Safe Speed Forums

From the Daily Wail....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

Hmmm.

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Slow news day?

The debate about DRLs has been rumbling on for some years now.

Very bad news for cyclist, pedestrians and motorcyclists and of very dubious benefit to people in cars.

But also an indicator about how seriously "they" regard "global climate change" being due to co2 emissions.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Why would a larger engine use significantly more fuel than a small engine to power the same headlight load?

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I think this has been debated on here before and it was (allegedly) something to do with greater inefficiency of the larger engined cars but as far far as I'm concerned, it's complete speculation until we see what sort of DRLs are fitted. I guess most of them will be LEDs - which consume much less power than incandescent bulbs. I think it's probably just one of those dumbed-down "sound bites" that everything in the media seems to have to be condensed into these days! A bit like "driving at 80 uses "x%" more fuel than at 70" or "using the aircon uses "y%" more fuel" or Travelling at 80 only saves you "z" minutes"...and so on. I heard someone on the radio today saying he wanted to get "T"shirts printed with "Actually, it's not that simple" on them and wear them next to politicians being interviewed!

I'm very strongly opposed to the introduction of this measure, but I do find the AA figures hard to believe. Increased energy consumption will be an adverse factor - and there are various others - but I can't see it being a major one.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I know I read something about this on this forum awhile ago, which amounted to ...

Though smaller engines are usually more efficient, they will have to raise their idle RpMs a bit to accomodate the increased load.
Larger engines, though usually more inefficient, will stay closer to their original idle RpM when additional loads are requested.
Direct injection, selective cylinder deactivation, variable valve management, and various other improvements to the efficiency of the engine's operation will be leveraged by an ever greater number of engine-driven demands, even as they individually become more efficient.

Even if LEDs minimize the energy penalty ...
This was also news in 2006

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Having just been through France, Switzeland and Italy on a motorbike trip (a grp of about 15 in convoy) acting a lead and navigator (a job I was originally not meant to do). I will say this.

In France and Switzerland no DRL's the group generally was very easy to pick out in mirrors. This allowed me to control the progress and size of the group on the road.

However in Italy most cars seem to have headlights on. This made it very difficult to spot stragglers.

From my experience, thus far, DRL's are not such a good Idea. They confuse the view in mirrors and obscure smaller vehicles.

While DRL's may make sense in certain areas of europe like Scandanavia with its long twilight times during winter periods. It does not make sense all over.

I think lights, somewhere in brightness between head and side lights, would be useful for dull days where everything tends towards shades of grey with low contrast.

I find it easier to judge the speed and location of cars that have side lights within the main headlamp than ones with intense but small lights.

Turning them on should be at the discretion of the driver though not mandatory, lights for cars and other large vehicles are really not necessary in good daylight conditions.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Congratulations! You've just invented "dim-dip"! This was a UK legal requirement in the 80s and early 90s (my car still has it in fact) whereby the sidelights could only be used with the ignition off. If the ignition was on, and sidelights were switched on, the headlights would also come on automatically at (about) half brightness. Obviously when headlights were "on", they worked as normal.

There is a certain irony in the fact that we were forced to abandon them when EC Directives introduced "European" type approval - along with France's yellow headlights.

Still, now that it's a European idea rather than a UK one, it's obviously a LOVELY idea and EVERYONE should have them!

Another superb "Money Making" scam for the govnmt. to introduce for drivers who choose to ignore the proposed regulations.

Will they be issuing "On The Spot" £60.00 penalties for "Non Compliance" I wonder?

More work for the scamera operators to cover !

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

Interesting to know, never heard of that as neither my 1986 Cavalier or 1989 Celica did it as far as I know.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Ran from April 1987 to sometime in 1988.

I think the 1988 date is wrong. I'm fairly certain we were able to hang on to them for longer than that - mid '90s I think. 1996 rings a bell, in fact but I don't have the papers to hand. It's certainly true that once we agreed to "EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval", which came into being in about 1996, we were not able to refuse any vehicle that held such an approval and dim-dip was not a requirement for EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval so we were obliged to register cars that didn't have it fitted - but that didn't mean we COULDN'T register cars that DID have it fitted.

If you read the link, they were only compulsory between those dates. Obviously car manufacturers weren't going to immediately remove them from every model so you will find some cars produced after 1988 still fitted with them.

I don't think they were ever completely outlawed.

to go back to the topic -this subject raised it's head a few years ago .Someone (think it was a biker ) posted up two photos which (to my mind on a normal day ) showed the lunacy of such an idea .Both showed a bike in front of a car .In one only the bike had lights on - stood out beautifully .In the other - both had lights on ,and the bike tended to merge into the front of the car ,possibly needing more than one look to see the bike .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

No, I'm still of the opinion that the article is wrong, but would need to rummage to find the correct dates. It is, of course true that manufacturers might have continued to fit them to use up existing stock and avoid changing the wiring loom after they became "optional" as it were.

They are (effectively) completely outlawed on mass produced cars now because you wouldn't be able to get an ECE Reg 48 lighting installation approval with a setup like that today.