This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Aside from being a great line from Thriller, it is getting to that time of year when a lot of us start using our headlights on the way home from work.
Please take a few moments to check your front and rear lights are working.
Please take a few moments to check your front and rear lights are working.
13
3
In reply to Pesda potato: Please also check that they are correctly aligned, and please remember to dip them when approaching or following another vehicle/cyclist.
4
In reply to Pesda potato:
What and blind other road users and poor rabbits and things?
Edit, just kidding, one of my pet peeves is seeing other drivers in poor/ very poor lighting conditions without any lights on.
> Please take a few moments to check your front and rear lights are working.
What and blind other road users and poor rabbits and things?
Edit, just kidding, one of my pet peeves is seeing other drivers in poor/ very poor lighting conditions without any lights on.
Post edited at 21:46
2
In reply to Pesda potato:
Sunday morning I was heading up Wharfedale in fairly thick fog, perhaps 1 in 10 vehicles were correctly lit: some were on parking lights; some on daylight running lights; between a quarter and a third had no lights on at all. Really worrying. Not that much better on the commute yesterday morning, again in thick fog, about a third with no lights.
Sunday morning I was heading up Wharfedale in fairly thick fog, perhaps 1 in 10 vehicles were correctly lit: some were on parking lights; some on daylight running lights; between a quarter and a third had no lights on at all. Really worrying. Not that much better on the commute yesterday morning, again in thick fog, about a third with no lights.
1
In reply to abseil:
"one of my pet peeves is seeing other drivers in poor/ very poor lighting conditions without any lights on."
And a significant percentage of the unlit people will be driving silvery grey cars that blend into the gloom few easily.
Part of this problem could be that people are becoming reliant on automatic lights in their cars and in my experience these do not switch on in foggy conditions that are otherwise bright.
"one of my pet peeves is seeing other drivers in poor/ very poor lighting conditions without any lights on."
And a significant percentage of the unlit people will be driving silvery grey cars that blend into the gloom few easily.
Part of this problem could be that people are becoming reliant on automatic lights in their cars and in my experience these do not switch on in foggy conditions that are otherwise bright.
3
And when you want to thank someone on the road, remember to unleash all 6000 Lumens of Bi-Xenon goodness directly into their retinas. Then they will truly know that you appreciate their kindness.
10
In reply to johncook:
FTFY
I'm not trying to be a bellend here, but it amazes me how many cyclists think it's ok to have the equivalent of a 747 landing light strapped to either their helmet or handlebars. Ladies and gents, please make them turndownable. thanks
(I'm a sometimes car/minibus/van driver and also a cyclo-commuter and roadie user - but never at the same time)
> All road users, including cyclists, also check that they are correctly aligned, and please remember to dip them when approaching or following another vehicle/cyclist.
FTFY
I'm not trying to be a bellend here, but it amazes me how many cyclists think it's ok to have the equivalent of a 747 landing light strapped to either their helmet or handlebars. Ladies and gents, please make them turndownable. thanks
(I'm a sometimes car/minibus/van driver and also a cyclo-commuter and roadie user - but never at the same time)
7
3
In reply to Tony the Blade: The number of cyclists who have no lights is even more of a concern. Yesterday morning in thick fog there were a lot of riders (do they not have jobs?) on the Ringinglow road out towards Stanage. Not a light between them and very few hi-vis jackets or even reflectors on the bike. What with them and silver cars with no lights, it made for an interesting drive, at 10mph, for a few miles!
2
1
In reply to gethin_allen:
I'm seeing a lot of cars with no rear lights, front lights only. Must be some useful automatic lighting thing.
On the plus side, putting the rear foglights on and leaving them on permanently will slowly die out, as pressing a switch once becomes as incredibly difficult and complex to drivers as pressing a switch twice used to be.
> Part of this problem could be that people are becoming reliant on automatic lights in their cars and in my experience these do not switch on in foggy conditions that are otherwise bright.
I'm seeing a lot of cars with no rear lights, front lights only. Must be some useful automatic lighting thing.
