Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Dig a hole for your Range Rover Evoque !!

Yep. The user can still turn them off, although not every car offers that.
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.
 
People round here are turning their lights on in broad daylight already, if they can't see an unlit vehicle in good daylight visibility, I don't think they should be on the road in the first place!
 
There's lots of stupidity about the idea, or implementations of it - not least that on many cars you can drive around at night with fairly bright DRLs on the front, the dashboard lit up, and no rear lights.
 
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.
 
It always wierds me out a bit when someone in a twatmobile is unusually polite, like waving you past when it's their right of way, or overtaking wide and cautiously with the kind of courtesy you rarely get from anyone. Doesn't happen often, but when it does I get that slight pang of guilt for prejudging them!

There are various vehicles on the road that you learn to treat with more caution than others (private hire, skip wagons, landscape gardeners, white Audis, golfs with personalised plates) but every now and then you get one who isn't being a twat, and I sometimes wonder if they're doing it on purpose as a wind-up.
 
DRLs were mandated by legislation. How it was achieved (e.g. LEDs or ordinary sidelights) seems to have been up to the manufacturer.

We rented a new Honda Civic a while back and we spent fucking ages trying to turn off those silly front LEDs. It never occurred to me that someone would have invented something so pointless as headlights that are permanently on whenever you're driving.
 
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.

And they are safer in an accident, because they're able to use ordinary cars and the occupants thereof as a sort of cushion to soak up impacts.

Ever seen a crash test video of a chelsea tractor vs an ordinary hatchback? Spoiler: it doesn't end well for the hatchback.
 
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?!
 
Re: DRLs, here you go:
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.
Certainly at first those requirements probably meant that LEDs were the only answer.

Some (e.g. Fiat 500) you can turn off in-car, some the dealer can disable, and some you have to resort to pulling a fuse.

Another stupid thing about many of them is their light would obscure the indicators, which they resolve by dimming the DRLs on one side in order to highlight the indicator.

jag_xf_indicator_dimming_drls_700_.jpg


Looks broken to me.
 
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?!

Who's in charge of banning stuff in this country? And what sort of cars do they drive...?
 
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,

I bought a 14 month old RRS in 2009 for 15 grand, cost new 64k. It was the recession, no-one wanted stupidly big petrol engines, and the guy in question was being offered 14k as a trade in (needed a seven seater). I sold it in 2012 for 16 grand.

As such, it was probably the cheapest car I've ever run about in, the 1k sale profit offsetting the absolutely crappy mileage. On top of that it was bloody good off road, with the same traction control system as it's big brother, and hydraulic suspension allowing you to increase clearance by an extra 5 inches. Ridiculously good in snow as well (with the right choice of tyres, obviously), I used it once to rescue a stranded tesco lorry that was half a mile down an iced up farm track. The traction system just would not let you spin the wheels, automatically cutting power as soon as the grip went. Seriously, it was a brilliant car for terrible conditions, and ridiculously comfy as a motorway cruiser.

Fucking pointless for London, but then again I'd say anything bigger than a Fiat 500 is daft in London.
 
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.

IIRC it is (or was) different in the US where 4x4/SUV attractiveness was in part because they were cheaper due to having to conform to less strict standards on safety and emission compared to other cars by dint of them being classed as light commercial/agricultural vehicles. IIRC this didn't change much.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yup - Front impact collisions by 4x4s were one of the main increased danger areas they highlighted back then. Supposedly addressed in the EU markets but that could be more because they just produced designs that could pass a limited range of tests rather than any fundamental re-think on safety.
 
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.
 
Back in the day in Australia LR had 98% of the 4 x4 market, now every bushman drives a Toyota, there is a good reason for those.
 
this business of daytime lights has been bugging me. Mostly because the more lit vehicles there are the less visible motorcycles are. So I'd expect this to show up in bike accident statistics.

But also because when implemented on all vehicles Europe wide there must be a measurable carbon footprint. 5-10W LEDs running for all those vehicle-hours does not and cannot come free, however complex the calculation of what the additional fuel consumption will be.

I've just found this AA explanation which claims EU cost/benefit analysis disproves both points but tbh I don't think I believe it. This smacks of someone lobbying for commercial gain.
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom