speeding

[KnL]

Ian,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting angry over foglights but I think you have your priorities wrong.

You can't possibly prefer the Police to be checking car tax in preference to them potentially saving lives on the roads.

Yes, I do believe that injudicious use of front foglights can be dangerous and yes I do believe that lives are put at risk in certain circumstances by their misuse.

I have personally attended collision scenes where the sole contributory factor is the driver having been dazzled by the "Boy Racer" type use of foglights that you describe and that is the reason such use is illegal, whether you agree with it or not.

Front foglights themselves are not as intense as a full beam, but they are brighter than dipped beam. When used in conjunction with dipped beam in normal weather conditions they are too bright and mask pedestrians and cyclists etc.

You are entitled to your own opinion of whether our road traffic laws are in place to better protect all road users, not just those of us cocooned in our steel safety shells, however until you actually see and deal with the devastation caused by death or debilitating injury as a result of breaching those laws, in my humble opinion, your opinion is a tad rose tinted,

Ken.

 

[KnL]

Miester & Ken.

I don't particularly have a "chip on my shoulder about police persons", they often have to work extremely hard to gain public recognition for their efforts. However as in the case I related to the particular officer did quite the opposite.

As for the amaount of light needed to illuminate the road. My car has the dipped beam lights set to dip down and to the left which does reduce the vsability on the right on the car. The "fog lights" do spread the light pattern equally wide and short range (30 feet) as I have set them that way myself. You see I am conscious of the fact that dipped beam lights and fog lights can dazzle drivers by the shear "volume of light" let alone the direction of light.

I would welcome the fog lights becoming a tested item in the MOT as they are not included either for function or beam alignment at present. The road in question is a dual carriage way reducing to single lane, and when the street lights work, it does not necesitate the use of anything other than dipped beam head lights. However, this was not the case on the night in question.

Now to add to Ken's interpretation of using frnt fog in the rain. What I do in that case is to use my front fog lights and side lights in day light rain, rather than dipped beam because my car has clear indicator lenses with orange bulbs sited right next to the headlight and I have noticed that the indicators even when in use tent to not be clearly visable and in the wet you realy can't see them. But by turning off the dipped beam headlight to side lights, it is much clearer. In my oppinion this allows the motorist in front (if they are using their mirrors) to see more clearly any intent of change of direction you are making (overtaking for instance).

Steve L.

Hello again Steve,

Your response raises a few points :-

1) You agree the undue dazzle aspect of using foglights in combination with headlights, so you have adjusted yours.

If you have adjusted them to cause less dazzle, then in effect you now have a set of foglights that are not as effective when you really need them.

2) You describe that when you put your dipped headlights on, they "reduce visibility on the right".

The level of illumination on the right will be correct, as borne out by your car passing a recent MOT, unless you have since dialled a lower setting in.

They are designed to provide extra illumination to the left or nearside footpaths and junctions, which is where the nearest and greatest dangers normally are.

3) Streetlights being out should never require you to rely on foglights or main beam for adequate illumination.

If you find that you do not have enough light, slow down until you do.

How do you manage on unlit country roads with oncoming traffic.

4) Unless you have self modified your headlights and indicators they must have satisfied safety legislation otherwise your car would never have gained type approval when it went into production.

There is a major issue with your car if you have to make use of illegal lighting combinations because you feel your indicators are inadequate.

5) I'm going to put a safety helmet on for this final one and please don't take it the wrong way.

For your own peace of mind, are your eyes ok - I know my father, who is a very experienced driver and caravanner, has stopped driving during darkness due not being able to see well enough and described a lot that you have described.

Ken.

 

[Steve L]

Your ok Ken, I do have 20/20 vision. Some very valid points raised by all.

I certainly don't wear my baseball cap backwards or have a boom box in the car.

I don't think type casting people is realy what we are about.

I would certainly advocate and fully support the police if they concentrated their efforts on bad driving practices. You only have to take a drive on the motorways to see what can be done when you see an empty nearside lane and idiots undertaking the bafoons stuck in the third lane going no where. For example.

Steve L.

 

[Chrisbee]

People who break a law tend to have a disregard for all laws. The person who doesn't buy a road fund licence is the one who will not bother with insurance or an mot. He will ignore yellow lines and park on the pavement if it suits him. Speed limits don't apply to him, neither does the correct use of lights or stopping at a zebra crossing. If he gets caught for no road tax the chances are more offences will come to light and one can only hope he may learn he is not above the law and will change his lifestyle accordingly. This alone is reason enough for the police to check car tax discs.

 

[Guest]

Last night I had dinner with friends and this fog light issue came up.

Sober and driving within the legal limits we ended up with six of us out on the road driving around Berkshire roads with our front fog/aux lights on. Heading towards Windsor on undulating roads driving with front fogs on we judged that we had a better field of view due to the wider light spread just in front of the car.

