I've driven a couple of hundred miles down and back up a very wet and frequently showery M1 today.
I was overtaken by a few cars with their rear fog lights on, and whilst their foglights were visible further ahead after other cars' tail-lights had diminished in the spray, the cars themselves were all clear to see, whether they had foglights on or not. However, the view in my (wet) truck mirrors was a different story. Those cars with dipped headlights and/or DRLs were easy to pick out amongst the general spray and dazzle, but the unlit cars (and there were many) were not so obvious at a glance.
This says to me that the main vehicle lighting requirement in daylight hours isn't red lights at the back of cars, but bright white lights at the front. As greater numbers of cars have DRLs, the numpties should become a bit more visible in poor conditions.
If I'm driving a DRL-equipped vehicle I tend to leave the dipped lights off in poor daylight conditions and rely on the LEDs, do others here (Humph, PeterS, anyone else?) do the same?
|
My headlights come on if the auto wipers decide to switch on, so in theory, my headlights are on when it rains. Only time I've felt the need to manually switch the headlights on was in daylight but foggy conditions when the car wasn't smart enough to work it out for itself.
I keep forgetting I've got drls to be honest. At first I was ever so slightly embarrassed about them but now I've decided not to give a stuff really.
:-)
|
I do like the dazzling white "Angel Eye" DRLs on my company car. I also like the automated adaptive xenon headlights and the automated wiper activation.
I find though, I have to be careful when driving cars which don't have these things and I realise I can't see through the windscreen and have to find the wiper stalk and/ or the headlight switch which some manufacturers (e.g. Renault, Peugeot) seem to take perverse pleasure in making as unintuitive as possible.
Maybe it's an age thing, but I guess it was like this for drivers when cars without advance/ retard mechanisms on the steering wheel first appeared.
|
|
I believe in being seen and use my headlights when visibility is reduced by mist or spray. Even I can figure out that if I can't see the unlit overtaking BMWs, people will not be able to see me approaching.
|
>> My headlights come on if the auto wipers decide to switch on, so in theory,
>> my headlights are on when it rains.
Is this MB we are talking about?
I think if you find the relevant section in the owner's manual, there are a number of permutations which can be accessed using the buttons on the key, or the settings section on the dashboard display.
|
Another step down the road of pandering to the lowest common denominator.
A sizeable minority of drivers don't have the nous for and don't deserve a driving licence.
I'm quite sure many of those incapable of realising its was filthy wet and murky, and what to do about it, wouldn't get round the first series of bends or wet roundabout if the vehicles traction aids didn't do it for them.
They simply steer whilst paying scant attention to the space twenty feet in front of them and totally unaware and caring less what happens elsewhere.
In the heavy rain wet dark spray this morning around 7am i overtook a modern tipper truck just before that Shell garage on the A50 just after M1 jct 24, after i overtook he disappeared into the gloom within seconds in my mirrors, his puny sidelights might as well have been off for all the good they did.
I don't think DRL's or other idiot props help, we've ended up pandering to the ever growing number of idiots on the road by legislating that their vehicles do whatever they can't manage for themselves.
If i have a DRL equipped vehicle i don't rely on them, i dislike LED's for (in my opinion) the flickr effect doesn't make the judging of speed, acceleration, retardation and route as easy to judge as normal lights, side or head.
|
>> In the heavy rain wet dark spray this morning around 7am i overtook a modern tipper truck just before that
>> Shell garage on the A50 just after M1 jct 24, after i overtook he disappeared into the gloom within seconds
>> in my mirrors, his puny sidelights might as well have been off for all the good they did.
Once it's light enough to see by, a lot of truckers used to drop to sidelights, presumably to make their "OK-to-pull-in" headlamp flash unambiguous. A few "old-school" ones probably still do it now.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Tue 17 Apr 12 at 22:37
|
|
No- DRLs are only at the front; whilst HI rears may not be necessary, I think some rear lights should be on in bad conditions
|
|
Does anyone believe that we will eventually have hard wired ignition controlled lights? I think it will come one day. We already have the front ones.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 17 Apr 12 at 19:47
|
Pretty sure my Dad's 1972 Volvo 144 had those ON.
I think anyway.
|
|
Would not surprise me. I think the legislators missed a trick when the only went for DRLs instead of rear lights as well. They were probably thinking of their jobs, more lights still to work on. :-)
|
>> Would not surprise me. I think the legislators missed a trick when the only went
>> for DRLs instead of rear lights as well. They were probably thinking of their jobs,
>> more lights still to work on. :-)
>>
Ah, that'll be because DRL's serve no purpose other than as a diplomatic fudge.
