Daytime running lights

[Mark]

I'm starting to see a few of these on the road now, as it's been law since February that all new cars must have them fitted.

They mostly seem to consist of a row of while LED's around where the front spots are.

[MrJan]

Bleddy irriating if you ask me. One of the Golfs at work that I drive always has the headlights on, a la Volvo, it's stoopid.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Bloody EU daytime running light laws can cause cancer!

[Sonic]

It's just first class insanity is it not? We do not live in perpetual twilight in the winter so why do I need my lights on? Especially in this fuel efficient age - I believe I read somewhere that the lights being on increases fuel consumption by an order of 2%!

Thankfully the car manufactures seem to realise we just don't want it. My alfa is factory set with them on, but it is possible (with a great deal of searching through sub menu after sub menu) to turn them off. My father-in-law also just took delivery of a new VW, and although you won't find the instructions in the manual, there is a way to turn the lights off.

Horray for common sense!

[Mark]

It's just first class insanity is it not? We do not live in perpetual twilight in the winter so why do I need my lights on? Especially in this fuel efficient age - I believe I read somewhere that the lights being on increases fuel consumption by an order of 2%!

Your headlights perhaps, but most DRLs are LEDs with significantly less power drain.



Thankfully the car manufactures seem to realise we just don't want it. My alfa is factory set with them on, but it is possible (with a great deal of searching through sub menu after sub menu) to turn them off. My father-in-law also just took delivery of a new VW, and although you won't find the instructions in the manual, there is a way to turn the lights off.

Horray for common sense!

AFAIK it's law to have them fitted but not to have them switched on, but I guess that may change in time.

[Daniel]

It's just first class insanity is it not? We do not live in perpetual twilight in the winter so why do I need my lights on? Especially in this fuel efficient age - I believe I read somewhere that the lights being on increases fuel consumption by an order of 2%!

Thankfully the car manufactures seem to realise we just don't want it. My alfa is factory set with them on, but it is possible (with a great deal of searching through sub menu after sub menu) to turn them off. My father-in-law also just took delivery of a new VW, and although you won't find the instructions in the manual, there is a way to turn the lights off.

Horray for common sense!
Please stop reading crazy arse sites like -> http://www.dadrl.org.uk/

Personally I don't like the VAG LED DRL's because they are overly bright IMHO but incandescent ones are fine

http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/bmwcorporate/sales/responsible/active_safety/0,,1212___,00.html?selPage=6

The ones on the 500 are also good.
http://www.al-lighting.de/neu/products_technology/headlamps/drl/gross/FIAT_500_DRL.gif

If you think that they're a waste, just think about all the dingleberry's who run around at dusk with either no lights on, or just sidelights. With DRL's they'll be far better lit and more conspicuous. The Subaru is so hard to see on the roads around here due to being green, that it's safest to run around with the headlights on all the time, whereas because it's got DRL's (and is white!) the 500 can run around without using its headlights.

[Eki]

I'm starting to see a few of these on the road now, as it's been law since February that all new cars must have them fitted.

They mostly seem to consist of a row of while LED's around where the front spots are.
It has been law in Finland as long as I remember. I think it's a good law. It makes easier to spot if a car is moving/about to move or just parked.

[Daniel]

It has been law in Finland as long as I remember. I think it's a good law. It makes easier to spot if a car is moving/about to move or just parked.

Wouldn't you much rather have the freedumb to switch your lights on or not? :p

[555-04Q2]

Bleddy irriating if you ask me.

:up:

They are pointless :down:

[DonJippo]

It has been law in Finland as long as I remember. I think it's a good law. It makes easier to spot if a car is moving/about to move or just parked.

Since early 70's during winter months and then 1982 whole year. One of the best laws IMO because of the reasons Eki explained.

[Daniel]

:up:

They are pointless :down:

Please learn to read in future :)

[Daniel]

Since early 70's during winter months and then 1982 whole year. One of the best laws IMO because of the reasons Eki explained.

Yet another reason Finland is a hellhole compare the the paradise that is the UK where we get the choice of whether we want people to see us or not :D

During the winter I always drive around with my headlights on all the time

[Eki]

Wouldn't you much rather have the freedumb to switch your lights on or not? :p
Only if an amendment of our constitution mentioned that we have the right to decide if our horse and buggy has a lantern or not.

[Daniel]

Only if an amendment of our constitution mentioned that we have the right to decide if our horse and buggy has a lantern or not.

That's it, I'm shooting you. BECAUSE I CAN!!!!!!

In all seriousness though, I'm all for freedom, but giving someone the choice of whether to light their car adequately just doesn't seem to be working and the loss of "freedom" is microscopic compared to the benefits. Thanks to the lighting laws and better roads in Finland I never just had cars appearing from nowhere when I was driving and it was good and a very safe environment for someone who'd never driven on the right to drive in.

[Mark]

You don't. But if the motor is running there's a good chance that the car will start to move at any moment.

[Daniel]

We've had this law in the states for some time (new cars fitted with them). It's in response to the over the top push for safety. I understand that there is a new constitutional amendment working it's way through our congress requiring all clothing to be made out of bubble wrap on the chance that you might trip and fall, resulting in serious injury or death. They'll be in designer colors of course.

Does it really cause you any pain for your car to be properly lit as legislated?

Yes it would be nice if we didn't have to have laws about this, but the world is full of world class ****wits and you need to account for these sorts of people sadly.

[Sonic]

Your headlights perhaps, but most DRLs are LEDs with significantly less power drain.

AFAIK it's law to have them fitted but not to have them switched on, but I guess that may change in time.

The most up to date research I can find (American so you'll have to translate to your own currencies) suggests that an average motorist will spend between $3 and $60 per year in extra fuel depending on the efficiency of the lights used. Multiply that by the millions of cars on the road and that's a great deal of added expense and pollution.

[Daniel]

The most up to date research I can find (American so you'll have to translate to your own currencies) suggests that an average motorist will spend between $3 and $60 per year in extra fuel depending on the efficiency of the lights used. Multiply that by the millions of cars on the road and that's a great deal of added expense and pollution.

I really don't believe those figures. but anyway I'll bite. My fuel bill last year was £1723.52 so an extra £3 to be more visible on the road doesn't seem particularly bad?

[Daniel]

What about the quantities of additional fuel burned? Regardless of price, petroleum based fuel is a non-renewable resource.

Agreed. But I'm also a non-renewable resource as well :) I burnt 1475.35 litres of fuel last year, I doubt another 3 litres will make a big dent :)

[Daniel]

That's true and I resent the fact that people with even half a brain have to go to considerable trouble and expense to protect themselves from them.

I agree. Personally I'm all for involuntary euthanasia for these sorts of people. Would help lower our Carbon Footprint too :)

[555-04Q2]

Please learn to read in future :)

Huh :?:

[Sonic]

I agree. Personally I'm all for involuntary euthanasia for these sorts of people. Would help lower our Carbon Footprint too :)

I shall have to remember that line; "involuntary euthanasia". Genius. :D

[Sonic]

I really don't believe those figures. but anyway I'll bite. My fuel bill last year was £1723.52 so an extra £3 to be more visible on the road doesn't seem particularly bad?

Not sure I believe those figures either (especially the higher one) but it was all I could find at the time.

However, even taking the lower figure of $3 per year, or, to look at it another way, one US gallon of fuel a year, when you start to do so basic Top Gear Maths the numbers involved soon get dizzying.

[ioan]

Good thing.

[Daniel]

Not sure I believe those figures either (especially the higher one) but it was all I could find at the time.

However, even taking the lower figure of $3 per year, or, to look at it another way, one US gallon of fuel a year, when you start to do so basic Top Gear Maths the numbers involved soon get dizzying.

I suspect there's more fuel to be saved by not allowing people to have radios in cars or having the window open above a certain speed and so on.....

[Dave B]

Does it really cause you any pain for your car to be properly lit as legislated?

Yes it would be nice if we didn't have to have laws about this, but the world is full of world class ****wits and you need to account for these sorts of people sadly.
Now we just need a way of automatically stoping morons driving with foglights on in good visibility :D



The most up to date research I can find (American so you'll have to translate to your own currencies) suggests that an average motorist will spend between $3 and $60 per year in extra fuel depending on the efficiency of the lights used. Multiply that by the millions of cars on the road and that's a great deal of added expense and pollution.

Probably true of filament bulbs but most new cars have LED daytime lights which draw a fraction of the current - you'd use more power listening to the radio.

[Daniel]

Now we just need a way of automatically stoping morons driving with foglights on in good visibility :D

Yup.

The DRL's in the 500 are something like 5/25w bulbs which means that when they're operating as DRL's they light up the 25 watt filament and when the headlights are on they use the 5 watt filament. Considering that for some people it's a choice between a 25w DRL or a 55w headlight then there's a possible saving to be realised there.

[airshifter]

It does make cars more visible, which can't really hurt anything. But the idiots will still cause accidents, so it won't do much overall IMHO.

[Daniel]

It does make cars more visible, which can't really hurt anything. But the idiots will still cause accidents, so it won't do much overall IMHO.

Exactly :)

[odykas]

I agree they are useful and make cars more visible.
I hate Audi's LEDs though. Too ugly for me.

[Zico]

Personally I don't have a problem with drivers/cars running low power LED sidelights constantly, there has been one or two occasions in pre 'light up time' overtaking maneuvers where visibility has been slightly on the reduced side (I live in Scotland :D ) due to various factors, when they would certainly have made the situation less of a surprise.

LED's are a very efficient light source, anything that increases road safety without affecting other TRUELY important factors can only be a positive thing IMO..

I think the naysayers are getting a bit anal about something that doesn't really have any bad consequences, the good outweighs the bad by a huge margin in my book.

[Azumanga Davo]

Now we just need a way of automatically stoping morons driving with foglights on in good visibility :D

Easy, remove the function from Hyundai owners.

[Captain VXR]

Easy, remove the function from Hyundai owners.

Here its usually people in big Mercs etc
And chavs in Saxos wiv some halfords speshul fogz eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeet

[Jag_Warrior]

I've always thought the DRL's were a good idea - for cars and motorcycles. Especially for people who (despite the laws in my state) refuse to turn on their headlights when wipers are necessary (rain, snow, etc.), it makes the vehicle more visible. Even before newer cars started coming out with DRL's, I've been running with my headlights on during the day for years.

And if someone is annoyed by me having my lights on, that just means that they see me, huh? :p : :D

[Brown, Jon Brow]

This is a good idea, particularly when it is raining. Most motorists don't know what it is like for motorcyclists wearing a helmet with a steamed up, wet visor.

[donKey jote]

yeah right, or for donkeys wearing sunglasses driving cars with tinted glass :dozey:

[driveace]

Last time I was in Finland it was law to have headlights or running lights on,and that was about 1984/5.i had a Volvo a long time ago that had running lights on.My daughters X5 and her Range Rover have a position so they can run with daytime lights on.
new Merc Sport ordered that has the DRL fitted,but the cheaper Se has only smaller lights fitted.Good thing in my eyes ,these idiots who travel in BAD light with NO lights on to save "The Battery"are dangerous .

[Arjuna]

I doubt those are on purpose driving in the night without light on to save battery. In city driving or whenever it has enough street lamp, often times forget to switch the light back on after having a stop and parking the car, or they are not aware of driving on blown fuse/bulb. There is big difference how is the road visible with headlight is on or off, but such mistake can happen.

Unless driving in pouring and snowing rain which needs foglight is on, to see others in the day shouldn't be a problem. DRL helps the vehicles to be more visible and give others more alerts, however on older car which is not equipped with it they draw amps.


Bleddy irriating if you ask me. One of the Golfs at work that I drive always has the headlights on, a la Volvo, it's stoopid.

Stupid Volvo? I believe you may want to say Absolut Volvo :)

[schmenke]

DRL legislation has been in effect in Canada since the late 1980s (I think). I really don’t understand why people are making a fuss over this.

Concerns over increased fuel consumption are somewhat silly as driving habits and/or lack of proper vehicle maintenance (for example, improperly inflated tires) affect this far more than the electrical load caused by headlights :mark:

[edv]

DRL legislation has been in effect in Canada since the late 1980s (I think). I really don’t understand why people are making a fuss over this.

Concerns over increased fuel consumption are somewhat silly as driving habits and/or lack of proper vehicle maintenance (for example, improperly inflated tires) affect this far more than the electrical load caused by headlights :mark:

Plus, if you wanted to import a 1990s vintage car into Canada from , say, the USA, you would have to install/enable DRL, and in some cases reinforce the front bumper to comply with mandated collision test-based criteria.

[Daniel]

DRL legislation has been in effect in Canada since the late 1980s (I think). I really don’t understand why people are making a fuss over this.

