|
Extract from Wikipedia:
"DRLs were first mandated in Scandinavian countries, where ambient light levels in the winter are generally low even during the day. Sweden was the first country to require widespread DRLs in 1977. At the time, the function was known as "perception light" or "notice light". The initial regulations in these countries favored devices incorporating 21 W signal bulbs identical to those used in brake lamps and turn signals, producing yellow or white light, mounted at the outer left and right edges of the front of the vehicle. Finland adopted a daytime-light requirement in 1972 on rural roads in wintertime, and in 1982 on rural roads in summertime and 1997 on all roads all year long; Norway in 1986, Iceland in 1988, and Denmark in 1990. To increase manufacturer flexibility in complying with the requirement for DRLs, the daytime illumination of low beam headlights was added as an optional implementation."
Edited by Auristocrat on 16/12/2014 at 01:00
|
|
|
I think it was for quite some years that Volvos were the only cars with lights on all day: Saabs were next - maybe there was a law about it in Sweden.
Both Volvo and Saab would have had DRLs at the same time in Sweden, but unlike Saab, Volvo kept that feature on export models which is why Brits always remember Volvo's for having lights on while Saabs didn't.
|
|
Another little snippet.DRLs were a legal requirement in Scadinavia and were fitted to vehicles sold in the UK as there was nothing in UK motoring law banning them.However in Germany,they could not be fitted as there was no requirement in German motoring law for them!(pre-EU).
|
|
We had "dim-dip" here in the 80/90s - with lighting set to parking lights (aka sidelights) the headlight dip circuit was lit at reduced voltage but it disappeared as EU harmonisation took over our C&U regulations.
|
We had "dim-dip" here in the 80/90s
An excellent system, especially in well-lit areas where headlights were unnecessary.
I turn my headlights off in traffic queues.
|
|
Don't Doc, rosy memories of driving round London in far better times when it was a pleasure to visit, on sidelights just as everyone else did, night vision still intact.
Dim dip went west, as did three line braking on lorries, and the best bit about harmonisation was we gained the tachograph to ''make lorries safer'' and with the tacho increased our working day from a max of 12.5 hours to 15 hours where it still is today, much safer that, you couldn't make half of it up.
|
|
So, if everthing was so much better and safer in the past, how come road deaths and serious injuries have fallen significantly in numbers, consistently over the last 30 or so years, despite increasing vehicle numbers, gordonbennet?
|
So, if everthing was so much better and safer in the past, how come road deaths and serious injuries have fallen significantly in numbers, consistently over the last 30 or so years, despite increasing vehicle numbers, gordonbennet?
Seatbelts, crumple zones, radial tyres, disc brakes, ABS and airbags.
In other words, cars are more crashworthy, so people walk away from crashes which would have been fatal.
|
|
Exactly. Modern life is better and safer than the smokey old 70s with its endless fug of cigarette fumes, smog and tinfoil comedy clown cars with no brakes.
|
Exactly. Modern life is better and safer than the smokey old 70s with its endless fug of cigarette fumes, smog and tinfoil comedy clown cars with no brakes.
Maybe safer, but much more congested and stressful IMO.
I fondly remember the days before the overall 70 limit, speed cameras, traffic 'calming' measures and the freedom to have a cigarette with one's pint. And I liked to buy my petrol in gallons, not litres.
|
|
Ah. And I now enjoy the freedom not to have to breathe your smoke whilst enjoying my pint. Heaven.
|
|
Beer needs tobacco like chips need vinegar. I no longer smoke, haven't done for years, but I can't be bothered to have a pint now either without a fag. Wouldn't taste right.
|
Beer needs tobacco like chips need vinegar. I no longer smoke, haven't done for years, but I can't be bothered to have a pint now either without a fag. Wouldn't taste right.
Exactly. One of the major reasons for pub closures since the smoking ban. (I gave up smoking in 1990 but sympathise with those who haven't) .
There was no reason why smoking and non-smoking rooms could not have been allowed, a total ban was unnecessary.
I for one am sick of the Big Brother nanny state regulating our lives, whether from Whtehall or Brussels.
|
I for one am sick of the Big Brother nanny state regulating our lives, whether from Whtehall or Brussels.
So what are you doing about it?
|
I for one am sick of the Big Brother nanny state regulating our lives, whether from Whtehall or Brussels.
So what are you doing about it?
Thinking of emigrating to the USA and living in a log cabin in the woods, with lots of guns and ammo.
|
Thinking of emigrating to the USA and living in a log cabin in the woods, with lots of guns and ammo.
The wood smoke will kill you with cancer if the guns don't get you - not that driving there is much safer.
|
I for one am sick of the Big Brother nanny state regulating our lives, whether from Whtehall or Brussels.
So what are you doing about it?
Thinking of emigrating to the USA and living in a log cabin in the woods, with lots of guns and ammo.
Enjoy yourself!
|
There was no reason why smoking and non-smoking rooms could not have been allowed, a total ban was unnecessary.
Yes, there was a reason. Smoking rooms would still have had to have been staffed, one of the main reasons for the smoking ban was to protect staff from second hand smoke inhalation, therefore smoking rooms would have defeated this object.
A total ban was, and remains, necessary, until such time as second hand smoke is proven not to cause illness. Good luck proving that.
|
There was no reason why smoking and non-smoking rooms could not have been allowed, a total ban was unnecessary.
Yes, there was a reason. Smoking rooms would still have had to have been staffed, one of the main reasons for the smoking ban was to protect staff from second hand smoke inhalation, therefore smoking rooms would have defeated this object.
A total ban was, and remains, necessary, until such time as second hand smoke is proven not to cause illness. Good luck proving that.
I'm sure all the staff made redundant because of pub closures are delighted. As far as second hand smoke is concerned, acrolein from barbecuing burgers is just as harmful, we ought to ban that too.
|
I'm sure all the staff made redundant because of pub closures are delighted. As far as second hand smoke is concerned, acrolein from barbecuing burgers is just as harmful, we ought to ban that too.
Eating pubs are thriving - drinking pubs are either converting to eating pubs or dying a slow painful death.
The low cost of supermarket booze is closing the drinking pubs and the smoke-free atmosphere making eating pubs a possibility.
Short of banning smoking altogether, which would have put supply in the hands of drug dealers, the banning of smoking in public places is the best move ever made.
|
As far as second hand smoke is concerned, acrolein from barbecuing burgers is just as harmful, we ought to ban that too.
No, no it's not
|
Beer needs tobacco like chips need vinegar. I no longer smoke, haven't done for years, but I can't be bothered to have a pint now either without a fag. Wouldn't taste right.
Tastes fine without for me.
Although chips need salt and vinegar!
|
|
|
>>We had "dim-dip" here in the 80/90s
I recall a colleague complaining about the dimness of their headlights. I asked if it was fitted with dim-dip............................. It was!
Similarly, a relative mentioned their poor dip beam, until I pointed out the headlight alignment adjustment near their right knee. It was set at the lowest. They'd only owned it six years!
|
|
|
|
|
|