On the plus side, putting the rear foglights on and leaving them on permanently will slowly die out, as pressing a switch once becomes as incredibly difficult and complex to drivers as pressing a switch twice used to be.
1
In reply to Ridge:
I believe these are Morons who have not understood their car enough to realise that the lights coming out of the front are running lights/fog lights and therefore have no rear lights on.
After flashing and tooting and pointing at the back of the car to warn them, someone yesterday with no lights at the rear, swore at me and drove off, so I've now reported them to the police for driving without lights (I doubt they'll do much but they might just send a letter) (We have quite a good system for reporting "antisocial driving" here)
I believe these are Morons who have not understood their car enough to realise that the lights coming out of the front are running lights/fog lights and therefore have no rear lights on.
After flashing and tooting and pointing at the back of the car to warn them, someone yesterday with no lights at the rear, swore at me and drove off, so I've now reported them to the police for driving without lights (I doubt they'll do much but they might just send a letter) (We have quite a good system for reporting "antisocial driving" here)
1
In reply to johncook:
Why would you dip them for cyclists? They don't pay any road tax.
> Please also check that they are correctly aligned, and please remember to dip them when approaching or following another vehicle/cyclist.
Why would you dip them for cyclists? They don't pay any road tax.
11
1
In reply to Pesda potato:
And on long straight roads, please remember to dip your lights when you see another vehicle, not just when you think you're close enough to dazzle them.
And on long straight roads, please remember to dip your lights when you see another vehicle, not just when you think you're close enough to dazzle them.
1
In reply to Jimbo C:
However, for drivers with those high intensity Billion lumen front lights, don't bother. The f***ing things can effectively blind oncoming traffic on dip anyway. I'm contemplating just driving everwhere at night in a pair of sunglasses and main beam permanently on.
If you can't beat em, join em..
> And on long straight roads, please remember to dip your lights when you see another vehicle, not just when you think you're close enough to dazzle them.
However, for drivers with those high intensity Billion lumen front lights, don't bother. The f***ing things can effectively blind oncoming traffic on dip anyway. I'm contemplating just driving everwhere at night in a pair of sunglasses and main beam permanently on.
If you can't beat em, join em..
6
In reply to Pesda potato:
I can't stand all those fancy million lumen new headlights. They drive me insane.
As do the fools who insist on having their rear fog lights on in a traffic queue.
Another one who'll never understand cycling ninjas and their apparent lack of desire to be visible.
One of my biggest gripes is at twilight when you only need your sidelights on to be seen rather than see yet the retina burners are at full intensity.
I can't stand all those fancy million lumen new headlights. They drive me insane.
As do the fools who insist on having their rear fog lights on in a traffic queue.
Another one who'll never understand cycling ninjas and their apparent lack of desire to be visible.
One of my biggest gripes is at twilight when you only need your sidelights on to be seen rather than see yet the retina burners are at full intensity.
In reply to johncook:
One scary trend I've noticed is when a cyclist has a rear light but no front light, presumably coz it's not dark enough and it saves weight etc. What they seem to fail to recognize is that if there's a car/lorry/bus coming in the opposite direction waiting to turn right across their path and there's a vehicle with lights on behind the cyclist (be it 10m/20m/50m/100m), the cyclist is virtually invisible. People rushing to and from work will see a gap between them and the vehicle with lights on and go for the gap - another squashed cyclist.
One scary trend I've noticed is when a cyclist has a rear light but no front light, presumably coz it's not dark enough and it saves weight etc. What they seem to fail to recognize is that if there's a car/lorry/bus coming in the opposite direction waiting to turn right across their path and there's a vehicle with lights on behind the cyclist (be it 10m/20m/50m/100m), the cyclist is virtually invisible. People rushing to and from work will see a gap between them and the vehicle with lights on and go for the gap - another squashed cyclist.
1
In reply to Ridge:
Totally, How can blinding all oncoming traffic ever be considered a safety upgrade? I do wonder if the maximum power output of headlights is regulated.
> However, for drivers with those high intensity Billion lumen front lights, don't bother. The f***ing things can effectively blind oncoming traffic on dip anyway.
Totally, How can blinding all oncoming traffic ever be considered a safety upgrade? I do wonder if the maximum power output of headlights is regulated.
2
In reply to gethin_allen:
If it isn't regulated then it should be. Really p's me off. Some seem just as bright as having high beams on.
If it isn't regulated then it should be. Really p's me off. Some seem just as bright as having high beams on.
1
In reply to nathan79:
It is
> If it isn't regulated then it should be. Really p's me off. Some seem just as bright as having high beams on.
It is
In reply to nathan79:
Driving up to North Wales a while back I flashed an oncoming car because I thought they hadn't dipped their lights only for them to flash back at me showing that that was their dipped beams. They were so bright they could easily have been their main beams.
> If it isn't regulated then it should be. Really p's me off. Some seem just as bright as having high beams on.
Driving up to North Wales a while back I flashed an oncoming car because I thought they hadn't dipped their lights only for them to flash back at me showing that that was their dipped beams. They were so bright they could easily have been their main beams.
2
In reply to Tom Valentine:
About 7.30 it was one of those cars with led "running lights" on the front only
About 7.30 it was one of those cars with led "running lights" on the front only
In reply to radddogg:
The regs certainly need revising. There's a very disturbing trend to ever more powerful headlights, ( and even tail lights that are as bright as foglights with really distracting patterns), in the motor industry. Must be some sort of willy waving thing - my headlights are brighter than yours. On unlit country roads that undulate they're an absolute menace. Even if the headlights are correctly adjusted, (which I suspect most aren't), they blind oncoming traffic. Unless the driver is clinically blind or drives round in sunglasses with a tinted windscreen there's absolutely no justification for these being road legal.
> It is
The regs certainly need revising. There's a very disturbing trend to ever more powerful headlights, ( and even tail lights that are as bright as foglights with really distracting patterns), in the motor industry. Must be some sort of willy waving thing - my headlights are brighter than yours. On unlit country roads that undulate they're an absolute menace. Even if the headlights are correctly adjusted, (which I suspect most aren't), they blind oncoming traffic. Unless the driver is clinically blind or drives round in sunglasses with a tinted windscreen there's absolutely no justification for these being road legal.
4
In reply to digby:
No it isn't. The only adjustment is downwards which is to be used when a heavy load is in the boot or when towing
No it isn't. The only adjustment is downwards which is to be used when a heavy load is in the boot or when towing
4
1
In reply to radddogg:
Alternatively, put your headlights on the lowest (heavy load in boot) setting, then adjust the headlights under the bonnet until they point at the normal height for dipped headlights. Hey presto, the only adjustment is up. I suspect this is the preferred setting for people who 'need' maximum illumination for driving at night.
Whatever the setting, the current generation of headlights are excessively bright and blind other road users.
> No it isn't. The only adjustment is downwards which is to be used when a heavy load is in the boot or when towing
Alternatively, put your headlights on the lowest (heavy load in boot) setting, then adjust the headlights under the bonnet until they point at the normal height for dipped headlights. Hey presto, the only adjustment is up. I suspect this is the preferred setting for people who 'need' maximum illumination for driving at night.
Whatever the setting, the current generation of headlights are excessively bright and blind other road users.
1
In reply to gethin_allen:
This seems to be a common thing these days. It's horrible when you're effectively blind because of a car behind you in all three mirrors. It often tends to be big "offroad" BMW/Audi cars I've noticed.
> Driving up to North Wales a while back I flashed an oncoming car because I thought they hadn't dipped their lights only for them to flash back at me showing that that was their dipped beams. They were so bright they could easily have been their main beams.
This seems to be a common thing these days. It's horrible when you're effectively blind because of a car behind you in all three mirrors. It often tends to be big "offroad" BMW/Audi cars I've noticed.
3
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Which, to be fair to the "morons", are bright enough to illuminate an average driveway and mislead people who don't go through a mental checklist every time they turn the ignition on.