You have two extremely pushy lobby groups, the eco-fiddlers and the elf 'n safety nazis.
The elf 'n safety types want mandatory "lights on" 24x7. They have a load of very bent stats to "prove" the number of lives this will save.
The eco-fiddlers do some mathematics (2xheadlamps + 2xtail lamps + 2xsidelamps + no. plate lamp + dash lamps = n watts = n2 grams of CO2 / km) and "prove" that doing this would immediately condemn the planet to a firey death.
A huge argument ensues as these two sacred cows moo furiously from their diametrically opposed positions.
The political compromise is low-wattage LEDs on the front only. You can tell it's a political compromise, as it's quite obviously so mind-numbingly stupid that only a politician could think of it.
|
...as it's quite obviously so mind-numbingly stupid that only a politician could think of it.
I think that's an inacccurate assessment, TC. In most lighting conditions it's far more important to see a vehicle coming towards you - or one that's under power and might be about to move - than one going away. And a shaped cluster of LEDs has an important advantage over a headlamp in that it naturally engages the brain's sense of scale, making it easier for an observer to judge distance and speed, where a headlamp makes that harder.
As I've written elsewhere in this thread, I had my car reset so the headlights weren't on all the time. If it had the modern style of LED DRLs I'd be happy to have them for conspicuity and keep the headlights to do what they're designed for.
|
>> Pretty sure my Dad's 1972 Volvo 144 had those ON.
>>
Almost certain yes. The later 240 had extra-bright sidelights at the front, on all the time when the ignition was on. Also the rear sidelights (normal brightness) on all the time.
They obviously were more than just parking lights because it's impossible to turn them off when running.
|
>> Does anyone believe that we will eventually have hard wired ignition controlled lights?
My dad's 2004 C-class has an option in the menus to set the dipped lights to work with the ignition. I think that's in case the car is used in Scandinavia, where I believe 24 hour dipped headlight use has been mandatory for many years. There's also provision for it in the wiring diagrams on both the Mondeo and my old Escort. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp for dates and places.
Separate front DRLs are a requirement on all designs of cars first sold in Europe from February 2011 onwards; That's why they have become much more common as manufacturers have introduced new model updates recently.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Tue 17 Apr 12 at 22:46
|
>> Does anyone believe that we will eventually have hard wired ignition controlled lights? I think
>> it will come one day. We already have the front ones.
>>
Standard on Harley-Davidsons (and presumably many other motorcycles) for some years.
|
There have only been a few occasions when I've felt the need to turn on the headlights in daylight - generally I'll rely on the DRLs. As Humph said the auto lights generally turn themselves on when it gets gloomy (though it has to be said they are not as senstive as those in the Audi or, IIRC, BMW).
When I have turned them on though it's because I felt the red lights at the rear would be useful - my car is a silver/grey clour and so I'm concious that in misty/rainy conditions it can be tricky to see..
Unlike Humph though, I haven't quite managed to forget that the LED DRLs are there. I think its perhaps becauseI generally pass the same cars each morning, and a few are MBs with the same or similar set-up. They are bright... Conversely the new BMWs (which are everywhere down here courtesey of the RR plant at Goodwood) with the ice white 'rings' are, IMO, less jarring. The vertical Citroen LED DRLs on the other hand...
|
|
The Range Rover with the random fairy lights takes the hobnob. Ghastly, almost as bad as the DIY ones!
|
|
Mine lights come on when the auto wipers start.Good safety item all for it.
|
I generally ignore DRL's just use the lights manually anyway.
I thought sidelights were actually parking lights, ie not meant to use them for driving, I have always driven with no lights, dipped beam or main beam, never driven with just sidelights on and treat DRL's as driving with no lights.
|
|
DRL's are on at the front only. No lights on at the rear. So different to using side lights.
|
|
Even more reason to think of them as the same as no lights.
|
>> Even more reason to think of them as the same as no lights.
But... DRLs are brighter than side lights. From many angles they are as bright as, if not birghter than, the light scatter upwards from conventional incandescent dipped beam headlights.
With HID headlight beams having a sharper cutoff point and less light scatter upwards, an extra set of lights to make the car more visible is needed. DRLs meet that need, hence my original post about them being adequate on wet roads in daylight.
|
>> I thought sidelights were actually parking lights, ie not meant to use them for driving,
>> I have always driven with no lights, dipped beam or main beam, never driven with
>> just sidelights on and treat DRL's as driving with no lights.
>>
Me too. The Americans quite rightly call side lights "parking lamps", and AFAIK in some states it is illegal to drive using just those. It's a great pity that our own outdated laws can't deal with that; they allow for side lights to be used as a nod to the dim and distant past when cars had dynamos and couldn't cope with headlights being on in city traffic.
It doesn't help either when you get fuel-economy anoraks preaching that you'll save an eggcupful of petrol if you run with only sidelights on. Side lights are worse than useless in drizzle on motorways, as they're virtually invisible in a lorry's mirrors; respect to Peter S in his post above, who's aware of the particular problem this causes with silver or grey cars.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Wed 18 Apr 12 at 06:49
|
A different perspective.
I am generally a pedestrian these days, in Hong Kong people habitually disable their DRLs where they are not mandated (observing new Mercs, VW Golf's, BMWs etc). I'm pretty sure they are fitted - just not used as some people do utilise them.
Cars with DRLs are easier for a pedestrian to spot - particularly when it's raining, possibly true for cyclists too.
I was a fan of DRLs when in the UK and I still argue that they are on the whole a positive development.
|
DRLs are certainly brighter if they use separate bulbs or LEDs. Mine are definitely quite bright - and use a bulb for just the DRLs. I can turn them off in the menus but leave them on.
I've seen Audi's with LED DRLs that dim when the indicator is on - otherwise you'd not see the indicator. That's is not such good design. At least my indicators are separate and lower down in the bumper.
|
"the unlit cars"
Which is the whole reason for DRLs.
Cameras and "ticks in boxes" policing cannot enforce the existing law, which all of 'em were breaking.
Also a product of license points. Before points, if done for not having your lights on when the conditions warranted, you'd have shut up, paid up and tried not to do it again. Now you hire a fancy lawyer to argue over the Plod's meteorological qualification to assess weather conditions in order to avoid the three points...
|
>> If I'm driving a DRL-equipped vehicle I tend to leave the dipped lights off in
>> poor daylight conditions and rely on the LEDs, do others here (Humph, PeterS, anyone else?)
>> do the same?
>>
No question - dipped headlights. My car isn't young enough to have DRLs, but even if it did, there is no question in my mind that dipped headlights are the correct ones to be used in conditions of poor visibility.
|
|
One of mine's got dim-dip, remember that? Impossible to drive it with sidelights only.
|
Some US states (New York IIRC) mandate dipped headlamps whenever the windscreen wipers are in use and have frequent road side signs reminding the driver of this.
Also, other states mandate front DRLs - North Carolina does (I think), usually a dim-dip like activation of the headlights.
I still think DRLs are for the most part a positive development although the overly contrived patterns on LR products look faintly ludicrous to me. I have commented before that the Discovery 4's DRLs somehow remind me of Harry Potter's spectacles.
|
As a biker, I'm not a fan.
As more vehicles have them, the less my headlamp will stand out, thus the less visible I become.
I hate to say it, but I firmly believe 'I didn't see him' type car/motorcycle accidents will increase again.
Edit - oh and I agree many cars LR especially look stupid with them!
Last edited by: swiss tony on Thu 19 Apr 12 at 06:05
|
|
I don't know why, but the other day I counted the number of light bulbs on the front of my S-Max. Including 8 LED DRLs there is a total of 20 bulbs! I've go no excuse not to be seen!
|
>>As a biker, I'm not a fan.
>>As more vehicles have them, the less my headlamp will stand out, thus the less visible I become.
And bicycles, and horses, and pedestrians.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Thu 19 Apr 12 at 21:18
|
SP has a point about unmotorized road users; I'm not sure Tony has about motorcyclists, even though someone always mentions them when we discuss DRLs. It's the unlit that don't show up among a lot of lights, so Tony won't be less conspicuous, merely less identifiable as a motorcyclist.
The key here - as in so many aspects of driving - is spacing: if Tony is the sort of rider who behaves like any other vehicle, respecting lane markings and separation, he has no problem because his one lamp will be clearly distinguishable. Even if he gets lost in a crowd of moving lights, he has no problem because the lights are still obviously recognizable as vehicles and nobody's going to pull out in front of them.
The only kind of motorcyclist I see having a problem in a more light-rich environment is the one who treats fast-moving motorway traffic as a slalom course and the dotted line between lanes as his own private corridor. And I'm sure Tony isn't one if those.
|
|
As a practitioner I have concerns about the proliferation of lit up vehicles on the road - there was some military research done some years ago that showed that in the daylight that a very lit up military vehicle was in fact in near perfect camouflage. I experienced some of the issues first hand this week, using my mirrors to keep track of my wife on her bike, especially in heavy traffic on m/ways and roads has become very difficult...once upon a time once you "recognized" the configuration of lights on a biking partner's machine a a quick glance was enough to relocate them quickly in mirrors, you now have to search amongst the LEDs and some half baked conventional systems, to trace your buddy -we got separated in heavy traffic yesterday on the way to the ferry. I reckon it wouldn't have happened pre- world and his dog DRLs. I have them disabled on the X1 - If you don't see that great big ugly brute in Alpine White coming at you.....
Last edited by: R.P. on Fri 20 Apr 12 at 07:58
|
>> If you don't see that great big
>> ugly brute in Alpine White coming at you.....
>>
Self knowledge is wonderful - a big, ugly, brute are you? Dressed in white, too. Cool! :-) :-)
|
>> As a practitioner I have concerns about the proliferation of lit up vehicles on the
>> road - ............
A lot of drivers using normal headlights during daylight hours are adopting a holier-than-thou attitude, to the detriment of the safety of all road users.
|
>> A lot of drivers using normal headlights during daylight hours are adopting a holier-than-thou attitude,
>> to the detriment of the safety of all road users.
>>
Rubbish, I use my headlights in daylight on rural roads, particularly in my area where many have been involved in head on accidents with continental tourists driving on the wrong side of the road and the visually impaired overtaking into oncoming traffic. Also the A9 is notorious for head on accidents due to the frequent changes from dual to single roads and drivers loosing track of which they are on.
I will continue with my holier than though attitude, motor cycling is a choice and a bike in my drivers door will probably kill me, as will a head on with one.
|
I agree with RP and L'es, the use of headlights has reached epidemic proportions when there is no need.
I'd sooner dipped headlights than DRL's though, in dull weather specially the DRLs being undirected shine too bright.
I can forsee a point in a few years when its going to extremely unpleasant driving in poor light such is the blinding effect of all these unprismed lights flichering away when all vehicles have them....much as when the fad for putting rear fogs on the moment a spot of rain fell when they first came out.
As with the move to urban use of headlights some years ago when we'd usually drive round on sidelights only under good street lights, pedstrians, cyclists, animals, street furniture and other general unlit road hazards will become ever harder to see and fade into the background due to the onslaught of undirected bright light.
|
|
The idiot that decided to name parking lights as sidelights in the UK should be hung drawn and quartered, (not necessarily in that order).
|
Really? I'd like to see some evidence for that, l'Es.
Few cars these days come in naturally conspicuous colours. Shades of grey disappear in mist or spray, while dark colours get lost in shadows. I agree that there's no need for a car to be illuminated all the time - which is why I had my Volvo's lights set back to manual operation - but there are a lot of situations on rural roads where it makes sense to use the lights to be seen. Dappled shade under trees on a sunny day is a prime example.
Even in town, I'd argue that if you're driving on roads congested by parked cars, using your lights makes it easier for other road users to distinguish your moving car from all the stationary ones. If you set the leveller to its lowest setting you can be seen without showing too much light.
It's not about being sanctimonious - using lights indiscriminately is as silly and selfish as driving everywhere at the same speed - but there are far more drivers who don't use lights where they should than drivers who do when they shouldn't.
|
there are far more drivers who don't
>> use lights where they should than drivers who do when they shouldn't.
>>
I could not agree more. Ditto with ON's comment about sidelights.
|
>> Few cars these days come in naturally conspicuous colours. Shades of grey disappear in mist
>> or spray, while dark colours get lost in shadows.
My car's a conspicuous solid red. I don't care what my car looks like except that it has to be a conspicuous colour. When I bought my first Focus I thought it looked ugly compared with previous cars I'd owned, but it mattered not one jot or one tittle because it was available in a conspicuous solid red and that's the colour I ordered. You can keep your blacks and metallic silvers. I'm not the sort of person who stands outside looking at their car and admiring its looks. My car just has to be functional.
But give me a mirror and I'll stand admiring my reflection for hours on end!
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 21 Apr 12 at 12:32
|
>> What's a tittle?
>>
tinyurl.com/d7pthzd
tinyurl.com/dxmnlbw
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 21 Apr 12 at 12:47
|
Thanks WDB... your right, I am not, and never have been a weaver on a bike.
BUT as RP infers, the more lights there are, the more one set will disappear... bit like the old saying, 'can't see the wood (forest) for the tree's'
The real issue I have, is the fact that peoples brains notice, and react more quickly, something out of the ordinary.
Vis-Ã -vis the more that lights become commonplace, the less peoples brains will notice them.
There is also the fact that a single light does not give the impression of speed that 2 lamps does.
As a car comes closer, the lights get closer thus giving a clue to the speed, and single lamp - especially with a backdrop of other sets of lamps - can appear to be stationary.
What I have started to do, after reading about it on a bike forum, is moving from side to side (weaving within my lane).
This apparently makes the bike more noticeable, the theory being based on some animal (insect?) that attacks its prey by heading at speed directly towards the preys eyes... the prey doesn't notice the attacker is getting closer until too late.
I'll try and find the link later......
|
|
On the way to "work" this morning I saw a cyclist - immediately visible against the street scene clutter was a cyclist....why ? Bright clothing ? No he was in drab grey, a simple LED head-torch set to flash - brilliant !
|
>>a simple LED head-torch set to flash - brilliant !
I'd say dangerous. As a cyclist I'm turning my head all the time, far better to have a light fixed to the machine where it can be pointed accurately.
|
|
Ah but no - research has shown that an oscillating or flashing light will catch the eye easier than a fixed one, one trick I was taught as a rider was to deliberately "rock" the bike left and right as this shifts the headlamp from its vertical axis - to make it more visible. The light on both bikes here are hardwired into dipped beam, the BMW's can be programmed out by a software switch - but I'm happy with it as it is.
|
>>Ah but no - research has shown that an oscillating or flashing light will catch the eye easier than a fixed one
I've no problem with that, in fact my push-bike has fixed, steady lights front and rear as well as flashing LEDs. What I'm saying is that putting a light on the helmet could mean it's not visible for a lot of the time due to the rider turning their head. LEDs also seem to have a narrow beam pattern, exacerbating the problem.
Am I starting to seem as argumentative as a train-spotter? ;>)
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Fri 20 Apr 12 at 23:03
|
...putting a light on the helmet could mean it's not visible for a lot of the time due to the rider turning their head.
Agreed, it wouldn't do as the only light but if it was in addition to lights on the bike itself it would certainly help, not least by being higher up. Better still, rather than a single torch, a ring of LEDs right round the helmet, so visible from any angle. You could put a plastic reindeer on top to complete the effect.
The trouble with any measure to increase conspicuity is that it's not the eyes we're trying to catch but the brain, and the brain is very good at filtering out what it considers boring or irrelevant - that's how we can listen to one voice in a room full of people talking. So we notice the unusual, like a yellow hi-vis vest by an unlit road. That one vest is more conspicuous because it's unusual, but if we all wore them all the time we'd soon stop noticing them at all.
That may seem to contradict what I said in reply to Tony earlier, and perhaps it does. Tony's 'Z-motion' link is well worth reading, though - and I think it tells us that 'small' road users like cyclists and motorbikes have more to worry about than lighting alone. The most alarming incident I can recall was late at night on the A34 in Berkshire. No lighting and no moon either, so very dark. I was coming up behind a truck and planning my overtake, and all I had in the mirror were two points of light, very close together. No problem, thinks I, that's a car half a mile behind me; I'll pass the truck and be back on the left before it's anywhere near.
Wrong - I was looking at the twin lights of a large motorcycle, and only as I moved out did I realize it was much too close for comfort. I'm not sure I'd have been able to judge its distance any better from one light, but a single light would have made me think 'motorbike' and look again, whereas the two made me assume I knew what it was.
|
So we notice the unusual, like a yellow hi-vis vest by an unlit road. That one vest is more conspicuous because it's unusual, but if we all wore them all the time we'd soon stop noticing them at all.
That may seem to contradict what I said in reply to Tony earlier, and perhaps it does. Tony's 'Z-motion' link is well worth reading, though - and I think it tells us that 'small' road users like cyclists and motorbikes have more to worry about than lighting alone. The most alarming incident I can recall was late at night on the A34 in Berkshire. No lighting and no moon either, so very dark. I was
>> coming up behind a truck and planning my overtake, and all I had in the mirror were two points of light, very close together. No problem, thinks I, that's a car half a mile behind me; I'll pass the truck and be back on the left before it's anywhere near.
Wrong - I was looking at the twin lights of a large motorcycle, and only as I moved out did I realize it was much too close for comfort. I'm not sure I'd have been able to judge its distance any better from one light, but a single light would have made me think 'motorbike' and look again, whereas the
two made me assume I knew what it was.
Perversely, although it does contradict my post, I think you now see my point....
.... Also, you have proven the point regarding points of light, that I raised in my post of Fri 20 Apr 12 19:25!
May I just say, that I dont think you would have been able to judge its distance better if it only had one headlamp, other than by the lights brightness.
And there by hangs another issue - the brighter a light, the further it can be seen from, thus an old bike (car) with 45w main beam, will appear to be further away than one with 55w Halogen - and then there's Xenons..............
|
|
Not entirely sure why my GS has symmetrically light units, distinctive it is from the front and the current layout is an evolution of the design fro the 1150GS - the resultant "look" is an off centre oval view (likened in GS circles to "the Patrick Moore look") The Kwaker we have has a two narrow faired headlamps. Dip beam means only one is illuminated again giving an off centre look in normal mode - distinctive to catch the eye. As mentioned before in training I was advised to "wobble" or weave a bike in traffic to make the lights "move" to make the machine visible to other road users....
|
My VFR has 2 dip, and main beam bulbs, basically as separate lamps, separated by a moulding 1cm wide.
www.sdradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Honda-VFR-750.jpg
In other countries the same model had one lamp......
|
|
My J plate CBR1000 was the same, as well as multiple redundancy rear light systems (3 or 4 bulbs) the 05 VFR had a similar set up up front as well...I am toying with installing an LED strip on the GS, there is a conversion kit....
|
>> My J plate CBR1000 was the same, as well as multiple redundancy rear light systems (3 or 4 bulbs) the 05 VFR had a similar set up up front as well...I am toying with installing an LED strip on the GS, there is a conversion kit....
>>
Funny you should say that.... I'm looking at this at the moment.... tinyurl.com/ctkprlk
|
You reminded me of my long departed CBR...
www.flickr.com/photos/67389469@N02/7098573231/in/photostream
Very quick bike despite the weight, beautifully engineered, even the footpegs were properly engineered in lovely alloy and rubber...
|
>> I'll try and find the link later......
>>
Right... not the link I originally read, but this explains the idea loads better than I could.....
scootsafely.com/?p=145
Still can't find the link about the attacking insect....
|
Might have to change me mind.
Travelling up the A1 last week, around Colsterworth at this point, pouring with rain, daylight but as black as your hat, really heavy spray and i'm kicking up me own following spray cloud.
I reckon possibly 10 or 20% of cars had not a single light on, one particular clown cruising at, i reckon 85 or so had a tanker pull out to overtake in front of him, the reason i pulled out in front of his dark grey Astra 3 door was that i didn't see him till his bonnet dipped sharply as he appeared through the rain and spray...he had not a single light showing.
He resumed his high speed cruise with still not a light showing as he went off into the gloom, i wonder if has the slightest idea why he seems invisible to other drivers.
Yes make DRLs standard, far too many don't have a clue.
|
I've have driven in the odd bit of rain this week, and yes how often do you look in your mirror and just about see a silver grey something against grey spray and grey cloud.
There is an argument that you would see them better if one mechanism or other, DRL's or auto lights, meant you would see them better. But equally, on some vaguely Darwinian level, those mechanisms possibly promote the survival of the unthinking ?
|
Driven in some shocking levels of rain and spray today - visibility was appalling, the number of those driving without lights was far too high.
Like it or lump it, I used my rear high intensity lamps.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 29 Apr 12 at 18:58
|
|
I must admit, in extreme rain and spray I use headlights and front and rear fog lights. I also know when to switch them off, the rear fog is usually the first to go off.
|
|
I had to "prompt" the auto lights to come on today in similar conditions to Zero's. Goes to show (I changed the lights from DRLs the other week thinking summer was here - may switch them back tomorrow)
|
>
>> Like it or lump it, I used my rear high intensity lamps.
>>
I wouldn't like it if I was behind you in a lorry. They reflect off the surface water and dazzle you if you're sitting higher up than a car. I therefore tend to default towards lighting up my Kelsa bar to signal my disapproval.
My personal gripe is the drivers who think that if you switch your rear fog lights on in heavy rain it's automatically safe to drive at the same speed as you would on a fine day. Rear fog lights should be linked to a speed limiter, that way the numpties might just remember to turn the damn things off when they're not needed; which is 99.99% of the time.
|
>> >
>> >> Like it or lump it, I used my rear high intensity lamps.
>> >>
>>
>> I wouldn't like it if I was behind you in a lorry.
Tough.
>> They reflect off
>> the surface water and dazzle you if you're sitting higher up than a car.
Not during the day they don't.
>> therefore tend to default towards lighting up my Kelsa bar to signal my disapproval.
A: You wouldn't be behind me
B: I have a dipping rear mirror.
>>
>> My personal gripe is the drivers who think that if you switch your rear fog
>> lights on in heavy rain it's automatically safe to drive at the same speed as
>> you would on a fine day. Rear fog lights should be linked to a speed
>> limiter, that way the numpties might just remember to turn the damn things off when
>> they're not needed; which is 99.99% of the time.
It was needed today in very heavy spray. You known what fog is? Its thinner water than spray.
If I can't see the lights of the car in front at reasonable distances in spray, no-one can see mine either, so I put my rear fogs on so they can.
SO lump it.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 29 Apr 12 at 19:50
|
>> If I can't see the lights of the car in front at reasonable distances in
>> spray, no-one can see mine either, so I put my rear fogs on so they
>> can.
>>
Thats the criteria I use for rear fog light use.
|
>>
>> SO lump it.
>>
>>
>> They do say ignorance is bliss which must make you a contented soul Zeddo. ;-)
How on earth did you manage before fog lights were invented?
Incidentally, in the same way that daytime lights tend to hide motorcycles (found this in Canada where they've been compulsory for some years) a plethora of rear fog lights do tend to mask sudden braking which in turn makes pile-ups more likely. I could've made the case for them back in the day before "normal" rear lights were as bright as today's cars, but IMHO they're unnecessary today. I still maintain that they give a false feeling of safety which encourages drivers (all, not just car) to travel faster than is realistically safe in severely adverse weather.
Fog lamps were actually more effective in their early days when they tended to be tacked on below the bumper rather than a part of the complete cluster. They really should be single side only as well, although given the number of drivers with only one brake light that makes it rather pointless.
|
I'm not in the rear fog category, find meself aware, not actually searching for, sudden brighter red lights ahead, a glow of brake light if you like for early warning.
Rear fogs destroy the heads up that a the 21w glow gives.
As an aside a few weeks ago i actually put my rear fogs on for a few minutes in thick daytime fog, fairly certain thats the first time i've used them in probably 20 years.
Still prefer dipped headlights to DRLs by the way, directed constant light instead of the flicker scatter of fairy lights.
|
>> >>
>> >> They do say ignorance is bliss which must make you a contented soul Zeddo.
>> ;-)
Ignorantly being seen, yes that'll do in my book thank you.
>> How on earth did you manage before fog lights were invented?
Have you checked how one they have been around? compulsory even?
>>
>> Incidentally, in the same way that daytime lights tend to hide motorcycles (found this in
>> Canada where they've been compulsory for some years) a plethora of rear fog lights do
>> tend to mask sudden braking which in turn makes pile-ups more likely.
Cobblers. Not sen the headline yet "Rear fog lights in bad visibility cause motorway pile up"
I could've made
>> the case for them back in the day before "normal" rear lights were as bright
>> as today's cars, but IMHO they're unnecessary today. I still maintain that they give a
>> false feeling of safety which encourages drivers (all, not just car) to travel faster than
>> is realistically safe in severely adverse weather.
Not true, in my experience people stay further off my bumper when they can see them. Thats fine by me.
>>
>> Fog lamps were actually more effective in their early days when they tended to be
>> tacked on below the bumper rather than a part of the complete cluster.
Mine are. They are low in the rear valance, inboard from the rear lights that are high in the c posts.
They really
>> should be single side only as well,
Mine is single, off side, well away from the high level LED stop light.
So as my car meets most of your criteria I guess I have your approval to use them, cheers.
All the above is of course, int he event of suitable bad visibility. It was today by my criteria.
I started this post off with the "lump it" phrase because I knew there would be people pathologically apposed to their use even when justified. I was right.
|
>> I started this post off with the "lump it" phrase because I knew there would
>> be people pathologically apposed to their use even when justified. I was right.
>>
I'm inclined to suspect that it's actually more because you belong to that particular category of driver who doesn't give a pink fluffy dice anyway and will do what he wants to regardless of whether or not it adversely affects anyone else.
Actually I'm not intrinsically opposed to their use; I'm opposed to their incorrect use, their unnecessary use and the indifference of some drivers to their effect on following vehicles if misused. If in your judgement you thought they were necessary today then well and good; the tone of your original post suggested that it was something you did in wet conditions as a matter of course. If the spray really was that bad then it was caused by traffic going fast enough to generate it, which is more than likely too fast for the conditions.
I'm pretty sure they've been around since the late 70's/early 1980's as a factory fitment. Certainly Mark 5 Cortinas had them built into the rear clusters, and my old Volvo 340 did too.
|
|
Something tells me that they became popular before they became a requirement I had a little book at one time that gave me all this, but binned it with the rest of the detritus of my former career. April 1980 ($10.00 bet anyone ?).
|
>> Something tells me that they became popular before they became a requirement I had a
>> little book at one time that gave me all this, but binned it with the
>> rest of the detritus of my former career. April 1980 ($10.00 bet anyone ?).
>>
Give the man a coconut! From the MOT tester's manual;
"The inspection of rear fog lamps is confined to the one rear fog lamp which is required to be fitted to the centre or offside of vehicles first used on or after 1 April 1980."
Which effectively means that the nearside one is superfluous; one would suspect that some manufacturers fit them both sides both to save on costs (only one set of lenses needed for left and right hand drive) and to boost drivers' bragging rights.
|
>I'm pretty sure they've been around since the late 70's/early 1980's as a factory fitment.
In 1970 I had a Cortina 1600E that came as standard with factory fitted little WIPEC reversing lights mounted under the bumper.
I was suitably impressed with the benefit of rear fog lights ( so they must have been around then) that I bought another pair of the reversing lights to fit under the back bumper with WIPAC being able to supply glass red lenses to fit ,off the shelf so somewhere WIPAC must have been supplying them.
>>Certainly Mark 5 Cortinas had them built into the rear clusters,
Indeed but an unusual arrangement ( same as Rolls Royce) Brake lamps were adjacent to the number plate.
Selecting rear fogs activated 21W filaments in the normal cluster.
My MKII Mondeo has twin fogs in the normal clusters.
I have always had twin rear fog lights.
( Typo corrections)
Last edited by: henry k on Sun 29 Apr 12 at 23:56
|
>> I'm inclined to suspect that it's actually more because you belong to that particular category
>> of driver who doesn't give a pink fluffy dice anyway
You're wrong. Couldn't be further form the truth.
and will do what he
>> wants to regardless of whether or not it adversely affects anyone else.
The point is, it doesn't. They are there to be used, government mandates they are fitted, and I use them appropriately. In my opinion.
|
Funny things, rear fog lights (and front ones for that matter, not that I have them). They're seldom needed (not the same as being used, I realise...), but are a legal requirement so their use is of course justifiable in the right circumstances.
Winter tyres on the other are not a legal requirement. However they do outperform summer tyres at less than 7 degrees C. The average maximum temperature in England is lower than this two months of the year; the average minimum is lower for 8 months of the year - a slightly depressing fact I know. A car on winter tyres will stop on ice from 20mph 3 car lengths quicker than one on summer tyres.
Using winter tyres is seen as faintly ridiculous, using fog lights a sensible defensive action... ;-)
Just an observation :-)
|
It's not the outside temperature that effects tyre performance, it's the temperature of the rubber. A summer tyre will be above 7 degrees after a few miles driving negating any difference although a winter tyres tread pattern will cope with snow and slush better.
Don't think winter tyres are seen as ridiculous, just economically unjustified in England's relatively snow free and mild Atlantic climate. - Rain tyres might be a different proposition :-)
|
>> If the spray really was that bad then it
>> was caused by traffic going fast enough to generate it, which is more than likely
>> too fast for the conditions.
>>
Exactly, so they will be going faster than me, so I will have my fog light on so that I don't get rear ended by a high speed idiot with no lights on.
|
|
More often a LGV. If a rear fog upsets those driving in the conditions Zed describes, then they are too close.
|
|
The X1 has twin Fogs built in. Not sure about the Volvo it isn't here at the moment !
|
>> More often a LGV. If a rear fog upsets those driving in the conditions Zed
>> describes, then they are too close.
>>
A predictable response, I suppose. I'm happy to concede that in extreme conditions as Zero described, then there may well be a case for their use. I just wish that drivers would be as ready to extinguish them when they're not needed as they are to switch them on when they think they are. Some manufacturers use a rear fog switch which defaults to off once the ignition is switched off, necessitating the lights to be deliberately turned on again if required. That, if universally applied, would be a huge step in the right direction for unnecesary use of same.
|
|
I think every car I've had, going back to 1989, has had either a microswitch for the rear fog(s) or a switch that naturally switched them off in the process of turning off the headlights. Either way, they were always off when I started the car, and only partly because I never switched them on myself.
|
Day Running Lights - a positive side - Runfer D'Hills
