Don't run an auction for something, wait until there are 6 bids on the item and then end it early because "the item has been sold"

Fcukers!!

I'm generally sceptical about that kind of research, I have to be honest with you. There are two ways to do it and neither is entirely scientifically strong.


Just because there's no overpowering reason not to do something doesn't mean you should do it. As a fundamentally liberal person, I'm against any legislation unless there is a very strong case for it's introduction and not introducing it induces a high cost (not just financial, by any measure). There is a point where legislation becomes bureaucracy and I believe this is one of those cases.


So would you be in favour of EU wide legislation restricting the sale of green cars in verdant areas? And would you see a red car more quickly in.. say an area where it is traditional to build buildings out of red brick? Or if it was autumn and all the leaves had changed colour? As you say, there are specific cases where incentives/penalties should be offered to cope with the local environment, but this legislation doesn't do so. It applies to all cars, all over the EU, in all conditions.


DRLs != HV. Just because they ostensibly serve the same purpose does not make them equivalent.

Jon

I've always believed eBay should charge any extra fee if an auction is ended early that didn't have a 'buy now' price set on it.

Jon

Indeed. It took over 24 hours to wifi my data to my NAS box.

Not really - even with visors lowered to mitigate glare, going from a brightly area into an area of dark shadow will cause a moment of visual doubt that can be somewhat lessened if the oncoming traffic is using DRLs.
RTAs are never resultant of a single cause, rather a confluence of events that create the circumstance for the accident to occur. By lessening the possible elements that feed into an accident, where practical, you should see a drop in accident rates.
Driving home on the west coast of Scotland, into a bright sun which is low in the horizon, with added glare on the roads due to the rain, trust me, having lights on is of benefit.




I fail to see how they can make things worse, and as I've explained, can only offer an improvement to your visibility. YMMV, of course, but I'm appreciative that other drivers have them, and I'll stick my lights during the day if the conditions warrant it - it's of no inconvenience and may help me more obvious.

Unlike colour, running lights increase the visibility of all cars in all conditions all over the EU. The cost is absolutely insignificant considering they're not being retro-fitted. Any possible benefits massively outweigh any imagined negative. Therefore it is surely common sense that this is good and proper legislation?

We had similar stupid arguments when seat belts became compulsory and when the drink-drive legislation came in. There were probably similar arguments about indicators, the MOT and driving licences. This is incredibly trivial by comparison...

Just as an aside JJ, is it actually possible for you to have a civilised discussion with someone without insulting them in the process?

I thought I was being perfectly civil. Where do you think I was being insulting? Remember, this is the ranting thread so some ranting is demanded.

However, your failure to provide any valid argument for your case and simply dismissing or ignoring the evidence against it gets annoying after two pages. "They look stupid and I don't think they'll do any good" is no argument against them. If you can produce any evidence or theories suggesting they'll actually make the roads more dangerous, then that would be a discussion.

Returning to the comparison with previous unpopular legislation; Most people now agree that the arguments against them, generally concerning the loss of personal liberty, were selfish and stupid. Drink-driving kills, and the loss of the liberty to drink-drive is justified. There's not even any loss of personal liberty in legislating that new vehicles must be fitted with a few extra LEDs, hence me saying that arguing against them is trivial.

There are environmental reasons for not having them - they increase fuel consumption for example, and the requirement that they be functionally separate from the other lights of the vehicle increases the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process, not to mention the monetary cost.

And to raise another point of yours - I can't really conceive of a valid reason for seatbelts to be compulsory - if the driver wants to be stupid enough not to wear one then that's really their prerogative.

It's entirely possible to 'rant' without being denigrating to derogatory to the people on the other side of the argument.


As oppose to your failure to read them? I'll put my first hand experience, both as a driver and someone who was knocked down crossing the road, up against your third hand assertions based of studies which neither of us have seen the full analysed data of. I've seen any number of laws and regulations backed up by 'studies' which have turned out to be pretty poor science.

And DRLs are nothing at all like seat belts. There's no logical argument against the notion that wearing a seat belt can save your life or at least save yourself from serious injury (I had a friend, back in the days before compulsory seat belts, who did the 'crash without wearing one'. He lived, but I saw the scars. Often). You can't argue that wearing a seatbelt doesn't make a enough of a different to make it worthwhile, at least once you understand Newton's First law of Motion. My assertion is that mandatory DRLs won't make enough of a difference in enough cases to make them worth mandating them across the entire EU, as oppose to say making it an offense not to use then in particular countries at particular times of the year in a similar way to the German attitude to winter tires for example. The fact you don't agree with my assertions does not in fact make them invalid. And you haven't actually provided a cogent argument to the contrary, you've just said 'well, they say it's true so it must be'.

Jon

I have not searched for the source myself so call me out if I'm wrong but someone told me a number of years ago that Audi tested running lights and the increase in fuel consumption. They found it to be negligible at most.

In other news I drove a hire car yesterday (new Astra estate) and the running lights were on. I didn't have a bleeding clue how to turn them off!

On topic --- [LIFTED] COURIERS. WHAT THE [LIFTED] IS WRONG WITH YOU?

edit: I just briefly read a report that Audi's LED lights reduce CO2 and increase fuel consumption (presumably compared to Xenon)

Stupid Sheffield City Council wants the M1 speed limit reduced to 50mph.
If they're allowed to do that, every city will want to do it, and before you know it the whole bloody road system will be crawling along at a snails pace.

Good. Maybe if the UK population didn't drive like utter nobheads, city councils wouldn't want to reduce limits and people like me wouldn't support them.

But the UK population (especially the Audi and 4x4 drivers) do drive like utter nobheads. The UK population has proved itself unable to respect even the most basic of traffic laws.

So 50mph it is. Until people start acting like adults.

Given what you've said, what makes you think they'd respect a 50MPH limit any more than they respect a 70MPH one?

I don't expect them to.

However, they will be at a lower speed when they nobhead into someone else.