I was behind a BMW this evening in the same situation….
But do the lights not come on automatically on the CHR when ambient light falls? Or you are saying the sensors are not sensitive enough to the fall in ambient light?
Toyota sensors are not sensitive enough for low light
Is there no settings to change the sensitivity? Some manufacturers have sliding scales or settings such as early, normal, late etc.
I don't understand why light sensors aren't mandatory on cars. You don't even need auto lights as I understand some cars aren't good at them and people don't use them. At least the light sensor will ping at you if your lights are off.
Whatever about some auto lights not coming on when they should at least a light sensor would beep at night time. Passed an older black Golf without DRLs on the N4 the other night. You genuinely wouldn't see it in your side mirrors if it came up alongside you. They were headed to the M4 where there's no road lights...
It's the fault of manufacturers in many cases IMO.
My light control shows these four options.
My dashboard displays this symbol ONLY.
Are my dipped beams on?
I would say no. That is not the dipped beam symbol.
The light on the switch itself will show you what lights are on, not the dashboard symbol.
On the basis that the switch is OFF then no they aren't on.
If people can't manage to operate the controls of the equipment that they've paid a lot of money for, then driving isn't for them.
Those same manufacturers provide a manual with the car that very clearly explains this, along with every single other feature in the car.
The better ones even have the equivalent of a quick start guide to cover the essential driving & safety features of the car that can be read in a few minutes. But most people never bother to reach into the glove compartment....
As most reasonable, logical people would, especially since there is a dipped beam symbol, and an auto-dipped beam symbol on the same switch.
It won't, in the sense that the switch is the setpoint only, and the dashboard is the indicator. If the switch was set to Auto, how are you to know which lights are illuminated?
Yes there are stupid drivers, but both of those are total cop out answers for an utterly confusing design, especially for something as basic as lights. And it's not just this example, every manufacturer have different behavior.
Perhaps we could have some junctions where Amber means go, and I can tell anyone who points out that this just might lead to confusion, that drivers should have read the road design plans on the council website before setting out on their journey.
That's the parking light symbol, so no.
Oooh alert for a new video - nope
Here you go so!
Individual drivers don't go out there and buy traffic lights though.
If you choose and buy a car, learn how to operate the feckin controls, or give up driving.
Individuals do choose to use the roads though.
You seem to be so interested in blaming drivers for, that you wont even consider that a design could be confusing. I spend a bit of my job designing industrial machinery, and there are very strict standards around how controls and safety features need to operate so that confusing situations do not arise which could present a safety hazard. When humans are in the loop, that standardisation is essential, and always comes before telling someone to RTFM.
before telling someone to RTFM
Or maybe read the thread title
RTFTT Doesn't have the same ring to it though!
The design is the design the owner purchased though. I grant you that the example you give isn't great interface design, but that's what the owner purchased. If you can't manage to operate the equipment, don't buy that equipment.
There's lots of design issues in newer cars, particularly the switch away from knobs and buttons to rely on touchscreen interfaces, which absolutely rely on the driver taking their eyes off the road. There's also some strange lighting effects. I noticed a car at the weekend where the front side light went off for the duration of the indicator running, and then came back on - which just seems like a strange non-standard and probably unhelpful effect. I remember seeing some Range Rover or Land Rover with a similar issue on the rear lights, with the rear light going out on the indicating side for the duration of the indicator running. I really wonder about the legality of these.
I find that with some vehicles it is difficult to see the indicator lights at a distance when the side lights are on. I therfore think the design where the indicator light overrides the side light is a very good feature.
Sounds like poor design in the first place if they're position too close to each to be distinct.
Is it legal to have the side lights going off periodically?
Operation characteristics of vehicle indicators for vehicles operated in the EU and broader UNECE member countries comes under the UN type approval system. A vehicle would not be given type approval if it didn't comply with regulations.
Everyone's brave until a car stops.
I didn't see it at the time but the lad directly in front practically pisses himself trying to run away when he hears the car door open.
That's shocking driving, was that you who careered through the out of action lights?
When lights are out, you yield to the right, just like a roundabout, no wonder the other driver was annoyed, could have been a serious accident there.
A junction without lights is not treated like a roundabout. The priority turns into the same as any non signal controlled junction. The major road takes priority, people turning across other traffic lanes are the lowest priority. The poster of the video had priority and proceeded at a suitable speed, the people turning to enter the M50 slip were also proceeding cautiously as they should. The actions of the car that stopped added confusion to the situation.
Although 100% correct, that approach won’t account for the idiot coming from the minor road like that assuming they have right of way. I see it all the time at a crossroads in my own town where the lights fail quite a few times a year. I would have slowed down but not stopped as I passed through.
What if it's an equal priority junction and both drivers assume they have right of way?
Look at the video again and you can see what happens with that approach. The drivers turning right are sitting in the junction constantly so the drivers coming up the slip road can't get onto it to turn right. So they've ended up pushing their way in and have blocked the road on the other side for the straight traffic.
I can't think of any situation where a driver turning across the other lane would have right of way? It's not the fault of the cam car that the lights are out of order and traffic isn't flowing freely.
I will often leave gaps or low to let drivers across when I'm on a single-lane road. But on a multi-lane road it's simply dangerous and you will see examples of this on most dashcam compilations.
In the case of equal priority roads it becomes a free for all for the two roads as one does not have priority over the other, we do not have the concept of treating it like a four way stop as they do in the US. Important to note that this is not the case in the video that was posted. You also shouldn't mistake priority as permission to barrel through a junction, just like a green light at a junction does not mean you can go whilst completely ignoring any traffic conditions.
In the video the drivers turning right would of been able to just as easily proceed after the Zafira and the video poster had passed through the junction without needing the Zafira driver to play traffic director and start a light show.
Drivers coming from the M50 trying to turn right are also turning across traffic and do not have priority over the path that video poster took. In that case again it's a case of equal priority. I'd expect if their was a particular case of traffic build up that the people working on the lights would start to direct traffic.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
