Day time running lights ?

[WOODWAYS6]

I find it strange that the lights on auto are only on at the front not the rear.I know there is a position to turn to to active both together but it means having to turn them on and off when turning the engine off .Can the dealer set them so front and back come on and off automatically?

[Cyker]

Sorry, can you clarify what you mean?

DRLs are only supposed to be on at the front, no rear lights - Doesn't make total sense but that's what the law mandated, nothing to do with Toyota as they're just doing what they were ordered to do, same as all the other manufacturers.

The auto lights are only designed to turn on your dipped beams and rear lights when it gets dark enough, but it will do both.

[FROSTYBALLS]

10 minutes ago, Cyker said:

DRLs are only supposed to be on at the front, no rear lights - Doesn't make total sense but that's what the law mandated

DRLs are designed to make other road users aware of your approaching vehicle - hence why only front lights are required. 

[Cyker]

Yeah but why only the front and not the back? It doesn't make sense to me.

Then again I've never thought DRLs were a good idea in the first place as they make everything that doesn't have DRLs - Motorbikes, cyclists, pedestrians etc. harder to pick out.

Given the responsibility has shifted completely to drivers, making us more visible and other road users proportionally less visible seems slightly contradictory when what we need is for vulnerable road users to be made more visible to us!

[FROSTYBALLS]

27 minutes ago, Cyker said:

Yeah but why only the front and not the back? It doesn't make sense to me.

For the vast majority of time drivers are travelling forwards, so the front lights are lit to make other road users aware that they are approaching. 

For this reason, the rear lights don't need to be illuminated.

Aside from the above, most cars nowadays have reversing lights.

[Roy124]

SAAB had DRL decades ago, front and back.

The problem with front only is drivers forget the rear is not lit and forget to switch on sidelights in conditions where headlights are not required.

[Gren]

DRLs are valuable in low-sun conditions, and also when you are on a road with a long line of parked cars, if one is in theline with DRLs on then I know it's not parked and I may need to pull in to let it pass.

[Cyker]

That exact scenario is why I don't get why the rears aren't on too - When I was still driving manuals and could do the whole handbrake+neutral thing naturally, I've had people just drive around me because they thought I was parked and then honk at me as we both started moving at the same time (An absolutely correct and valid use of the horn to be fair!). All-around DRLs would have prevented that from happening.

Same with cyclists as there are certain roads where it's hard to tell if a car is parked or not. It also increases visibility of cars in front when driving in darkened areas, e.g under tree canopies and such, which was the whole point of DRLs originally.

It just seems like a bizarrely specific omission to have the fronts on but not the backs when it's clear that having both sets on would make vehicles more visible from all directions and not just the front - Even Volvo, who practically invented DRLs before they were even called that, originally had both front and rears on.

 

Then again I guess the conclusion to that is we'd get to a point where you're just driving around with all your lights on all the time, so maybe they just wanted to have that differentiation, even if it meant reduced visibility?  Who knows what these people think any more!

[forkingabout]

Peugeot / Citroen started illuminating the rear tail lights with the front DRL's on various products a few years back ( started in 2018 when the 308 T9 had its midlife facelift IIRC ) - I would expect the Vauxhall clone products will have followed suit. 

[AJones]

Some of these examples would be using DRLs and rear lights as a replacement for using the indicator lights.

If there's parked cars, with cars waiting at either end, or in the gaps trying to get out, then simply putting the indicators on lets other motorists know what you're intending to do. 

And it is clearer because they flash to get attention and they show an intention to move, whereas a car could be in the same position with DRLs and rear lights on while waiting for someone, or dropping someone off. 

[Rhymes with Paris]

14 hours ago, Cyker said:

Then again I've never thought DRLs were a good idea in the first place as they make everything that doesn't have DRLs - Motorbikes, cyclists, pedestrians etc. harder to pick out.

IIRC, motorbikes registered after around 2003 have headlights that come on with the ignition, and cannot be turned off, supposedly a manufacturer choice, but on nearly all of them.

I remember concerns at the time amongst bikers that the ones without would become less visible mixed in with a sea of headlights, most that I spoke to would prefer a choice according to road conditions and light levels.

Not only that, but I bought a new bike in 2004 with this and a tiny 12v Battery about the size of a couple of cigarette packets.

This had to cope with not only churning over a 1131 cc v twin engine, but the headlight on the second the ignition turned on.

Unsurprisingly the Battery soon died, and was replaced twice under warranty before I got rid of it.

 

[WOODWAYS6]

Thank you all for your replies.I prefer to drive with both fronts and rear lights on in the day time .like on my old V70 Volvo.

[Cyker]

1 hour ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

IIRC, motorbikes registered after around 2003 have headlights that come on with the ignition, and cannot be turned off, supposedly a manufacturer choice, but on nearly all of them.

I remember concerns at the time amongst bikers that the ones without would become less visible mixed in with a sea of headlights, most that I spoke to would prefer a choice according to road conditions and light levels.

Not only that, but I bought a new bike in 2004 with this and a tiny 12v battery about the size of a couple of cigarette packets.

This had to cope with not only churning over a 1131 cc v twin engine, but the headlight on the second the ignition turned on.

Unsurprisingly the battery soon died, and was replaced twice under warranty before I got rid of it.

 

I must admit when it was only mostly bikes that had 'DRL's (Or just turned their lights on as a lot seem to do!) it was a godsend for me as I could pick them out a long way off in my peripheral vision and position myself well in advance - Nowadays they're lost in a sea of DRLs behind me, and cyclists have no chance unless they have those obnoxious but effective blinky lights and even then those are only noticeable when they are too close for me to do anything about it.

I still remember when I'd only had the Mk4 for not that long, the blind spot monitors literally saved 2 cyclists from injury - It was dark, they had no lights or helmets on and just shot past on the outside at the worst possible moment - Only because the BSM lit up and I was like "Huh, what's that" did I pause and even then didn't see them until they shot past me, such was how invisible they were  

 

1 hour ago, AJones said:

Some of these examples would be using DRLs and rear lights as a replacement for using the indicator lights.

If there's parked cars, with cars waiting at either end, or in the gaps trying to get out, then simply putting the indicators on lets other motorists know what you're intending to do. 

And it is clearer because they flash to get attention and they show an intention to move, whereas a car could be in the same position with DRLs and rear lights on while waiting for someone, or dropping someone off. 

Totally agree, but alas 'tis but a dream - I don't know about where you drive but almost nobody uses indicators down here - Another reason why rear DRLs would be helpful as you'd know that car is 'live' and can anticipate idiocy.

That said, most people who do that tend to be on the brake pedal, and the brake lights going out is a good tell that idiocy is about to occur. Sometimes it's just them turning off the car, but I've been doing this long enough to prepare myself for the no-mirror-no-signal pullout that is a very common driving manoeuvre down here...!

But again as I've said, you can't fix stupid with tech, only better driver education, and despite all their declarations of improving safety that's the one thing they're completely ignoring, presumably as pushing it all onto ADAS tech makes it someone elses problem and if there's one thing the powers that be are good at it's passing the buck...

[Roy124]

42 minutes ago, Cyker said:

blind spot monitors literally saved 2 cyclists from injury - It was dark, they had no lights or helmets on and just shot past on the outside at the worst possible moment - Only because the BSM lit up and I was like "Huh, what's that" did I pause 

As bad as walkers at night, hi-viz black.

Mind you, I think some don't like DRLs as it drains the Battery and requires more power from the engine.  They much prefer to drive without lights - day or night.   It does not deter them from using the horn though.

[Ancient Nerd]

It always struck me that DRLs were intended as an effective means of culling motorcyclists. 

Motorbikes, even on dipped headlights, can vanish into a mass of other lights.

Cyclists haven't really changed. Flashing lights are irritating, but improve visibility. The sensible ones are still aware of their vulnerability and behave sensibly. The minority seem to have a death wish.

Sadly, it seems that road planners, and those who create traffic laws, are required to be non-drivers.

[Cyker]

It does feel that way!!  

That reminds me of a junction I went through some years back where some total knob had put the lights so far forward you'd have to stop at least a car-length before the stop line otherwise you can't see them!

It feels like they were supposed to install repeaters on the other side but whether there were budget cuts or they just forgot who knows!  

But clearly nobody drove through that junction to test its usability before signing it off as being acceptable!

[Rhymes with Paris]

59 minutes ago, Cyker said:

But clearly nobody drove through that junction to test its usability before signing it off as being acceptable!

That's a good point, I wonder if that actually happens sometimes.

When I worked on the roads (construction of and resurfacing) the diversion routes off and junctions with rejoining major roads were worked out and put on a drawing by the planners, and the cones, lighting sets and signage etc was set out by the traffic management contractors.

I always did a couple of drive throughs to make sure this actually worked properly before the diversions and road closures became live.

If course, this was all carefully designed and implemented to cause maximum disruption and inconvenience to the motorist.

While myself and the road crews sat on our backsides drinking tea and laughing like drains at all the chaos caused.

Well you would think that we did from the amount of drivers shouting abuse and threats at anyone wearing a fluorescent coat and hard hat ,working hard through the day and night to maintain the route to keep them safe.

I think they assumed that the road crews up to their eyes in hot tarmac and all weathers picked a random bit of road to build or resurface, and not government and highways departments in the various counties.

Edit: especially on the night jobs the temporary junctions would often be wiped out by asleep and drunk drivers, so further delaying works.

 

[Rhymes with Paris]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

That reminds me of a junction I went through some years back where some total knob had put the lights so far forward you'd have to stop at least a car-length before the stop line otherwise you can't see them!

Just re read your post Cyker, and yes this bit.

Why we can't have repeaters at car driver eye level on the traffic light post, the same as France and Belgium, maybe other places, baffles me.

I have to look through the sunroof sometimes to see the lights.

[Corolly Poly]

6 hours ago, Ancient Nerd said:

It always struck me that DRLs were intended as an effective means of culling motorcyclists. 

Motorbikes, even on dipped headlights, can vanish into a mass of other lights.

Cyclists haven't really changed. Flashing lights are irritating, but improve visibility. The sensible ones are still aware of their vulnerability and behave sensibly. The minority seem to have a death wish.

Sadly, it seems that road planners, and those who create traffic laws, are required to be non-drivers.

Hence I have had a HID fitted to my bike so I still stand out amongst the plethora of other lit vehicles on the road.