[wagolynn]

Day time driving lights are about as much use, in terms of road safety, as speed cameras.

[smudger]

I don't know why plod is so concerned about these fog/driving lights?

They are no way annoying to other drivers, as those Rear bright red fog lights!

Get stuck behind a car with them on, they are so bright that you cant see their break lights:(

Especially if its not foggy?

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Day time driving lights are about as much use, in terms of road safety, as speed cameras.

That could be said about motorcycles using headlamps all the time but, I feel a light tends to draw your attention more.

At least it stops people driving at night with no lights.

[Rolebama]

I think there is a marked difference between being dazzled by front or rear fogs. At least with the rears, you can drop back. I think being blinded, even momentarily, by the dazzle from some front lights is the worse of the two.

The Audi Daytime Driving Lamps I refer to are the series of LED-type lights within the headlamp itself. They seem to put beams out in a random spread, and are incredibly intense.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by MrDanno

That could be said about motorcycles using headlamps all the time but, I feel a light tends to draw your attention more.

At least it stops people driving at night with no lights.

I cannot see any way of stopping people driving at night without lights; other than having the lights permanently controlled by the 'ignition on' switch.

I agree with the comment about a light drawing attention. This is particularly so for motorcycles, which tend to cut through where a car or larger vehicle would have to stay in a queue.
The drivers of service buses in our area are under instructions to have their dipped headlights on at all times.
I am always amazed by how many drivers fail to switch on their lights when it is obviously necessary for safety (e.g., heavy rain, foggy conditions, failing light at dusk), with no thought for their own safety, or that of others.

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I think there is a marked difference between being dazzled by front or rear fogs. At least with the rears, you can drop back. I think being blinded, even momentarily, by the dazzle from some front lights is the worse of the two.

The Audi Daytime Driving Lamps I refer to are the series of LED-type lights within the headlamp itself. They seem to put beams out in a random spread, and are incredibly intense.

I agree with the comment that dazzle from ahead is the greatest nuisance. As stated, you can drop back from bright rear lights. If we are honest, on unlit roads, how many times do we pass an oncoming car with lights so dazzling that we cannot really be sure of a clear road immediately ahead?
Often, I believe the extreme brightness, apart from badly aligned beams, is the fitting of those bulbs that are not road legal.

Surely, the most obvious safe conditions as cars pass each other, is for them to have properly adjusted headlights and for both vehicles to have lights of similar intensity. Once this fails to be a rigidly enforced regulation (which has actually happened), then it becomes a 'dog eat dog' battle for the brightest lights to the disadvantage of all others using the roads.
What choice is there for achieving safety during darkness, except to opt for the most powerful bulbs that can be legally used.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by MrDanno

That could be said about motorcycles using headlamps all the time but, I feel a light tends to draw your attention more.

At least it stops people driving at night with no lights.

This works MrDanno because, very few vehicles have lights on in the daytime, all vehicles having lights on will just become ‘normal’ so no one will notice.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I cannot see any way of stopping people driving at night without lights; other than having the lights permanently controlled by the 'ignition on' switch.

I agree with the comment about a light drawing attention. This is particularly so for motorcycles, which tend to cut through where a car or larger vehicle would have to stay in a queue.
The drivers of service buses in our area are under instructions to have their dipped headlights on at all times.
I am always amazed by how many drivers fail to switch on their lights when it is obviously necessary for safety (e.g., heavy rain, foggy conditions, failing light at dusk), with no thought for their own safety, or that of others.

I agree with the comment that dazzle from ahead is the greatest nuisance. As stated, you can drop back from bright rear lights. If we are honest, on unlit roads, how many times do we pass an oncoming car with lights so dazzling that we cannot really be sure of a clear road immediately ahead?
Often, I believe the extreme brightness, apart from badly aligned beams, is the fitting of those bulbs that are not road legal.

Surely, the most obvious safe conditions as cars pass each other, is for them to have properly adjusted headlights and for both vehicles to have lights of similar intensity. Once this fails to be a rigidly enforced regulation (which has actually happened), then it becomes a 'dog eat dog' battle for the brightest lights to the disadvantage of all others using the roads.
What choice is there for achieving safety during darkness, except to opt for the most powerful bulbs that can be legally used.

Incorrectly adjusted head lights, have three root causes in my opinion.
First is poor design of head light fixings and control, by vehicle manufacturers.
Second is poor servicing by garages.
Third is the erroneous but very common belief that they do not need checking after a bulb has been replaced.
If you consider that any error in the bulbs construction plus any error in fitting the bulb relative to the focal point of the reflector, is multiplied by more than the length of the beam.

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

all vehicles having lights on will just become ‘normal’ so no one will notice.

It seems to work well in countries like Sweden and they are safety fanatics.

[ficklejade]

Originally Posted by smudger

I don't know why plod is so concerned about these fog/driving lights?

They are no way annoying to other drivers, as those Rear bright red fog lights!

Get stuck behind a car with them on, they are so bright that you cant see their break lights:(

Especially if its not foggy?

Sorry, front and/rear fogsor driving lights are a total pain and can be equally if not more blinding.

Have front/rear fogs warning audibly as well as visibly so if you don't turn them off or you don't have a fancy system and they're used inappropriately and get caught - put up with getting done. If you have driving lights - then they must turn off when you go from main to dip. The only lights you should be allowed for daylight non foggy driving are sidelights or dipped beam.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by MrDanno

It seems to work well in countries like Sweden and they are safety fanatics.

No one knows if it works at all, they would have to arrange all lights to be off and look at the accident rates. Like many safety ideas, whilst it had novelty value it would maybe work but once it is ‘normal’ a road users brain will tend to ignore it, our brain is on the lookout for the abnormal.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

No one knows if it works at all, they would have to arrange all lights to be off and look at the accident rates. Like many safety ideas, whilst it had novelty value it would maybe work but once it is ‘normal’ a road users brain will tend to ignore it, our brain is on the lookout for the abnormal.

During daylight, regardless of whether or not all other vehicles have their lights on, I think you still have a greater chance of noticing the presence of an oncoming vehicle if it happens to have pulled into your carriageway.

Conversely, if you happen to be a lone car passing a line of oncoming vehicles, with your dipped lights on you stand less chance of a car pulling out towards you, simply because you are more obvious.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

During daylight, regardless of whether or not all other vehicles have their lights on, I think you still have a greater chance of noticing the presence of an oncoming vehicle if it happens to have pulled into your carriageway.

Conversely, if you happen to be a lone car passing a line of oncoming vehicles, with your dipped lights on you stand less chance of a car pulling out towards you, simply because you are more obvious.

Your vehicle would be more noticeable because it was the odd one out (with lights on) when all vehicles have their lights on this effect disappears, in fact now the vehicle without lights becomes the noticeable one... The brain and its vision processing system just work that way to reduce its work load.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Your vehicle would be more noticeable because it was the odd one out (with lights on) when all vehicles have their lights on this effect disappears, in fact now the vehicle without lights becomes the noticeable one... The brain and its vision processing system just work that way to reduce its work load.

That isn't strictly true, since an oncoming car in the 'wrong lane' would, with its lights on, be more obvious, regardless of the other vehicles lights being on or off. Also, the vehicle without lights would not necessarily be more noticeable, as background conditions (e.g., parked vehicles, etc., beyond the approaching car) could have a camouflaging effect.

I can't accept the comments about the brain and its vision processing system, since this is outside the parameters of what is actually known within the medical profession. Also, would you not agree that the ability of the eye to detect and react to things like foreign objects (e.g., flying insects) is an indication of how rapidly the eye will observe anything unusual? And to an experienced driver, an approaching vehicle on a collision course is automatically unusual. The presence of its lights just makes it more obvious, and also reduces the percentage in the odds of it not being seen.

[Rolebama]

What we really need is a standardization, eg dipped beams at all times, with sufficient policing. At the moment we notice these lights in the same way we notice cars with headlamps on during daylight hours - because they stand out. As not all cars have to have them, I think there will be a time when those cars without them will become 'invisible'.

[Snowball]

The problems are twofold. Firstly, I don't think there is a reliable source of knowledge as to what would constitute a satisfactory standard. Secondly, policing! Enforcement of motoring laws by the traffic police is sparodic; usually a specific piece of legislation at a specific time (e.g., drink-driving during the days running up to Xmas and New Year.)
For some years there has been a £1,000 potential fine for not having dipped headlights in poor conditions, and for not having both headlights in working order. Yet cars can regularly be seen driving on only one headlight. And I can't recall anyone being prosecuted by the police for this obvious demeanour, so how would they deal with "out of standard" beams?

It also raises the spectre of "jobsworth" policing because, in the case of a failed headlight, nobody can predict when this is likely to occur, and how often is it possible to safely stop and change a bulb?
I would not stop to do so if there was the remotest risk of my stationary vehicle suffering a collision, along with the attendant risk of injury/death to myself or anyone else.
I always carry a full set of spare bulbs. Proof of this, along with a ticket to show rectification within a specific time, is the stiffest action that could reasonably be applied at the time of the "offence". Only failing to carry out the second part of the requirement would justify punishment.
Seeing that, for whatever reasons, the police can't operate these simple controls, policing a more complicated lighting control system would be impossible.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

That isn't strictly true, since an oncoming car in the 'wrong lane' would, with its lights on, be more obvious, regardless of the other vehicles lights being on or off. Also, the vehicle without lights would not necessarily be more noticeable, as background conditions (e.g., parked vehicles, etc., beyond the approaching car) could have a camouflaging effect.

I can't accept the comments about the brain and its vision processing system, since this is outside the parameters of what is actually known within the medical profession. Also, would you not agree that the ability of the eye to detect and react to things like foreign objects (e.g., flying insects) is an indication of how rapidly the eye will observe anything unusual? And to an experienced driver, an approaching vehicle on a collision course is automatically unusual. The presence of its lights just makes it more obvious, and also reduces the percentage in the odds of it not being seen.

The eye is not the problem, in a sense it can see too much, processing the resultant data stream is the difficulty. The data processing system, to enhance its use as an early warning system, tends to ignore or pay much less attention to things we adjudge to be normal. In scientific tests (under laboratory conditions) it is found that once a stimulus to the visual system becomes normal the stimulus becomes less effective, eventually reaching the point where it is not noticed at all. This appears to support the point I am making anything un-usual is readily noticed whilst usual things are not. The edges of our field of view, is optimised to see movement but with much less detail.
The argument that medical science does not know anything about how vision works would suggest it would be better if we all stopped driving; I agree there is still a lot to be learned about perception and how data is processed but a little is known.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

The argument that medical science does not know anything about how vision works would suggest it would be better if we all stopped driving; I agree there is still a lot to be learned about perception and how data is processed but a little is known.

This isn't what I said. My contention (in the context of the topic) is that medical science has a long way to go before your appraisal of how brain and vision work together can have any authenticity. In other words, these sciences are still under scrutiny.

Also, the brain will not ignore the repeated appearance of headlights in the way you suggest, when these lights are meaningful to a driver. The eye, and ultimately the brain, will register and decipher information in accordance with what its owner is demanding of them. Failure will be due to peripheral occurrences; such as mental distraction, tiredness, etc. And, of course, our old friend of familiarity breeding contempt.
Whilst I agree that most of us suffer the usual human failings, I do think you under estimate the true abilities of the human mental ability. In fact, nearly all of us do not use our full potential, which is why we are often amazed by the abilities of those who significantly out perform us.

It also explains why a good experienced driver will continually observe, assess, and deal with road conditions more efficiently than a good, new driver.

[smudger]

I think the trick is, not to look into the dazzling lights, and keep your eyes focused onto the edge of the lane or road, well, that works for me, each to their own Eh! ;)

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by smudger

I think the trick is, not to look into the dazzling lights, and keep your eyes focused onto the edge of the lane or road, well, that works for me, each to their own Eh! ;)

I suppose that is a possible method but, on an unlit country road, there is the danger that you may encounter a layby or l/h road junction at the critical moment. Then there comes the question of whether you will safely align with the 'edge' of the road when you find it again!:eek:

We have a rail bridge not far from us. In one direction, the road narrows rapidly on the nearside as you approach the bridge. The bridge is of blue brick construction, with no visual warning (reflectors for instance), so very obscure at night. Thinking about it, I am surprised nobody has yet pranged it!:eek: