Driving with parking lights

Boskowski

Right so we already know about all the other lights related stuff on Irish roads like not indicating, driving with front fogs, rear fogs when there's no fog, driving one eyed, cross eyed, half fogs godknowswhatelse.

But what's the story with driving around on parking lights when its not quite pitch dark yet?

Are people on irish roads simply not aware they're actually called parking lights? Are they driving on these to save juice? Do they just think its the right thing to do in twilight? Do they think its cool?

I know between all the other funny things people do on Irish roads its probably not the worst thing in the world, but its definitely irritating for someone with apparently mild OCD like me.

If I go by the numbers I see everyday doing this we surely must have a few here on boards who can tell me what their motivation is.

Whats the story here?

MuppetCheck

People are idiots.

Also illuminated dash boards fool people. I think it would make sense that they don't illuminate with parking lights. If it's too dark to see the inside then you need main beam on anyway.

Inbox

Trying to save fuel. Bulbs are a nightmare to change on some modern yokes.

bazz26

GTE

I was always taught they are called running lights and double up as parking lights when the car is parked and the driver selects what side is to be lit up by the indicator stalk or some such.

Anyway, back to the question of running lights/parking lights/side lights. It is not a big deal for me until dipped beams start masking the weaker lights like these.

I have seen some people really push the boundary of what is acceptable but thankfully it is not common. More people seem to run with no lights whatsoever in my experience which is slightly worrying

Personally, I always have the running lights on and then when I hooked the DRLs into the car. When the latter was installed I generally wait till the dipped beams have a noticeable effect on the ground ahead.

Anan1

Do you mean side lights?

Boskowski

Inbox wrote: »

Trying to save fuel. Bulbs are a nightmare to change on some modern yokes.

But surely the fuel you're saving by doing that is less than minuscule. And I don't know maybe some cars have bulbs issues but on my car I had one blown headlamp in about 9 years. Surely couldn't be that much hardship to justify compromising road safety.

Boskowski

Anan1 wrote: »

Do you mean side lights?

No I mean parking lights, consult your car's manual.

GTE

Boskowski wrote: »

No I mean parking lights, consult your car's manual.

I have a good feeling that the parking lights are the side dependent ones I was talking about, but I wont deliver the same tone as you as my car manual is a few meters outside in the cold of the parking lot

Anan1

Boskowski wrote: »

But surely the fuel you're saving by doing that is less than minuscule. And I don't know maybe some cars have bulbs issues but on my car I had one blown headlamp in about 9 years. Surely couldn't be that much hardship to justify compromising road safety.

Is it compromising road safety around dusk? I can see the need for headlights at night and in certain conditions during the day (fe when driving out of a low sun), but I don't see any particular problem with using sidelights at dusk - it is, after all, what they were designed for.

bbk wrote: »

I have a good feeling that the parking lights are the side dependent ones I was talking about, but I wont deliver the same tone as you as my car manual is a few meters outside in the cold of the parking lot

And you'd be right.

A-Trak

Why do parking/side lights exist on cars?

Surely they serve no practical purpose?

Boskowski

bbk wrote: »

Personally, I always have the running lights on and then when I hooked the DRLs into the car. When the latter was installed I generally wait till the dipped beams have a noticeable effect on the ground ahead.

Right I can see - however misguided in my book- the logic behind it.
But in some European countries like Italy its actually advocated (if not mandatory) to drive with full dipped lights even in daytime.
Basically you're saying its not dark enough yet for dipped lights to have an effect so it must be about being seen rather than seeing. But then would't you even be seen better with full dipped lights?

Anan1

A-Trak wrote: »

Why do parking/side lights exist on cars?

Surely they serve no practical purpose?

Parking lights are for parking on poorly-lit roads, and sidelights are for when the driver wants the car to be seen but does not need the illumination provided by headlights. For example, at dawn and dusk.

corktina

They should be wired to go off when the handbrake is released.

Boskowski

A-Trak wrote: »

Why do parking/side lights exist on cars?

Surely they serve no practical purpose?

Sometimes you might park for (hopefully) a short space of time in a spot where you're worried about your car being safe. Thats what parking lights are for. You can switch them on on both sides or on either side with the help of the indicator stalk.

