Speed Cameras ... ::sigh::

Kilty_2

stubbyd wrote: »

The things that DEFINITELY SHOULD ABSOLUTELY be banned

...... are retrofit HID kits in headlights that were not designed for them, without auto levelling etc, blinding the world (but the driver's OK because he can see and it's well cool innit?):mad:

WelshPaul

Lum wrote: »

Motorbike riders have often run daylight running lights so that they stand out a bit.

They have no choice, there is no off switch so you cannot turn a motorbikes lights off!

gilbert_and_sullivan

Lum wrote: »

I actually believe the opposite. Cars have too many, and too bright, lights these days.

We should go back to the old fashioned way. Sidelights are there so that your car can be seen. they should be reasonably dim, but cover a large area. the old Volvo 940 sidelights would be an example of a perfect sidelight apart from the fact that you can't turn them off.

Headlights for if you can't see, eg if there are no streetlights, full beams for when no-one is coming the other day.



1) Modern lights are so bright these days that even in the day time they can leave after image green streaks in your vision, and at night they obliterate your night vision to the point that it can be difficult to see for a brief period after the oncoming car has passed. This is particularly true if you pass on a corner and are caught in the "uptick" area of the headlights.

Superb post Lum, and i couldn't agree more, common sense which has all but vanished in this country.

We have the spiral of who's got the most (and most silly looking) lights now, a battle to have the brightest lights on the planet.

In the midst of this raging battle for supremacy, others have to try and share roadspace, cyclists and pedestrians trying to find their own way home in the dark, almost invisible unless silhouetted as drivers eyes become accustomed to blinding lights and natural night vision is destroyed.

The urban road was far safer when drivers used side lights only in built up areas, unlit pedestrains etc were easily seen as night vision came into play, cars could be seen on sidelights clearly, and speed/direction/vehicle outline judged properly..is the one eyed monster coming towards you a motorcycle or truck?

As said above, if a driver can't see another vehicles side lights in street lit areas they really should call at the nick and hand the licence in.

skiddlydiddly

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 going off topic strider, they just said what it is, didn't make any comment on the morality of it.

Lum

exup wrote: »

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.

<rest of post removed for brevity>

So apart from my suggestion that daytime running lights might actually help motorbikes, you basically agree with my main point?

alastairq

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?

certainly you!

from the viewpoint that, you will find it far more difficult to cope with an unlit vehicle on the other side of the road....by exceeding the speed limit you deprive yourself of that essential time, to cope with problems.

Whether the other vehicle is lit, or unlit really is irrelevant.

Parked vehicles can and may be unlit?

It may be a wider vehicle than a car...? Wider than you perhaps expect?

It may even be a broken-down vehicle, which you have just happened to come across?

If I come across an unlit, moving vehicle..I know then I have seen it, and will cope with it...for sure, the lack of lights on it is perhaps a gross inconvenience.......in other words at that moment I have had to work harder with my observations.....but..I have seen it, and I will cope with it.



If you consider such an oncoming unlit vehicle as 'dangerous', then that implies you will struggle to cope with it, which reflects on your standard of driving or riding......more especially, exactly how you view 'safety?'

Strider590

^^ Another one who thinks overtaking is a crime.

Inactive

Strider590 wrote: »

^^ Another one who thinks overtaking is a crime.

No crime in overtaking safely...

Kilty_2

Strider590 wrote: »

^^ Another one who thinks overtaking is a crime.

Overtaking in excess of the speed limit is.

jase1

So is careless driving -- i.e. driving with no lights in the dark.

But hey, as long as he was sticking to the speed limit, he can do what he wants eh?

Well done that man. Give him a gold star.