Corolla HB/TS Brake hold control

[AndrueC]

5 hours ago, PhilMoreau said:

Not having any brake lights on is just the same as putting the car into park, or are you saying put the car into park and keep your foot on the brake pedal?

Interestingly the IAM (and possibly ROSPA) do indeed recommend that if you are the last vehicle in the queue and I used to follow that advice.

[AndrueC]

4 hours ago, Rambler56 said:

None of this is new.  When Volvo first introduced daytime front driving lights in the 70s people would flash them all the time to let them know they had left their lights on (maybe a throwback to the old dynamo charging issues cars had before alternators i.e. leave nothing on if you don't want to flatten your battery).  When the first high level brake lights were introduced there was outrage from drivers who complained about being blinded by the intensity of the lights at eye level.  Fast forward to most cars now having daytime driving lights - my pet hate is people not understanding their rear lights are not on and they can appear 'invisible' when you are approaching from behind.  Maybe it's time to adopt some European driving rules i.e. make it mandatory to switch on 'dipped' lights when light is poor or when it starts raining.  Oh, and make it compulsory on driving tests to demonstrate where all of the switches for fog lights and rear wipers are and how they work😉

One thing that surprises me about the Corolla is that it doesn't automatically put the headlights on when the wipers are running. My Jazz used to do that - if they swept the screen above a certain frequency the headlights came on.

[Cyker]

That would annoy me so much if it did that!! The automatic light system already makes poor choices my liking, based on light levels but easily fooled by shade from trees, walls, overpasses etc., and turning on the dipped beams, but turning on the beams just because of rain?? Absolutely do not want! Unless it's night time, or some kind of mega thunder storm, sidelights should be all you need in the rain!!

 

[preperationlaunch]

4 minutes ago, Cyker said:

That would annoy me so much if it did that!! The automatic light system already makes poor choices my liking, based on light levels but easily fooled by shade from trees, walls, overpasses etc., and turning on the dipped beams, but turning on the beams just because of rain?? Absolutely do not want! Unless it's night time, or some kind of mega thunder storm, sidelights should be all you need in the rain!!

 

Ah, but you have to build for the average driver.

Think how many will be out in storms like Arwen and Barra, where it's raining sideways with atrocious visibility, and because they can see the glow from their DRLs, they're happily content in the illumination offered.

Plus, per the highway code, if visibility is bad enough to need lighting, it states you must use your dipped beams. "You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves"

It also says "you should also use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen".

So building in that intermittent sidelight step would be quite difficult, both from a homologation perspective, and also, a hystersis perspective. How do you tell the difference between slightly dark, tunnels, very dark, shadows, streetlights etc.

[AndrueC]

6 minutes ago, preperationlaunch said:

Ah, but you have to build for the average driver.

Think how many will be out in storms like Arwen and Barra, where it's raining sideways with atrocious visibility, and because they can see the glow from their DRLs, they're happily content in the illumination offered.

Plus, per the highway code, if visibility is bad enough to need lighting, it states you must use your dipped beams. "You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves"

It also says "you should also use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen".

So building in that intermittent sidelight step would be quite difficult, both from a homologation perspective, and also, a hystersis perspective. How do you tell the difference between slightly dark, tunnels, very dark, shadows, streetlights etc.

The Jazz didn't care about ambient lighting in this respect. There were expressions of surprise (and some annoyance) from users on a forum I used to visit because if it rained heavily enough on an otherwise bright day the lights would go on. They also came on on cold bright mornings and we could never really work that one out. Best explanation was that it was an attempt to make the car visible against low winter sun but Honda never offered an explanation nor admitted to the functionality.

But overall the headlight and wiper automation on the Jazz was pretty good. The Mk3 wasn't quite as good with wipers as the previous ones - like the Corolla you had to keep adjusting the speed(*) - but it was better.

(*)The previous models appeared to be able to adjust the speed based on intensity so I found I could leave the speed at one value and it would suffice for most of the rain I encountered. It seems silly that with the Mk3 Jazz and Corolla that I have to keep adjusting the speed of what is supposed to be an automatic feature.

[Cyker]

14 minutes ago, preperationlaunch said:

Ah, but you have to build for the average driver.

Think how many will be out in storms like Arwen and Barra, where it's raining sideways with atrocious visibility, and because they can see the glow from their DRLs, they're happily content in the illumination offered.

Plus, per the highway code, if visibility is bad enough to need lighting, it states you must use your dipped beams. "You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves"

It also says "you should also use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen".

So building in that intermittent sidelight step would be quite difficult, both from a homologation perspective, and also, a hystersis perspective. How do you tell the difference between slightly dark, tunnels, very dark, shadows, streetlights etc.

Exactly, which is why I'm really annoyed there is no OFF in my Mk4, only the Auto, which just makes poor choices.

This is why I really dislike automatic systems you can't turn off, as they never make the right decisions in all situations.

 

And yeah, that's always why I have always been very anti-DRL. I've always said it would encourage that sort of behaviour, which was denied, but as you say it often does!

 

Just to be pedantic, the highway code does NOT say you should use dipped beams if visibility goes down, only if visibility is "seriously reduced", e.g. night time. At early dusk or when it is raining, you can *clearly* see other vehicles unaided, and in those sort of specific situations, sidelights is what should be in use - They just assist other people to see you. In those situations your head lights will NOT improve your ability to see other cars, just dazzle other road users unnecessarily. I'm absolutely sure you wouldn't even be able to tell if your dipped beans were on or not just from looking out the windscreen in the sort of light levels I'm talking about, so logically they are not needed over the sidelights.

To put it in a less wordy way - Sidelights help OTHER people see YOU; Dipped and Main beams help YOU see the ROAD.

 

[preperationlaunch]

Just now, Cyker said:

Just to be pedantic, the highway code does NOT say you should use dipped beams if visibility goes down, only if visibility is "seriously reduced", e.g. night time. At early dusk or when it is raining, you can *clearly* see other vehicles unaided, and in those sort of specific situations, sidelights is what should be in use - They just assist other people to see you. In those situations your head lights will NOT improve your ability to see other cars, just dazzle other road users unnecessarily. I'm absolutely sure you wouldn't even be able to tell if your dipped means were on or not just from looking out the windscreen in the sort of light levels I'm talking about, so logically they are not needed over the sidelights.

To put it in a less wordy way - Sidelights help OTHER people see YOU; Dipped and Main beams help YOU see the ROAD.

 

Rule 115 in the highway code says here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158

Quote

You should also

• use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen

Note that it specifically says dipped or dim-dip in dull daytime weather. Of course, dim-dip was introduced as a middleground between sidelights and headlight beams back in the day, but it never caught on long term. And I believe certain Vauxhalls would catch fire from the location of the dim-dip resistor which'd like to burn out. Plus, running the bulbs like that wasn't good for them.

There is plenty of inclement weather where a 5w sidelight bulb will go no way to ensuring your visibility to other road users, most often in thick fog I've seen people treating them as enough. 

Anecdotally, I've found when owning darker cars that they'd often be invisible without headlights with a low winter sun. It was almost a night and day difference, pardon the pun, when I would drive that one around with the lights on. People were far less inclined to unexpectedly pull out.

[Stopeter44]

2 minutes ago, preperationlaunch said:

Anecdotally, I've found when owning darker cars that they'd often be invisible without headlights with a low winter sun. It was almost a night and day difference, pardon the pun, when I would drive that one around with the lights on. People were far less inclined to unexpectedly pull out.

Overall, that's my thinking about all this, too. I used to live near la Defense, and there's major expressway that goes under it, about 5 km of not very well lit tunnel. Let's not talk about the ones with no lights, but the number of cars with inadequate lighting was frightening, too many people think if I can see, then I can be seen! Just isn't so.

[Cyker]

So it's a judgement call - This is why we are trained to drive cars and not just thrown into them.

I would argue that, except in fringe circumstances, side-lights would be sufficient and optimal in those lowish-light and daytime-rain conditions.

You have to remember that mass dipped beams makes things without lights less visible - One of the biggest reasons I hate DRLs is it has made motorcycles and bicycles impossible to spot in your mirrors from a distance, and driving around with beams on in the daytime just makes this worse.

Before DRLs were common, I could spot them from much further back, as they would usually have their lights on (bikers) or wearing highvis (cyclists) and would catch my eye in my mirrors and give me plenty of time to adjust my position accordingly. Now, often the first warning I get is if the BSM light suddenly comes on as they are lost in a sea of DRLs in the day-time unless I happen to be looking in my mirrors at the right moment and it's a bright day.

And pedestrians are just screwed - It doesn't help that many of them don't obey the highway code or even the green cross code (!), and seem to love wearing clothing that camouflages them and crossing while engrossed with their mobile phone. I'm almost developing psychic powers due to the high number of suicidal pedestrians I have to deal with in London!

 

[Stopeter44]

43 minutes ago, Cyker said:

So it's a judgement call - This is why we are trained to drive cars and not just thrown into them.

<snip>

And pedestrians are just screwed - It doesn't help that many of them don't obey the highway code or even the green cross code (!), and seem to love wearing clothing that camouflages them and crossing while engrossed with their mobile phone. I'm almost developing psychic powers due to the high number of suicidal pedestrians I have to deal with in London!

 

True about some pedestrians, and true about some drivers engrossed, with their mobile phones !

[AndrueC]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

You have to remember that mass dipped beams makes things without lights less visible - One of the biggest reasons I hate DRLs is it has made motorcycles and bicycles impossible to spot in your mirrors from a distance, and driving around with beams on in the daytime just makes this worse.

This is the argument I used to use however research over the years doesn't back it up. Although to be fair research in favour of DRLs is ambiguous. Least-wise DRLs do not cause more collisions and most research suggests they reduce them

And whilst it might make 'vehicle hits pedestrian' more likely it probably also reduces 'pedestrian walks out in front of vehicle' incidents. Swings and roundabouts.

Some research indicate that while unlit road users suffer that is more than offset by reductions in vehicle incidents. So whilst it might be true that more pedestrians are injured or killed even more drivers are protected. So the overall loss of life/injury rate is improved.

Of course it can be argued that this is unfair to unlit road users but that's a difficult argument to make. Is it better to have 15 drivers killed and 5 pedestrians or 10 drivers and 6 pedestrians? The latter saves 4 lives 😉

https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/trs1009.pdf

[Cyker]

I must admit I don't wholey trust such statistics as they utterly do not match my day-to-day experiences...

I think where people pay attention and want to live it would decrease things, but there are places here where people will literally just walk in front of your car and expect you to stop for them, while staring right at you as if to say "Yeah? What?". I have a horrible feeling it will just get worse when they realise emergency autonomous braking is a thing...

 

[TonyHSD]

2 minutes ago, Cyker said:

I must admit I don't wholey trust such statistics as they utterly do not match my day-to-day experiences...

I think where people pay attention and want to live it would decrease things, but there are places here where people will literally just walk in front of your car and expect you to stop for them, while staring right at you as if to say "Yeah? What?". I have a horrible feeling it will just get worse when they realise emergency autonomous braking is a thing...

 

No technology can beat people’s stupidity! 
 

[Cyker]

Yeah... what's that murphy's law? Don't try to make a fool-proof system as nature will just make a better fool or something like that