Would you expect rear lights on with Daylight Running Lights (DRL)?

[Deep purple]

See attached.

 

[Hairyfool]

See the published date, I have acknowledged that my source may not have been authoritative but a publication dated 2010 is hardly relevant to the 1970's. The research referred could even be evidential based on the accident figures before they were introduced compared to after the event, it is not defined.

 

[Rocinante]

See the published date, I have acknowledged that my source may not have been authoritative but a publication dated 2010 is hardly relevant to the 1970's. The research referred could even be evidential based on the accident figures before they were introduced compared to after the event, it is not defined.

Yes, but you've made two statements. One that the current legislation was brought in for pedestrian safety, and that is why the rear lights do not illuminate. The government state otherwise, as per the link I provided and deep purple has as well, and the links I've provided so far indicate that at least as far back as 1981 the research was for vehicle accidents. So even if I accepted your misremembered recollection, your statement regarding the current legislation is categorically wrong.

However, your recollection of the 1970's is flawed and you are wrong, it is acceptable to recognise when you are wrong if the weight of evidence against you is insurmountable and you cannot provide any evidence of your own, with your only argument being they must have revised all the evidence since then is ridiculous.

Well even before Sweden introduced their legislation in 1977, the research was for mulitparty crash events.

"Andersson, K., Nilsson, G., and Salusjarvi, M.: The effect of recommended and compulsory use of vehicle lights on road accidents in Finland. Report 102A. National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Linkoping, Sweden, 1976.
A study in Finland conducted between 1968 and 1974 found that DRLs, when required on rural roads in the winter, were associated with a 21-percent reduction in daytime multiparty crash events.

So your assertation that "As the DRLs were intended as pedestrian protection there is not a lot of point in the rear lights coming on as well." is just clearly wrong, and is as wrong now as it was in the 70's.

 

[jockeydoc]

I wouldn't expect the rear lights to come on as part of DRL but I do expect them to come on under AUTO lights when it's dark enough to warrant illumination. Unfortunately, the MG5 fails on that latter expectation!

I have got used to people "flashing" me from behind due to the rear lights NOT BEING ON. I followed another MG 5 on the Motorway the other day and in "Merky conditions" the rear end of the car was not lite up.
As mentioned looking toward to an update that might correct these issues.
Certainly the automatic lights need to come on sooner with failing light conditions in my opinion.

 

[Lucky5]

I just look out the windscreen and decide whether to switch to manual. No auto system is perfect, sometime going in/out of the shade of trees cam cause them to go on and off too much so I manually turn them on, simples. Same for if it starts getting dusk, I turn them on. It is the drivers responsibility after all. It is nice that if you start the car at night they come on automatically but otherwise I decide

 

[Cocijo]

I'm going to sound like an A***e, but here goes anyway.
I'm begging you to please stop posting your misconceptions as fact. It's the principal thing that's wrong with the internet. People post things as fact with absolutely no evidence to back up these 'facts', when quite often they are wrong, and these things then become accepted as fact.
Now, I'm not guaranteeing I'm correct, but I have posted sources that state what you are stating as fact is not true, and have asked you to back up your statements of 'fact'. Instead of doing this you have again posted what you "remembered" as fact, again without any sources.

"In Sweden the use of daytime running lights (DRL) was made mandatory on 1 October 1977 for all motor vehicles at once, during all seasons and for all areas. According to a study conducted by Andersson and Nilsson (1981) [Andersson and Nilsson. VTI Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute, Report No. 208A; 1981] the introduction of DRL resulted in a reduction of 11% of multiple accidents during daytime. In many discussions on the effectiveness of DRL, these findings have been considered as the strongest evidence that the use of DRL is an effective vehicle collision countermeasure."

Daytime running lights as a vehicle collision countermeasure: the Swedish evidence reconsidered - PubMed

In Sweden the use of daytime running lights (DRL) was made mandatory on 1 October 1977 for all motor vehicles at once, during all seasons and for all areas. According to a study conducted by Andersson and Nilsson (1981) [Andersson and Nilsson. VTI Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So even back then, the discussion was on Vehicle accidents, not pedestrians.

As I said, I'm not in any way claiming, I can't be wrong, and I'd be delighted to see anything you have to back up your insistence that the driving factor behind DRLs is pedestrian safety. But until you provide any sort of reference to your assertations regarding DRL's being brought in for pedestrian safety, I have to rely on the evidence I have, rather than your assertations, and 40 year old memories.

Your evidence does not state that the reduction was on ‘vehicle accidents, not pedestrians ‘ as you interpret. It talks about ‘multiple accidents during daytime’, which I’m sure that you agree may involve pedestrians, cyclists etc. Vehicle collisions can also include pedestrians. Also btw ‘accidents’ is now considered an incorrect way of describing these type of ‘incidents’

I have got used to people "flashing" me from behind due to the rear lights NOT BEING ON. I followed another MG 5 on the Motorway the other day and in "Merky conditions" the rear end of the car was not lite up.
As mentioned looking toward to an update that might correct these issues.
Certainly the automatic lights need to come on sooner with failing light conditions in my opinion.

It is of course your responsibility to use dipped headlights when the conditions dictate. Even the best automatic lights will not take into account all situations - for example a bright day but dense fog patches, heavy rain etc. You should always be aware of the conditions and not wait for the lights to come on automatically.

 

[Bingleys Dad]

It is of course your responsibility to use dipped headlights when the conditions dictate. Even the best automatic lights will not take into account all situations - for example a bright day but dense fog patches, heavy rain etc. You should always be aware of the conditions and not wait for the lights to come on automatically.

Heaven forbid that one must make a manual decision to override an automatic system.
After all it would remove the opportunity to sue the manufacturer when 'It wasn't my fault that the lights didn't come on when they should have done'.
A sad inditement of society today methinks?

 

[Julian Edwards]

That’s interesting. Why do you think it’s important to have your rear sidelights on with the DRL’s during the day in bright conditions? If it gets darker the headlamps/sidelights come on anyway don’t they?

Having also owned Volvo's I have been used to both front and rear lights on at all times. When driving in even slightly overcast weather, the first thing you see of a car in front is the rear lights. So yes I would prefer everyone to have rear lights at all times. I certainly feel safer if the car behind sees me well in advance.

 

[Cocijo]

Heavan forbid that one must make a manual decision to override an automatic system.
After all it would remove the opportunity to sue the manufacturer when 'It wasn't my fault that the lights didn't come on when they should have done'.
A sad inditement of society today methinks?

Give it a try with auto-wipers… but don’t wait too long before taking control!

Are we not nearly at the point where we can just have headlights on all the time? These days they use little juice. Permanently on would save a lot of trouble would it?

 

[Bingleys Dad]

Are we not nearly at the point where we can just have headlights on all the time? These days they use little juice. Permanently on would save a lot of trouble would it?

MG5 EV ----> 2022 model still uses halogens, 120w is not 'a little juice' in my view at least