TripleS wrote:Of course one can argue about the extent of the effect of fuel consumption and emissions, and it probably isn't great, but it is in the wrong direction, and it makes no sense to worsen things in that respect either.
PeterE wrote:TripleS wrote:Of course one can argue about the extent of the effect of fuel consumption and emissions, and it probably isn't great, but it is in the wrong direction, and it makes no sense to worsen things in that respect either.
To my mind the key objection is not that it increases fuel consumption, but that it disadvantages vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians and makes the driving task more unpleasant and annoying.
And I agree it may make motorcycle safety worse as it will eliminate the advantage to motorcyclists at present of using their dipped headlight in daytime.
TripleS wrote:As I say, I truly hope this will not go ahead, but it if does I favour a mass disregard of the law, including disabling the system on cars that have it built-in. It's another way of adding further complexity and cost to cars, manufacturing costs, maintenance costs and running costs. It's something else to go wrong and it will be a pain in the arse all round if they're stupid enough to do it.
PeterE wrote:TripleS wrote:As I say, I truly hope this will not go ahead, but it if does I favour a mass disregard of the law, including disabling the system on cars that have it built-in. It's another way of adding further complexity and cost to cars, manufacturing costs, maintenance costs and running costs. It's something else to go wrong and it will be a pain in the arse all round if they're stupid enough to do it.
The problem is that if you don't have lights on, but most other cars do, you are making yourself less visible in relative terms and thus potentially jeopardising your own safety.
In the mid-90s when cars had dim-dip lights I used these for a while for driving in well-lit urban areas at night, but eventually reached the conclusion other road users did not see me as well as they would if I had dipped headlights on.
I read the report as making the fitment of DRLs on cars compulsory, not necessarily their use, but even so I can see it leading to most drivers who do not have them choosing to drive around on dipped headlights.
TripleS wrote:In any event I hope there will be a huge backlash against this and that it will not take effect.
ScoobyChris wrote:I don't really have a problem with it and can't see any real disadvantages
PeterE wrote:Well, the key disadvantage is that it increases the relative vulnerability of motorcyclists, pedal cyclists and pedestrians. Anything without a set of glaring, dazzling lights will be ignored
ScoobyChris wrote:PeterE wrote:Well, the key disadvantage is that it increases the relative vulnerability of motorcyclists, pedal cyclists and pedestrians. Anything without a set of glaring, dazzling lights will be ignored
I'd be interested to see any proof that is the case? Presumably it's not a problem in other countries like Sweden, Netherlands, etc where daytime running lights are mandatory or there'd be a significant number of deaths involving these vulnerable road users?
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests