Ancient wrote:I use (flashing) lights when cycling in daylight - didn't used to and it should not be necessary. Would not, if all drivers took personal responsibility for the danger their ton or so of moving metal brings to the roads. Unfortunately, my (reluctant) decision to use DRLs on the push-bike puts other road users (such as the mother from a mile up the road, who rides with a tagalong taking her 4 - 5 y/o son to school, or the girl who cycles to keep fit for horse trials, or the sheep or the escaped horses, or the escaped child from the familly camping in that field...) at a relative disadvantage, they not frequenting AD and cycling forums are not aware of the growing pressure towards DRLs - and would probably be as shocked by the price of decent lights as my wife is.
Ancient wrote: That there is any suggestion on a AD forum, that making yourself more visible helps ensure the road is clear ahead of you, is frankly shocking.
Astraist wrote:But than again, research has shown that daytime use of tail lights reduces (however slightly) the conspiciousness of the brake lights as they go on.
It's also part of how the dedicated DRLs produce their economical results: using only a LED on the front rather than lighting up the enite car.
I am still keen on using dipped beams as daytime lights in a car without dedicated DRLs.
TheInsanity1234 wrote:Astraist wrote:But than again, research has shown that daytime use of tail lights reduces (however slightly) the conspiciousness of the brake lights as they go on.
It's also part of how the dedicated DRLs produce their economical results: using only a LED on the front rather than lighting up the enite car.
I am still keen on using dipped beams as daytime lights in a car without dedicated DRLs.
So, surely, would it not make sense to put the brakelights where it is obvious when they've come on? For instance, the Yeti has the traditional Skoda C-rear lights, but the brake lights are in a separate bit above the C-light which means it's quite obvious when they've come on?
akirk wrote:not sure that logic and car design always go hand in hand!
akirk wrote:car designers spend their time fighting regulations, not looking for ways to make things easier
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:akirk wrote:not sure that logic and car design always go hand in hand!
Witness the stupid VW rear indicators with the orange bit inside a red circle - virtually invisible in daylight.akirk wrote:car designers spend their time fighting regulations, not looking for ways to make things easier
No, they spend their time designing things they think the public will find attractive, then re-designing it to please the accountants ...
TripleS wrote:Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:akirk wrote:not sure that logic and car design always go hand in hand!
Witness the stupid VW rear indicators with the orange bit inside a red circle - virtually invisible in daylight.akirk wrote:car designers spend their time fighting regulations, not looking for ways to make things easier
No, they spend their time designing things they think the public will find attractive, then re-designing it to please the accountants ...
...and after a further period they modify things back to nearer how they used to be, i.e. practical and reliable.
Some of this 'progress' and 'improvement' is not all it's cracked up to be: it's actually a waste of time, effort and money.
StressedDave wrote:Depends on which language you're writing the code in. Personally, I'd go for agreeing++ then there's no issue with having to work out prefix or postfix notation (which I can never remember because I always programmed in Pascal with very strict typing and no such nasty macros as I++ and ++I. You also don't have to be able to count
Return to Advanced Driving Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests