Driving in Poor visability...wake up people ! | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Driving in Poor visability...wake up people !

Re: Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

The motor vehicle lighting standard is decades out of date, and never anticipated the possibility of instrument lighting that used technology requiring it to be illuminated all the time in order to function. (My own car is like this, the main instrument display is a TFT screen ... but I know where the little green "lights-on" indicator is) The auto manufacturers evidently made an assumption that people would pay attention to a little green indicator lamp, as opposed to having a completely dark instrument panel like in the old days (which is how every car was built by default at the time the motor vehicle lighting standard was written)

Transport Canada is fixing this although it's not taking effect for another year or two. The new requirement will essentially prohibit having any illumination on the instrument panel other than idiot lights if the outside lighting (tail and running lamps) isn't on unless lighting sensors detect that it isn't dark. That may sound odd, but the intent is to allow several methods of achieving compliance: (1) old school lighting circuit (instrument lighting together with tail + running lamps), (2) full automatic lights, (3) kill instrument lighting if it's dark and the driver hasn't turned on the outside lights (VW does this), (4) tail and running lamps on all the time.

No idea if the USA is following suit. There is a fair chance that manufacturers will make them all the same, i.e. comply with the Canadian requirement.
 
Re: Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

1, 2 and 3 might not fully fix the issue. For example if it's bright outside but visibility is poor because of a snow storm. 4 is the way to go. I changed my car coding so the trail lights are on all the time. Dunno why it would come with that disabled from the factory.
 
Re: Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

The luddites complain that lights on all the time shortens the life of the bulbs (which are LEDs as often as not nowadays). I've heard there are some US defense facilities where you have to be completely dark, not sure what the truth of that is. GM got this one right ... the headlight switch defaults to "auto"; on the US cars you can select "off" but you have to intentionally do that every time you start the car.

My car turns the lights off when the ignition is switched off, so you can simply leave the headlight switch on all the time without issue.
 
Re: Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

My 1991 Talon had all lights on with ignition on. Certain things I find super stupid.

Like Brian said, GM got their auto/off selection sorted out a long time ago. Other manufacturers still struggle and part of that is severely underestimating the obliviousness of the average driver.
 
Re: Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

Brian P said:
The luddites complain that lights on all the time shortens the life of the bulbs (which are LEDs as often as not nowadays). I've heard there are some US defense facilities where you have to be completely dark, not sure what the truth of that is. GM got this one right ... the headlight switch defaults to "auto"; on the US cars you can select "off" but you have to intentionally do that every time you start the car.

My car turns the lights off when the ignition is switched off, so you can simply leave the headlight switch on all the time without issue.
Click to expand...

I can't help but think of the automatic interior lights that mysteriously stopped working in my father's 2009 Silverado... turns out that there is a button that does not at all look like a button near the dimmer that disabled them. The auto headlights worked good though, and that truck had the best stock illuminating headlights I've ever seen on a vehicle.

caboose56 said:
My 1991 Talon had all lights on with ignition on. Certain things I find super stupid.

Like Brian said, GM got their auto/off selection sorted out a long time ago. Other manufacturers still struggle and part of that is severely underestimating the obliviousness of the average driver.
Click to expand...

Didn't that car have flip-up headlights?
 
Re: Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

Brian P said:
The luddites complain that lights on all the time shortens the life of the bulbs (which are LEDs as often as not nowadays). I've heard there are some US defense facilities where you have to be completely dark, not sure what the truth of that is. GM got this one right ... the headlight switch defaults to "auto"; on the US cars you can select "off" but you have to intentionally do that every time you start the car.

My car turns the lights off when the ignition is switched off, so you can simply leave the headlight switch on all the time without issue.
Click to expand...

On DRL cars you can't turn off the DRL so you can go completely dark anyways. Luddites are irrelevant.
 
Re: Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

daught said:
On DRL cars you can't turn off the DRL so you can go completely dark anyways. Luddites are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Go on any automotive enthusiast website, and you will find people asking how they can turn the DRLs off. Even people from here in Canada.

I have yet to hear a valid reason for doing so ... only quite a number of excuses. Having the DRLs on in no way impairs the function of the car. Yeah, maybe I'll have to replace a bulb occasionally (mine uses incandescent bulbs, but plenty of newer cars use LEDs, so this excuse goes away, too). So what.
 
Re: Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

Brian P said:
Go on any automotive enthusiast website, and you will find people asking how they can turn the DRLs off. Even people from here in Canada.

I have yet to hear a valid reason for doing so ... only quite a number of excuses. Having the DRLs on in no way impairs the function of the car. Yeah, maybe I'll have to replace a bulb occasionally (mine uses incandescent bulbs, but plenty of newer cars use LEDs, so this excuse goes away, too). So what.
Click to expand...

Those are the same people doing LED retrofits, rear wiper deletes and fart mufflers. I can't believe people pay for kits to remove the functioning rear wiper from their car. smh.
 
Re: Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

GreyGhost said:
Those are the same people doing LED retrofits, rear wiper deletes and fart mufflers. I can't believe people pay for kits to remove the functioning rear wiper from their car. smh.
Click to expand...

its SO uncool man.
 
Re: Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

Brian P said:
Go on any automotive enthusiast website, and you will find people asking how they can turn the DRLs off. Even people from here in Canada.

I have yet to hear a valid reason for doing so ... only quite a number of excuses. Having the DRLs on in no way impairs the function of the car. Yeah, maybe I'll have to replace a bulb occasionally (mine uses incandescent bulbs, but plenty of newer cars use LEDs, so this excuse goes away, too). So what.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, but no one cares about them.

While we're at it can we also get a buzzer fit the high beams
 
basmn said:
Driving in Poor visibility...wake up people !

Just drove home from the cottage....blowing snow like crazy on the 401, visability poor ....i have my headlights, tail lights, fog lights And my rear bumper fogs on to try and make my vehicle visible in the poor road conditions...you would not believe how many cars (90%) did not turn on there tail or head light on. How the f%$# do you expect to be seen out there....smarten up people...auto lighting does not turn on when it snows in the day time.
End of rant...:mad:
Click to expand...


When I got my private pilots license decades ago I was only allowed to fly daytime visual flight rules. I had to take an endorsement to fly at night because of the differences in navigation and little things like flying into a cloud and becoming disoriented.

Unless I am mistaken a person can get a G license in Ontario without ever driving on ice or snow. How do they learn the nuances of how defrosters work, cold tire traction, headlight glare, the fallacies of AWD / 4WD, the concept of actually clearing the windows before driving off etc?

I assume they take a crash course later.
 
nobbie48 said:
When I got my private pilots license decades ago I was only allowed to fly daytime visual flight rules. I had to take an endorsement to fly at night because of the differences in navigation and little things like flying into a cloud and becoming disoriented.

Unless I am mistaken a person can get a G license in Ontario without ever driving on ice or snow. How do they learn the nuances of how defrosters work, cold tire traction, headlight glare, the fallacies of AWD / 4WD, the concept of actually clearing the windows before driving off etc?

I assume they take a crash course later.
Click to expand...
Crash course indeed.
 
Hopefully, you can learn something useful from your parents.
 
Here's another good one... black BMW in front of me today......heavy smoke tint on the tail lights...can barely see them when he puts the brakes on...WTF is wrong with this guy...is this not illegal....good thing he had the 3rd light in the rear window.
 
It is illegal to tint tail lights (and headlights). But there seems to be near-zero enforcement.

It's also dumb ... but there are far too many people out there who don't think.
 
Brian P said:
It is illegal to tint tail lights (and headlights). But there seems to be near-zero enforcement.
Click to expand...

And this is the root of most of the problems discussed in this thread- lack of enforcement. I've called *OPP countless times on the "no lights on the 401 in the middle of the night" cars being discussed in this thread, as well as countless other idiots, dangerous, and careless drivers over the years. Given what I do for a living, I see plenty of them.

That said, probably 90% of the time the dispatcher just takes the report and more or less says "We'll see if we can get someone to check that out, thanks" and that's the end of it. The only exception is if you suggest the driver is impaired - THEN there is, without exception, a solid response.

As much as I know people often scream bloody murder at the mere suggestion, the solution to a lot of these issues is just an overwhelming increase in highway enforcement. People bemoan the US system where there may be a cruiser every 5 or 10 miles, hiding....but it sure solves a lot of problems, and the only people who need to be worried...are the people who damn well deserve what they get as a result.

As it stands however, I have driven 1000+ KM days criss crossing Ontario countless times over the last several decades of driving for a living and never seen a SINGLE cop anywhere inside a 24 hour period. As a result, increasingly, the roads are just becoming a free for all out there.

As for many of the other issues like people driving with no lights on, etc etc....the consensus I've come to is that...people are stupid. And with the average skill requirement to get a licence to drive a car decreasing, and the amount of nanny "features" being included in cars that can help even a stupid woefully unskilled idiot still mange to get from A to B without crashing (and thereby removing themselves eventually from the driving population) it's only going to get worse unless we tighten up enforcement, and education. Since neither are politically popular, don't count on either happening anytime soon, because we all know....getting re-elected is far more important than accomplishing anything important.
 
Some people have smaller brains then the horse they rode in on.
 
I don't understand the lack of enforcement on our roads. It's been a problem for along time. I've lived in Toronto exclusively and all the time I have been here, hardly any police around, either on the 401 where it is badly needed. Yet when there is a weird traffic accident you'll see a whole pile of police at the scene.

Having more police around would solve a bunch of problems from speeding to aggression, to dumb dumbs and parking. Tory's hot button issue of parking was such a joke. His blitz there did nothing to help this issue, it's still a clusterfuck downtown with blocked lanes etc.
 
Well, there's enforcement, but seemingly the only thing they ever enforce are speed limits, impaired, and no seat belt, and maaaybe if they see you go through a red light or stop sign without stopping.

It doesn't help that the HTA's clause about use of turn signals contains that "... where it may affect another driver" clause. It should be that turn signal use is mandatory for any lane change or direction change at an intersection - period, end of story. It's the other driver that you didn't see, who needs to know the most. That "... where it may affect another driver" clause makes it (almost) unenforceable - so they don't.

The non-use of headlights is an easy one to ticket. You're responsible for knowing how your vehicle works. If you know your car has instrument lights on all the time and you need to look for that little green indicator ... so be it. And ... they don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom