Sitting in a stationary queue at night recently it struck me that virtually no-one nowadays puts a car into neutral and uses a parking brake. This results in you being dazzled by the high level brake lights,surely dangerous. I find it easier than sitting there with brake and clutch peddle depressed but I'm obviously in the minority so please tell me why you do it. Is it there are more automatics around now, or do people think they can make a faster getaway?
Queue dazzlers
- Thread starter JohnGriffiths
- Start date
I don't have any trouble with dazzle from high brake lights or rear fog lights - if I get any glare at all it's because my specs need cleaning.
Parksy
Moderator
As the driver of a vehicle fitted with automatic transmission and high level brake lights please let me assure you that If I'm stationary in a queue of traffic for more than two or three seconds I apply the handbrake (parking brake) and take my foot off the footbrake to avoid inconveniencing following drivers. One can only hope that other drivers would do the same
May be you're getting a liitle lose for comfort with the cars in front of youJohn Griffiths said:
Sitting in gear with foot on clutch was always considered as poor driving practice, having been driven in to twice by drivers that stopped to close I put my foot on the brake pedal if someone gets to close for comfort.
It's nothing to do with automatics it's pure laziness and inconsideration by other drivers. One of my autos has an electric brake so when stopped for more than a few seconds its parking brake on and into neutral. That's not to save fuel or the gearbox life but if I held it on the footbrake and my attention lapsed for any reason and I touched the accelerator the dear old parking brake releases and the XC70 shoots forward. My old Pajero would stand still in such a situation as it has a hand operated parking brake.
I don't know if I understand you, how does putting a foot on the brake pedal help stop people driving into you if they are already stationary, in a queue? No matter how close they were, if they are out of gear and with a parking brake applied they cannot drive into you. So why try to dazzle them?Gybe said:May be you're getting a liitle lose for comfort with the cars in front of you.
Sitting in gear with foot on clutch was always considered as poor driving practice, having been driven in to twice by drivers that stopped to close I put my foot on the brake pedal if someone gets to close for comfort.
Mel
Moderator
I presume gybe means if he is the last one in the queue and traffic is approaching from the rear??
You know, I had never thought that I might dazzle other drivers, as I have never been dazzled myself in this situation. However if it is an issue for others I will do my bit and put the handbrake on more often.
mel
You know, I had never thought that I might dazzle other drivers, as I have never been dazzled myself in this situation. However if it is an issue for others I will do my bit and put the handbrake on more often.
mel
When you stop behind a car there is no guarantee that it'll keep going when it pulls away. Some plonker sat on your rear bumper is not good driving practice and I've been tail ended twice when when a vehicle in front of me has started moving and then stopped, I stopped and the plonker's behind me who stopped to close to me has eneded up with a big repair bill!
If I get a plonker that stops very close to me now he or she gets the full brake lights action, they normally get the idea and hold back.
Brake lights on at lights don't concern me, I can't say that I consider myself "dazzled" and there are far worse driving habits.
If I get a plonker that stops very close to me now he or she gets the full brake lights action, they normally get the idea and hold back.
Brake lights on at lights don't concern me, I can't say that I consider myself "dazzled" and there are far worse driving habits.
Sorry Gybe, I still don't get how that's relevant. I don't follow too closely when travelling, that's another of my pet driving hates.
Thanks however for in effect agreeing with me that it is an irritation, otherwise why would you give them the "full brake lights action" unless it was to dazzle.
And thanks Mel, hope to be stuck in a queue with you soon.
Thanks however for in effect agreeing with me that it is an irritation, otherwise why would you give them the "full brake lights action" unless it was to dazzle.
And thanks Mel, hope to be stuck in a queue with you soon.
Hopefully a load of brake lights full on get the attention of the bumper huggers. I didn't mention "when travelling" I was clearly talking about what happens when you stop at a junction or lights
I drive a lot more than average mileage and don't find a lot of brake light dazzlers. My driving colleagues and others I know use the same tactics when bumper huggers stop very close behind us.Sorry but I just guessed that you might be annoying drivers by stopping very close behind them JG
.
I drive a lot more than average mileage and don't find a lot of brake light dazzlers. My driving colleagues and others I know use the same tactics when bumper huggers stop very close behind us.Sorry but I just guessed that you might be annoying drivers by stopping very close behind them JG
Whilst looking at the latest version of the Highway Code I came across Rule114....( its hardly new as I remember being taught the correct use of brake lights back in the 1960's!)114
You MUST NOT
Law RVLR reg 27
You MUST NOT
- use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
- use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226).
Law RVLR reg 27
I must say that queue dazzling is not something that bothers me particularly. If the man in front is happy to shorten the life of his clutch/gearbox or brake lights, that's his problem.
What does bother me though, are the brain-dead idiots who drive around in murky conditions with out lights, or with useless sidelights only! IF YOU NEED LIGHTS, USE DIPPED HEADLIGHTS! It's not rocket sience, and it doesn't cost anything, but it means that other drivers can see you quicker. And that just might save your life.
As for those with only one headlight...........................................!
What does bother me though, are the brain-dead idiots who drive around in murky conditions with out lights, or with useless sidelights only! IF YOU NEED LIGHTS, USE DIPPED HEADLIGHTS! It's not rocket sience, and it doesn't cost anything, but it means that other drivers can see you quicker. And that just might save your life.
As for those with only one headlight...........................................!
Hear hear, Emmerson.emmerson said:
If I feel that somebody is sat on my bumper whilst stationary or moving they'll continue to get my brake light action. A bit of defensive driving and self preservation comes first.
It really annoys me too
The point of high level brake lights is to enable them to be seem through the car in front to give advanced warning of the need to stop
I put the sun visor down when behind an inconsiderate driver
Its the boy racer has to be first away at the lights syndrome
They have to be in gear so as to be first to the next red light or just can't be bothered to use the handbrake
Its really most inconsiderate and as people get older it affects them more unless they have well advanced cataracts of course
We were in a queue at a port once behind someone with foot on brake while waiting for a ferry and you do have to stop where you are told to at ferry terminals and wait for a long time
As for self preservation the person behind will have red burnt onto his retinas when you move off just as you still see a light if you stare at it making it more likely that they will then run into you if there is a sudden need to stop
Not user friendly just as the person behind sitting with headlights on in case you reversed would be
The point of high level brake lights is to enable them to be seem through the car in front to give advanced warning of the need to stop
I put the sun visor down when behind an inconsiderate driver
Its the boy racer has to be first away at the lights syndrome
They have to be in gear so as to be first to the next red light or just can't be bothered to use the handbrake
Its really most inconsiderate and as people get older it affects them more unless they have well advanced cataracts of course
We were in a queue at a port once behind someone with foot on brake while waiting for a ferry and you do have to stop where you are told to at ferry terminals and wait for a long time
As for self preservation the person behind will have red burnt onto his retinas when you move off just as you still see a light if you stare at it making it more likely that they will then run into you if there is a sudden need to stop
Not user friendly just as the person behind sitting with headlights on in case you reversed would be
I really don't understand why some drivers stare at lights and then complain about burnt retinas - or stare in their rear view mirror and complain of dazzle from behind.
Drivers with legal DRLs or HID headlights create far more problems for oncoming drivers than the use of 21w rear lights.
Drivers with legal DRLs or HID headlights create far more problems for oncoming drivers than the use of 21w rear lights.
I use the sun visor !RogerL said:
Agree about DRLs
The LEDs are very bright as they are in the latest high level brake lights
RogerL said:
Lets be logical about this, HID's are legal because the lights automatical self level so should never dazzle, and having them on when travelling in the dark is a legal requirement. It is NOT a legal requirement to sit with your foot on the brake when in a queue, as pointed out in an earlier post it is NOT recommended in the highway code.
It's obvious that people find some lights more irritating than others, everyone is different, but it would require a change of law to ban HID rather than a simple courtesy to prevent brake light dazzle.
I did make the point that HID's are legal but they're only used because they give a much higher light output than 2x 55w conventional bulbs. Their leveling systems only works accurately on a dead level surface with no bumps or imperfections - on normal roads they spend 50% of the time above the horizontal due to road imperfections.
Being far too close to the vehicle in front and/or uncorrected eyesight or poorly corrected eyesight are the only logical explanations for the fact that drivers who leave recommended gaps between vehicles, even in queues and have good vision just don't suffer from such dazzle.
I am aware of the requirements of the Highway Code, which I have to respect, but I really don't see the problem.
Being far too close to the vehicle in front and/or uncorrected eyesight or poorly corrected eyesight are the only logical explanations for the fact that drivers who leave recommended gaps between vehicles, even in queues and have good vision just don't suffer from such dazzle.
I am aware of the requirements of the Highway Code, which I have to respect, but I really don't see the problem.
Roger.
What is the recommended gap when in a queue of stationary traffic in a city centre? I can't find anything on google to help me.
What is the recommended gap when in a queue of stationary traffic in a city centre? I can't find anything on google to help me.
Parksy
Moderator
I have regular eyesight tests and only need glasses for reading and I am rarely if ever dazzled by either brake lights or bright oncoming headlights.
This is possibly because I avoid looking directly at the lights, in the case of poorly adjusted or illegal headlights I try to use my peripheral vision to check whether there is another road user such as a pedestrian or cyclist hidden by the bright light.
If a vehicle is stationary with brake lights on in front of me I never need to look at the brake lights to check that the vehicle is stationary so therefore I am not dazzled.
