Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Yesterday I had to drive from Warwick to Guildford (M40-M25-A3)mostly in extremely wet conditions. As a result of the spray most drivers were using dipped headlights so they could be seen.
However, a significant number either had no headlights on at all or only sidelights. As a result, when looking in the rear view mirrors, they were effectively invisible through the spray.
Several times there were nearly accidents when someone (including me) attempted to change lanes and were almost hit by a car travelling with inadequate lighting (and usually well in excess of the speed limit). Now, given that this was mid morning I imagine that a number of these drivers were on business. I think that there is therefore a health and safety implication.
Would it make sense if those on this forum were to advise their employees of the need to use dipped headlights in wet conditions?
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
The Scandinavian countries require at least side lights at all times. I don't think that there are any European countries that require headlights other than between dusk and dawn.
France tried an "experiment" a few months ago of asking all drivers to always put their headlights on. At all times. This was only for a month (November ?) but I think everyone appreciated it.
When I was young (first car was a 1937 Ford 7 Y type) we used to avoid switching the lights on "to protect the battery" I doubt that this still applies but the mentality does.
I don't light up in town but do so on main roads and motorways. Whatever the weather.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Merv
I may be wrong (and I am sure someone will correct me if I am!), but it was my impresssion that in the U.K. dipped headlights are a legal requirement in conditions of reduced visibility.
I have certainly had a German colleague pulled over by the policy there for not having his headlights on in poor visibility.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Chris,
you could be right, haven't driven in the UK for a few years. But can you give me a legal definition of "reduced visibility" ?
Naah. don't bother. I'm just nit picking.
Anyway it seems that with the current system of police targets for arrests and crime solving you will get done for attempted murder if you go 1 mph over the speed limit. with or without lights.
Enjoy your three months on remand in Wandsworth.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
The Highway Code talks of the use of dipped headlights in poor daytime visibility. It would be interesting to know of any defence that could be regarded as better or equal standard without the use of lights. Volvo driving lights are the same wattage as headlights so may pass muster but sidelights were only ever designed for urban parking, not driving. Some drivers seem to think they are saving their battery however by using sidelights. It does beat me how they think they can be seen as they must have the same issues with other drivers of failing to see until the last second.
As Merv comments however they do not define poor very well. Rain and low light seem to be the approximate guides. I have known the police stop and warn drivers but not on major roads. Strangely the police are often some of the worst culprits in my neck of the woods.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
I also hate this lack of lights being used.
But there has to be a check here - during good conditions some people still fail to see other cars, and bikes. It is not always a product of visibility.
Some cars have light detection which switches lamps on when the ambient light begins to fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gareth W Jones
I Purchased a new motorcycle last summer (After a 3 year break) and was pleasantly surprised to see that the twin and rear lights are permanently on when the motorcycle is started up, I was told it is apparently law on all new motorcycles ??
Gareth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kelly Hughes
In the event of an accident occurring, can a road designer be found guilty under the CDM regs for not stipulating the safest road surface material that is available to minimise spray?
Are most road designs based on cost, not safety to the road user?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
What about excessive lights when morons keep their rear hi-intensity fogs on knowing there's someone being dazzled behind them. You don't have to be too close to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Putt
One of my conclusions is that too many people still think that headlights are for showing a driver where they're going.
How long since the "see and be seen" campaign?
One for the old school?
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Dave
My point exactly.
Incidentally, this is taken from the Highway Code:
201: You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves (see Rule 211).
Law RVLR regs 25 & 27
So perhaps those whose employees drive on business have a duty to ensure that these employees are aware of this.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
Chris, I was given the following guidelines when doing my Class 1:
1/2 mile sidelights
1/4 mile or less dipped beam headlights
300m for front fog lights,
100m for rear fog lights,
Caveats:
All distances given are for driving in daylight hours.
No vehicles behind that can be dazzled by rear fogs, effectively in a line of cars the 'tail end charlie' should have fogs on the others no fogs if the car behind is likely to be dazzled, of course in a line of four cars, car three needs to keep observing also to check and see if they have become 'tail end charlie'.
