Kia Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi,

Looking at buying current version of Cee'd SW and have had a few test runs. Today I noticed however that the car does not have a warning buzzer to let you know that the lights have been left on. Is this all models in the range or only some? The dealer seemed to think that they automatically turn off, but they were still on after I locked the car. I have had problems with flat batteries in the past so I think a simple buzzer is a good feature.

Any thoughts?

Potential Cee'd customer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I have a new style Cee'd Actually its a handy feature. The lights stay on for just 60 seconds so you can see your way to the door in the dark. They then switch off (or you can switch them off sooner by pressing the lock button a second time.
 

·
Registered
2012 Kia Cee'd 5 door
Joined
·
101 Posts
light warning

On my car if I have the lights set to either "auto" or one of the "on" positions and shut the car off the lights will stay on. But, as soon as I open the door the lights go out. I set it up that way in the light preferences; it could also be set to leave the lights on for a while after you leave the car, so you can see where you are going in the dark.
 

·
Registered
Kia Cee'd Sportswagon GT-line 1.6 CRDi (134bhp) Automatic 7spd-DCT
Joined
·
280 Posts
If you need to leave the parking lights on, you must turn the lights off, then on again before locking the car.
Last Friday I parked in the multi-storey leaving the lights on and pressed the fob to lock as I walked away from the car. A helpful fellow motorist behind me started hooting frantically and pointing at my car. I gave him a friendly wave and carried on walking. He got even more excited, but his face was a picture when he saw the lights go out. My wife thought that I should have gone back to thank him and explain. He'll remember a cee'd.
 

·
Registered
Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Joined
·
648 Posts
Hi,

Looking at buying current version of Cee'd SW and have had a few test runs. Today I noticed however that the car does not have a warning buzzer to let you know that the lights have been left on.
The lights switch off when (or after) you turn the key. This feature would have been introduced because some countries mandated daytime headlamp usage in lieu of DRLs. So once the lights were turned on the user did not have to do anything. Presumably the feature has not disappeared with the introduction of DRLs which is why so many cars have everything blazing.

Not surprisingly (at least, I'm not) daytime lighting has been blamed for such an increase in casualties that Austria abandoned it after a year and there is pressure to stop it in Poland and Bulgaria, particularly. Expect the bureaucrats to think up some face saving scheme at some point. (It will never go back to the simple action of turning the lights off.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I find it odd that Austria has put daytime running lights down to an increase in casualties.

About 10-15 years ago I started driving with daytime lights after I was clipped twice on roundabouts where people pulled out into my path. On both occasions the weather was reasonable and they drivers said they did not see me! You cant miss lights and friends in Norway said they had been driving with daytime lights there for years so it is interesting that daytime lights are deemed in Austria to result in increased accidents.

All the responses very helpful. Thank you.
 

·
Registered
pro_ceed 1.6 CRDi 66kw (2008)
Joined
·
725 Posts
Every now an then I see people driving with lights off here. (They are mandatory to be on at all times).

It's incredible how late I am to notice such a car driving in the opposite direction (compared to the cars that have their lights on). It's easily ~50 meters difference... so I see no logic in this increasing number of accidents..
 

·
Registered
Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Joined
·
648 Posts
I find it odd that Austria has put daytime running lights down to an increase in casualties.
A 12% casualty increase occured at the same time. A coincidental statistical blip or a contributory cause?

From a personal viewpoint, I think there are a number of factors at play. I know that when faced with oncoming lights I reduce side/side scan so I'm not looking at half the roadscape. Lights on vehicles at a distance cause distraction from more important things close by. (A vehicle more than about 3 seconds away is rarely something other than background.) And then there's plain dazzle which hinders the retina's ability to collect information.

About 10-15 years ago I started driving with daytime lights after I was clipped twice on roundabouts where people pulled out into my path. On both occasions the weather was reasonable and they drivers said they did not see me!
It is not possible to say that not having lights was contributory to that and that using lights has been contributory to a non-recurrence. For some reason, you weren't where those drivers expected you to be or they were looking in the wrong place.

A lot of people don't know how to use positioning defensively or to use indicators effectively. Who knows? For instance, an incident when my wife was driving nearly had a Transit in our door. Had the Transit driver not realised what she was doing (wrong position and indicating by rote), he would have had the insurance hit but it would have been entirely my wife's fault. She doesn't accept that she had set up a difficult situation. That said, I think that over the last 30 years, roundabout discipline generally has improved enormously.

The only time I have ever had to take serious avoidance at a junction, it would have never have happened had I been completely invisible.

You cant miss lights
Oh? The important thing is to be noticed, which is not necessarily the same thing as burning a spot on someone's retina.

Some days ago I was driving in heavy overcast and >60% of drivers had lights on. Dark for the time of day but visibility well over a mile. I was flashed by an oncoming driver; useful confirmation that I stood out from a distance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Yes, not using indicators is an irritation of mine. On both occasions I was on one of those lane marked roundabouts that actually work with a filter lane for left turning traffic in its own lane and vehicles coming off the roundabout came across the chevrons! Arguably lights had nothing to do with it and more to do with those drivers being half asleep.

Interesting debate. Is the Austrian example just a blip - needs lots of data to examine. Rules for driving in the uk dictate that we must not drive and dazzle other users. They also say that in dull conditions lighting must be used. So arguably driving with headlights except when dull could be perceived as wrong, but then it would not be at night.

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/lighting-requirements-113-to-116

It is essential that windscreens are kept clean to minimise dazzle, but people are all different. I must have a faster retina reflex from my wife as I have less issue with oncoming vehicles, but never any issue in daytime except for those horrible super-bright lights.

I think the scandinavian rules are for permanent side lights not headlights, but I could be wrong. Interesting debate though.
 

·
Registered
Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Joined
·
648 Posts
Yes, not using indicators is an irritation of mine.
Depends on what form that gripe takes. I don't care whether or not people make a left turn signal when I'm waiting to enter because it can't be relied on. I prefer indication to show intentions for conflict avoidance not courtesy about an area to be vacated.

Is the Austrian example just a blip - needs lots of data to examine.
That other countries also found an increase perhaps suggests not a blip. The original Swedish data that suggested a 3% drop has not escaped further scrutiny.

I think the scandinavian rules are for permanent side lights not headlights, but I could be wrong. Interesting debate though.
20W bulbs I think. Less intense than the LED fairy lights which the EU stipulated should be bright enough to show in bright sunshine. Completely bonkers.
 

·
Registered
pro_ceed 1.6 CRDi 66kw (2008)
Joined
·
725 Posts
I rarely (if ever) find oncoming cars dazzling me in daytime.
Though I can believe that there are people who do get dazzled during the day.

As for the 3 second distance - you are correct if the car is moving relatively slowly - what if a driver decides to start overtaking and is late to notice oncoming vehicle ? 3 seconds might be a bit tight to complete the overtake and return to your lane...

But the above is just one example, and I won't argue statistics. I still personally feel it's safer to have the lights on.
 

·
Registered
Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Joined
·
648 Posts
As for the 3 second distance - you are correct if the car is moving relatively slowly - what if a driver decides to start overtaking and is late to notice oncoming vehicle ? 3 seconds might be a bit tight to complete the overtake and return to your lane...
3 seconds is 3 seconds whatever the speed and should be just about enough for cars to do an emergency stop with a 200km/h approach speed in the dry. If you can't see something that far away on a straight road at normal speeds it must be foggy. I think the main reason the authorities believe that lights are effective is at junctions with the aim of reducing t-boning.

Besides, British road layout and traffic levels give few opportunities to overtake these days; you can't see an oncoming vehicle, lights or not, when it is obscured by scenery. It's not unusual to drive on roads with well under 2 seconds of sighting.
 

·
Registered
pro_ceed 1.6 CRDi 66kw (2008)
Joined
·
725 Posts
Not everyone drives in UK.
I doubt an overtake can last much less than 3 seconds, unless both vehicles are moving slowly.

Although not always legal, on some of the roads here, it's quite common to overtake a truck or a van that's going 60-70 km/h. Or even a car that's going 80. By the time you're done, you're past the speed limit and it does take more than 3 seconds...

but this discussion is pointless, really. The added value for safety depends on the situation, road conditions and what not.

Overall, statistics do have the final word.
 

·
Registered
Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Joined
·
648 Posts
but this discussion is pointless, really. The added value for safety depends on the situation, road conditions and what not.

Overall, statistics do have the final word.
Statistics must have the final word because without them you cannot know where you are. Of course there is a mix of situations but there is no point improving one if it makes another worse. Changes in the name of road safety must attempt to improve the overall position.

It is interesting looking through French statistics. An interpretation of the pattern of injuries versus deaths suggests that a problem of having long straight roads is not necessarily overtaking but of drivers falling asleep. The biggest gains they made in road safety happened between 1970 and 2000 and over the last 10 years, despite all the supposed safety features added to cars, the rate of improvement has noticeably slowed down. In Britain too, we are seeing a flattening trend, despite people driving less.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top