As an old fogy who's first car had no automation apart from the points and coil providing a spark. Since then I have owned and maintained, mainly my three daughter's, cars with increasing levels of electronics and complexity.  In every case there have been problems caused by damp, connection problems and hardware errors in the clever electronic bits. Given the hostile environment of a car, especially as it gets older, I do not see any attempt being made to ruggedise components by design or manufacture. Many car designs appear to be made to fail with all the connections and computers located where they will get wet when the sunroof drains block or a seal gets damaged or mislaid during maintenance with no attempt being made to damp proof the components. I worked on one car where there had been recalls to stick bits of polythene sheets to stop condensation entering  multiple computers

The result is that I am concerned  that all these "aids" stand a chance of failing to danger when the car is older irrespective of maintenance. Even if they fail will the driver be expecting them to work and have an incident as a result. I read the odd aircraft accident report and if aircraft systems can fail with all the redundancy,  regulations, testing and strict maintenance schedules and procedures what chance does a car built the lowest price stand when it is few years old.

My sister in law recently got rid of her new car as she could not work out how to work all the aids that made her feel she had no control over the car and kept sounding warning sounds that she did not know what they were for  and distracted her from driving. 

I read that people are now questioning the safety of the touch screens for basic controls when compared to simple switches or rotary controls. I must admit I have to look away from the road to alter my heating in my car which I never had to do with the old rotary controls with set positions. 

I feel that progress is often being made for the sake of progress rather than safety.

My Peugeot 508 does that when set to auto lights.  DRL then full lights when the sensors think it is needed.  There is one slight flaw in the system.  When it snows it thinks that full lights front and back are not needed so I then switch to manual overide.  Also in foggy conditions I sometimes need to manual overide it. 

Sergio Fernandez said:

My Peugeot 508 does that when set to auto lights.  DRL then full lights when the sensors think it is needed

Is that both front and rear lights though Sergio? Many cars I see on my daily commute will have only the front DRLs on with nothing on the back. It's a bit scary when you come up behind someone in thick fog with no lights on the back but their fancy LED strip lights on the front are on so they think that's sufficient! 

I've recently had a dash cam fitted to one of my vehicles as I'm fed up of drivers cutting tight in front of it to turn off at a junction rather than pulling in behind to wait a few seconds. My truck is 2 tonne and doesn't stop on a penny like my usual mode of transport can! I have a lot of renewed sympathy for truck drivers... In a recent commute to work in heavy rain I'd say there were around 2 in 10 cars on the road that were not sporting rear lights on their cars. Overtaking them and you could see their DRLs were on but no lights at the back where it's really needed especially on motorways and small country lanes! 

Is that both front and rear lights though

On my other half's car it is - front DRLs when it thinks it's daylight, sidelights/dipped headlights front and rear when it thinks it's dark.

   - Andy.

On my car front DRLs when it thinks it's daylight.  No rear lights at all

sidelights/dipped headlights front and rear when it thinks it's dark or you enter a tunnel

When there is fog front and rear lights have to be turn on by the driver. 

I have always thought it was a poor design decision not to make the vehicle visiable from the rear with lights if they deem it is needed to have the front of the vehicle visiable by DLRs

Sergio Fernandez said:

I have always thought it was a poor design decision not to make the vehicle visiable from the rear with lights if they deem it is needed to have the front of the vehicle visiable by DLRs

Yes I fully agree Sergio Fernandez 

Again this morning, driving into work in rain and drizzle and many cars do not have rear lights on but their DRLs are on at the front.  I'm astounded that Automotive designers haven't addressed this by now! 

I saw this a few days ago and meant to post a link - looks like something might be happening about the light glare:

It is not just the glare that is the issue.  A lot of car coming out of the factory or the main dealer showroom have the lights set at the wrong height and the wrong beam angle.  The motor trade are well aware of it, they choose to ignore it. 

That should be picked up at an MOT though surely Sergio? I know they test it on mine as they've picked up on it after I'd had a new headlight installed. 

The problem I have is that my car is rather 'low' to the ground and everyone else seems to have SUV's that sit a lot higher than me. Meaning that their headlights are right in my eyeline anyway... 

It seems to be the social norm nowadays to look after oneself with no regard to how your actions affect those around you i.e. "I'll have the brightest lights on my car so I can see and I don't care if it dazzles everyone else on the road." 

I read a comment on a YouTube video the other day (my guilty pleasure is watching dashcam videos of bad driving, most of the time by those with the dashcam themselves!!! ) where someone said 'Drive like it's a collaboration, not a competition' which I thought was a really nice mantra 

Loading of the vehicle also has an effect. Mine have had adjusters to lower the lights when there is a heavy load at the rear. How many people use this function?

SUVs or CrossOvers have become common place and they have the lights positioned higher on the frame of the vehicle.  4 x 4s can also suffer from this issue.  Some also have self adjusting headlight beam angle.  The cause and effect is the same.  They are blinding the oncoming traffic be it vehicle or cyclist. 

The drivers of these vehicles are sometime aware as people will tell them the lights are blinding, some will have oncoming traffic flash them to make them aware.  I agree that there is a culture of people that look out for themselves and don't care about the impact they have on others. 

As a side note the road surface (lumpy and bumpy) and the amount of potholes makes the glare and blinding isssue worse.

SUVs or CrossOvers have become common place and they have the lights positioned higher on the frame of the vehicle.  4 x 4s can also suffer from this issue.  Some also have self adjusting headlight beam angle.  The cause and effect is the same.  They are blinding the oncoming traffic be it vehicle or cyclist. 

The drivers of these vehicles are sometime aware as people will tell them the lights are blinding, some will have oncoming traffic flash them to make them aware.  I agree that there is a culture of people that look out for themselves and don't care about the impact they have on others. 

As a side note the road surface (lumpy and bumpy) and the amount of potholes makes the glare and blinding isssue worse.