And my own pet hate, front fog lights unless actually foggy, they are not a substitute for sidelights, dipped or main bean and most certainly not for daytime use because they look 'cool' (yes I live in Essex).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
Oops big mistake should read:
3/4 mile sidelights
1/2 mile dipped beam
Sorry !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Can I say how much I agree with you.
Sidelights seem for many to be there to show that you have an upmarket car rather than for the purpose for which they have been fitted.
And driving in clear visibility (even if it is dark) with the rear fog light on isn't clever, just pure bad driving.
Sometimes I wonder if there isn't a natural law that for many once you turn the ignition on at the same time you turn off the brain!
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Driving with rear fog lights on other than in fog is often lethal for those behind. In any rain they cause significant dazzle, and of course you cannot tell whether they are brake lights. They are also abused at night when drivers put them on thinking it is easier to see them - It is but only to the detriment of the vision of the following driver.
I still think sidelights are a waste of space - if you think lights are needed why not use dipped headlights? As for upmarket cars many of these have driving lights that are on at all times. If so the power is close to that of dipped headlights so I do not see any problem. In fact why not make it a legal rrequirement to always have such lights - save pulling into the front of a sidelight runner. Still, at least he will hit my rear end and thus pay out on his insurance:-)
Bob (grumpy old man of Buxton 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Ah, the joys of motoring in the UK. Some say that the more miles you do each year, the more time you have to find things to wind you up on your journey. It is a sort of self fulfilling prophecy that somehow helps to keep you a little more alert on those interminable journeys across our wonderful network of roads. Of course the problem is that we are all doing it, one mans rear fog light is another mans bumper hugger, one no-lights fast tracker is another mans lane jumper. And so it goes on, putting policeman on the roads won't work because we all know as safety people that if you have to police something or quote the law then you have failed.
I actually saw 4 police vehicles on a journey yesterday and they were not standing around at an RTI or rushing past on "blues and twos". Mind you I haven't seen one parked up on those coppers picnic areas on any motorway since about 1978.
So, "be careful or be afraid out there", it could be me next to you or behind you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Mitchell
I hope that the designer/builders of the Manchester M60 ring road (East side between Stockport and Rochdale) received some sort of reprimand as this road is lethal in even moderate rain due to a drainage fault (think it was inadequate permeability of the surface material).
It needs ripping up and redoing but there is no way the travelling public would put up with the disruption, hence the only control measure is '50' and 'skid risk' restriction signs in the rain!
PS if you want to make people use their dipped beam to improve visibility, fit those halo lights that were made popular on BMs in the 1990's as they look "cool" and people like to put them on at any opportunity in my experience! (friday!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
In the instructions that came with my car (turn key in ignition; point car in desired direction; keep steering etc etc) it says that rear fog lights must not be used in rain. Current car is a Skoda. A similar statement was also made in the handbook with my previous car (Ford) and the one before that (SEAT). RTFM methinks,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
John, agree completely, fog lights - the name gives it away.
So what Skoda do you have? I have an Octavia 1.9 diesel (Elegance) great car with all the toys.
I prefer to see more bib out on the road, there does seem to be a calming influence when they are out and about, and they are good at puling over miscreants and delivering an acid lecture when required along with some tips on what they should have been doing!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
I do like sidelights on cars in the daytime as especially the ones with a 'shape' give a definition to the vehicle (am thinking of BMW or Citroen) also sidelights whilst they highlight you in the daytime it doesn't hide motorcyclists using dipped beams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Hi Brett,
I have stuck my neck out and gone for the Roomster; mainly because it will carry two pushbikes upright in the back. It also has a 1.9 TDi, a much better engine than the 1.8 job in the Focus; plus some pretty good features like MP3 stereo, climate control and the usual Skoda glove box cooler,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
Was tempted by the Roomster, it seems very practical but the Octavia came it at a very good price - was ex demo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Its a good car, though distinctly less agile than the Focus (and the Octavia by analogy) but still easy and relaxing to drive,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Gawd,
are we comparing headlights or phalli ?
Put your lights on !
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
wha? I know its Friday, but we are talking about some of the least macho cars on the market here...
Maybe its just me...
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gareth W Jones
Yes its Friday who needs cars the sun is shining I am on my bike!! (WITH THE LIGHTS PERMANNENTLY ON!!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.