DRL's actually work in bad weather...Say for instance (especially at this time of year) that its been slatting it down, then the sun comes out. Glare off the road surface is horrendous and often you cannot see oncoming traffic because of it, but if they have their headlights on or the car has DRL's, you can easily see them through the sun glare..That pees on their bonfire... And 99% of driving instructors nowadays are hopeless. Especialy the big boys who are nearly all franchisee muppets who havent even fully qualified yet..If the car has the red triangle in the windscreen and not the green octagon badge, give it a very wide berth

"Triangle" will be pink, not red and stats say that they provide very similar results to the green octagon holders, for various reasons! And FYI, there should only be a MAX of 50% pink triangles, by law as an ADI (Green octagon) can only sponsor one PDI (Pink triangle), hence max of 50% but not all ADI's DO sponsor!

Would agree with the "Big boy" argument though... Easy to hide a crap instructor behind a corporate image but this would apply across any industry! However, your quote of 99%.... Have YOU got stats on this, or did you make up this figure, based on your own summise? As Vic Reaves said, 88% of statistics are made up on the spot! (may have been a diferent figure but you get the point).

In addition, ANY trained driving instructor is going to give better instruction than, say, your mum, brother, girlfriend's dad, etc as by definition, they are trained to instruct, have proved a minimum accepted level of Knowledge, driving ability and an ability to teach, in addition to having a dual controled vehicle, which will have visual checks for lighting, tyres etc EVERY SINGLE DRIVING TEST TAKEN... Faulty vehicles will be rejected!

Edited 7 February, 201115 yr by mrgf

I have read it about 4 times and still can't see why you are saying that a Yeti or even my car is illegal? The DRL's are coming into force from Feb this year and every new car will have to have them. Are you saying that mine are illegal?

As for indicators....they've been integral in headlights for longer than i can remember....

So from what i can make out all cars on the road (in particular MPV's with the extra pillar) are illegal? wow.....

Then read a 5th time!

I said any equipment that was unaproved... I.E. Without type approval or EU standards, not factory fitted standard stuff! Fit 2000 watt headlights and they would be illegal, usually cars have 65/50 or there abouts as standard.

Often people fit brighter ones made for off road use... They would be illegal ON road.

The indicators I refered to are the ones INBOARD of the headlights, not in the same cluster. Imagine the headlights being 2m apart. Now the indicators are 1.8m apart, inboard of the lights, not out side of the lights at 2.1m... Geddit? This WAS illegal but later rules say there must be indicators on the side of cars, say on the front wing, to be seen from the side of the car. Now, the indicator inboard of the headlight (illeagal) is loopholed by the tiny one on the wing, making it difficult to say it is right or wrong. A design feature, rather than the intended safety one!

BTW, tests have shown that the vehicles with indicators inboard of the headlights take an experienced motorist an extra second or so to recognise as being switched on and react accordingly...This was highlighted recently in "Despatch" a magazine for driving instructors. They were complaining of the style over substance of this design as learners react even slower!

I have seen the A-Pillar question arise on a few occasions but do not have a source but the discrepancy does exist. From a certain date, there was only supposed to be one pillar forward of the driver, to give a better view. Many manufacturers "Cheated" by having a tiny window, then the door, each with a pillar. Older cars sometimes had a small window, then the large opening one on the front door. These were outlawed at that time, hence you should,nt have them now, on newer cars and only 1 pillar, before the centre one, between the front and rear door (If 4 door).

This was even highlighted on one of the major T.V. programs a few years ago and they suggested that any vehicle manufactured this way flouted the law and technically was not fit for road use and COULD fail an MOT at any time!

Could you imagine if the law was enforced? Tens of thousands of cars would be unroadworthy and only fit for scrap, costing motorists millions and manufacturers millions more in law suits, re-design stages etc as anything still being built would have to stop.

Whoever was responsible for allowing the first ones through the net would probably be held accountable as this opened the floodgates!

I am unsure if there is any major manufacturer who has NOT made cars this way, let alone the naughty indicator way!

Then read a 5th time!

I said any equipment that was unaproved... I.E. Without type approval or EU standards, not factory fitted standard stuff! Fit 2000 watt headlights and they would be illegal, usually cars have 65/50 or there abouts as standard.

Often people fit brighter ones made for off road use... They would be illegal ON road.

The indicators I refered to are the ones INBOARD of the headlights, not in the same cluster. Imagine the headlights being 2m apart. Now the indicators are 1.8m apart, inboard of the lights, not out side of the lights at 2.1m... Geddit? This WAS illegal but later rules say there must be indicators on the side of cars, say on the front wing, to be seen from the side of the car. Now, the indicator inboard of the headlight (illeagal) is loopholed by the tiny one on the wing, making it difficult to say it is right or wrong. A design feature, rather than the intended safety one!

BTW, tests have shown that the vehicles with indicators inboard of the headlights take an experienced motorist an extra second or so to recognise as being switched on and react accordingly...This was highlighted recently in "Despatch" a magazine for driving instructors. They were complaining of the style over substance of this design as learners react even slower!

I have seen the A-Pillar question arise on a few occasions but do not have a source but the discrepancy does exist. From a certain date, there was only supposed to be one pillar forward of the driver, to give a better view. Many manufacturers "Cheated" by having a tiny window, then the door, each with a pillar. Older cars sometimes had a small window, then the large opening one on the front door. These were outlawed at that time, hence you should,nt have them now, on newer cars and only 1 pillar, before the centre one, between the front and rear door (If 4 door).

This was even highlighted on one of the major T.V. programs a few years ago and they suggested that any vehicle manufactured this way flouted the law and technically was not fit for road use and COULD fail an MOT at any time!

Could you imagine if the law was enforced? Tens of thousands of cars would be unroadworthy and only fit for scrap, costing motorists millions and manufacturers millions more in law suits, re-design stages etc as anything still being built would have to stop.

Whoever was responsible for allowing the first ones through the net would probably be held accountable as this opened the floodgates!

I am unsure if there is any major manufacturer who has NOT made cars this way, let alone the naughty indicator way!

So the £20k Yeti isn't illegal?? He didn't say he has any unapproved lights??

Still don't 'geddit' with the indicators...what is the difference between 'inboard' and part of the light cluster?

Are you saying this is illegal:

but this is legal:

Is that what you mean that the indicator is separate?

I also don't have a tiny one on the wing but quite large ones on the Wing mirrors....Does this mean my car is illegal because a) the indicators are 'inboard' the light cluster and i have no indicator on the wing?

Also i have 'bendy' xenons, are these illegal as well....along with my LED DRL's?

Not being funny but i can't see how car manufacturers are allowed to sell illegal products?

Also FWIW i don't think many people fit '200% brighter, for off road use only' lights apart from my parents stupid neighbour with his rally spots on his Frontera that he thinks is really cool....I agree that this is a point that the police should pick up more.

Edited 7 February, 201115 yr by jrw

Well last night was the first time I can say for deffinate that I was dazzeled by an HID equiped normal car though that was more to do with the road he was on being flat and level but higher than the level it was on not the HID's fault.

And while they where brighter and more distracting than the standard lights they weren't shockingly dangerous.

My biggest problem I tend to find is from Vans etc not leveling them after packing a couple of tons of crap into the back and hence blinding everyone and 4X4 users just because your 6ft of the road doesn't mean the rest of us are and you turning your lights up because it doesn't affect you just proves your an idot that shouldn't be allowed to drive anything bigger than a Smart for 2. New 4x4's with HID's are a danger though Mercs are realy bad as the self leveling can't cope with the body roll on a roundabout and its like a disco light going every where but the road.

Also I find the worst car offenders are old claped out sheds with colapsed suspention as usually the whole car is pointing to wards the sky like its praying for the release of death anyway. And I seriously doubt they are running proper HID setups.