Concerns over increased fuel consumption are somewhat silly as driving habits and/or lack of proper vehicle maintenance (for example, improperly inflated tires) affect this far more than the electrical load caused by headlights :mark:

Because some morons here in the UK have this idiotic allergy towards the state or the EU doing anything which makes life safer. Bicycle helmets are compulsory back in Australia, yet they're optional here because everytime they're discussed here there's a backlash and almost American like talk of invasion of freedumb and so on :mark:

[airshifter]

Because some morons here in the UK have this idiotic allergy towards the state or the EU doing anything which makes life safer. Bicycle helmets are compulsory back in Australia, yet they're optional here because everytime they're discussed here there's a backlash and almost American like talk of invasion of freedumb and so on :mark:

Bike and/or motorcyle helmets are a completely different issue from DRLs though. It's been shown over and over that a bicycle or motorcycle involved in an accident gets trashed and does very little damage after the rider departs. So the risk of not using a helmet is on the rider, not a pedestrian or another involved in the accident.

Cars however, do a lot of damage after initial impact if they keep moving, and much greater damage to the vehicle(s) struck by the car. So DRLs provide more overall safety for everyone on the road.

[Mark]

But I think the point Daniel is making is that there is almost a hysteria associated with the EU in the UK. Any article in the press which says "EU regulations" is code for "This has been imposed upon us against our will by those evil types on the continent, rule Britannia, Jerry doesn't like it up 'em" etc etc

[BDunnell]

Precisely.

[MrJan]

I dislike the idea of DRLs because I think that they're a needless replacement for common sense. If people can't work out that their lights are supposed to be on then they shouldn't be in charge of a knife and fork, let alone a car :D I also completely see the motorcyclists' arguments, that everyone having lights on means that they will be less visible in the day. And most of all, my car is low and any stoopit fourbefour behind me with lights on shine right in my eyes :(

[BDunnell]

I dislike the idea of DRLs because I think that they're a needless replacement for common sense.

A very fair point. Sadly, we are nowadays all treated like potentially litigious morons.

[cali]

It has been law in Finland as long as I remember. I think it's a good law. It makes easier to spot if a car is moving/about to move or just parked.


Since early 70's during winter months and then 1982 whole year. One of the best laws IMO because of the reasons Eki explained.

Quite agree. We have had this law from mid-nineties and at first it seemed soo stupid, but for a while now I think it is great law actually. Improves road sefaety a lot. You will start to realise this sooner or later.

[BDunnell]

Quite agree. We have had this law from mid-nineties and at first it seemed soo stupid, but for a while now I think it is great law actually. Improves road sefaety a lot. You will start to realise this sooner or later.

I take the point absolutely, but is it fair to say that such a law is of more use in countries where the daylight hours in winter are that much shorter?

[AndySpeed]

From a completely bat-eyed pedestrians point of view then surely they are a good idea as they will catch their eyes that little bit more and stop them walking out in the road in front of a car. Even on a rainy day.

To be honest I often drive around with my headlights on dipped in dull or rainy weather anyway, sidelights just don't cut it.

[cali]

It has been law in Finland as long as I remember. I think it's a good law. It makes easier to spot if a car is moving/about to move or just parked.


I take the point absolutely, but is it fair to say that such a law is of more use in countries where the daylight hours in winter are that much shorter?

We have dark nights in winter and very bright night in summer :)
Actually this law is quite good even in summertime from my experience. We do not have highways almost at all and this law is making passing a car in front much more easier. People were against this law at first for different reasons, but now I hardly know a person who says bad thing about it.

[janneppi]

We do not have highways almost at all and this law is making passing a car in front much more easier.
this is what I like about it too, you can spot an oncoming car further away which helps to plan your own actions.

[Eki]

I take the point absolutely, but is it fair to say that such a law is of more use in countries where the daylight hours in winter are that much shorter?
But in summer they are much longer.

[schmenke]

I take the point absolutely, but is it fair to say that such a law is of more use in countries where the daylight hours in winter are that much shorter?

That’s not the intent of the legislation. As the name suggests, daytime running lights are intended to make vehicles more visible during daylight hours.
Speaking from personal experience, I know that they can save lives.

[Mark]

What personal experience do you have of that?

[Mark in Oshawa]

DRL's were an idea that sounded retarded to me but they have worked pretty well here in Canada. The only thing I can say against them is people think they don't need to turn their headlights on (and TAILLIGHTS) when it is marginally obscured out there..(snow, fog, rain, dusk). Cant count the number of times people run down the highway in Toronto with no taillights at night but the DRL's are bright enough that they think they have their headlights on. I think the DRL program makes sense if they put them on the taillights.

[schmenke]

What personal experience do you have of that?

Many years ago I had a near miss at 100kph with an on-coming vehicle which was not equipped with DRLs.
I was travelling a highway during the day, trying to pass a large truck ahead of me. I poked my car out into the centre of the highway to check for on-coming vehicles. I did this twice. I saw nothing. I want to pass the truck and as I was along side it I saw a dark grey coloured vehicle, back dropped against a slight rise in the grey-coloured road ahead, bearing down on me, frantically flashing his lights. I had nowhere to go. The on-coming car had to swerve onto the shoulder to avoid a head-on collision, avoiding me by what seemed like inches.

I was trembling so hard I had to pull over to the shoulder to settle down (and clean my trousers!).

If that on-coming car would have had his headlights switched on I would have likely seen him in the first place and never attempted the pass.

[Daniel]

Many years ago I had a near miss at 100kph with an on-coming vehicle which was not equipped with DRLs.
I was travelling a highway during the day, trying to pass a large truck ahead of me. I poked my car out into the centre of the highway to check for on-coming vehicles. I did this twice. I saw nothing. I want to pass the truck and as I was along side it I saw a dark grey coloured vehicle, back dropped against a slight rise in the grey-coloured road ahead, bearing down on me, frantically flashing his lights. I had nowhere to go. The on-coming car had to swerve onto the shoulder to avoid a head-on collision, avoiding me by what seemed like inches.

I was trembling so hard I had to pull over to the shoulder to settle down (and clean my trousers!).

If that on-coming car would have had his headlights switched on I would have likely seen him in the first place and never attempted the pass.

But don't you think the world is a much better place because people have the freedom to put you and your family in danger because they get to choose whether their car is properly lit?

Caroline's Subaru is this green below and due to the fact that it blends in with the scenery and the road so well the headlights are always on so that no one has an experience like Schmenke did. To be honest even if it had DRL's I think I'd still have the headlights on.
http://www.carz.co.nz/photo.wsvc?pid=1&vid=644&size=thumb1
The Fiat being white doesn't need the headlights on all the time and the DRL's suffice.

[schmenke]

I never realised DRL's could be so interesting.. :D

Enlightening topic innit? :p :

[Di Rishta]

DLR is suitable for intercity driving where we can drive at some speed, unless it is a must, in busy traffic of city driving, it is irritating imo.

I think free way has its different own road with those coming from the opposite, If it comes to a single road usually it has double lines separator and driving fast is not allowed. Yes for its color resembles asphalt, dark grey car is sometimes indistinguishable..

[Mark]

DLR is suitable for intercity driving where we can drive at some speed, unless it is a must, in busy traffic of city driving, it is irritating imo.


On the contrary, their application is mostly aimed at pedestrian safety.



I think free way has its different own road with those coming from the opposite

Dual carriageways and motorways have a central reservation, I think is what you mean?



If it comes to a single road usually it has double lines separator and driving fast is not allowed.

Most single carriageway roads do not have a double line, and overtaking is usually allowed, in fact it has to be otherwise you'll forever be stuck being a tractor doing 15mph.



Yes for its color resembles asphalt, dark grey car is sometimes indistinguishable..

Very true, one reason I don't like silver cars, they blend in far too much!

[donKey jote]

Very true, one reason I don't like silver cars, they blend in far too much!
funny that, our test cars are mostly silver due to Health and Safety recommendations !
although we do always drive with the lights on anyway :)

[airshifter]

DRL's were an idea that sounded retarded to me but they have worked pretty well here in Canada. The only thing I can say against them is people think they don't need to turn their headlights on (and TAILLIGHTS) when it is marginally obscured out there..(snow, fog, rain, dusk). Cant count the number of times people run down the highway in Toronto with no taillights at night but the DRL's are bright enough that they think they have their headlights on. I think the DRL program makes sense if they put them on the taillights.

I've often wondered why the auto on type lights don't use two settings rather than one. DRLs all the time, parking lights (with tails as in US market) and then full headlights when it's dark enough.

And though I'm sure someone will cry over it, maybe it's time for a rear light version of DRLs. Since a lot of crashes involve rear end collision, it couldn't hurt.

Years ago I got a couple Cyberlights. They used an accelerometer to determine rate of flash. At the time I used them on bikes, and they increased gaps between me and cars quite a bit. They were also great for when you downshifted or got off the gas in a low gear, since following vehicles could better "see" the rate of slow by the light. I would think a modern version of that, or using light intensity as a variable would avoid a lot of rear end collisions.

[bluegem280]

DLR is suitable for intercity driving where we can drive at some speed, unless it is a must, in busy traffic of city driving, it is irritating imo.

I think free way has its different own road with those coming from the opposite, If it comes to a single road usually it has double lines separator and driving fast is not allowed. Yes for its color resembles asphalt, dark grey car is sometimes indistinguishable..

Driving with lamp is on is helpful in free way, imagine when you are trying to get pass a car there may be faster cars behind you, they usually give the sign that you need to give them way by turning the light on, speeding like in free way it's more effective than horn, at least flashing the headlight. They tell you are too slow on overtaking. You only need to drive and abide by the rule.

Silver and white cars are not too bad, they absorb into the cabin less heat than dark color, so cabin needs AC less often. It means it saves fuel and produce less emitter.

We are talking about DRL not DLR. If you watch last years F1 on the screen it stands for de la Rosa.. :)

[Di Rishta]

Of course I didn't forget the name, sorry for typo..

I can get your point, but still for overtaking, flashing hi beam makes more senses to me.

White car is awesome, looking for the best deal for a white chevy trailblaz, the current installments are nearly completed. :)

[Bob Riebe]

It has been law in Finland as long as I remember. I think it's a good law. It makes easier to spot if a car is moving/about to move or just parked.Here we have- parking lights (yellow)- fog lights and now running lights.
People who drive with their fog lights on, when headlights are required (at sunset and if it is raining you must turn on your headlights) should either get a ticket or fog-lights smashed.
People who turn on only their parking lights when headlights are required, should get a ticket. It is illegal to turn on only the parking lights, as there is a reason the are called parking lights.
As for the running lights, if they like them or are too lazy to disconnect them, their choice.
I would do as I did with the seat-belt chime, disconnect it.

[airshifter]

Parking lights only are legal in a lot of states. Fogs are good for being visible but irritate other drivers too much so really shouldn't be used except in fog IMO.

When I was in Japan they often only used parking lights at night in the city areas. With the street lights and such it was actually much easier on the eyes with less glare and thus better overall visibility. Even in areas that full lights were needed the majority dimmed to parking lights at stop signs and lights.

Overall I thought this worked much better for visibility in most cases. Here in the US people run lights in light areas, and the result is dealing with more glare and such.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I would do as I did with the seat-belt chime, disconnect it.

Why would you need to disconnect the seat-belt chime? :confused:

[Mark]

In the UK, parking lights are never used for parking. But they are quite often misued as people think they are what you are supposed to use at dusk, when actually that's when they are at their least effective! Of course it does light the rear lights, which is an advantage. But for the most part if it's a bit dim out - just put your headlights on!

[Mark]

Why would you need to disconnect the seat-belt chime? :confused:

That does suggest he's driving without a seatbelt, which is monumentally stupid.

[555-04Q2]

Why would you need to disconnect the seat-belt chime? :confused:

1. Because people should not need a chime to remind them that they need to put their seatbelt on.
2. It is bloody annoying moving the car at car washes or in your driveway for example with a stupid ding ding noise going off. Who wears a seatbelt when moving the car from the garage to the driveway or around the car wash?

Its the same with the open door chime, headlight on chime, key in the ignition chime.......

[555-04Q2]

That does suggest he's driving without a seatbelt, which is monumentally stupid.

See above post...

[Daniel]

1. Because people should not need a chime to remind them that they need to put their seatbelt on.
2. It is bloody annoying moving the car at car washes or in your driveway for example with a stupid ding ding noise going off. Who wears a seatbelt when moving the car from the garage to the driveway or around the car wash?

Its the same with the open door chime, headlight on chime, key in the ignition chime.......

That's what I suspected tbh. What kind of person who watches motorsport then drives around with no seatbelt?

[ioan]

1. Because people should not need a chime to remind them that they need to put their seatbelt on.
2. It is bloody annoying moving the car at car washes or in your driveway for example with a stupid ding ding noise going off. Who wears a seatbelt when moving the car from the garage to the driveway or around the car wash?

Its the same with the open door chime, headlight on chime, key in the ignition chime.......

You mean that you are driving over 20 km/h at car wash?
As far as I know those seat belt bleeping beepers only start when you go above a certain speed, which is why I never hear them in my car. :D

And having it beep when I get out and forget to turn off the lights is a very good thing too.

[555-04Q2]

You mean that you are driving over 20 km/h at car wash?
As far as I know those seat belt bleeping beepers only start when you go above a certain speed, which is why I never hear them in my car. :D

And having it beep when I get out and forget to turn off the lights is a very good thing too.

My daily driver beeps continuously once you start the engine and does not stop unless you plug the seatbelt in. At car washes etc I leave it clipped in and sit with it behind my back. Easy solution to a stupid problem :p :

[Daniel]

My daily driver beeps continuously once you start the engine and does not stop unless you plug the seatbelt in. At car washes etc I leave it clipped in and sit with it behind my back. Easy solution to a stupid problem :p :

What you could try would be to do your seatbelt up and then turn the key perhaps?

[schmenke]

... At car washes etc I leave it clipped in and sit with it behind my back. Easy solution to a stupid problem :p :

Isn't it more difficult to clip the seatbelt behind your back? :s

[555-04Q2]

What you could try would be to do your seatbelt up and then turn the key perhaps?

To move the car 3 or 4 times around the car wash about 10 meters each time at under 1 km/h? That just rediculous :p :

[555-04Q2]

Isn't it more difficult to clip the seatbelt behind your back? :s

No, I just leave it clipped in all the time and sit on it. When I'm finished at the car wash or ready to leave my driveway etc, I belt up properly. I always wear my seatbelt when I drive on teh road, but refuse to have to put it on several times in the space of less than half an hour just to shut a stupid firking bleeper off! Maybe I'm lazy, or just plain old padantic :p :

[Mark]

Or overly sensitive to beeping? :p . But I agree that a seatbelt warning should beep a couple of times and maybe have a light, but it should stop after that!

[555-04Q2]

Or overly sensitive to beeping? :p .

I hate uneccessary and pointless noises, no matter how loud or faint they are :p :

Maybe I'm crazy :crazy: :p :

[Daniel]

Or overly sensitive to beeping? :p . But I agree that a seatbelt warning should beep a couple of times and maybe have a light, but it should stop after that!

Not really. If it merely beeped a couple of times it would be far easier for people to ignore it. The warning bleep in the 500 is bloody annoying, to the point where if Caroline unclips her belt before we come to a stop I get shouty :p

[Mark]

Too right, you should never unclip your belt until you come to a complete stop. Even when parking if you suddenly have to hit the brakes, even at walking pace, you can smash your head off the windscreen.

[555-04Q2]

Too right, you should never unclip your belt until you come to a complete stop. Even when parking if you suddenly have to hit the brakes, even at walking pace, you can smash your head off the windscreen.

Some people could do with a good smash to the head to straighten them out ;)

[Daniel]

Too right, you should never unclip your belt until you come to a complete stop. Even when parking if you suddenly have to hit the brakes, even at walking pace, you can smash your head off the windscreen.

Well tbh there's never any danger pulling up outside home, it's just the beep that annoys me :p

[Dave B]

Too right, you should never unclip your belt until you come to a complete stop. Even when parking if you suddenly have to hit the brakes, even at walking pace, you can smash your head off the windscreen.

I saw a stupid annoying woman getting her just desserts when doing exactly that on a 737 - she decided it was vital for her to be out first so stood up as we were coming up to our gate, then stacked it when the brakes came on a little more sharply than expected. 150 people may have laughed at her somewhat...

[Daniel]

I saw a stupid annoying woman getting her just desserts when doing exactly that on a 737 - she decided it was vital for her to be out first so stood up as we were coming up to our gate, then stacked it when the brakes came on a little more sharply than expected. 150 people may have laughed at her somewhat...

Yes, you've got to love it when people decide that they're not going to listen to what the captain says.....

[schmenke]

I hate uneccessary and pointless noises, no matter how loud or faint they are :p :
...

Might I suggest you stay single then :p :






:erm:

[555-04Q2]

Might I suggest you stay single then :p :





:erm:

Too late! The wife didn't come with a warning sign :p :

[Bob Riebe]

Too right, you should never unclip your belt until you come to a complete stop. Even when parking if you suddenly have to hit the brakes, even at walking pace, you can smash your head off the windscreen.
BS, anyone who bangs there head against the windshield at a walking pace either drives with their nose four inches from the windshield or is a pantywaist putz.