Daytime Running Lights to Become Mandatory in Europe
By 2012, The European Union is making daytime running lights mandatory, according to PistonHeads.
Opposition to the plan has been voiced over increased fuel consumption and emissions, but governments are slowly getting behind the bill.
Road safety minister Jim Fitzpatrick said, “However, from early 2011 all new types of passenger cars and light vans will have to be fitted with dedicated daytime running lamps in accordance with the relevant European directive. By summer 2012, all new vehicles will have to be so fitted.
Comments
gotsmart
DRLs have been mandatory in Canada for years. They're just a good idea. In fact, i take it one step further and drive with full low-beams on (including rear markers) all the time. It really does make a huge difference in how visible your vehicle is to other drivers, especially in marginal conditions like haze, smog, glare, fog, overcast or twilight.
I can't see the additional electrical load placing THAT much of a burden on the car's electrical system to make a significant uptick in fuel consumption. Whatever minor impact it has on fuel consumption and emissions, i think the added safety benefit is worth it.
I don't know why some people are so resistant to the idea of DRLs, even going so far as to make electrical modifications to disable them on cars that come equipped with them.
lightsout.ca soon to come
How the hell can those stupid DRL be a good idea? A safety scam to make you change bulbs more often and spend more gas. Now multiply that by the number of cars on the road, imagine the tax dollars they collect? You believe government cares about you and your family? shit! you must be asleep. And finally, if you need lights in broad day light to the point you cant see it, then what the hell are you doing on the road? You're blind?? Doesnt logic tell you, WHY THE HELL DO YOU NEED LIGHTS IN BROAD DAY LIGHT? Just sit down and think about it for 5 minutes and also visit www.lightsout.org and read about this scam.
tuan
If they are going to pass a law that requires motorists to drive with lights on during the daytime, I think they should also come up with a techonology (solar power) to charge the lamps, rather then use fuel of power. No emisson is leak into the air, save fuel, and still complie with the new law. 0.02
Jeb
Well, on a clear blue day I might be against it, but today is a gray, misty day, and about 1/3 of the cars on the road were running without lights and nigh invisible past 500 yards. That's the kind of condition that leads to pileups. I do think, however, that if you're looking at DRL, just pull the trigger on full auto low beams and running lamps.
lightsout.ca soon to come
Ok, so on a gray day, shouldn't people simply turn their lights on? Oh no, of course, we need to make idiots even more stupid they already are. Shouldnt it be more logical to fine people who on gray days drive without lights on? That's basically driver error. People should start becoming responsible for their action. Something that Leftist-Liberals just dont get. That's why society is going down the drain, because we keep protecting morons.
Peter
You bet.
Canada and Sweden have been the leaders in this for yrs. Canada since 1990.
A great safety feature and one I missed during my 16,000 kms in the USA last year. Some newer GM models are so equipped.
I notice drivers in NZ and Australia now often driving with their lights on. 10 years ago drivers would flash me, to let me know my lights were on. This no longer happens.
Peter
Forgot to add that motor cyclists have been running with DRLs in the USA and Canada for a number of years.
In marginal lighting conditions e.g rain, I turn on the parking lights so that the rear is illuminated as well as DRLs in cars only turn on the front lights a weakness in the Cdn setup.
Emro
I'm all for it... hopefully this will get the US to finally make them mandatory
Emro
oh and the fuel econ/emissions concerns are nullified if the mfg uses LED DRL's... go Audi!
Russ Bellinis
The electrical load of daytime running lights are about equal to the stock radio, less than the electrical load when said radio is playing a cd or tape. If you want to require solar power to recharge the battery so it doesn't use extra fuel, how much extra are you willing to pay for a new car? I think the daytime running lights are an excellent idea. I just wish that the daytime running lights would also include the tail lights as well. California passed a law last year requiring drivers to turn on their lights anytime they have their windshield wipers working (using them in conjunction with a windshield washer doesn't count). I've noticed that maybe 50% of drivers actually turn the lights on during rain storms or in fog or even overcast days. It seems that no one in a grey, or tan car turns their lights on, however. I refer to these cars as "stealth cars." I see them driving on the freeway right next to the middle of an 18 wheeler, and am ammazed that these idiots don't understand that such cars disappear completely from a truck drivers mirrors in bad weather!
DOWNSHIFTER
Russ--think of it as Nature's way of thinning the herd.
Clint
Having driven a dark blue Miata and a dark grey Audi TT, I can say that having headlights on at all times is a common sense move when operating a small/low-visiblity car.
With the increased popularity of silver/grey cars, cellphone usage, an aging driving population, and general "multitasking" behind the wheel, DRLs just make sense for everyone.