Which, to be fair to the "morons", are bright enough to illuminate an average driveway and mislead people who don't go through a mental checklist every time they turn the ignition on.
1
In reply to Ridge:
I gather this is a result of legislation requiring 'day-lights' for new cars. When they drive at night they see the light on the road and assume there lights are on or at least they don't remember because it appears their lights are on.
> I'm seeing a lot of cars with no rear lights, front lights only. Must be some useful automatic lighting thing.
I gather this is a result of legislation requiring 'day-lights' for new cars. When they drive at night they see the light on the road and assume there lights are on or at least they don't remember because it appears their lights are on.
In reply to Ridge:
I totally agree there are many 'innovative designs' of head light which comply with the regs as they stand but are horrible for other road users. This wasn't such a problem when it was a few high end models but as these were allowed to pass the rest of the industry is now following.
> The regs certainly need revising. There's a very disturbing trend to ever more powerful headlights, ( and even tail lights that are as bright as foglights with really distracting patterns), in the motor industry. Must be some sort of willy waving thing - my headlights are brighter than yours. On unlit country roads that undulate they're an absolute menace. Even if the headlights are correctly adjusted, (which I suspect most aren't), they blind oncoming traffic. Unless the driver is clinically blind or drives round in sunglasses with a tinted windscreen there's absolutely no justification for these being road legal.
I totally agree there are many 'innovative designs' of head light which comply with the regs as they stand but are horrible for other road users. This wasn't such a problem when it was a few high end models but as these were allowed to pass the rest of the industry is now following.
3
In reply to Pesda potato:
anyway back to my original point - no matter how bright, or which way the lights are pointing, they are no good if the bulb has blown. Every day I pass cars with only one headlight / tail / brake light.
anyway back to my original point - no matter how bright, or which way the lights are pointing, they are no good if the bulb has blown. Every day I pass cars with only one headlight / tail / brake light.
1
In reply to radddogg:
Yes it is. In my Hyundai I10 you can adjust them almost as high as full beam or alternatively very low.
> No it isn't. The only adjustment is downwards which is to be used when a heavy load is in the boot or when towing
Yes it is. In my Hyundai I10 you can adjust them almost as high as full beam or alternatively very low.
1
In reply to digby:
I'm quite sure that maximum headlight angle is one of the things that is regulated and tested at your MOT. So the highest setting you have on the adjustment will be the legal limit and they trust the driver to adjust them down to compensate for heavy loads in the back.
And the main angle change of the dipped beams is to angle the beams to the kerb side rather than straight down the middle.
> Yes it is. In my Hyundai I10 you can adjust them almost as high as full beam or alternatively very low.
I'm quite sure that maximum headlight angle is one of the things that is regulated and tested at your MOT. So the highest setting you have on the adjustment will be the legal limit and they trust the driver to adjust them down to compensate for heavy loads in the back.
And the main angle change of the dipped beams is to angle the beams to the kerb side rather than straight down the middle.
Post edited at 22:43
1
In reply to Trangia:
How do you know they don't pay tax?
> Why would you dip them for cyclists? They don't pay any road tax.
How do you know they don't pay tax?
1
In reply to Orgsm:
Because they can't physically. You pay road fund licence per vehicle or are you saying I only need to buy tax for one of my cars?
Because they can't physically. You pay road fund licence per vehicle or are you saying I only need to buy tax for one of my cars?
1
In reply to radddogg:
Off topic but to clarify, its not even road fund license, it's vehicle excise duty VED which is a tax on using a vehicle on public roads. The tax doesn't go to the roads directly but to a general pot of all taxes.
This is info from the dept of trasport
Off topic but to clarify, its not even road fund license, it's vehicle excise duty VED which is a tax on using a vehicle on public roads. The tax doesn't go to the roads directly but to a general pot of all taxes.
This is info from the dept of trasport
In reply to Pesda potato:
Off topic but to clarify, its not even road fund license, it's vehicle excise duty VED which is a tax on using a vehicle on public roads. The tax doesn't go to the roads directly but to a general pot of all taxes.