Cats some pedestrians and a couple of fox's were also clearly visible to the side and one of the group was sure that a deer that was at the side of the road ran away due to the extra lighting spread illuminating the hedgerow near the park. None of us found the fog/aux lights dazzling when driving on opposite sides of the roads on the level or when approaching on the brow of a hill.

The other noticeable thing was that we saw plenty of oncoming cars in just over thirty minutes and and not one flashed us, normally if you are dazzling somebody they soon flash at you.

"I have personally attended collision scenes where the sole contributory factor is the driver having been dazzled by the "Boy Racer" type use of foglights that you describe and that is the reason such use is illegal"

After a crash how do you know that dazzling was the sole contributing factor! Quite frankly I think that is ********.

Sorry, but just give it a liitle thought.

The other point is, yes I think UK police should be checking road tax. No road tax often runs side by side with no MOT and no insurance and no license and iffy tyres and running gear.

Driving habits (excluding speed) and lane control are not good on UK roads, but the police ignore those dangers.

When ever we came back to the UK we always seem to see bad driving from the police as well. This week I've seen two policemen driving using mobile phones, one throwing his *** butt from his jam sandwich and another eating a Ginsters sandwich as he drove. He bought it in a garage in front of me at the till and as I followed him to a roundabout I could see from my lofted veiw point him opening the package one handed and placing it in his mouth as he needed two hands to negotiate the roundabout.

One way to get away with being a "boy racer" in the UK could be to join the police! We have "boy racers" at home in France as well and like in the UK they spend a fortune on the bling equipment and wheels for their cars and many have top quality rubber on the rims. Not sure what is best a quality boy racer car or an untaxed hack with dodgy brakes.

A caravanning friend last night works modifying old cars part of his days, the cars he works on can have between 20 and 45 thousand pounds spent on the custom finishes. The guys that drive the cars have clean licenses and are in to the looks and finish of the cars. The cars only ever get their vast horsepowere unleashed on show grounds or race or drag tracks. Yet they attract plenty of interest from the police as other drivers break rules and drive with little care and the police ignore them.

 

[KnL]

Euro,

I assume that the point of your experiment was to show that foglights don't dazzle, therefore you were probably driving around in clear conditions which is illegal and in the eyes of the law, unsafe and irresponsible.

I will agree that foglights do provide the close range illumination that you describe, however that distance is too close for anyone to react to at normal driving speeds and a decent driver will be looking much further ahead and will have already reacted to those risks by picking them up in dipped or main beam.

Looking no further than the end of your bonnet will probably explain why none of you were dazzled last night : - )

How much thought does one need to give to know that dazzling is the sole factor in a collision ? - One simply asks the driver "How did the collision happen", it's not rocket science.

 

[weejock]

I have noticed a number of Fiats at night that when the driver indicates and turns the fog light on that side of the car comes on giving extra illumination.

Surely if this is a euro type approved vehicle this means that it is okay to use these lights outside of foggy times.

 

[Guest]

If dazzled by anothers cars lights I would expect the driver to turn away from the car and collide with something else rather than hit the car coming the other way.

Dazzled and crashed because another driver was using full beam, OK. Front fogs, I don't think you have a clue Ken! I would guess drivers will say anything to lay blame for a crash on another as well, you are just giving an excuse for drivers to blame others lights for their failings.

Sorry, but somebody saying they crashed as they were dazzled is not exactly proven scientific proof, my car and many others resets the Fog/Aux Lights to off when the ignition goes off. So without some very good witnesses any driver can blame another for dazzling them without their being any evidence from your take on the subject.

I would also add that in 35 plus years of driving I must have encountered thousands of cars with front fog's on and I've never been dazzled by them and that was the opinion of the group of us. Full beam-Yes, Spot's-yes. High Drive Lights-Yes and rear Fogs left on in the wrong conditions Yes.

As for the looking no further than the end of the bonnet and the spread of lights from the fog lights, you must be talking from another planet Ken. We tried my cars and a BMW's fogs in the driveway whilst covering the main lights with a car blanket. The extra useful light spread much further than just in front of the bonnet and on both cars gave a surprising ammount of light giving a wider field of view.

If I feel the conditions require the benefit of the extra front lights I've always used them and the Police have never stopped me anywhere.

And woe betide any officer that did!

Frankly the law is an arse and behind the times!

ps. I drive a French registerd left hand drive car on a very clean license and it's not British :0)

 

[Robert_374373903]

I have a TOM TOM 700 and over the years have input so many things of which one is a audible "Dong"when exceeding the limit, which makes me instantly aware.

 

[KnL]

Euro,

Once again - "Stick" and "wrong end" springs to mind.

No one has suggested that a dazzled motorist would drive into an oncoming vehicle.

