We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Whose fault was this one?

Options
1131416181928

Comments

  • Jamie_Carter
    Jamie_Carter Posts: 5,282 Forumite
    Wongsky wrote: »
    So, then, side and tail bulbs are 5W - ignoring when you're braking, and when your rear fogs are on, that's 5W bulbs to be seen with from the rear.

    Uncannily, 5W bulbs in your sidelights to be seen with...

    Brake and rear fog tend to be 21W.

    My dipped beam bulbs (H7s) are 55W. And my main-beam bulbs (H7) are 55W - albeit I suspect they have a different beam / reflector pattern in the main beam unit.

    See my post 151
  • Wongsky
    Wongsky Posts: 222 Forumite
    Because a 5w red light is far easier to see than a 5w white light.
    Not so sure I buy the far easier bit - there may be some softer factors, but I don't buy there's a huge difference.

    Even nowadays, when people want to deny calling them sidelights, and call them positional lights, or to be used when parked at night, but the car needs lighting up - the purpose and power are for the same purpose - so the vehicle can be seen.
    It's all down to visibilty of different colours in the spectrum. A good example would be if you see an older emergency vehicle, the blue lights often aren't as visible in sunlight. This is because UV light has faded the lense, so the light emitted is closer to white in the colour spectrum. It isn't because the bulb is any dimmer.
    I can accept that different colours of light may have a bearing on how compelling they are - but all the same, I'm not buying that a 5W taillight bulb is hugely different from a 5W sidelight bulb, since both are implemented for the same purpose - so that the vehicle can be seen.
    What's it got to do with Top Gear?
    'cos it's often programmes like Top Gear that show off cars with their front fogs on - sometimes when they're in the studio, all lit up, sometimes when driven on roads, or in arty shots in the magazine.

    And Top Gear as a TV programme is all about appealling to a certain demograph.
  • Jamie_Carter
    Jamie_Carter Posts: 5,282 Forumite
    Wongsky wrote: »
    Not so sure I buy the far easier bit - there may be some softer factors, but I don't buy there's a huge difference.

    Even nowadays, when people want to deny calling them sidelights, and call them positional lights, or to be used when parked at night, but the car needs lighting up - the purpose and power are for the same purpose - so the vehicle can be seen.

    I can accept that different colours of light may have a bearing on how compelling they are - but all the same, I'm not buying that a 5W taillight bulb is hugely different from a 5W sidelight bulb, since both are implemented for the same purpose - so that the vehicle can be seen.

    The fact that you don't buy it isn't really my problem, it's a fact. If you don't like that, then there isn't a lot I can do about it.

    It isn't anything to do with the 5w bulbs, as they are often the same. It's the lense, the refractors in the lense, and the visibility of different colours in the colour spectrum.
  • Lum
    Lum Posts: 6,460 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Combo Breaker
    brat wrote: »
    The legislation specifically differentiates between 'seriously reduced visibility' Reg 25(1)(a) and 'hours of darkness' Reg25(1)(b).

    Many people legally put more lights on than the law requires. That's sometimes a good thing, certainly not always.

    Interestingly that regulation also allows you to turn your headlights off when there are streetlights in a built up 30 limit area. I understand this used to be commonplace back in the 60s.

    Personally I'd like to see people go back to doing that in areas where the streetlights are actually good. It would be of great benefit to pedestrians and two-wheeled road users.
    Wongsky wrote: »
    I can accept that different colours of light may have a bearing on how compelling they are - but all the same, I'm not buying that a 5W taillight bulb is hugely different from a 5W sidelight bulb, since both are implemented for the same purpose - so that the vehicle can be seen.

    A 5W bulb with a red filter filter over it actually puts out less light than an unfiltered 5W bulb, since the filter only lets a subset of the light actually get through!

    Your comments about foglight wattages are a little off however, as they are 21W same as brake lights, but they have a silver reflector behind them whereas brake lights typically do not.
  • Wongsky
    Wongsky Posts: 222 Forumite
    The fact that you don't buy it isn't really my problem, it's a fact. If you don't like that, then there isn't a lot I can do about it.

    It isn't anything to do with the 5w bulbs, as they are often the same. It's the lense, the refractors in the lense, and the visibility of different colours in the colour spectrum.
    It's not about buying it, it's not about there being some variance which is fact, it's about the absolutes.

    5W sidelight bulbs, and 5W taillight bulbs both serve the same purpose - so that the vehicle can be seen. There are times when you need to leave your lights on, when your car is parked on some roads - and those are the lights and level of lighting that would be required (tail and side lights on).

    So I'm not disputing that there may be some variance in how compelling different colours are, or the lens or refractors - all the same, those minimum lighting levels are there so that your vehicle can be SEEN.

    THAT'S why I remain unconvinced that the difference between red and white, and front and back lighting housings are THAT significant.
  • Wongsky
    Wongsky Posts: 222 Forumite
    Lum wrote: »
    Your comments about foglight wattages are a little off however, as they are 21W same as brake lights, but they have a silver reflector behind them whereas brake lights typically do not.
    So do headlights.

    Point being, 21W of rear foglight, compared with quite a bit more in front to actually see with.

    I'm just not buying this whole, sidelights aren't sufficient to be SEEN with argument. I'm not saying they are good enough to drive with when dark to see with, or good enough to pierce heavy spray on the motorway.

    But to be seen when it's dark, they are perfectly sufficient. After all, if you have to park, at night, on a road, where you'd still need your lights on, that's the level of lighting you'd get - your sidelights at the front, and taillights at the rear.
  • Norman_Castle
    Norman_Castle Posts: 11,871 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    OK. We'll use specifics. I think the car ahead is a Skoda Ocatavia and the car passing or protecting the scene is larger, possibly a Vauxhall Insignia. Please tell me if I'm wrong. The Octavia has a width including mirrors of 2.02 metres while the Insignia has a width including mirrors of 2.08 metres, a total of 4.1 metres between them. Add the 0.5 for the width between the Octavia and the kerb, and you've already got 4.6 metres. Even if they clipped mirrors the black car would be over the line!

    Even ignoring the width of the mirrors on the far sides of both vehicles, the black car would have to pass within four inches of mirror clipping to stay inside the white line.
    I'm not interested in the overtaking car. You estimated the road at 4.5 metres. A car at 2 metres plus a 0.5 metre gap between the kerb and car leaves 2 metres between the side of the stationary cars and the white line. Far more than is needed to check if the lane is clear. Thinking and braking distance?. These should be near zero if the car had nosed out cautiously which it clearly did not.
  • Norman_Castle
    Norman_Castle Posts: 11,871 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    I'm being devil's advocate here to a minor degree, only because I can see that in a perfect world, the Passat driver could have moved out slightly more slowly. That is his only fault.
    He also failed to check it was safe to cross the lane and failed to see a motorcycle.
  • Norman_Castle
    Norman_Castle Posts: 11,871 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    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 the driver had used the necessary caution he would not be traveling at 1 m/s across a lane of stationary cars with a restricted view.
    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, If he couldn't see properly at that point he should have stopped to check. Not carry on moving at 1 m/s
    ............
  • And yet again a thread descends into stupidy......
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.