I don't think HID's are realy the issue I believe all new vehicals should be forced to have self leveling headlights as it would save us from the Vans etc who just don't seam to bother.

Though I would maybe bann them from 4X4's due to the ride hight but no doubt that wouldn't be allowed for "fairness"

Oh dear! Xenons and super bright DRL's on mine - i must be hated!!

Me too

I do get flashed occasionally.

In NZ they made it law last year for motorbikes to have lights on at all times.

Too much bright?

I can understand the objections. I've been dazzled more than a few times by HIds because I drive an undulating road. Every time a HID equipped car comes passed SWMBO thinks they've got their full beam on.

I think that the dipped HID needs to be a bit less bright or the self-levelling needs to work faster.

But I also think that plod should be doing more to pick up on people driving with misaligned normal lights or one light which is more common.

Still don't 'geddit' with the indicators...what is the difference between 'inboard' and part of the light cluster?

Are you saying this is illegal:

but this is legal:

No - both should be legal - what he means is that cars with indicators that are not at the outer edge of the light cluster (ie nearer the centre or inside edge of the light cluster) are illegal. Think Golf mkiv or mk2 MX5.

what he means is that cars with indicators that are not at the outer edge of the light cluster (ie nearer the centre or inside edge of the light cluster) are illegal.

Can you find where it says that in the Vehicle Lighting Regs of the C & U Regs, please?

Can you find where it says that in the Vehicle Lighting Regs of the C & U Regs, please?

Schedule 5 details the requirements in terms of position I think but I was just illustrating the point - not backing up the comments regarding the interpretation of the regs.

Schedule 5 details the requirements in terms of position I think but I was just illustrating the point - not backing up the comments regarding the interpretation of the regs.

My suspicion; the comments about the indicator being inboard of the headlight as per MX5, some later Focii... are what was meant, but British C&U and MVL regs are over-ridden by EU Type approval in some cases, and this may be one of them.

HIDs are legal only by type approval too.

Wow, let's all be friends and

With the advent of all cars running drl's I am sticking 2 x 50W H4 HIDS in my Fireblade and intend to melt paint with my headlights to be seen. Xenons = good, DRL's = bad, if conditions warrant the use of lights then go to dipped beam.

Wow, let's all be friends and

With the advent of all cars running drl's I am sticking 2 x 50W H4 HIDS in my Fireblade and intend to melt paint with my headlights to be seen. Xenons = good, DRL's = bad, if conditions warrant the use of lights then go to dipped beam.

I still don't understand why cars being more visible makes bikes less visible :think:

You've broken down in the middle of no-where at night.

You've been walking for miles and eventually you see a house on the top of a hill and there's a light on in one of the windows. You can see a house! :clap:

All of a sudden the house next door switches lights on in two of the windows!

Can you no longer see the first house? Or perhaps now you can just see that there are two houses?

I still don't understand why cars being more visible makes bikes less visible :think:

You've broken down in the middle of no-where at night.

You've been walking for miles and eventually you see a house on the top of a hill and there's a light on in one of the windows. You can see a house! :clap:

All of a sudden the house next door switches lights on in two of the windows!

Can you no longer see the first house? Or perhaps now you can just see that there are two houses?

You've been walking for miles and eventually you see a house on the top of a hill and there's a light on in one of the windows. You can see a house! :clap:

Now a big aeroplane just above the house turns on its landing lights which are more powerful, wider separated and aimed right at you. Can you still see the single light clearly, or is it vanishing into the glare of the 2 landing lights?

You've been walking for miles and eventually you see a house on the top of a hill and there's a light on in one of the windows. You can see a house! :clap:

Now a big aeroplane just above the house turns on its landing lights which are more powerful, wider separated and aimed right at you. Can you still see the single light clearly, or is it vanishing into the glare of the 2 landing lights?

Beautifully put Ken

Wow, let's all be friends and

With the advent of all cars running drl's I am sticking 2 x 50W H4 HIDS in my Fireblade and intend to melt paint with my headlights to be seen. Xenons = good, DRL's = bad, if conditions warrant the use of lights then go to dipped beam.

So you don't like DRL's which aren't as bright as dipped beams but you are happy to put illegal HID's into your bike so that you can blind everyone and they'll probably crash into you.

Edited 10 February, 201115 yr by jrw

So you don't like DRL's which aren't as bright as dipped beams but you are happy to put illegal HID's into your bike so that you can blind everyone and they'll probably crash into you.

DRL's have nothing to do with safety, they are a fashion item, there is nothing wrong with dipped beam's and there is nothing wrong with a car running correctly adjusted HID's, that said, how many are, when I used to a bit of VCDS work for people it was amazing to see just how many Factory Xenons on Mk2 vRS's where badly adjusted and the dealers did not know how to re-adjust them, or could not be arsed. I think I did about 8 for various different brisky members.

DRL's seem to angled "Head on" so they are in many cases brighter than dipped beam, dipped is errrm, dipped so properly adjusted is no problem to oncoming traffic. DRL's are on all the time, but I guess you guys can't make a decision then on wether or not you should use dipped lights, you need a eurocrat to make that decision for you

My Fireblade headlight has various stages of dipped'ness depending on wether the front wheel is on the ground or not.

Sorry Rob but if you look at this pic of Rob's Mk1 vRS, I would bet that head on the DRL's are extremely bright, they look it from a side angle in the picture he posted, in fact possibly even brighter than the headlight itself?

Edited 10 February, 201115 yr by fluffmeister

DRL's have nothing to do with safety, they are a fashion item, there is nothing wrong with dipped beam's and there is nothing wrong with a car running correctly adjusted HID's, that said, how many are, when I used to a bit of VCDS work for people it was amazing to see just how many Factory Xenons on Mk2 vRS's where badly adjusted and the dealers did not know how to re-adjust them, or could not be arsed. I think I did about 8 for various different brisky members.

DRL's seem to angled "Head on" so they are in many cases brighter than dipped beam, dipped is errrm, dipped so properly adjusted is no problem to oncoming traffic. DRL's are on all the time, but I guess you guys can't make a decision then on wether or not you should use dipped lights, you need a eurocrat to make that decision for you

My Fireblade headlight has various stages of dipped'ness depending on wether the front wheel is on the ground or not.

Sorry Rob but if you look at this pic of Rob's Mk1 vRS, I would bet that head on the DRL's are extremely bright, they look it from a side angle in the picture he posted, in fact possibly even brighter than the headlight itself?

I can't see the image at work but DRL's aren't a standard fit on the Mk1 VRS so can't be compared as these are probably illegal too like aftermarket HID's.

I can make a decision as to whether i need my headlights on or not and don't need a eurocrat to decide for me. Also when i put my headlights on the DRL's dim quite considerably so the only time they are at full brightness is in daylight, when it is not raining, snowing, foggy or dark so can't really see what the issue is. They are just above the foglight so angled 'head on' is fine and you aren't going to blind anyone unless they are in a go kart. I will post pics of the front of my car up later when i have access to photobucket so that you can see as i have pics with lights on and off.

You've been walking for miles and eventually you see a house on the top of a hill and there's a light on in one of the windows. You can see a house! :clap:

Now a big aeroplane just above the house turns on its landing lights which are more powerful, wider separated and aimed right at you. Can you still see the single light clearly, or is it vanishing into the glare of the 2 landing lights?

Don't agree with that analogy. DRLs on cars aren't necessarily brighter than other types of lights (e.g. used by bikes).

They are bright in the daylight so as to be seen easier and dim at night so that they don't produce glare or blind anybody.

And also by their nature they are not focused or angled so they should never be 'pointing right at you'.

Don't agree with that analogy. DRLs on cars aren't necessarily brighter than other types of lights (e.g. used by bikes).

They are bright in the daylight so as to be seen easier and dim at night so that they don't produce glare or blind anybody.

And also by their nature they are not focused or angled so they should never be 'pointing right at you'.

