lights on during daylight hours when the Highway Code rule 114 says otherwise and it can be a sunny day when the sun is natures dazzle/glare.
what about light pollution?
Does anyone care??

[Drivingforfun]

As someone who only started driving after DRLs became a requirement, I've learnt to find them a useful gauge that a car is (almost certainly) being driven and not just parked. Occasionally when driving through city streets with parked cars I've been caught out by cars I thought were parked and I've waved "thanks" at cars who didn't have anyone in them 😆

I think we're in that crossover period where there're still lots of non-DRL cars on the road, but in a couple of decades when they all have them it will be different ... a bit like when they made indicators orange, you hardly ever see red indicators now

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by alanmeaslesisace

DRLs too bright as well as headlights?
why do we need any bright vehicle lights on during daylight hours when the Highway Code rule 114 says otherwise and it can be a sunny day when the sun is natures dazzle/glare.
what about light pollution?
Does anyone care??

HC 114 says you must not "dazzle or cause discomfort". I've never heard of anyone being dazzled by DRLs - have you?

AFAIK light pollution is only an issue in the night sky.

Does anyone care? Yes, some people are against DLRs for some reason, but that battle is lost.

[Rolebama]

Motorcycles have been having to use lights for a few years now, and I have not seen anything about how fewer collisions there have been since the adoption. When I was younger and used to ride around, there was enough common sense to go round, and I never heard any SMIDSY rubbish then. One thing I did notice though was that when I went back to riding in 2010, was that I could not ride anywhere around the suburbs without having to brake to avoid cars pulling out on me and pedestrians stepping out. Apparently having my lights on didn't give me 'ownership of the road'.

[alanmeaslesisace]

basically why do we need any vehicles to have lights on during daylight hours, what is daylight for? my vehicle is 15 years old and I have a ’auto’ dial which I have never used as there is no need for them! I am a considerate driver.
Before DRLs and LEDs what did we do then? We didn’t go around ‘burning peoples retinas out’ and yes some DRLs are very bright too depending on the size of the vehicle! Bright glaring, dazzling vehicle lights are dangerous and getting worse year by year so at last it’s being investigated.

[olduser]

Now with most cars having running lights, the cars without are the ones that attract the eye.
So, what's that up the road with lights on, it's a car, oh right, I think I can get across in time...
Can someone call an Ambulance?
As Rolebama says, apart from costing more, and more fuel to run, nothing has changed.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Motorcycles have been having to use lights for a few years now, and I have not seen anything about how fewer collisions there have been since the adoption. When I was younger and used to ride around, there was enough common sense to go round, and I never heard any SMIDSY rubbish then. One thing I did notice though was that when I went back to riding in 2010, was that I could not ride anywhere around the suburbs without having to brake to avoid cars pulling out on me and pedestrians stepping out. Apparently having my lights on didn't give me 'ownership of the road'.

Motorcycles are not required to use DRL's, the only reason they were introduced was because it saved the manufacturers a few shillings during construction thereby increasing their profitability.

But, here is the crux, what has happened is that crashes regularly occur because of what is called SMIDSY (Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You) where it is believed or perceived that a driver did not see the approaching bike.

The reality is that daytime running lights cause what is called the "Halo" affect especially in bright or sunny conditions which also goes hand in hand with depth perception.

What this means is (as an example) a driver waiting at a junction to pull into the major carriageway see's the approaching motorcycle because his/her attention has been caught by the DRL's.

Said driver makes a judgement and believes that the bike is (for example) travelling at 30MPH and is half a mile away, but in reality is travelling at 60MPH and is a quarter of a mile away.

So driver pulls out of junction thinking he/she has more time and distance than they actually have. Result is a crash and the accusation that the driver did not see said bike.

This is made worse when the sun is directly behind the bike hence the "Halo" affect.

The same problem can occur with DRL on cars but to a lesser extent, however a big problem is because of DLR's being so bright, when the light drops drivers assume that they have lights on but forget that they have no tail light hence the increase in rear end shunts, and is one rear end collision where strict liability does not apply.

There have been moves afoot to in the motorcycle world to hold one of the big manufacturers liable in a crash where DRL's were deemed contributory on the basis that they were fitted as a cost cutting exercise thereby taking away the choice of the rider to decide for themselves if they wanted lights on or off.

DRL's has increased crashes at the expense of cost cutting.

[alanmeaslesisace]

I blame the EU! 🤣👍

[TC1474]

@alanmeaslesisace

As much as I would love to be able to blame the EU, unfortunately this is all the doing of the manufacturers, in particular Sweden and their well known car makers

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by TC1474

Motorcycles are not required to use DRL's, the only reason they were introduced was because it saved the manufacturers a few shillings during construction thereby increasing their profitability.

But, here is the crux, what has happened is that crashes regularly occur because of what is called SMIDSY (Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You) where it is believed or perceived that a driver did not see the approaching bike.

Which begs the question "If you did'nt see the car/motorcycle with all those lights, what else can't you see, and should you be driving?"
Our cars had daylight running lights and despite having POLICE in big letters all over it we would still get the blind drivers running into us.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

Which begs the question "If you did'nt see the car/motorcycle with all those lights, what else can't you see, and should you be driving?"
Our cars had daylight running lights and despite having POLICE in big letters all over it we would still get the blind drivers running into us.

There is a difference between seeing, and perceiving.

Our eyes see everything that emits or reflects light but our brain could not process that amount of information fast enough, so the brain has to choose what to process (perceive).
In central vision, the brain tends not to worry about mundane things so it does not get beyond another car/bike, and does not trouble to estimate distance and speed, hence "I didn't see it".
What is actually meant is, "I didn't perceive it."

I think this problem is much less in peripheral vision.

[NMNeil]

@olduser Except that on a few occasions the patrol car was stationary with it's red and blues flashing away merrily when a car hit it.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

Which begs the question "If you did'nt see the car/motorcycle with all those lights, what else can't you see, and should you be driving?"
Our cars had daylight running lights and despite having POLICE in big letters all over it we would still get the blind drivers running into us.

I think you misunderstood. I am not saying that they didn't see the car or bike, but their depth perception gave them a false impression of speed and distance. There is a big difference between the two, hence the reference to the "Halo" effect.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

@olduser Except that on a few occasions the patrol car was stationary with it's red and blues flashing away merrily when a car hit it.

And I have had that happen to me, but if like us you are using strobes, there is the issue as studies here have shown that it causes a hypnotic trance like state with some drivers unlike the old days of the spinners that we used when I first started.

It is also a particular issue with epileptic's who are not aware they have the condition until the strobes of emergency vehicles trigger them.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

@olduser Except that on a few occasions the patrol car was stationary with it's red and blues flashing away merrily when a car hit it.

That sounds like an example of the, 'target syndrome' or 'crash syndrome'.
I read about this somewhere, I think it was first identified among fighter pilots.
In an emergency, (panic) many people will steer into a crash rather than away from it or freeze and not steer at all.

[Rolebama]

I came across a toll bridge in North Wales in the 80s. Very narrow flat concrete across a bay, I think, somewhere around the Barmouth/Harlech area. It was fine to use during daylight, but at night in headlamps, it had reflective posts either side, quite close together. The strobe effect was horrendous, and I found it very difficult to ignore, so ended up trickling across at tickover in second gear, around 10mph.
Talking of Police car lights though, I would've liked to get my hands around the throat of the fool who thought that alternate flashing main beams was a good idea on unlit roads.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Talking of Police car lights though, I would've liked to get my hands around the throat of the fool who thought that alternate flashing main beams was a good idea on unlit roads.

They are with us because they were introduced before the invention of the LED or Zenon lights. When we had conventional halogen lamps they were perfect, but I am inclined to agree that they are a bit of an issue these days.

But you might be surprised by how many people still don't see then or the blue's.