Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

Or drop well back from the offending vehicle. If someone overtakes you let em drop in the space.

Top tip served me very well over the years, you still get to your destination.

[Martin_1962]

Or drop well back from the offending vehicle. If someone overtakes you let em drop in the space.

Top tip served me very well over the years, you still get to your destination.

I have let people out to fill in as well

[Vamps]

just like with a low sun, don't look at the light, look at the road.

[/highlight]

Indeed.....   That said I believe there are night vision glasses available to help with glare...... :-/ :-/ :-/

[Psychoca]

Problem was unless I was on full beam I couldn't actually see where I was going the pulsing LED rear lamps were buggering up my vision......

In that case you are a danger to yourself and other road users and thus, should not be driving.

If you were to be involved in a collision and the above statement came to light then you would be up whatsit creek without a paddle, legal wise....

But how did these lights pass testing as it seems I am not rare in this?

Yes I am considering stopping night driving if they get too common.

I find I am OK on motorways and the like

Examples from a quick search.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=116387

http://thedrivingblog.com/2010/10/led-tail-lights-are-too-bright-need-auto-dim/

http://www.fun-led-light.com/tail-light-led.html

Currrently I know of two car models which cause this and if I get vision issues I WILL use main beam if I have to.

I am looking at taking this further as I believe that some LED rear lights are actually dangerous.

I will be asking my MP to investigate he is new and willing to please.

And until (if) you manage to get the law of the land changed, guessing you will continue to drive with uncorrected defective vision?

Whether you are in a team of one or several thousand, PLEASE get specialist help to rectify your vision issues and, until rectified, simply do not drive in the dark.

Ultimately, its your conscience if someone is injured due to you being present on the road and driving using your main beam control in the manner that you describe.  Its worse than simple stupidity, to be honest.  It involves malicious intent, to my mind, with total disregard for possible consequences.

Would be bad enough if it was one of your family that was injured/killed by your actions but possibly worse if it was that of someone else.....

I don't have vision issues, don't have the need for glaases and eye tests confirm that I don't... 

LED lights play havoc with my eyes, they appear to dance about all over the road, leaving me at times with almost a migraine...

[al brown]

Likewise I cant for the life of me see the point,with the exception of the motor bike how can you not see all motors in daylight? and audis to me simply look dilly or some may say gay and often promote a chuckle in miggy's driving seat.For now I won't go on about BM's "Angel Eyes" now I ask you,for me more like "goofy eyes" Seriously I think on our heavy trafficked roads the motorcyclist will really lose out big time,just be another light lost among many

I agree. If I'm "pressing on" in the Westfield I often use dipped lights as it's a car with a small frontal area and dark colour.

What's more, I think lights on a vehicle that you'd otherwise be able to see perfectly well make it less easy to judge speed / size of the vehicle. Not sure I can explain why - maybe your attention is drawn by the pair of light lights and it's less easy to evaluate the size of the vehicle behind them and the rate at which it's getting bigger? I don't know.  :-/

Kevin

Agreed, lights on in daylight make a vehicle seem closer and faster than its really is, good for bikes as it gives the rider a safety margin as other drivers dont pull out in front as close (bikes are often nearer and faster than they seem). If all cars etc have lights on all the time it takes away from the safety of bikes (and small cars Kevin) where it is needed. Riders and drivers put there lights on because they know they are in a position to not be seen as easily by other road users, not because other road users are blind and cant see every day things put in front of them.
In short, its another rule to replace ability and common sense.


Al

[Vamps]

Likewise I cant for the life of me see the point,with the exception of the motor bike how can you not see all motors in daylight? and audis to me simply look dilly or some may say gay and often promote a chuckle in miggy's driving seat.For now I won't go on about BM's "Angel Eyes" now I ask you,for me more like "goofy eyes" Seriously I think on our heavy trafficked roads the motorcyclist will really lose out big time,just be another light lost among many

I agree. If I'm "pressing on" in the Westfield I often use dipped lights as it's a car with a small frontal area and dark colour.

What's more, I think lights on a vehicle that you'd otherwise be able to see perfectly well make it less easy to judge speed / size of the vehicle. Not sure I can explain why - maybe your attention is drawn by the pair of light lights and it's less easy to evaluate the size of the vehicle behind them and the rate at which it's getting bigger? I don't know.  :-/

Kevin

Agreed, lights on in daylight make a vehicle seem closer and faster than its really is, good for bikes as it gives the rider a safety margin as other drivers dont pull out in front as close (bikes are often nearer and faster than they seem). If all cars etc have lights on all the time it takes away from the safety of bikes (and small cars Kevin) where it is needed. Riders and drivers put there lights on because they know they are in a position to not be seen as easily by other road users, not because other road users are blind and cant see every day things put in front of them.
In short, its another rule to replace ability and common sense.


Al

In 1973 I got my first of the 16er moped, a Honda SS50....It developed a charging fault which was overcome by putting on the lights. Lots of cars used to flash as I rode with my dipped beam, now the norm for bikes and imho a very positive safety feature, as a driver you notice lights.  I fear bikes are going to blend in to the mirage of lights on the road, making them more vulnerable than before they started using lights as an 'I am here' message. What next? bikes with flashing headlights? that has to be the next step and then we will have problems with the emergency services, sadly it will be interesting to look at future statistics involving bike accidents...

[Sir Tigger KC]

Firstly, I don't recall the democratically elected UK parliament voting for DRL's..... 

Secondly, most of the LED designs that I have seen so far are just plain naff, especially the Audis, Discos and Range Rovers..... 

Thirdly, most of the DRL's that I've seen are just too damn bright, especially the newer Volvos.  Surely, sidelight brightness is enough??  :-?

Fourthly, I agree with Varche.  That the law should be that if it's raining or bad viz then we have to drive on dipped beams! and the local constabulary should be the judge of that! Oops they've all been replaced by cameras, never mind we'll just dictate that all new cars should be fitted with superbright automatic running lights.... 

Think that just about covers my thoughts on the subject

[Psychoca]

Firstly, I don't recall the democratically elected UK parliament voting for DRL's..... 

Secondly, most of the LED designs that I have seen so far are just plain naff, especially the Audis, Discos and Range Rovers..... 

Thirdly, most of the DRL's that I've seen are just too damn bright, especially the newer Volvos.  Surely, sidelight brightness is enough??  :-?

Fourthly, I agree with Varche.  That the law should be that if it's raining or bad viz then we have to drive on dipped beams! and the local constabulary should be the judge of that! Oops they've all been replaced by cameras, never mind we'll just dictate that all new cars should be fitted with superbright automatic running lights.... 

Think that just about covers my thoughts on the subject

I thought that was law anyway....

[Sir Tigger KC]

Maybe, not sure come to think of it! Definatly the case in France and Spain.  The motorway speed limit goes down in wet weather in France as well, I think from 120 kmh to 110 kmh....

Anyway if it is the case, shouldn't that be sufficient? Mind you we've all seen numptys driving down the motorway at 90mph in the pouring rain with no lights, so maybe we do need our unelected masters in Brussels dictating to us...

[Andy B]

Firstly, I don't recall the democratically elected UK parliament voting for DRL's..... 

Secondly, most of the LED designs that I have seen so far are just plain naff, especially the Audis, Discos and Range Rovers..... 

Thirdly, most of the DRL's that I've seen are just too damn bright, especially the newer Volvos.  Surely, sidelight brightness is enough??  :-?

Fourthly, I agree with Varche.  That the law should be that if it's raining or bad viz then we have to drive on dipped beams! and the local constabulary should be the judge of that! Oops they've all been replaced by cameras, never mind we'll just dictate that all new cars should be fitted with superbright automatic running lights.... 

Think that just about covers my thoughts on the subject

I thought that was law anyway....

It's not law, but common sense should make you turn them on. Mine go on when raining during the day. 

[hotel21]

Might be out of date to current regs but these are what I am familiar(ish) with....

Rear lights, wattage and intensity...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/10/made

Rear foglamps

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/11/made

Front foglamps

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/6/made

Use of lights and front fogs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/25/made

Or if you really want to play with lighting regs...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/contents/made

Fill your boots.... 

[Entwood]

Firstly, I don't recall the democratically elected UK parliament voting for DRL's..... 

Secondly, most of the LED designs that I have seen so far are just plain naff, especially the Audis, Discos and Range Rovers..... 

Thirdly, most of the DRL's that I've seen are just too damn bright, especially the newer Volvos.  Surely, sidelight brightness is enough??  :-?

Fourthly, I agree with Varche.  That the law should be that if it's raining or bad viz then we have to drive on dipped beams! and the local constabulary should be the judge of that! Oops they've all been replaced by cameras, never mind we'll just dictate that all new cars should be fitted with superbright automatic running lights.... 

Think that just about covers my thoughts on the subject

I thought that was law anyway....

Really is very simple ... Highway Code section 226-237

"Driving in adverse weather conditions"

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069859


Some folks might wish to read 114 and 115 as well ..

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070302

[hotel21]

Not as straightforward as you may thing Nige.  The Highway 'Code' is not 'Legislation'.

That said, there is something rustling in then pickled recesses of my memory that to disregard the highway code is, in essence, Sect 3 RTA - without due care/attention or regard to other road users etc but the onus of proof is the stumbling block...

[Entwood]

Not as straightforward as you may thing Nige.  The Highway 'Code' is not 'Legislation'.

That said, there is something rustling in then pickled recesses of my memory that to disregard the highway code is, in essence, Sect 3 RTA - without due care/attention or regard to other road users etc but the onus of proof is the stumbling block...

I would not have the temerity to argue with someone with your background, or your knowledge of the RTA ... but when I did my LGV/PCV training one of the "training documents" we had to read said this:

"The Highway Code is not law, but it does include many points of law (denoted by the word must in bold type).

Failing to observe the code, while not in itself an offence, may be taken as evidence of 'driving without due care'.

In law, of course, ignorance is no defence, so even if you haven't read the Highway Code for 20 years you can still be prosecuted for new offences."

which, in part, agrees with what you say.... 

[hotel21]

Not as straightforward as you may thing Nige.  The Highway 'Code' is not 'Legislation'.

That said, there is something rustling in then pickled recesses of my memory that to disregard the highway code is, in essence, Sect 3 RTA - without due care/attention or regard to other road users etc but the onus of proof is the stumbling block...

I would not have the temerity to argue with someone with your background, or your knowledge of the RTA ... but when I did my LGV/PCV training one of the "training documents" we had to read said this:

"The Highway Code is not law, but it does include many points of law (denoted by the word must in bold type). [/highlight]
Failing to observe the code, while not in itself an offence, may be taken as evidence of 'driving without due care'.

In law, of course, ignorance is no defence, so even if you haven't read the Highway Code for 20 years you can still be prosecuted for new offences."

which, in part, agrees with what you say.... 

That is the point I was trying to convey. 

When reading the HC you will see a specific reference to relevant legislation beneath each listed para.  Where there is no reference, it becomes 'code' not 'legislation', if you follow.