I can see how one might think thats useless so they think they must be twilight lights or something. But they're not they're actually parking lights.

GTE

Boskowski wrote: »

Right I can see - however misguided in my book- the logic behind it.
But in some European countries like Italy its actually advocated (if not mandatory) to drive with full dipped lights even in daytime.
Basically you're saying its not dark enough yet for dipped lights to have an effect so it must be about being seen rather than seeing. But then would't you even be seen better with full dipped lights?

The opinion of being misguided is not something given a toss about but the DRL regulations that came in a few years back address the dipped beam theory as being correct.

This is why the DRLs have come in in Europe because 110 watts of front lighting is being replaced by something that is probably less than a third of that figure and in addition to that, LED based DRLs are brighter/sharper.

DRLs have been in existence in the USA I think for a good while as investigation into my headlight switch shows a dedicated DRL section of the plug assembly. Apparently that sent juice to the dipped beams once the engine started.

That is why there is a distinction between the 55 watt bulb dipped/DRL and the LED DRL.

Boskowski

Anan1 wrote: »

Parking lights are for parking on poorly-lit roads, and sidelights are for when the driver wants the car to be seen but does not need the illumination provided by headlights. For example, at dawn and dusk.

Nope they're not. Actually there are no sidelights. Its something that people must have invented for themselves, they are all different degrees of parking lights.

conzy

I drive with the angel eyes on the whole time as I think they increase visibility (as in other road users can see me better)

I would use them at dusk also at the point where using dipped headlights does not provide me any more visibility..

When its dark I will turn on dipped headlights

shedweller

Ya know the way new cars have drl's that stay on regardless?
I've seen quite a few driving around at night with just those on. No tail lights no nothing.
Idiots

Boskowski

bbk wrote: »

The opinion of being misguided is not something given a toss about but the DRL regulations that came in a few years back address the dipped beam theory as being correct.

Well maybe thats your opinion but in other western European countries you would be stopped and asked wtf you're doing and probably issued a fine. So I'm obviously not making it up altogether.

GTE

Boskowski wrote: »

Well maybe thats your opinion but in other western European countries you would be stopped and asked wtf you're doing and probably issued a fine. So I'm obviously not making it up altogether.

I would imagine this to be the case where DRLs are not fitted, indeed. EDIT: Wait, you mean driving with dipped beams on? That is a silly carry on if true.

The point being made is that the LED DRLs which are now mandatory in Europe for new cars can now replace the constant on dipped beam regulations you speak of as the LEDs provide a much more noticeable beam of light while provide some lovely cost savings in the constant running of the bulbs (compatible wattage, replacement frequency)

Boskowski

bbk wrote: »

I have a good feeling that the parking lights are the side dependent ones I was talking about, but I wont deliver the same tone as you as my car manual is a few meters outside in the cold of the parking lot

Well I don't have just a good feeling, trust me they are parking lights. Thats what my manual calls them and thats what I was thought in driving school.

Not sure what was wrong with my tone. I was brief but not hostile or anything for sure.

degsie

Parking lights only illuminate on one side. So are you saying that some ppl drive around purposely with only one side lit?

Boskowski

degsie wrote: »

Parking lights only illuminate on one side. So are you saying that some ppl drive around purposely with only one side lit?

Nope. Parking lights can be on on both sides or on either side but they're still parking lights. At least where I learnt driving. Which of course is not the same as saying thats the definition of them everywhere around Europe. Just trying to find out is it taught to be the right illumination for driving in twilight here?

dougie-lampkin

I don't see any mention of parking lights in my car's manual. I do see a thing called "sidelamps", is that what you mean?

shedweller wrote: »

Ya know the way new cars have drl's that stay on regardless?
I've seen quite a few driving around at night with just those on. No tail lights no nothing.
Idiots

It really annoys me seeing new Audis or some Korean stuff with the super bright LED DRLs at the front and no lighting at the rear. Not only do the idiots drive like this at night completely oblivious, but the LEDs on the front are brighter than dipped beams and usually pretty blinding. Nobody wins :mad:

Boskowski

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

I don't see any mention of parking lights in my car's manual. I do see a thing called "sidelamps", is that what you mean?