The cost of ten years of fuel to power DRLs is likely a fraction of the cost of parts and labor to repair a single rearended bumper.
Jonathan Fung
I like daytime running lights. We don't get weather bad enough here in Hawaii to make it dangerous to drive without them, but I can see how they'd help on the Mainland and Europe.
Peter
DRL's are about 45 watts apiece, add 4 corner lights at 7 watts apiece thats 118 watts or put another way 0.16 HP. That's 0.6% of the power required to push an average car to 100 kph. The visibility factor far outweighs the cost and as suggested before, changing to LEDS will reduce that cost to a fraction of the above. They work in bad and good weather especially around dusk and dawn.
hwyhobo
If the manufacturers switch to LEDs, and if the lights were well adjusted, I'd be all for it. The problem is, a few jerks with blinding lights will force you to flip the rear-view mirrors, and then the whole benefit is out the window because you no longer see anything else.
nobody
hwyhobo: oh yeah, big disasters have resulted from everyone having running lights on in Canada and Sweden. They had to remove all rear view mirrors. But seriously, what's your problem? Did somebody push over your sand castle as a child?
dave
DLRs are only 1/2 a good idea - let's turn on the rear lites too !!! And while we're at it, let's make the rear lites variable with the light around the car so they don't blind us at stop lite ... seems to me that there is a contest among mfgrs as to who can have the brightest rear/brake lites. Enough already.
pedro
DRL'S for cars are bad news for Motorcyclists. The lights on motorcycles help them to stand out in the traffic during the day, that why they became automatic safety item on bikes. With all the cars having DRL's the motorcycles will just blend in and it will probably increase motorcycle/car accidents which is most often serious or death for the biker.
John T. M. Anderson
We've had daytime (front) driving lights here in Canada for years and they have led to two main problems.
First, there are actually many people who believe these automatic lights are all the lighting they require. Ever. Seniors are particularly bad at this. They just assume that because their car is equipped with these lights, they never have to turn any other light on, and many of them don't. You see them all the time, driving in the dark, looking slightly perplexed because their dash lights don't seem to be working.
Secondly, people don't bother turning on their rear lights when reduced visibility makes it necessary. They drive in fog, snow and heavy rain with no rear lighting at all.
It's unfortunate that we have to legislate common sense, but obviously we do. Cars should be built so that when you put them in gear, the lights both front and rear come on. End of story.
Grant Varga
Usual government overkill. I'm in favor of voluntary DRL's, but not ones that can't be overridden. In some instances I want these lights off, so a kill switch would make them more palatable to me. As it is they're on whether you want or not, so I had my optional DRL's programmed off by my BMW dealer. I turn on lows myself under many daytime situations.
Kennie
DRL's are like a lot of ideas, they appear good initially, but in the end, come up short. One of the current flaws is that there isn't a standard for whether the low beams are used , or the high beams with a reduced voltage. The last seems to be most popular with the manufacturers, yet the worst for glare to oncoming drivers.
While many think DRL's reduce accidents, the newest statistics are showing an increase in head-on accidents. Ultimately, even the stats that "vindicated" mandating DRL's don't hold up when closely examined. Visit lightsout.org for more info.
Jim Walker
DRLs in their current form are a BAD idea. They have just been banned in Austria, due to research that shows higher risks for pedestrians and bikes.
High beam DRLs, like GM's cheap and nasty high glare ones, are negative to safety with our aging population. Older drivers are sensitive to glare, a point that NHTSA and Canada Transport and Euro proponents of DRLs deliberately ignore.
NHTSA found that DRLs over 2,600 candela caused some drivers disabling glare, and then promptly allowed DRLs that put out over 8,000 candela at real world 13.2 vclts. It was one of the most irresponsible acts ever done by NHTSA.
US DRLs, principally the high beam, high glare cheap and nasty ones from General Motors have likely contributed to higher motorcycle fatalities, because cycles lost their unique status of vehicles with DRLs.
LOW power DRLs, under 1,000 candela, with ZERO of them allowed to use high beam lenses would be OK and maybe positive. NHTSA's idiotic approval of high beam ones with over 8,000 candela was totally irresponsible.
I filed one of the formal petitions to reduce DRL glare in 1997. I have a hand signed letter from NHTSA dated in 1998 saying they would soon act to reduce the glare from DRLs. Ten years later, we are still waiting for some action to recall high beam DRLs that are distinctly negative to safety.
Holding your breath for good actions from NHTSA to correct errors they have made is not a good idea, you will asphyxiate LONG before anything good happens.
Regards,
James C. Walker
jcwconsult@aol.com
Post new comment