Speed Cameras ... ::sigh::

stubbyd

Lum wrote: »

Oh and no sodding daytime running lights! I don't care what the Scandanavians think, their lighting situation is different to ours. <SNIP>

I actually prefer the "running lights" on at all times

My eyes are fine but thinking of those with poorer vision then possibly they need the brighter dipped beam lights.

The things that SHOULD ABSOLUTELY be banned are front fog lights and especially front fogs that can't be turned on/off independently of the rears. Except of course for when they are genuinely needed in fog where you can;t see more than x feet in front of you. Where x as I recall it was 200ft. (but I'm probably wrong on that as well)

stubbyd

Flyboy152 wrote: »

First of all, just because you see others doing it does not make you (or your wife) doing it as well.

I'm going to presume you meant to say "does not make it right you".

And for the record I didn't say that. I was hinting at how exasperated I was that this had happened with tightened finances and yes I even alluded to the fact that I accept the cost it's going to cause (effectively accepting that she is guilty and tough luck) because she broke the law.

BUT I wasn't even close to linking what she did or justifying what she did to the fly boy/girls that fly past my house and don't get caught.

On top of which, you really have no idea whether the youngsters, who you witness speeding, get caught or don't.

This I accept as mostly** true but if it were the case that they are being caught then why are they still doing it?

** mostly because I know a fair number of them that fly past and yes I have had words.

Your other points regards the insurance implications is also noted and thanks.

mikey72

Strider590 wrote: »

What's more dangerous?

Me overtaking 3 cars at 70mph in a 60mph zone at 2am....... or the car coming the other way with no (or just parking lights) lights on?

Which would the Police prosecute?

You for driving above the speed limit, and performing a dangerous overtaking into oncoming traffic hopefully.

Gandalfthesecond

mikey72 wrote: »

You for driving above the speed limit, and performing a dangerous overtaking into oncoming traffic hopefully.

Some idiot posted himself doing that on youtube.

Flyboy152

Strider590 wrote: »

How many built up area's with street lighting are NSL zones?

Quite a bit.

Im of the opinion that driving on just parking/sidelights at night should be an offence, there's just no need for it at all!!
Same goes for fog/snow....

But that wasn't the question you asked.

I keep seeing this bleedin Nissan Micra on my way home from work, it's got only one working parking/side light!!!!! You actually think it's a cyclist until you get up closer....

Then report it.

Strider590

mikey72 wrote: »

You for driving above the speed limit, and performing a dangerous overtaking into oncoming traffic hopefully.

But there wouldn't be any oncoming traffic, the knob coming the other way is in "stealth mode" with no freakin lights on.

Image your not overtaking, but no lights man is on your side of the road overtaking a cyclist.... Not a great combo

RICK..._2

Let's be honest, speeding is speeding. whether it's 31 or 41, it's still an offence. if you choose to do more than the speed limit then you run the risk of being caught.

i've been caught speeding twice in the past, what is there for me to complain about? i took the risk and paid the consequences.

as for insurance, mine went up by about £20.

jase1

Strider590 wrote: »

What's more dangerous?

Me overtaking 3 cars at 70mph in a 60mph zone at 2am....... or the car coming the other way with no (or just parking lights) lights on?

Which would the Police prosecute?

Earlier today I passed by a police vehicle at around dusk. Wasn't speeding so not worried. About a minute or so later passed numpty with no lights. Flashed numpty, he puts his lights on. Then I have a panic attack, remembering the bloke who was done for warning about speed traps... :rotfl:

Wonder what plod would have said if he'd seen me.

geordieracer

Strider590 wrote: »

What's more dangerous?

Me overtaking 3 cars at 70mph in a 60mph zone at 2am....... or the car coming the other way with no (or just parking lights) lights on?

Which would the Police prosecute?

Thats not the question though is it.. Talking about speeding here not what someone else is doing..

Stick to the thread and everything will be ok

exup

Lum wrote: »

2) They are so bright that other, more vulnerable, road users fade into the background. Cyclists and Pedestrians aren't really able to carry around the battery/ballast/bulb needed to run a HID front light. Motorbike riders have often run daylight running lights so that they stand out a bit. I do not mind this as they are harder to see and stand to come off a lot worse in an accident. By decking out every Range Rooney with super bright LED fairy lights and enormous HIDs, the motorbike riding behind it will not be noticed by many drivers and one of them will then procede to pull out into the side of the bike.

Many motorcyclists believe that if they put their lights on they will be easier to spot. Its more down to myths spouted by road safety groups and when it comes down to it there are far more important things to do when riding a bike then putting your lights on just so you think people will see you - you will get a shock.

If you have a Range Rover or any large vehilce in front you drop back so you can be seen, and more importantly - you on the motorbike can see anyone likely to pull out into your path - never assume that you have been seen.
The most important thing is taking up the road postion of where a car driver would sit in the car - which is 2/3 of the way into the lane. That is where the majority of road users look - as they expect to get eye contact with the driver of a car (a car is what most people look for coming down the road).

Bright colours (fluourescent etc) only make a difference if the weather is dull. The trick during the day is to contrast against the background, and sometimes the best colour for this is black (which is why the RAF paint their Tucano trainer aircraft black).
Reflective clothing only makes a difference at night.
Headlights cause speed judging issues, and can also cause a blend in with other lights (from cars behind). Anyone who misjudges the speed of a motorcycle (with a small frontal area and comparitively large headlight) may pull out - If asked, why did you pull out infront of a bike and cause a crash - most drivers will not admit to misjudging the speed but will simply say "I didn't see it" and people will believe them.
Headlights are most effective in faster rural areas, especially when another road user spots a following motorcyclist in their mirrors.
Other than for obvious nighttime legal requirements and at night there are that many one eyd cyclops cars going around making people think that it could be motorcycle - I think you'll find that headlights aren't really as effective as people would like to think.

As for what another poster said - that they felt motorcycles should put their lights on to help those with poorer eyesight. If their (these other road users) eyesight is that bad then they should have their eyes tested and be wearing glasses or not be on the road as they wouldn't neet the legal requirement for eyesight standards.

We have gone down the headlight route before on this forum. you need to be looking at a vehicle for its lights to be of any use in the first place. If you can see that vehicle, then whether its got its lights on or not is probably irrelevant. Saying you "can see it better with its lights on" is rubbish - you can either see it, or you can't there isn't any better or worse.