I don't think that poor eyesight is the main issue with oncoming headlight dazzle, spatial awareness which enables a driver to judge the distance from an oncoming vehicle is important so that there is never the need to look at the headlights directly.
This is possibly because I avoid looking directly at the lights, in the case of poorly adjusted or illegal headlights I try to use my peripheral vision to check whether there is another road user such as a pedestrian or cyclist hidden by the bright light.
If a vehicle is stationary with brake lights on in front of me I never need to look at the brake lights to check that the vehicle is stationary so therefore I am not dazzled.
I don't think that poor eyesight is the main issue with oncoming headlight dazzle, spatial awareness which enables a driver to judge the distance from an oncoming vehicle is important so that there is never the need to look at the headlights directly.
When you come to a halt for more than a few seconds, you should apply the hand brake and put the car in neutral. This means you do not need to stand on the brakes. As driver you are not supposed to do anything that is likley to dazzle other drivers. Not only is it good sense its just common courtesy.
With the longer winter darkness it becomes more apparent that some vehicles do have badly adjusted headlights, I'm surprised these are not picked up by MOT's.
With the longer winter darkness it becomes more apparent that some vehicles do have badly adjusted headlights, I'm surprised these are not picked up by MOT's.
Same as stationary traffic anywhere - sufficient room to manoeuvre round the vehicle in front if it stalls or breaks down - without needing to reverse.otherclive said:
It seems that some people are bothered by bright brake lights and others aren't
I am quite tall and as stated I can use the sun visor when behind an inconsiderate driver at a queue
But its not unusual to see a smaller driver seeming to peer through the steering wheel as they are sitting lower in the car and indeed my neighbour sits on a cushion so that she can see better when driving
So the 2 extremes of height are going to be affected in different ways as are people whose eyes are more sensitive
Older drivers tend to be dazzled more and my mother used to say that she didn't know how I could drive at night for example
It used to be possible years ago to buy Nighthawk glasses to cut down glare so its not unusual for some people to be bothered by glare
I gave mine to my uncle !
So just because some people aren't affected it doesn't mean that the rest of us shouldn't consider those who are
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=night+driving+glasses&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=7054923753&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=56919317445137795&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_8ar4xdhnmx_b
I am quite tall and as stated I can use the sun visor when behind an inconsiderate driver at a queue
But its not unusual to see a smaller driver seeming to peer through the steering wheel as they are sitting lower in the car and indeed my neighbour sits on a cushion so that she can see better when driving
So the 2 extremes of height are going to be affected in different ways as are people whose eyes are more sensitive
Older drivers tend to be dazzled more and my mother used to say that she didn't know how I could drive at night for example
It used to be possible years ago to buy Nighthawk glasses to cut down glare so its not unusual for some people to be bothered by glare
I gave mine to my uncle !
So just because some people aren't affected it doesn't mean that the rest of us shouldn't consider those who are
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=night+driving+glasses&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=7054923753&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=56919317445137795&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_8ar4xdhnmx_b
If I remember correctly, as an advanced driver you applied the handbrake and engaged the correct gear. You never put the vehicle into neutral as basically you no longer had control over the vehicle. I agreed about it being good sense to do the above especially if you are going to be stopped for a few minutes.Prof John L said:
I was followed and over taken by a Freelander - Bailey combo. First problem was that he was tail gating my trailer and then when he passed he indicated right forcing me to brake or I would have been sat amongst a pile of Bailey debris on the autoroute. The driver was talking on his mobile at the time. Approaching Boulogne he came out of a service area phone in hand again, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he might consider that I and others were already on the autoroute or that he needed lights on. This morning he was at the ferry, IAM badge and old school RAC badge on the front of the car plus caravan club anniversary and a variety of other stickers suggested that the couple were not new caravanners. On the ferry I spotted the couple talking with other caravanners and overheard that they had been caravanning for nearly 40 years. Between Dover and the M26 the veteran driver - caravanner managed to break a number of laws and safety rules including no seat belt. His wife with seat reclined and feet on dash would have been intersting in a crash
There are lots of laws and rules that get broken. I don't think lighting is a real problem or issue. Better lighting up and being seen than hiding in gloom and driving oblivious of other road users or what is happening around you. Keeping a goodly distance between you and bright lights that annoy you might be the wisest move rather than moaning about them.
Institute of Advanced Motorist's badges, do they stand for 'I A M' or is it ' I AM ' ?
There are lots of laws and rules that get broken. I don't think lighting is a real problem or issue. Better lighting up and being seen than hiding in gloom and driving oblivious of other road users or what is happening around you. Keeping a goodly distance between you and bright lights that annoy you might be the wisest move rather than moaning about them.
Institute of Advanced Motorist's badges, do they stand for 'I A M' or is it ' I AM ' ?
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Open to ideas - solar charging leisure battery and Jackery
- Started by freeman3030
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter