Audi A1 TSFI Sportsback 2017

Scrapit

Standard fog lights just aren't dazzling. They ain't in rain, clear conditions, fog and so on, they just aren't.

neilmcl

ontheroad1970 said:

neilmcl said:

ontheroad1970 said:

neilmcl said:

photome said:

AdrianC said:

photome said:

dont get me started on fog lights though

Since rear fog lights have been a legal requirement on all new cars in the UK for 40 years, I presum you mean front fog lights?

They are very useful indeed. Not only is sidelights-plus-front-fog the most effective combination in proper fog (not the light mist that many confuse with "proper fog"), but they also help to fill in light underneath main beam.

Neither of these are going to be remotely relevant to urban-dwellers, or even to those in commuter-belt suburban "rural", but here in proper rural, they are both very frequently used for a large slice of the year.

I'd estimate I drive on main beam much more than on dip, to give you an example of what I mean. When I lived in commuter-belt suburban "rural", main beam was almost never used.

Nothing wrong with fog lights front and rear in fog, ,its very rare i need to put mine on though even doing 30000 miles a year
My gripe is the amount of people who put them on when its raining, especially rear and or leave them on when the fog clears

Depends on how badly it's raining. If it's absolutely tipping it down and your on a motorway/dual carriageway with visibility due to spray down to metres then there is a legitimate call for rear fogs, but I agree the problem is drivers forgetting to turn them off the moment they get into clearer conditions or putting them on at night when it's a bit misty, in fact unless it's a pea souper there really isn't a need to use rear fog lights at all at night.

I disagree.  The glare caused by rear foglights is dazzling especially in heavy rain, as t is mixed in the spray also and they also mask brake lights or act as a false positive for brake lights.  

If you're that close to another vehicle in heavy rain for the glare to be dazzling or confuse them with brake lights then I'd look a bit more closely at your driving skills.

Nonsense.  Particularly at night, the use of rear fog lights in rain is downright dangerous.  I always leave plenty of space between me and the vehicle in front.  I've had to stop at services a few times because the glare from the use of rear foglights in rain is so dazzling when mixed with spray.  There is absolutely no need for rear foglights in rain.  They are called FOG lights for a reason.  When scanning the road ahead, a brighter light ahead partially visible behind other cars at an angle can be seen by some as a brake light, and I have noticed other drivers braking as a result of it.  Compounded by a wet road, what seems like a good idea is a rather silly one.  

Driving in the rain can be tiring enough without the added hazard of too many bright red lights ahead when normal brightness red lights are perfectly sufficient, and since they are so bright, fog lights do affect the visibility of brake lights.  So much so, that there used to be a public information film shown at shutdown on BBC telling people not to use foglights in the rain.  

I think you'll find that I stated there was no need for rear fog lights at night. Obviously if you're driving in traffic then your fairly close enough not to require the use of rear fog lights and should be turning them off but I specifically mentioned driving with very little visibility of cars in front, ie, the sort of scenario where you're not in traffic with vehicles being 100s of yard ahead and behind.

I'll draw your attention to the Highway Code rule 226 (Driving in adverse weather conditions - not just fog) - "You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves". Again, I'll repeat, if you're being dazzled by vehicles over 100 metres away in adverse weather conditions and exceptional poor visibility then I think you need to check your eyesight.

ontheroad1970

My eyesight is checked regularly.  Thanks for your concern  

The main dazzling issue is people keeping them on in traffic which is frankly idiotic.  Care should be taken in using them otherwise due to brake lights not being seen, or it seeming like a brake light is on.  

neilmcl

ontheroad1970 said:

My eyesight is checked regularly.  Thanks for your concern  

The main dazzling issue is people keeping them on in traffic which is frankly idiotic.  Care should be taken in using them otherwise due to brake lights not being seen, or it seeming like a brake light is on.  

And I made it very clear in my post that this wasn't acceptable.

Biggus_Dickus

macman said:

Rule 226 says that headlamps must be used in poor visibility, less than 100m. It's ambiguous.

Notwithstanding the ‘fog-light’ discussions I’ve long been of the opinion that we should adopt the Scandinavian ‘dipped headlights’ rule. 

AdrianC

Biggus_Dickus said:

macman said:

Rule 226 says that headlamps must be used in poor visibility, less than 100m. It's ambiguous.

Notwithstanding the ‘fog-light’ discussions I’ve long been of the opinion that we should adopt the Scandinavian ‘dipped headlights’ rule. 

We have the same legal requirements as Scandinavia now...

DRLs on new cars are perfectly acceptable there, in place of dip. They always were, hence the dedicated daylight lights such as Saab and Volvo used to have... But now we require DRLs on new cars, too.

They've been a legal requirement on all new type approvals since 2011, nine years ago. The average age of a car at scrapping in the UK is just under 14yo, and the average age of all cars on the road is about 8.5yrs. Anecdote suggests they're getting towards the point of majority now.

Biggus_Dickus

AdrianC said:

Biggus_Dickus said:

macman said:

Rule 226 says that headlamps must be used in poor visibility, less than 100m. It's ambiguous.

Notwithstanding the ‘fog-light’ discussions I’ve long been of the opinion that we should adopt the Scandinavian ‘dipped headlights’ rule. 

We have the same legal requirements as Scandinavia now...

DRLs on new cars are perfectly acceptable there, in place of dip. They always were, hence the dedicated daylight lights such as Saab and Volvo used to have... But now we require DRLs on new cars, too.

They've been a legal requirement on all new type approvals since 2011, nine years ago. The average age of a car at scrapping in the UK is just under 14yo, and the average age of all cars on the road is about 8.5yrs. Anecdote suggests they're getting towards the point of majority now.

...are you just talking about DRL’s or the legislation regarding the use of them?

With due regard to our ‘rules’ we have the choice to use DRL’s/headlights or not ,...to the best of my knowledge the Scandi’s don’t have that choice.