Interesting. Weird that the option to switch them off is given at all. I would have thought if road safety policy is heading that way, they might as well make DRLs 'fixed' on new cars, and make the drivers of older cars have their lights switched on at all times when driving.Yep. The user can still turn them off, although not every car offers that.
DRLs were mandated by legislation. How it was achieved (e.g. LEDs or ordinary sidelights) seems to have been up to the manufacturer.
I thought the point of these cars was to enable the driver to look down on other drivers, career of speed humps and kerbs with wild abandon and to show that they think they own the road, so keep out of tgeir way. The typucal owner also feels they are safer in the event of an accident.
Certainly at first those requirements probably meant that LEDs were the only answer.wiki said:European Union Directive 2008/89/EC requires all passenger cars and small delivery vans first type approved on or after 7 February 2011 in the EU to come equipped with daytime running lights. The mandate was extended to trucks and buses in August 2012. Functional piggybacking, such as operating the headlamps or front turn signals or fog lamps as DRLs, is not permitted; the EU Directive requires functionally specific daytime running lamps compliant with ECE Regulation 87 and mounted to the vehicle in accord with ECE Regulation 48. DRLs compliant with R87 emit white light of between 400 and 1200 candela.
Are there any tests/evidence that 4x4's are worse for 'other people' in crashes? Of course it makes logical sense, though surely if something was a downright dangerous as is frequently made out, they would be banned?!
What you have all failed to mention is that there exists a hybrid of cuntishness; the Audi Q7
![]()
They are really quite nice
![]()
That front grill is truly awful.A very ugly vehicle indeed ..
That front grill is truly awful.
I dislike Range Rover Sports partly because they are so big, and fast and partly because of how much fuel they use when driven at any reasonable speed, but partly for the same reason why I dislike Porsche Cayenne and Volvo C90 or BMW X5 owners for that matter, firstly that someone is so well off that they can spunk that much money on a vehicle which seems wrong,
Are there any tests/evidence that 4x4's are worse for 'other people' in crashes? Of course it makes logical sense, though surely if something was a downright dangerous as is frequently made out, they would be banned?!
There was - 10-15 years ago maybe? Eventually manufacturers were forced to comply with the same standards as other EU vehicles, so it shouldn't be that much different now. ..
If I am hit in the driver door by a Range Rover, Porsche Cayenne, BMW X5, Audi Q7, Volvo C70, their fronts are much higher than my normal car and as such will impact at the level of my drivers window which is less protected than the metal door below it. It strikes me as obvious that I am more likely to be seriously injured than if I was hit by for example a normal sized ford focus.
However at least the majority of landies do get a fair amount of use off track/ on rough roads. The overwhelming majority of Range Rovers on the other hand will never once in their entire lifespan have to tackle anything rougher than a pebbled driveway at a posh country hotel, and spend most of their life being driven in congested city centres by egomaniac cunts.seems to alot of hate on here for rrs, yet everyone loves landies. having experience of both in an urban environments( albeit a defender vfor significalty longer the the other) I hate them both, but have a special place of hate for landies. they are fuckin shite.
wasnt this evoqe sppsoed to have been designed/ styled by victoria beckham oir summit ? I seem to remember some PR blurb on its release