Whose fault was this one?

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

You have overlooked a couple of factors. Firstly thinking and reaction time. This motorist may be covering the accelerator and ready to move off. If he does that while convinced through best observation that the road is clear both sides, then suddenly a motorcyclist arrives on scene already beyond the point of no escape, a few things quickly run through his brain. He is firstly going to think - Oh sh*t, then for a brief moment he's going to consider what choices he has. He's quickly going to realise that he has very few choices other than brake, which he does. It can take one to one and a half seconds to complete all of that. One second is a fast think and react time. If the Passat is travelling (as I believe) at ~1 m/s in terms of its perpendicular motion, it will take 1.0 to 1.5 metres to come to a stop from the first point of recognition of the danger.
If you track that back, it's likely that the motorist's point of first recognition of the danger would be when the car has nose poked about 0.5 to 1 metre. Perhaps he couldn't see properly at that point, we don't know, which is another factor you have overlooked. It's possible, even probable that there was a view for the Passat driver from an earlier point, perhaps 2.5 metres (seconds) from the collision, when he could perhaps see over the bonnet of the nearest car. Unfortunately because of the speed of the biker, (which I believe to have been an average of 11 to 13 m/s while slowing from first view to point of impact), it may well have been 32 metres back at this point, and completely out of view. He may not even have started his filter.

If the Passat was moving at 1 m/s, then this is far too fast to pull out with no visibility. If you can't see, then you either wait until you can, or you edge out very very slowly. If the Passat driver had done the latter, then the motorcyclist would have seen the front of the car in plenty of time.

If you watch the video closely, the Passat is actually accelerating. So we can only guess that the driver simply assumed that there was nothing coming from their right, and that they were just looking for a gap to their left.

This is a simple case of the Passat driver driving without due care and attention for other road users.

Wongsky

Lum wrote: »

The law only requires dipped headlights when the visibility is reduced to below 100M.

It's been a long long time since I've had to drive in visibility that poor, and I live in bloody Wales, a downpour of rain does not reduce visibility to that short of a distance and so sidelights are entirely appropriate.

Besides these days you see plenty of muppets driving around on dipped beams on dry but overcast days!

I'd agree with this - there's much too much like the arms race with lighting on vehicles, these days.

In many circumstances, sidelights are perfectly sufficient, but that unthinking hyperbole that more is always better, means many thanks are being lit up much more than they need, and as a consequence, things on the road that aren't lit up, or lit up as brightly, are becoming obfuscated a bit.

I genuinely think we need to step back (especially with the Sudden Onset Of DRLs On Every Single Bleeding Vehicle On The Road) and reach a compromise position: dipped (or at times main beam) when you need them to see with, and sidelights when you need to be seen (ignoring fog or seriously reduced visibility in all that).

Jamie_Carter

Wongsky wrote: »

I'd agree with this - there's much too much like the arms race with lighting on vehicles, these days.

In many circumstances, sidelights are perfectly sufficient, but that unthinking hyperbole that more is always better, means many thanks are being lit up much more than they need, and as a consequence, things on the road that aren't lit up, or lit up as brightly, are becoming obfuscated a bit.

I genuinely think we need to step back (especially with the Sudden Onset Of DRLs On Every Single Bleeding Vehicle On The Road) and reach a compromise position: dipped (or at times main beam) when you need them to see with, and sidelights when you need to be seen (ignoring fog or seriously reduced visibility in all that).

Sidelights on many vehicles aren't enough to make you highly visible.

Lum

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

To be fair, that is often due to automatic headlights

Corsa B drivers seem to be quite common offenders for this (and not even the chavved up Corsas either) no I'm not sure this is always the case.

derrick wrote: »

Therefore why drive on sidelights? It is only another click on the switch to make sure YOU are safe.

Sidelights are perfectly adequate for being seen, though on newer cars they are getting less useful I will admit.

I believe that excessive lighting on a car is a very selfish thing to do. Sure your car may stick out like a christmas tree but in doing so you drown out the lights from motorbikes and pushbikes, and those guys are the ones who have the most to lose from not being seen.

Perhaps if every car driver in this video was just on sidelights, and the motorbike was using headlights, then the driver would have seen them a bit sooner and this accident wouldn't have happened.

brat

derrick wrote: »

Point is, the law says dipped headlights, if you as the driver decide lights are needed during reduced daytime visibility the law says it has to be dipped headlights, not side lights,

Sorry, that's just wrong. Headlights are required for seriously reduced visibility (less than 100m) Sidelights are a reasonable consideration in town when visibility is slightly reduced during daytime.

derrick

Wongsky wrote: »

I'd agree with this - there's much too much like the arms race with lighting on vehicles, these days.

