Yaris Cross Daylight Running Lights

[IT Troll]

The switching behaviour of the DRL seems a little odd to me. With lights set to Auto (off) the low-level DRL are on which makes sense. However, when you manually switch on the lights the DRL turn off. In foggy daylight situations you have to manually switch the lights to the first position in order to turn on the front fog lights. Seems rather odd to turn off the low-level DRL in order to turn on the low-level fog lights. I know DRL are not intended for night time use, but why not leave them on if the main headlights are off. Is there a law about the number of lights you can show?

[FROSTYBALLS]

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/daytime-running-lights/daytime-running-lights

[IT Troll]

Thanks, good info. The only requirement seems to be that they are not used a night. For foggy daylight conditions, having both DRL and front fog lights on would seem to be a legal combination.

[FROSTYBALLS]

Not all cars have front fog lights. Legally headlights should be used when foggy, and front fog lights, if fitted, may improve visibility.

[Cyker]

DRLs are designed to be bright enough to compete with The Sun (The giant flaming ball of nuclear death in the sky, not the newspaper), and would be like high-beaming everyone if they were used at night.

It's not uncommon here for people to be driving around at night with just their DRLs on and that should say it all really if they're so bright they can see without their main beams! My eyes certainly find them quite obnoxious.

I think even in a fog situation, if the fog was dense enough, they'd just blind you with reflections - I remember once in my Mk1, I ran into fog on the M1 at night that was so dense I had to turn my main beams off, just sidelights and front fogs, because the reflection from the fog from my main beams was literally blinding me, and that was with rubbish halogen-based dipped and high-beams (I tried both)! I don't even want to imagine what the eye-melting LEDs my Mk4 has would have been like!  

 

 

[Vainona70]

The problem with DRLs is the rear lights are not illuminated. The biggest risk when driving in fog is being rear ended!

[forkingabout]

15 minutes ago, Vainona70 said:

The problem with DRLs is the rear lights are not illuminated. The biggest risk when driving in fog is being rear ended!

It's an annoyance that could be easily fixed.

I know on the newer PSA / Vauxhall products the rear lights are programmed to illuminate with the DRL.

[Vainona70]

Yes, my previous Vauxhall Grandland & 3 Volvos all illuminated rear lights with DRLs.

[IT Troll]

It would be interesting to know what the output of the DRL are compared to the front fog lights. The DRL are so low-level that they could probably double as fog lamps. It is also my experience that low level lights work better than headlights is severe fog conditions. But you have to turn off the DRL and turn on the front fog lights before you can turn on the rear fog light.

[forkingabout]

1 minute ago, IT Troll said:

and turn on the front fog lights before you can turn on the rear fog light.

At least the fog lights are usually on the same combination switch these days.

IIRC some early Daewoo has separate push switches which caught some owners & mechanics out trying to fix " non working " rear fog lights.

[Cyker]

31 minutes ago, Vainona70 said:

Yes, my previous Vauxhall Grandland & 3 Volvos all illuminated rear lights with DRLs.

 

59 minutes ago, forkingabout said:

It's an annoyance that could be easily fixed.

I know on the newer PSA / Vauxhall products the rear lights are programmed to illuminate with the DRL.

 

So the rear sidelights are on all the time??

 

[forkingabout]

5 minutes ago, Cyker said:

 

 

So the rear sidelights are on all the time??

 

Yes on the newer products - rear tail lights illuminate with the front DRL

 

 

[Rhymes with Paris]

The logic of front DRLs has long eluded me.

When I first started noticing them a few years ago, I thought , why are there no bright rear lights if the intent is to be seen.

As in you can control whether you brake or not if you see a lemming in front of you.

But you cannot control the driver behind you who tailgates no matter what lights are showing, but maybe rear DRLs would remove one excuse .(ok confusing with brake lights, but the same argument could be presented with rear fogs that are on, and not on off , like brake lights)

As regards the pedestrians who walk behind a reversing car with reversing lights on , and moving, albeit slowly, towards them, and carry on oblivious.

I fail to see how they would notice the difference with front DRLs on a faster moving car , when they are crossing the road in moving traffic instead of waiting for a gap or using a crossing.

In a similar way to when mandatory headlights on all the time was introduced for motorcycles in around 2003 I think, the thinking was to be seen, the reality was a bike with headlight on can be lost among the sea of headlights, incorrectly used foglights, and front DRLs.

Maybe a department for common sense could be created among the all the quangos to restore some personal responsibility for road safety, instead of ever more lights.

 

[Max_Headroom]

1 hour ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

When I first started noticing them a few years ago, I thought , why are there no bright rear lights if the intent is to be seen.

I always assumed it's for those that never put their lights on even in very low light conditions, i am sure we have all seen them, "its not lighting up time so i am not putting my lights on" syndrome.

[Rhymes with Paris]

9 minutes ago, Max_Headroom said:

I always assumed it's for those that never put their lights on even in very low light conditions, i am sure we have all seen them, "its not lighting up time so i am not putting my lights on" syndrome.

 

 

 

Aye Max, they are just as bad as the ones who think that they are exempt from all responsibility due to being lit up like a Christmas tree in good visibility.

[Max_Headroom]

1 minute ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

Aye Max, they are just as bad as the ones who think that they are exempt from all responsibility due to being lit up like a Christmas tree in good visibility.

Fog lights on when its not foggy 

[Cyker]

3 hours ago, forkingabout said:

Yes on the newer products - rear tail lights illuminate with the front DRL

Ahh right, I didn't know that was a thing now. It makes more sense than just forward-facing DRLs at least!

 

2 hours ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

The logic of front DRLs has long eluded me.

When I first started noticing them a few years ago, I thought , why are there no bright rear lights if the intent is to be seen.

As in you can control whether you brake or not if you see a lemming in front of you.

But you cannot control the driver behind you who tailgates no matter what lights are showing, but maybe rear DRLs would remove one excuse .(ok confusing with brake lights, but the same argument could be presented with rear fogs that are on, and not on off , like brake lights)

As regards the pedestrians who walk behind a reversing car with reversing lights on , and moving, albeit slowly, towards them, and carry on oblivious.

I fail to see how they would notice the difference with front DRLs on a faster moving car , when they are crossing the road in moving traffic instead of waiting for a gap or using a crossing.

In a similar way to when mandatory headlights on all the time was introduced for motorcycles in around 2003 I think, the thinking was to be seen, the reality was a bike with headlight on can be lost among the sea of headlights, incorrectly used foglights, and front DRLs.

Maybe a department for common sense could be created among the all the quangos to restore some personal responsibility for road safety, instead of ever more lights.

 

 

2 hours ago, Max_Headroom said:

I always assumed it's for those that never put their lights on even in very low light conditions, i am sure we have all seen them, "its not lighting up time so i am not putting my lights on" syndrome.

I must admit I'm anti-DRL - I think they are one of the worst things to come to cars in the name of safety.

The problem is, while they do make cars more visible from the front they don't from the rear, and worse they also make it harder to see anything else that doesn't have DRLs.

I understood the original intention in scandinavian countries, where it's often quite gloomy so having always-on sidelights sounds like a good idea, but having brighter-than-the-sun lights that you can't control is just stupid, and I also never understood why the back wasn't illuminated, so it's good that that's starting to be a thing as it at least makes some sense.

The problem I've noticed as more cars have DRLs is it's increasingly difficult to spot approaching motorbikes and bicycles out the corner of my eye - In the old days they'd always have their lights on anyway so you could see them coming from miles off to make space for them, but now they're lost in a sea of much brighter DRLs.

It also makes pedestrians and bicycles harder to spot because they are now so much darker than the sea of DRLs, esp. when light levels starts to get dim, as nobody with DRLs switches their sidelights on and go straight from DRLs to Main Beams because their lights are just set to auto, so you get dazzled from the contrast, esp. at dusk/dawn where the contrast is the worst.

What would have been better is making the auto-lights automatically turn on sidelights when it gets even slightly dim, then you'd be appropriately illuminated all around instead of just blinding pinpoint light from the front.

 

[Max_Headroom]

7 hours ago, Cyker said:

The problem I've noticed as more cars have DRLs is it's increasingly difficult to spot approaching motorbikes and bicycles out the corner of my eye - In the old days they'd always have their lights on anyway so you could see them coming from miles off to make space for them, but now they're lost in a sea of much brighter DRLs.

I drive for a living and this is not something I have noticed anything that makes a vehicle more visible in bad light has for me to be a good thing. 

[Cyker]

True, but that's why cars have sidelights! DRLs are so bright because they need to be visible in broad daylight, but cars are already quite visible in broad daylight, so I just don't understand how they help.

Forcing the sidelights to come on when light levels go down would have been more effective to my mind...

Curiously, the auto-system in mine doesn't even seem to know the sidelights exist - It will go from DRLs straight to main beams when light levels get low enough.

In my old cars, I'd go to sidelights first as light levels started to drop a bit (Or if it's raining), and only when it got darker still I'd go to the mains.

In another similar-topic thread, some people told me that was wrong and that driving with sidelights only is illegal but I still don't understand that...!

 

[Rhymes with Paris]

Again, the case for a department for common sense seems to be needed.

If I get to the stage where I cannot see something the size of a car without it being lit up like the annual Christmas light display on a house round the corner, I think it best that I stop driving

It may be worth noting that when driving at night, it is still common to see cars with no lights at all on, they have forgotten driving 101.

I can still see them fortunately, but flashing headlights at them is now useless due to the need for constant attention on a giant phone screen.

 

[forkingabout]

Bring back the dim - dip system 👍

[Max_Headroom]

26 minutes ago, Cyker said:

True, but that's why cars have sidelights! DRLs are so bright because they need to be visible in broad daylight, but cars are already quite visible in broad daylight, so I just don't understand how they help

Quote

Forcing the sidelights to come on when light levels go down would have been more effective to my mind...

You make a good point and as side lights are already on every car it would seem sensible to use them rather than DRL's so i imagine there is a reason manufacturers don't.

[FROSTYBALLS]

1 hour ago, forkingabout said:

Bring back the dim - dip system 👍

Unfortunately the UK was prosecuted by the EU as the dim dip system wasn't included with EU legislation produced around the time (mid to late 80's), so was deemed illegal.

We had it in our first new car - 1987 Nissan Micra.

[Cyker]

1 hour ago, Max_Headroom said:

You make a good point and as side lights are already on every car it would seem sensible to use them rather than DRL's so i imagine there is a reason manufacturers don't.

It's not so much the manufacturer's fault, but well-meaning/bone-headed politicians - The only reason cars have DRLs is because it's mandated by law, and cars without them would fail homologation.

I didn't even know about this dim-dip thing so that was an interesting bit of info! Always learn something new on this forum!  

[bathtub tom]

52 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Unfortunately the UK was prosecuted by the EU as the dim dip system wasn't included with EU legislation produced around the time (mid to late 80's), so was deemed illegal.

We had it in our first new car - 1987 Nissan Micra.

I thought it was introduced by Volvo back in the 80s. I had it on a 90s reg car.