Things that were wrong with your analogy - How often do you see a house with another house big enough to show out both sides?

House lights are non-directional, but DRLs are directional, and not aimed away from "down the road", whereas dipped headlights are designed with a beam aim "away from oncoming traffic".

DRL's aren't directional.

That's why LED's aren't used as headlights yet- making them with a defined beam path (i.e. directional) is tricky.

I'll give you the point about lights shining either side of a bike, but surely that's a much bigger problem at night when using proper headlights, and will be less of an issue during the day when DRLs/dipped beam are only being used to improve visibilty, not produce it.

Do bikers not ride at night because of this? Or are they campaigning for cars not to be equipped with headlights as it stops people from seeing bikes?

I know I'm being a bit of an asshole with that last statement, and that's not really my intention, but I really can't see how fitting a couple of LEDs onto a car will make me miss the presence of a bike with lights on.

As a side note- I note that lots of bikes these days seem to ride around in the daylight with no lights on. I used to think bikes were hard-wired to have their dipped beams on when the ignition was on but obvioulsy not. Obviously some bikers aren't as bothered by visibilty.

I can't see the image at work but DRL's aren't a standard fit on the Mk1 VRS so can't be compared as these are probably illegal too like aftermarket HID's.

I can make a decision as to whether i need my headlights on or not and don't need a eurocrat to decide for me. Also when i put my headlights on the DRL's dim quite considerably so the only time they are at full brightness is in daylight, when it is not raining, snowing, foggy or dark so can't really see what the issue is. They are just above the foglight so angled 'head on' is fine and you aren't going to blind anyone unless they are in a go kart. I will post pics of the front of my car up later when i have access to photobucket so that you can see as i have pics with lights on and off.

Photo taken 'head on' - Not exactly dazzling...

DRL's aren't directional.

That's why LED's aren't used as headlights yet- making them with a defined beam path (i.e. directional) is tricky.

I had factory fit LED headlights in my Prius, easily as good as Xenons btw.

DRL's aren't directional.

That's why LED's aren't used as headlights yet- making them with a defined beam path (i.e. directional) is tricky.

I'll give you the point about lights shining either side of a bike, but surely that's a much bigger problem at night when using proper headlights, and will be less of an issue during the day when DRLs/dipped beam are only being used to improve visibilty, not produce it.

Do bikers not ride at night because of this? Or are they campaigning for cars not to be equipped with headlights as it stops people from seeing bikes?

I know I'm being a bit of an asshole with that last statement, and that's not really my intention, but I really can't see how fitting a couple of LEDs onto a car will make me miss the presence of a bike with lights on.

As a side note- I note that lots of bikes these days seem to ride around in the daylight with no lights on. I used to think bikes were hard-wired to have their dipped beams on when the ignition was on but obvioulsy not. Obviously some bikers aren't as bothered by visibilty.

New bikes, I can't remember the exact year but I think around 2001 had Headlights hardwired with no on / off switch, eurocrats again

Forget the bike argument because I was just being a poop stirrer, but I really don't see what benefit there is to DRL's and I have found plenty of them to be a distraction head on. How can they be a safety feature? how invisible is 1.5 tons of car? I would stand by the statement that if visibilty is low, then go to dipped headlights, how many lights do you need on the front?

Before Audi started sticking them on RS6's etc, nobody was interested, and in countries where DRL's where mandatory, manufacturers like Volvo just used to hardwire or code the headlights to dipped beam.

If someone can produce concrete proof that DRL's have directly been responsible for preventing death's then fine and I will shut up but don't tell me that anyone here who has DRL's (PS mine has them from the factory to, but I have them coded off by the dealer) truly thinks they are for safety, you will mostly think they are "cool" but won't actually stump up and say it

how invisible is 1.5 tons of car?

Very invisible judging by the amount of times i have to brake, swerve, stop and give various hand gestures during an average week. Its a good job i'm on the ball. I really don't know how people get from a-b in one piece sometimes.