GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk7 => Topic started by: Wrex22 on 20 September 2016, 18:33
-
Just wondering what everyone else has then set to :rolleyes:
-
I only have a mk6 but i have them on constantly, day or night to make my car more visible to other road users.
-
LED DRL's do quite well when its light, but EARLY for the headlights seems like a sensible option - its not as though they come on any time other than when being a bit more seen is a good idea.
Unless you've stolen it, why wouldn't you want to be seen?
-
Does it seem like a dumb question if I've had the car 2 years and don't know what you mean by early/medium/late?
-
Does it seem like a dumb question if I've had the car 2 years and don't know what you mean by early/medium/late?
Me too :embarrassed:
-
Does it seem like a dumb question if I've had the car 2 years and don't know what you mean by early/medium/late?
LOL, basically, how sensitive the daylight sensor is - early will mean it will trigger the headlights with more outside light than normal or late.
-
LED DRL's do quite well when its light, but EARLY for the headlights seems like a sensible option - its not as though they come on any time other than when being a bit more seen is a good idea.
Unless you've stolen it, why wouldn't you want to be seen?
I've never had bother seeing a big painted metallic lump on 4 wheels coming towards me from behind, lit or unlit.
Upon seeing headlights, you used to know that you had either a Volvo or a Motorbike behind you at one time, and be prepared for the motorbike to do something daft like aggressively undertake or squeeze through an impossibly thin gap between you and the car next to you in the other lane, but now everyone has DRLs, I don't think motorbikes stand out as motobikes when the headlight first catches your glance.
I don't think they make cars any easier to see in broad daylight than they were already were.
-
I don't think they make cars any easier to see in broad daylight than they were already were.
The experts seem to disagree:
http://www.swov.eu/rapport/R-97-36.PDF
Which is why we all have DRL's now.
-
I don't think they make cars any easier to see in broad daylight than they were already were.
The experts seem to disagree:
http://www.swov.eu/rapport/R-97-36.PDF
Which is why we all have DRL's now.
A ton of hypothesis, theories and assumptions in that report - pretty light on actual facts. One example of the inconclusive stats it uses shows adverse DRL effect on visibility/instant recognisability for motorcycles,causing more motorcycle related accidents upon the introduction of DRLs in Denmark, but dismisses a 16% rise in these accidents as insignificant, yet excludes them from the data they use to try to demonstrate a reduction in accidents with DRL introduction. There are a lot of shaped and cherry picked stats in there to try and prove the point. Lots of waffle in there to try and mask preferential use of data that supports their hypotheses and exclusion of that data which does not. Some parts of that report sound like they came straight from the mouth of a political spin doctor.
It would be difficult to put a number on the effect of DRL in reducing accidents when so many other factors come into play - better brakes on newer cars, tech like ACC and lane assistance, speed cameras everywhere making people more aware of their speed and the fact that many cars on the UK roads don't have DRLs are just a few. On a poorly lit day you should certainly have your lights on, but on a sunny day? Definitely not convinced.
How much awareness of the car behind prevents accidents? It's awareness of the car in front or alongside you that prevents most accidents (and you can't see the DRLs on the front of the car from there), as the car in front can do very little about the car behind running into them.
Most accidents happen as a result of sideswipes at roundabouts, people coming in or out a lane right into a car already in the space they wish to occupy or via a shunt from behind when the car in front has braked - DRLs on the front of the car aren't going to prevent someone driving in the back of you or make it any less likely, changing lanes straight into the side of someone isn't going to be prevented by DRLs either. If the person colliding can't see the other car's DRLs prior to collision then they aren't going to help.
I'm sure the fuel companies would encourage it to reap the rewards of increased fuel usage (albeit 0.9% according to the report you linked to, not huge on an idividual basis, but noticeable collectively), one of the bones of contention for some of the EU member states that opposed the introduction of DRLs.
-
The UK government sort of agreed with you when they reviewed that paper.
I couldn't find the whole document online, but the review is discussed here together with a brief version of their conclusion:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/rmd/project.asp?intProjectID=10315
Basically whilst they doubted the original report due to its methods, another 23 similar ones (with different methods) have been looked at and the conclusions are broadly the same, therefore its probably correct.
Maybe that's the infinite monkey effect :D
-
If motorcyclists worked harder, they could afford cars, so there would be no more confusion about what the light you see in your mirror is coming from. :whistle:
One of the problem with DRL's is that many drivers rely on to save the effort of reaching for the headlight switch, not considering that they have no tail lights on. Also in AUTO mode, the light sensor doesn't always know when it's foggy.
-
If motorcyclists worked harder, they could afford cars, so there would be no more confusion about what the light you see in your mirror is coming from. :whistle:
Obviously coming from a man who has never run a motorbike... the idea that they are cheap form of transport (practicality and safety issues aside) is not even slightly true!
I used to ride a bike, its fuel economy was worse than an R's.... mind you it was a tad quicker than an R tho :) Insurance, tyres, cost of the bike itself. Its not even slightly cheap!
Anyway, I digress...
Auto lights vs fog... yes that's not good is it.
-
Perhaps the forum should have a 'tongue in cheek' yellow man.
-
If motorcyclists worked harder, they could afford cars, so there would be no more confusion about what the light you see in your mirror is coming from. :whistle:
One of the problem with DRL's is that many drivers rely on to save the effort of reaching for the headlight switch, not considering that they have no tail lights on. Also in AUTO mode, the light sensor doesn't always know when it's foggy.
Kind of proving your theory invalid i am currently saving up to do my full motorbike licence and buy a motorbike. Then i need to save up to visit the isle of man, the following may/june. It ain't cheap.
-
^ Don't forget to factor in the funeral costs... :tongue:
-
Mine was set to medium but tbh I'd not set it myself, it's just how it was. Auto lights and wipers are stupid and annoying anyway.
-
Mine is set to"late", but, tbh, they stiil come on pretty early sometimes. Seem a little inconsistent going off, as well. Useful, imo, all the same. I can just rely on it most of the time, but I do check what is happening, anyway.
DRL's have always baffled me. Surely we should have tail lights on as well, or even instead of the fronts? Meaning to VCDS mine to Scandinavian style, when I can.
-
Save some VCDS time and turn the light switch to ON ;-)
-
Save some VCDS time and turn the light switch to ON ;-)
Well, yes, I do that sometimes, but the fronts are then dimmed and it's not auto.
-
Well, its auto as in "the lights come on when you start the car and go off when you switch it off" :D
And LED DRL's vs Xenon, Xenon wins :D
-
Yes, Fred, I use Auto all the time, but Scand setting for DRLs means tail lights are on as well as front led DRLs. Total auto operation.
-
But that means you have dipped beam light on all the time (on the switch) - so you don't really know if dipped beam is on.
I coded that on mine too - with dipped beam always on. Not done any harm to Xenons with well over 2000 hours of operation so far.