Yup. My manual calls them parking lights, your manual calls them sidelights. Thats what I mean.

cerastes

corktina wrote: »

They should be wired to go off when the handbrake is released.

what should be wired? sidelights, dipped lights?
and to go off? do you mean go on?
The handbrake, so they (whatever lights you're talking about) would be switched on and off via the handbrake, so they'd be going on and off keyed off the handbrake, dont think I'll be agreeing with that.

Why not just have certain lights turn on after the ignition has been switched on?

Boskowski wrote: »

Well I don't have just a good feeling, trust me they are parking lights. Thats what my manual calls them and thats what I was thought in driving school.

Not sure what was wrong with my tone. I was brief but not hostile or anything for sure.

Just because your manual or your driving school uised says or taught that, doesnt make it so.
My manual calls them sidelights, the parking lights are operated by the indicator stalk, one side or the other.

Supergurrier

Fog lights all day erry day

Boskowski

cerastes wrote: »

Just because your manual or your driving school uised says or taught that, doesnt make it so.
My manual calls them sidelights, the parking lights are operated by the indicator stalk, one side or the other.

Fair enough but what makes it so then?
And would you call it good practice to drive at twilight on sidelights or whatever you want to call them?

Boskowski

Btw neither the rules of the roads nor the statute books (that I could find quickly) clear this up. Parking lights get a mention once in the ROTR but only in connection with assisting an accident. It says when stopping at an accident scene turn on your hazards and your parking lights, thats all.

Statute books define what they are and how they're supposed to be fitted but not when or why to use them and also they call them sidelights.

So I guess by regulation you can do whatever you want with them until a guard might find their use unsafe and stop you which is unlikely to happen in any case.

I probably just learned to drive in a place where there's a clear definition on when and where to use them but in Ireland this is simply not the case. Means I can't give out about all these people driving around just on them, darn.

P.S. This thread pushed me over 3000 posts, thats something then.

zapata

Ford Light Switch with Parking Light option:

KTRIC

Around 2005 it was made mandatory for the lights on motorbikes to be on all the time. New bikes were coming and are still coming without the option to turn their lights off. Why has this not been implemented for cars ??

Boskowski

In Italy it is. I guess cars are not as small and swift as bikes and not as easily overlooked therefore deemed not necessary?

noelf

KTRIC wrote: »

Around 2005 it was made mandatory for the lights on motorbikes to be on all the time. New bikes were coming and are still coming without the option to turn their lights off. Why has this not been implemented for cars ??

I presume its EU rules that governed this and cars will follow suit

Boskowski

EU or not I don't know, can't blame everything on them but possible for sure. Anyway I reckon they heard quite often after a car vs motorbike collision 'I simply didn't see him'.

On a bike you would take every little help there is. Only last summer I drove on my bike around a roundabout with lights on and I could swear she looked right at me and still pulled out in front of me.

ofcork

I wish people who pull in at the side of the road at night would just have their parking light on instead of leaving headlights on,especially if facing oncoming traffic.

cerastes

Boskowski wrote: »

Fair enough but what makes it so then?
And would you call it good practice to drive at twilight on sidelights or whatever you want to call them?

Im sure there is a clear definition somewhere,
but I think, daytime, if its clear and bright, then no lights can be acceptable, I was driving north on the M50 on Tuesday at about 9.30am, it was clear and bright, lights weren't necessary even though I had them on. I dont think its necessary for lights all the time, you can drive in the day without them or with sidelights if the conditions permit, like if it gets dull during the day. Sidelights can be ok, but if its gets very dull or rains then dipped lights.

Having said this I err on the side of caution and mostly Ive been driving with dipped lights, on some very heavy rainy occasions, Id put the fogs on as the spray was so bad, I could barely make out cars with lights on, but off again as soon as it clears (and I've seen cars driving in these conditions with no lights on)

I think twilight, at dawn before sunrise and at dusk after sunset, really requires dipped lights, as its not like daytime, even leading up to sunset and after sunrise dipped lights are likely to be required, but more so in the winter and again depending on weather conditions too.

My opinion is I decide based on the above, so I'll switch on based on that, knowing I can increase exterior lights if necessary, some people dont seem to know or care and probably should have automatic on/off lights, I prefer to choose. I dont see myself as incapable of making a mistake, I'd prefer a photo sensor to warn me of lights not on in the dark then decide to turn them on automatically.

mathepac

Boskowski wrote: »

...
Are people on irish roads simply not aware they're actually called parking lights? ...

or side lights

Boskowski

cerastes wrote: »

Im sure there is a clear definition somewhere,
but I think, daytime, if its clear and bright, then no lights can be acceptable, I was driving north on the M50 on Tuesday at about 9.30am, it was clear and bright, lights weren't necessary even though I had them on. I dont think its necessary for lights all the time, you can drive in the day without them or with sidelights if the conditions permit, like if it gets dull during the day. Sidelights can be ok, but if its gets very dull or rains then dipped lights.

Having said this I err on the side of caution and mostly Ive been driving with dipped lights, on some very heavy rainy occasions, Id put the fogs on as the spray was so bad, I could barely make out cars with lights on, but off again as soon as it clears (and I've seen cars driving in these conditions with no lights on)

I think twilight, at dawn before sunrise and at dusk after sunset, really requires dipped lights, as its not like daytime, even leading up to sunset and after sunrise dipped lights are likely to be required, but more so in the winter and again depending on weather conditions too.

My opinion is I decide based on the above, so I'll switch on based on that, knowing I can increase exterior lights if necessary, some people dont seem to know or care and probably should have automatic on/off lights, I prefer to choose. I dont see myself as incapable of making a mistake, I'd prefer a photo sensor to warn me of lights not on in the dark then decide to turn them on automatically.

Agreed. Especially in town with your dash lit up from parking/side lights its so easy to forget to switch to dipped lights.

K.Flyer

MuppetCheck wrote: »

People are idiots.

Also illuminated dash boards fool people. I think it would make sense that they don't illuminate with parking lights. If it's too dark to see the inside then you need main beam on anyway.

Was driving behind a young girl in a new 141D at 11.30pm everyone flashing their lights at her, including me, trying to tell her that her lights were off.
Eventually caught her at a set of lights to tell her, her dash was lit up like a christmas tree!! easy to see how some people could make the mistake.

B.T.W. I always drive with main (not high beam) lights on during the day. Our roads are Grey, our weather is Grey, half the cars on the road are Grey, I want to be Seen..
"Be Safe, Be Seen" or have some people forgotten that one.

Jesus.

Don't know what the OP is complaining about to be honest. Surely he can come up with something better than this?

_Kaiser_

What's scary about this thread is the amount of misinformed opinions about a basic car feature/function! Even more ironic considering the calls for less of these "boring" threads in favour of gushing about BMWs and the like - but I digress!

Parking lights as someone did say above are intended for use in exactly those circumstances.. PARKING - to make the car visible on poorly lit roads. They can function with either side lit or both

They are NOT (by design or intention) a substitute for dipped lights or DRLs.

Equally DRLs are NOT a substitute for dipped lights. They are a great idea but the point about them only lighting the front of the car that was raised above is a good one. Luckily they can be recoded to light front and rear - on my Audi it took all of 30 seconds to do with my laptop and a €30 cable.

(While we're at it, fog lights - or main beams - aren't a substitute for dipped lights either!)

Ultimately this is very simple... if it's getting dark or the visibility is poor (raining/overcast etc) turn on your dipped lights. They're there not just for you to see but to BE SEEN by other cars as well - this applies particularly to all those silver cars out there that become practically invisible in the typical Irish weather.

Seriously guys.. it's basic common sense! Shouldn't be any need for an argument about it.

Boskowski

Jesus. wrote: »

Don't know what the OP is complaining about to be honest. Surely he can come up with something better than this?

Eh?!?

Jesus.

Kaiser, I think you're oversimplifying things a bit here. Darkness doesn't just happen all of a sudden like someone switching off a light. Its a gradual process. Sometimes its just not necessary/appropriate to be driving with full lights on.

