Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Ddrago
    • By Ddrago 5th Dec 18, 5:57 PM
    • 12Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Ddrago
    I may have went on a several hour drive in the dark with just sidelights on. Q about penalty points
    • #1
    • 5th Dec 18, 5:57 PM
    I may have went on a several hour drive in the dark with just sidelights on. Q about penalty points 5th Dec 18 at 5:57 PM
    Hi
    I had a hire car for work and had to drive in the early hours of the morning. I thought the headlights were on but I have realised that I may have had only the sidelights on. I'm worried about the potential consequences of this. Is it possible in could get penalty points multiple times from the one journey?
    Thanks
Page 3
    • facade
    • By facade 6th Dec 18, 1:08 PM
    • 3,617 Posts
    • 1,896 Thanks
    facade
    One of the most common things I notice, not when dark, but in fog or poor visibility when it would be sensible to use all lights including dipped headlights and probably rear for light, are driver's with only their daytime fairy light on.
    Originally posted by oldagetraveller

    So you actually notice them more than the ones with runway landing lights?


    Isn't that supporting the idea that huge amounts of lights are not necessary to be seen?

    I'm sick of the arms race that means as soon as it gets dark, and a little drizzly all I can see is pinpoints of intense glare.


    All the numpty pedestrians clad in black, the potholes and debris in the road is just invisible.
    I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....

    (except air quality and Medical Science )
    • molerat
    • By molerat 6th Dec 18, 1:14 PM
    • 19,736 Posts
    • 13,961 Thanks
    molerat
    Another possibility is automatic headlights, a hire car will likely be quite new so a distinct possibility especially as op stated they were able to use main beam.
    https://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/give-support/donate-now/
    • Deanston
    • By Deanston 6th Dec 18, 1:41 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    Deanston
    Given that the OP has expressed unwarranted concern about their position, this probably isn't very helpful.

    There is no mechanism for a prosecution for driving with inappropriate lighting on a vehicle other than by a Police stop at the time of the offence, followed by a notice issued by those same Police at the time of the stop.


    6 Months from the notice of prosecution that the OP has not received?
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    Itís not wrong thought is it?

    Six months for any summary only offence and a NIP isnít required.
    • oldagetraveller
    • By oldagetraveller 6th Dec 18, 1:53 PM
    • 3,207 Posts
    • 1,704 Thanks
    oldagetraveller
    "So you actually notice them more than the ones with runway landing lights?
    Isn't that supporting the idea that huge amounts of lights are not necessary to be seen? "


    No, what about the rear? No lights showing when only with front fairy lights are on. Threfore no lights necessary at the rear by your determination. No point in having rear fog lights then?
    It's acceptable to be seen from the front and not the rear then?

    Or do you take offence at them being called fairy lights which most look like?
    Last edited by oldagetraveller; 06-12-2018 at 2:00 PM.
    Did you hear about the politician who had a backside transplant? It rejected him.
    • Deanston
    • By Deanston 6th Dec 18, 1:54 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    Deanston
    Do you mean when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet).


    I think its daft when people have their headlights on, when they are not needed.
    Originally posted by sevenhills
    Itís not very often visible is something bad you canít see the moon.
    • Deanston
    • By Deanston 6th Dec 18, 1:55 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    Deanston
    In a 30 limit. In a NSL and on a motorway you do.

    If someone cannot tell they've not got their headlights on, especially in the dark, they need their license taken off them. They clearly don't take any notice of the indication light on the dashboard that tells you whether you have the dip or high beam on nor take any notice of the fact there's not a pool of light on the road ahead.
    Originally posted by Tarambor
    Does the law say 30 mph or these roads generally are 30mph?
    • sevenhills
    • By sevenhills 6th Dec 18, 2:11 PM
    • 1,844 Posts
    • 703 Thanks
    sevenhills
    No, what about the rear? No lights showing when only with front fairy lights are on. Threfore no lights necessary at the rear by your determination. No point in having rear fog lights then?
    It's acceptable to be seen from the front and not the rear then?

    Or do you take offence at them being called fairy lights which most look like?
    Originally posted by oldagetraveller

    Fog light were introduced when car lights could be really poor, some LED lights seem brighter than fog lights.

    • Iceweasel
    • By Iceweasel 6th Dec 18, 2:15 PM
    • 4,361 Posts
    • 3,209 Thanks
    Iceweasel
    Do you mean when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet).


    I think its daft when people have their headlights on, when they are not needed.
    Originally posted by sevenhills
    Of course some folks think they are never needed during the day - no matter what the visibility is.

    Laws are made to protect us all - from stupid people.

    That's why we have speed limits for example.

    Personally I think it's daft to have a speed limit on motorways - but without a limit some fools will drive too fast for the conditions or their ability.
    • TuppenceWorth
    • By TuppenceWorth 6th Dec 18, 4:44 PM
    • 75 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    TuppenceWorth
    OP...
    Nothing will happen. No phone calls. Nothing through the post. You were not pulled over by cops.

    You can sleep well and forget about it. Good evening
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 6th Dec 18, 4:53 PM
    • 11,072 Posts
    • 11,698 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    It’s not wrong thought is it?

    Six months for any summary only offence and a NIP isn’t required.
    Originally posted by Deanston
    It depends on what you are trying to tell the OP about their specific scenario.

    If it is that because they weren't stopped by Police they have nothing to worry about then that's fine. Anything else is either wrong or not relevant.

    We're here to help.


    As you suggested in post #46, the rule is this:

    113
    You MUST:-

    - ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise

    - use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified

    - use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226).

    Night (the hours of darkness) is defined as the period between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise).

    Laws RVLR regs 3, 24, & 25, (In Scotland - RTRA 1984 sect 82 (as amended by NRSWA, para 59 of sched 8))
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 06-12-2018 at 4:57 PM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Deanston
    • By Deanston 6th Dec 18, 5:07 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    Deanston
    It depends on what you are trying to tell the OP about their specific scenario.

    If it is that because they weren't stopped by Police they have nothing to worry about then that's fine. Anything else is either wrong or not relevant.

    We're here to help.


    As you suggested in post #46, the rule is this:
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    It's not wrong, not being stopped at the time would stop a prosecution.

    It's not going to happen but there was no need to stop him at the time.

    I suggest you read up on the subject before you comment any further.
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 6th Dec 18, 5:21 PM
    • 11,072 Posts
    • 11,698 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    It's not a question about what is theoretically possible. It's a question of what actually happens.

    Even if we are talking deep theory here, then the requirement is for a Notice of Intended Prosecution to be served with 14 days, which would be the relevant timescale if the OP wanted to be absolutely sure that they were not being prosecuted.

    How many people are prosecuted for minor driving offences in this way (excluding the camera offences of Speeding, Red Light and Box Junction)?
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 06-12-2018 at 5:25 PM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Deanston
    • By Deanston 6th Dec 18, 5:27 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    Deanston
    It's not a question about what is theoretically possible. It's a question of what actually happens.

    Even if we are talking deep theory here, then the requirement is for a Notice of Intended Prosecution to be served with 14 days, which would be the relevant timescale if the OP wanted to be absolutely sure that they were not being prosecuted.


    How many people are prosecuted for minor driving offences in this way (excluding the camera offences of Speeding, Red Light and Box Junction)?
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    Yet again you're wrong, there is no need for a NIP so the relevant timescale would be six months for the information to be put before a court.
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 6th Dec 18, 6:03 PM
    • 11,072 Posts
    • 11,698 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    Yet again you're wrong, there is no need for a NIP so the relevant timescale would be six months for the information to be put before a court.
    Originally posted by Deanston
    And how many cases of this format are brought?
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Deanston
    • By Deanston 6th Dec 18, 6:09 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    Deanston
    And how many cases of this format are brought?
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    Summary only offences without an NIP? Thousands.
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 6th Dec 18, 6:18 PM
    • 11,072 Posts
    • 11,698 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    Summary only offences without an NIP? Thousands.
    Originally posted by Deanston
    Motoring offences?
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Deanston
    • By Deanston 6th Dec 18, 6:27 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    Deanston
    Motoring offences?
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    Yes..........
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 6th Dec 18, 6:30 PM
    • 11,072 Posts
    • 11,698 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    So these are offences other than:

    Section 2 (dangerous driving)
    Section 3 (careless driving/driving without reasonable consideration)
    Section 22 (leaving the vehicle in a dangerous position)
    Section 28 (dangerous cycling)
    Section 29 (careless cycling)
    Sections 35 and 36 (disobeying certain traffic signs and police signals)

    And under the Road Traffic Regulation Act:

    Sections 16, 17(4), 88(7) and 89(1) (speeding offences)

    or aiding and abetting any of the above.

    Which require a NIP.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Deanston
    • By Deanston 6th Dec 18, 6:31 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 42 Thanks
    Deanston
    So these are offences other than:

    Section 2 (dangerous driving)
    Section 3 (careless driving/driving without reasonable consideration)
    Section 22 (leaving the vehicle in a dangerous position)
    Section 28 (dangerous cycling)
    Section 29 (careless cycling)
    Sections 35 and 36 (disobeying certain traffic signs and police signals)

    And under the Road Traffic Regulation Act:

    Sections 16, 17(4), 88(7) and 89(1) (speeding offences)

    or aiding and abetting any of the above.

    Which require a NIP.
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    You've got it.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 6th Dec 18, 8:50 PM
    • 3,638 Posts
    • 2,260 Thanks
    Car 54
    So these are offences other than:

    Section 2 (dangerous driving)
    Section 3 (careless driving/driving without reasonable consideration)
    Section 22 (leaving the vehicle in a dangerous position)
    Section 28 (dangerous cycling)
    Section 29 (careless cycling)
    Sections 35 and 36 (disobeying certain traffic signs and police signals)

    And under the Road Traffic Regulation Act:

    Sections 16, 17(4), 88(7) and 89(1) (speeding offences)

    or aiding and abetting any of the above.

    Which require a NIP.
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    Aiding and abetting is only applicable to indictable offences. Most of those above are not.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,800Posts Today

6,010Users online

Martin's Twitter