The 'real' collisions I make reference to involved pedestrians and pedal cyclists hit by cars and one involving a lorry, where the drivers gave accounts of being dazzled, sufficiently to have masked those persons in dark conditions.

With no evidence to the contrary and usually with independent evidence, their word is taken and it would be a very expensive exercise to attempt to prove otherwise, thus it would only normally be scientifically investigated if there was a grave injury or death involved.

I'll go so far as to agree that some of the laws in the UK are antiquated, but until such time as they are repealed or updated, they have to be made the best of.

Unfortunately there are far too many motorists on the road who ignore or abuse said rules on driving and too few Police to police them, which is why year on year we see poorer driving standards and more motorists condoning unsafe practices, in the name of modern driving.

As to "talking from another planet", I'll just quote you from your last response "we had a better field of view due to the wider light spread 'just' in front of our car" - I maintain that any risk eg. A child running out from the nearside pavement is too close at that point for a driver to react to.

We could argue each others points of view until we're blue in the face and I don't intend a never ending battle of wills over this one, except to say that as in all discussions on sites such as this, the readers will make their own minds up on what is safe practice and what is not.

Ken.

 

[Guest]

Euro,

Once again - "Stick" and "wrong end" springs to mind.

No one has suggested that a dazzled motorist would drive into an oncoming vehicle.

The 'real' collisions I make reference to involved pedestrians and pedal cyclists hit by cars and one involving a lorry, where the drivers gave accounts of being dazzled, sufficiently to have masked those persons in dark conditions.

With no evidence to the contrary and usually with independent evidence, their word is taken and it would be a very expensive exercise to attempt to prove otherwise, thus it would only normally be scientifically investigated if there was a grave injury or death involved.

I'll go so far as to agree that some of the laws in the UK are antiquated, but until such time as they are repealed or updated, they have to be made the best of.

Unfortunately there are far too many motorists on the road who ignore or abuse said rules on driving and too few Police to police them, which is why year on year we see poorer driving standards and more motorists condoning unsafe practices, in the name of modern driving.

As to "talking from another planet", I'll just quote you from your last response "we had a better field of view due to the wider light spread 'just' in front of our car" - I maintain that any risk eg. A child running out from the nearside pavement is too close at that point for a driver to react to.

We could argue each others points of view until we're blue in the face and I don't intend a never ending battle of wills over this one, except to say that as in all discussions on sites such as this, the readers will make their own minds up on what is safe practice and what is not.

Ken.

Well we kind of agree Ken

"Unfortunately there are far too many motorists on the road who ignore or abuse said rules on driving and too few Police to police them"

Apart from speed the police ignore most other bad practices.

There seem to be plenty around Berks and Surrey cruising about in there cars.

A house was burgled about a mile from here on Saturday and where are the police? To busy to attend, "claim on the insurance" no doubt, but had time to wander out of a local shops earlier today! No doubt a well earned lunch break, they'd probably shook down a few motorists this morning ;0)

Re the lights issue, I would hope a child would not be running out of anywhere at night. There is road debris, poor road surfaces and damaged kerbs and ditches to the side of the road that the lower light spread can illuminate. A

 

[Guest]

Euro,

Once again - "Stick" and "wrong end" springs to mind.

No one has suggested that a dazzled motorist would drive into an oncoming vehicle.

The 'real' collisions I make reference to involved pedestrians and pedal cyclists hit by cars and one involving a lorry, where the drivers gave accounts of being dazzled, sufficiently to have masked those persons in dark conditions.

With no evidence to the contrary and usually with independent evidence, their word is taken and it would be a very expensive exercise to attempt to prove otherwise, thus it would only normally be scientifically investigated if there was a grave injury or death involved.

I'll go so far as to agree that some of the laws in the UK are antiquated, but until such time as they are repealed or updated, they have to be made the best of.

Unfortunately there are far too many motorists on the road who ignore or abuse said rules on driving and too few Police to police them, which is why year on year we see poorer driving standards and more motorists condoning unsafe practices, in the name of modern driving.

As to "talking from another planet", I'll just quote you from your last response "we had a better field of view due to the wider light spread 'just' in front of our car" - I maintain that any risk eg. A child running out from the nearside pavement is too close at that point for a driver to react to.

We could argue each others points of view until we're blue in the face and I don't intend a never ending battle of wills over this one, except to say that as in all discussions on sites such as this, the readers will make their own minds up on what is safe practice and what is not.

Ken.

Well we kind of agree Ken

"Unfortunately there are far too many motorists on the road who ignore or abuse said rules on driving and too few Police to police them"

Apart from speed the police ignore most other bad practices.

There seem to be plenty around Berks and Surrey cruising about in there cars.

A house was burgled about a mile from here on Saturday and where are the police? To busy to attend, "claim on the insurance" no doubt, but had time to wander out of a local shops earlier today! No doubt a well earned lunch break, they'd probably shook down a few motorists this morning ;0)

Re the lights issue, I would hope a child would not be running out of anywhere at night. There is road debris, poor road surfaces and damaged kerbs and ditches to the side of the road that the lower light spread can illuminate. A

 

[Guest]

Sorry for posting issue!

Well we kind of agree Ken

"Unfortunately there are far too many motorists on the road who ignore or abuse said rules on driving and too few Police to police them"

Apart from speed the police ignore most other bad practices.

There seem to be plenty around Berks and Surrey cruising about in there cars.

A house was burgled about a mile from here on Saturday and where are the police? To busy to attend, "claim on the insurance" no doubt, but had time to wander out of a local shops earlier today! No doubt a well earned lunch break, they'd probably shook down a few motorists this morning ;0)

Re the lights issue, I would hope a child would not be running out of anywhere at night. There is road debris, poor road surfaces and damaged kerbs and ditches to the side of the road that the lower light spread can illuminate.

I would still dispute that any modern cars front fog lights would dazzle anybody in the way you suggest, sorry but I just don't believe the case you use as an illustration are the truth from the people involved! They may have been dazzled but I don't believe it would have been caused by fog lights.

 

[yvonne6]

Hi All this has nothing to do with speeding but it did involve me being stopped for using a road for buses and taxis etc. I received a phone call at work that my son had been sick at nursery - off i went to collect and take him home. Instead of going all he way round the oneway system i took the 'shortcut' and heyho he rozzers were doing a check, i explained why i was on the road but the copper was a cheeky little so and so anyway in back of my car my son pipes up 'mummy i need to be sick again - before he got completely out of the car he threw up on the little twits shoes!! i had a good laugh as did his side kick to say he was furious would have been an understatment - i still got the ticket but took it gladly as it was the best laugh had in ages.

Yvonne

 

[paul_374394875]

Steve

This comes back to my suggestion about 'who needs a speed limit'? If the police catch somebody going past a school too fast an an inappropriate time then they should have the power to prosecute him. To be able to just stop someone and issue a

 

[paul_374394875]

Scouse Ian, To say that no limits should be in force, just prosecutions for careless driving, is barmy. Ok someone passes a school at 70mph. Yes it's dangerous driving, but that could wipe out 20 children on a crossing. If they were nearer the limit then those children would have a chance. Both situations could result in a charge of dangerous or careless driving, except the children would be dead in the 70mph instance.

Try telling one of the parents "well it's ok cos' the driver will be prosecuted" Absolutely crazy

 

[smiley]

What a lot of replies.

I pose this question.

I drive on two national speed limit roads, the A46 alcester to Stratford and the A439 Stratford to Bidford, Warwickshire.

On the A46 there are two camera both on facing in different places (long road)this is my dilema.

1. You are behind a car both driving at 60mph approaching the camera, 2 options here. option 1 the front driver eases off the gas to go through the camera at just under 60, sensible incase your speedo is faulty. Option 2 the driver infront breaks to 40-45 mph to go through the camera. Now did he break heavy because he thinks he's speeding and soesn't want to get caught? It must be because surely he knows hes on a nat speed road!!!!!

On the A439 it is a national at the moment, plenty of drivers do 50mph, but you get a lot doing 40-45mph most annoyingly, they are not driving safely (you cannot not in anyway defend them) because on approach to the 30 limit they cruise through at 40mph.......

these drivers are not boy racers, they are manely the people who decry speeding.

The amount of time I have lights falshing, and horns barring at me for overtaling is unreal, and I don't exceed the speed limit doing it.....

 

[xtrailman]

smiley

are you the driver that tail gates me, while i plod along in top gear at 45mph? in a national limit zone.

I have this on a dailey basics. What i find strange is the fact that they dont overtake. even when its safe to do so.

So now i'm at fault for not driving quick enough?

 

[ScouseIan]

Scouse Ian, To say that no limits should be in force, just prosecutions for careless driving, is barmy. Ok someone passes a school at 70mph. Yes it's dangerous driving, but that could wipe out 20 children on a crossing. If they were nearer the limit then those children would have a chance. Both situations could result in a charge of dangerous or careless driving, except the children would be dead in the 70mph instance.

Try telling one of the parents "well it's ok cos' the driver will be prosecuted" Absolutely crazy

Paul, sorry been away.

You misunderstood me. I'm not the best at explaining sometimes.

Its the opposite I'm saying. If somebody goes past a school at 39 mph now (legally as its a 40mph zone) and mows down some kids then he can say 'i was not breaking the law'. What I'm saying is that the law is irrelevant. He should know its instinctively dangerous, the same as going past at 50 in the middle of the night may not be.