And because something was designed with a specific purpose, it doesn't mean it can't be used for something else as well if it turns out it works well. Just because it says in a manual that these lights are just for parking, it doesn't mean that they can't provide another function too. When its slightly dull, I'll drive with my parking lights on as I don't deem it appropriate to use the full lights (low beams). Its getting to the stage where some people aren't far off advocating driving around with their lights on all the time which is just another ridiculous, PC, overcautious (yes, it is possible to be overcautious) jump on the bandwagon nonsense.

Cars are quite visible by their nature. They're about 15 feet long, 6 feet wide and are a ton and a half of metal. You don't need to go overboard. Just keep things rational and use a bit of common sense people.

_Kaiser_

Jesus. wrote: »

Kaiser, I think you're oversimplifying things a bit here. Darkness doesn't just happen all of a sudden like someone switching off a light. Its a gradual process. Sometimes its just not necessary/appropriate to be driving with full lights on.

Disagree completely I'm afraid. The fact that we see so many people driving around in the dark with minimal lights on, or using fog lights as a substitute shows that we DO need to make this very simple.

And because something was designed with a specific purpose, it doesn't mean it can't be used for something else as well if it turns out it works well. Just because it says in a manual that these lights are just for parking, it doesn't mean that they can't provide another function too. When its slightly dull, I'll drive with my parking lights on as I don't deem it appropriate to use the full lights (low beams). Its getting to the stage where some people aren't far off advocating driving around with their lights on all the time which is just another ridiculous, PC, overcautious (yes, it is possible to be overcautious) jump on the bandwagon nonsense.

Cars are quite visible by their nature. They're about 15 feet long, 6 feet wide and are a ton and a half of metal. You don't need to go overboard. Just keep things rational and use a bit of common sense people.

I'm not one for PC nonsense either but studies have shown that a car with dipped lights/DRL is more visible than one without. From my own experience I immediately found that lemmings pedestrians were less likely to walk out in front of me on the quays for example, or that other drivers aren't as quick to chance pulling out in front of you from side streets.

Add in the Irish fondness for silver cars + frequently grey skies and rain, and the reasoning for having dipped lights on becomes very clear. Next time you find yourself on a straight bit of road on an overcast day pay attention to how much quicker you see that oncoming silver Mondeo with its lights on vs the one behind it.

Parking lights are no substitute as their output is useless during the day and that's because they're not designed for the use you're suggesting.

What's really needed is mandatory auto lights like a lot of cars now have. Take out all the guesswork from the equation entirely

visual

mathepac wrote: »

or side lights

There are park lights
Side lights are fitted on trucks and trailers to illuminate the side

Boskowski

Jesus. wrote: »

Kaiser, I think you're oversimplifying things a bit here. Darkness doesn't just happen all of a sudden like someone switching off a light. Its a gradual process. Sometimes its just not necessary/appropriate to be driving with full lights on.

And because something was designed with a specific purpose, it doesn't mean it can't be used for something else as well if it turns out it works well. Just because it says in a manual that these lights are just for parking, it doesn't mean that they can't provide another function too. When its slightly dull, I'll drive with my parking lights on as I don't deem it appropriate to use the full lights (low beams). Its getting to the stage where some people aren't far off advocating driving around with their lights on all the time which is just another ridiculous, PC, overcautious (yes, it is possible to be overcautious) jump on the bandwagon nonsense.

Cars are quite visible by their nature. They're about 15 feet long, 6 feet wide and are a ton and a half of metal. You don't need to go overboard. Just keep things rational and use a bit of common sense people.

Right you weren't addressing me but I started this so I will take the liberty replying anyway.

You say you don't deem it appropriate but on what grounds I ask? Really twilight with all its diffusing shades makes it often harder to clearly see others than in pitch black darkness. Surely its not inappropriate to drive with dipped lights to be seen as clearly as you possibly can.
I agree with your argument against all this over the top PC, health & safety, high vis bull but I don't think this falls into that category. Full dips during a bright day does no doubt.

And while that doesn't apply to you it also transpires that a lot of drivers simply don't know what these lights are for. If only one driver actually learns something here what they didn't know before its worth it on a not much else on dull Tuesday evening in January.

Plus I said its probably not a biggish thing but it can be somewhat irritating and I was simply wondering why people go to the length.

Jesus.

Its a persuasive argument Kaiser but I'm afraid I disagree. I think we're getting a little bit hysterical. You yourself don't appear to be far off advocating lights on 24/7.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

What's really needed is mandatory auto lights like a lot of cars now have. Take out all the guesswork from the equation entirely

That's the last thing we need IMO. The Nanny State has gone too far as it is without adding to it. I'm impressed by your arguments mate but I'm just not with you on this one.

Regarding the OP, funnily enough I feel the opposite regarding annoyance with the lights. If anything, I'm very slightly irked by people driving with their beams on when there's really no need. I'd prefer if people just reigned themselves in a bit to be honest.

GTE

Jesus. wrote: »

Its a persuasive argument Kaiser but I'm afraid I disagree. I think we're getting a little bit hysterical. You yourself don't appear to be far off advocating lights on 24/7.




That's the last thing we need IMO. The Nanny State has gone too far as it is without adding to it. I'm impressed by your arguments mate but I'm just not with you on this one.

Regarding the OP, funnily enough I feel the opposite regarding annoyance with the lights. If anything, I'm very slightly irked by people driving with their beams on when there's really no need. I'd prefer if people just reigned themselves in a bit to be honest.

I'd somewhat agree with the points you're making. Auto this and auto that may get rid of the problem but wont address people not knowing how to use lights, however that is more for people forgetting dips at night or deciding to use dips very late into dusk etc.

To add something else to it, I don't think it has ever been the case that there is a two stage mindset in place where drivers switch on "the first notch of lights" before switching on the dipped. I do not believe this is taught anywhere.

From what I have read and and been taught it is a case of dimming light = dipped beams, roughly speaking.

What I feel has happened is that where there is a fairly accepted time to switch dips on, the facility of first notch lights gets used before this dipped time comes along.

First of all, lets banish from our thoughts the people who get this totally wrong, no lights in the dark etc.

I think a lot of Irish drivers and a lot of people in the thread feel that there is some kind of two stage process as things get dim for going from no lights to first notch to dips and I think before any discussion goes further, we all need to realise that this could be a total flaw in all the arguments presented here.

I think things are best described if we imagine a single day with a requirement for dips is at 6pm. All that is happening is that the 6pm switch on is being lead in by a few mins of first notch fun time.

At this point, lets bring the people who get things very wrong and now you have a thread worth posting in because at the end of the day, it is those people who through ignorance have this two stage idea and push the first notch too far thinking that is how it is done. That is just one example. They may go no lights for ages and then everything.

As far making comments about how we are confusing something very basic here, just leave that load of bull at the door please because that is not the case. The consensus here is that the lights in question are fairly useless, whether that is a right or wrong thing to think does not matter. Two 5 watt bulbs is not going to blind anyone or anything serious like that.

For someone who has some OCD tenancies like the OP has, I can appreciate why it can bother the OP but I also know in the reality of it, when you have drivers who appreciate the time when dips should be used, then it does not matter what the first notch usage is. For me, the first notch controls my DRLs so feck the lot of ye, I first notch it all day long The main point is that if you have someone karting around on first notch when they should be using dips means they are misusing the dips, not the first notch.

turbostan

As a driver who covers 1500kms a week in all the various weather conditions I have to say the use of dipped headlights during the day makes it so much easier to spot oncoming traffic. Its all about being seen. Parking lights are useless, they'll only be seen at very close distances, hence the name, parking lights. This opinion has nothing to do with this "nanny state" argument as mentioned earlier. I think that argument is getting tired now. Seems to be a common line thats rolled out anytime someone doesn't like proposed change. Get a new line.
Also the DRL issue of the rear lights not coming on too is a bit annoying. I have DRLs on my car but never use them for this reason, so its dips all the way for me.

GTE

turbostan wrote: »

Also the DRL issue of the rear lights not coming on too is a bit annoying. I have DRLs on my car but never use them for this reason, so its dips all the way for me.

So you have no facility for using DRLs and switching on the first notch of lights? Given that the rear lights are the same intensity regardless of what is going on in the front is it an oversight in fitment or a flaw in the cars design that causes this? AFAIK, DRLs are only meant to dim when the dipped beams switch on.