Not for much longer...
Off topic but to clarify, its not even road fund license, it's vehicle excise duty VED which is a tax on using a vehicle on public roads. The tax doesn't go to the roads directly but to a general pot of all taxes.
Not for much longer...
Post edited at 13:40
In reply to Pesda potato:
Why?
In a few years time, all the money collected will be directly used on roads and nothing else.
Apparently, it's been done for efficiency reasons, etc. However, I think it's been done so that motorists can wind up cyclists legitimately...
Why?
In a few years time, all the money collected will be directly used on roads and nothing else.
Apparently, it's been done for efficiency reasons, etc. However, I think it's been done so that motorists can wind up cyclists legitimately...
In reply to Pesda potato:
I'm intrigued as to why my original post has 4 dislikes, I can only imagine they are not fans of Michael Jackson
I'm intrigued as to why my original post has 4 dislikes, I can only imagine they are not fans of Michael Jackson
In reply to radddogg:
They might make an anonymous donation to HM Customs and Revenue, to cover their road usage...
> Because they can't physically. You pay road fund licence per vehicle or are you saying I only need to buy tax for one of my cars?
They might make an anonymous donation to HM Customs and Revenue, to cover their road usage...
In reply to :
Modern bixenons should only really be a problem if they're after market fitted units. Factory fitted lights should be auto levelling - if you've seen cars where the headlights do a 'dance' when the ignition comes on, that's what is happening.
Ofcourse it helps if you're also driving a car with modern lights.. If your eyes have been adapted to the 2 or 3 lonely lumens that manage to escape from old style headlights then anyone else on the road with modern lights is going to seem dazzling.
Modern bixenons should only really be a problem if they're after market fitted units. Factory fitted lights should be auto levelling - if you've seen cars where the headlights do a 'dance' when the ignition comes on, that's what is happening.
Ofcourse it helps if you're also driving a car with modern lights.. If your eyes have been adapted to the 2 or 3 lonely lumens that manage to escape from old style headlights then anyone else on the road with modern lights is going to seem dazzling.
1
In reply to mullermn:
I do wish people wouldn't ascribe magical properties to auto levelling systems. They do the same thing as the little wheel under the dash board. Fat blokes sit in the back, twiddle the wheel to point the headlights down to the normal setting. They don't work if cresting hills or on undulating roads. It's worse with 4x4s, as the lights are mounted high in relation to other vehicles, so no matter how they're adjusted there's always an element of glare for oncoming traffic.
You do realise the back scatter you as a driver see from your headlights is about 1% of the intensity any unfortunate looking directly at the headlight receives? If we both put on 200 lumen headtorches and point them in each other's faces we'll still be dazzled, the opposing beams of light don't cancel each other out.
Drivers who really feel a need for more than the terribly old fashioned headlights at night might be better off visiting a good optician than a car dealership or Halfords.
> Modern bixenons should only really be a problem if they're after market fitted units. Factory fitted lights should be auto levelling - if you've seen cars where the headlights do a 'dance' when the ignition comes on, that's what is happening.
I do wish people wouldn't ascribe magical properties to auto levelling systems. They do the same thing as the little wheel under the dash board. Fat blokes sit in the back, twiddle the wheel to point the headlights down to the normal setting. They don't work if cresting hills or on undulating roads. It's worse with 4x4s, as the lights are mounted high in relation to other vehicles, so no matter how they're adjusted there's always an element of glare for oncoming traffic.
> Ofcourse it helps if you're also driving a car with modern lights.. If your eyes have been adapted to the 2 or 3 lonely lumens that manage to escape from old style headlights then anyone else on the road with modern lights is going to seem dazzling.
You do realise the back scatter you as a driver see from your headlights is about 1% of the intensity any unfortunate looking directly at the headlight receives? If we both put on 200 lumen headtorches and point them in each other's faces we'll still be dazzled, the opposing beams of light don't cancel each other out.
Drivers who really feel a need for more than the terribly old fashioned headlights at night might be better off visiting a good optician than a car dealership or Halfords.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...