In many circumstances, sidelights are perfectly sufficient, but that unthinking hyperbole that more is always better, means many thanks are being lit up much more than they need, and as a consequence, things on the road that aren't lit up, or lit up as brightly, are becoming obfuscated a bit.

I genuinely think we need to step back (especially with the Sudden Onset Of DRLs On Every Single Bleeding Vehicle On The Road) and reach a compromise position: dipped (or at times main beam) when you need them to see with, and sidelights when you need to be seen (ignoring fog or seriously reduced visibility in all that).

But not within the law!

If you don't think dipped headlights are required,then sidelights are not required, if you decide to put lights on during the day what is you reason?
If it is for reduced visibility,(to be seen by others), then put your dipped headlights on as is required under the law, if it is not for reduced visibility, then leave the lights off.

I know which I will use, and that is to comply with the law and to be seen by others rather than them see the vehicle then the sidelights, by which time it is to late.

I really cannot see the mentality of driving on sidelights at any time as most ,(with maybe the exception of these stupid "modern" running lights), of them are not seen before the vehicle itself is visible, (see black cab and hgv sidelights for examples).

.

Wongsky

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Sidelights on many vehicles aren't enough to make you highly visible.

Sidelights should be perfectly adequate for making vehicles at least visible in reasonable conditions.

Why does everything need to be HIGHLY visible - that's just how the vehicle lighting arms race starts.

DRLs don't need to be as bright as they are, now, dipped headlights are overkill for DRLs and overkill for just being seen when it's dull or there's light rain, but not loads of spray.

It's largely the front-fog-light mentality that's contributed to the vehicle-lighting-arms-race - as it shall be known from here on out. More light is better, and bright lights are cool.

derrick

brat wrote: »

Sorry, that's just wrong. Headlights are required for seriously reduced visibility (less than 100m) Sidelights are a reasonable consideration in town when visibility is slightly reduced during daytime.

See my post below yours, if you can easily see the vehicle, then no lights are required, so side lights do not cut it, either mentally or legally.

.

Lum

derrick wrote: »

But not within the law!

Yes it is within the law.

You can drive with your sidelights on at any time of the day for any reason.

Headlights are only legally required during hours of darkness or when visibility is reduced to below 100M.

Rainfall rarely reduces visibility to below 100M so in that situation, assuming it's daytime, sidelights are both adequate and perfectly legal.

I have a grey car that blends into the road in the rain, so sidelights make me visible, don't dazzle people and don't drown out bikers' headlights.

Wongsky

derrick wrote: »

But not within the law!

Not getting your point, sidelights are permitted by law in some circumstances.

derrick wrote: »

If you don't think dipped headlights are required

I didn't say that dipped headlights aren't required - merely that they're not required anything like as much as many use them for.

They're overkill in scenarios where you just want some light visible on your car, to be seen. Same as taillights.

Where they're not overkill, is where you need them to see the road with.

derrick wrote: »

if you decide to put lights on during the day what is you reason?

Probably mostly to be seen, as opposed to see with.

derrick wrote: »

If it is for reduced visibility,(to be seen by others), then put your dipped headlights on as is required under the law, if it is not for reduced visibility, then leave the lights off.

Sidelights are permitted at dawn and dusk - why doesn't the same apply for reduced light during the day?

derrick wrote: »

I know which I will use, and that is to comply with the law and to be seen by others rather than them see the vehicle then the sidelights, by which time it is to late.

If it's just dull or a bit dark (heavy / dark clouds) or light rain, sidelights are perfectly adequate to be seen with.

derrick wrote: »

I really cannot see the mentality of driving on sidelights at any time as most ,(with maybe the exception of these stupid "modern" running lights), of them are not seen before the vehicle itself is visible, (see black cab and hgv sidelights for examples).

Because if all you need is to be seen, then sidelights and taillights should be perfectly sufficient.

How many watts are the bulbs in your taillights (don't mean the dual bulbs for stop and tail, just tail) and how many watts are your sidelight bulbs?

How many watts are your rear fogs, and how many watts are your headlights, then tell me you need the full power of dipped beam just to be seen.