It's not just cyclists

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

Cycled into town & back today. Visibility due to freezing fog down to less
than 100yds in places. Me, sur velo, in acres of fluorescents & reflectives
(on self & velo), two lights up front (on) five lights at back (on).

I gave up on counting the number of *motor vehicles* with no lights on when
I ran out of fingers & toes. I kid you not. You get morons on cycles, you
also get morons in charge of a tonne or more of metal moving at speed
through thick fog.

I can second that. Add those that have their side lights on, but who
have forgotten to scrape the frost off their light lenses
sufficiently. They are no more visable than if they had no lights on
at all.

David Lloyd

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:24 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You get morons on cycles, you
also get morons in charge of a tonne or more of metal moving at speed
through thick fog.

You must be lying. The usual suspects tell us it is only cyclists
who cause danger on the roads.

In addition to lights a number of motorist appear to think that they
can see through a layer of ice on the windows.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Lloyd said the following on 19/02/2008 16:50:

Quoted message said:

I can second that. Add those that have their side lights on, but who
have forgotten to scrape the frost off their light lenses
sufficiently. They are no more visable than if they had no lights on
at all.

Don't forget to add the ones that scrape a hole in the ice on the
windscreen just big enough for one eyeball to peer through before
setting off with no lights on. After all, lights won't help them
because they can't see anyway!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Feb 19, 3:37 pm, "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>

Quoted message said:

Cycled into town & back today. Visibility due to freezing fog down to less
than 100yds in places. Me, sur velo, in acres of fluorescents & reflectives
(on self & velo), two lights up front (on) five lights at back (on).

I gave up on counting the number of *motor vehicles* with no lights on when
I ran out of fingers & toes. I kid you not. You get morons on cycles, you
also get morons in charge of a tonne or more of metal moving at speed
through thick fog.

I remember at Christmas having to drive home along the A50 in
Staffordshire in the fog where visibility was so poor I could only see
the car in front due its rear fog light and it was quite frightening
how many cars in both lanes had no lights on (not even sidelights).

But if the police don't do anything about it, people will just keep on
doing it.

peter

naked_draughtsman said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycled into town & back today. Visibility due to freezing fog down to less
than 100yds in places. Me, sur velo, in acres of fluorescents & reflectives
(on self & velo), two lights up front (on) five lights at back (on).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I gave up on counting the number of *motor vehicles* with no lights on when
I ran out of fingers & toes. I kid you not. You get morons on cycles, you
also get morons in charge of a tonne or more of metal moving at speed
through thick fog.

Quoted message said:

I remember at Christmas having to drive home along the A50 in
Staffordshire in the fog where visibility was so poor I could only see
the car in front due its rear fog light and it was quite frightening
how many cars in both lanes had no lights on (not even sidelights).

Quoted message said:

But if the police don't do anything about it, people will just keep on
doing it.

The OP is right - there has always been a problem with some drivers who
refuse to switch on their lights until the very last moment (perhaps
literally), whether that's at dusk on a fine day, during a sudden gloomy
and overcast spell in the daytime, or in adverse weather conditions.
Perhaps some people think they'll wear their batteries or their
alternators out?

One obvious way to tackle it (even if only incrementally over the years)
would be to require new cars to be fitted with headlights and rear
lights that operate at all times when the engine is running. But that
won't please everyone, apparently, because there are those who complain
about light pollution and "dazzle".

My favoured solution (for this and other problems) would be a constant
low-level campaign of PFIs on TV, like we used to have when the
motorways first appeared (even before Petunia and the coastguard). My
family didn't have a car, and I never saw the M1 until my late teens,
but we all knew from a very young age that you weren't allowed to stop
on the hard-shoulder. And later, we knew that the front passenger seat
in the vehicle we didn't own was the most dangerous seat in the car -
and needed seatbelts to be fitted.

There are so many bad habits that have developed on the roads over the
years (the MLOC, for instance, as well as people failing to stop at red
traffic lights, etc). PFIs could help combat these things.

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:37:24 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You get morons on cycles, you
also get morons in charge of a tonne or more of metal moving at speed
through thick fog.

You must be lying. The usual suspects tell us it is only cyclists
who cause danger on the roads.

Damn. I've been rumbled. I'm obviously a rabid psychlist who hates all
motorists and scrounges off the state due to non-payment of road tax.
Obviously my Merc on the driveway and the up-to-date Vehicle Excise Duty is
really a figment of the imagination... ;-)

Quoted message said:

In addition to lights a number of motorist appear to think that they
can see through a layer of ice on the windows.

Lots of those about too.

Quoted message said:

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wafflycat said:

Quoted message said:

In addition to lights a number of motorist appear to think that they
can see through a layer of ice on the windows.

Lots of those about too.

At least you can't see they're on the phone then...

Quoted message said:

One obvious way to tackle it (even if only incrementally over the years)
would be to require new cars to be fitted with headlights and rear
lights that operate at all times when the engine is running. But that
won't please everyone, apparently, because there are those who complain
about light pollution and "dazzle".

I understood that this would be a significant increase in risk for
push bikes, scooters and to some extent motorbikes too - as these can
all gain safety by leaving their lights on - but as soon as every car
does this too then they'll no longer stand out.

Perhaps an MOT required light sensor to turn on lights after dusk
could be phased in over time for new cars - that would counter the
'late switch' drivers.

I'd be more interested to see a device that auto-capped the vehicle
speed to the speed limit in any given area. That would be make such a
huge improvement to the roads! Obviously this needn't apply to push-
bikes...

Regards,

Duncan

wafflycat said:

Cycled into town & back today. Visibility due to freezing fog down to
less than 100yds in places. Me, sur velo, in acres of fluorescents &
reflectives (on self & velo), two lights up front (on) five lights at
back (on).

I gave up on counting the number of *motor vehicles* with no lights on
when I ran out of fingers & toes. I kid you not. You get morons on
cycles, you also get morons in charge of a tonne or more of metal moving
at speed through thick fog.

Light cameras, that's the answer.

"Duncan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Perhaps an MOT required light sensor to turn on lights after dusk
could be phased in over time for new cars - that would counter the
'late switch' drivers.

Husband's car has just that. The lights have an 'auto' setting where as soon
as the outside light conditions fall below a certain level, the lights come
on automatically. Mind you, there is the potential problem of then not
noticing if the setting has been changed and you forgot but assumed the
'auto' setting was still on!

JNugent said:

The OP is right - there has always been a problem with some drivers who
refuse to switch on their lights until the very last moment (perhaps
literally), whether that's at dusk on a fine day, during a sudden gloomy
and overcast spell in the daytime, or in adverse weather conditions.
Perhaps some people think they'll wear their batteries or their
alternators out?

One obvious way to tackle it (even if only incrementally over the years)
would be to require new cars to be fitted with headlights and rear
lights that operate at all times when the engine is running. But that
won't please everyone, apparently, because there are those who complain
about light pollution and "dazzle".

I find cars being lit up too early reduces visibility. Instead of using
ambient light to see, the lits produce spots of brightness, which my
eyes adjust to, making everything else seem darker.

The government is currently thinking about DRLs due to EU pressure.

Quoted message said:

My favoured solution (for this and other problems) would be a constant
low-level campaign of PFIs on TV,
There are so many bad habits that have developed on the roads over the
years (the MLOC, for instance, as well as people failing to stop at red
traffic lights, etc). PFIs could help combat these things.

PIFs on their own would be good for minor things (e.g. MLOC), but for
more important things like RLJ need to be used in conjunction with fines
and the like.

Martin Dann said:

JNugent said:

The OP is right - there has always been a problem with some drivers
who refuse to switch on their lights until the very last moment
(perhaps literally), whether that's at dusk on a fine day, during a
sudden gloomy and overcast spell in the daytime, or in adverse weather
conditions. Perhaps some people think they'll wear their batteries or
their alternators out?

One obvious way to tackle it (even if only incrementally over the
years) would be to require new cars to be fitted with headlights and
rear lights that operate at all times when the engine is running. But
that won't please everyone, apparently, because there are those who
complain about light pollution and "dazzle".

I find cars being lit up too early reduces visibility. Instead of using
ambient light to see, the lits produce spots of brightness, which my
eyes adjust to, making everything else seem darker.

The government is currently thinking about DRLs due to EU pressure.

Quoted message said:

My favoured solution (for this and other problems) would be a constant
low-level campaign of PFIs on TV,
There are so many bad habits that have developed on the roads over the
years (the MLOC, for instance, as well as people failing to stop at
red traffic lights, etc). PFIs could help combat these things.

PIFs on their own would be good for minor things (e.g. MLOC), but for
more important things like RLJ need to be used in conjunction with fines
and the like.

Sorry... I *meant* PIFs...

PFIs... ye Gods!

Duncan Smith said:

Quoted message said:

One obvious way to tackle it (even if only incrementally over the years)
would be to require new cars to be fitted with headlights and rear
lights that operate at all times when the engine is running. But that
won't please everyone, apparently, because there are those who complain
about light pollution and "dazzle".

Quoted message said:

I understood that this would be a significant increase in risk for
push bikes, scooters and to some extent motorbikes too - as these can
all gain safety by leaving their lights on - but as soon as every car
does this too then they'll no longer stand out.

Yes, well... as the father said to his son when he said he wanted to be
a musician when he grew up: "Son, you can't have it both ways!".

It's also important for cars, vans, lorries and buses to "see and be seen".

Quoted message said:

Perhaps an MOT required light sensor to turn on lights after dusk
could be phased in over time for new cars - that would counter the
'late switch' drivers.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:41:07 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In addition to lights a number of motorist appear to think that they
can see through a layer of ice on the windows.

Lots of those about too.

I was once told by one of those that she could see the lights of
other cars while pulling out of her drive. That may or may not have
been true, of course seeing motor vehicles without their main lights
on or cyclists with their lights on is going to be rather more
difficult in those circumstances.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

Cycled into town & back today. Visibility due to freezing fog down to less
than 100yds in places. Me, sur velo, in acres of fluorescents & reflectives
(on self & velo), two lights up front (on) five lights at back (on).

I gave up on counting the number of *motor vehicles* with no lights on when
I ran out of fingers & toes. I kid you not. You get morons on cycles, you
also get morons in charge of a tonne or more of metal moving at speed
through thick fog.

i think it may depend on area, certianly this morn going though the
fog all of the cylists (who did have lights) had not switched them
on, i didn't notice any cars with out lights on.

but this is london where people don't seem to unerstand weather.

roger

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:41:07 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You must be lying. The usual suspects tell us it is only cyclists
who cause danger on the roads.

Damn. I've been rumbled. I'm obviously a rabid psychlist who hates all
motorists and scrounges off the state due to non-payment of road tax.

Indeed. Another of these secret cyclists is detailed in
<http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/Hitandrun-victim-fears-it39s-the.3795260.jp>

"Hit-and-run victim fears it's the end of his career

"A TEENAGE steeplejack today told how he fears his career has been
ruined by a hit-and-run motorcycle rider."

"Obviously" the rider was really a cyclist rather than a motorist.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:41:07 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In addition to lights a number of motorist appear to think that they
can see through a layer of ice on the windows.

Lots of those about too.

I was once told by one of those that she could see the lights of
other cars while pulling out of her drive. That may or may not have
been true, of course seeing motor vehicles without their main lights
on or cyclists with their lights on is going to be rather more
difficult in those circumstances.

Besides, in my experience, most pedestrians don't carry lights.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

JNugent said:

One obvious way to tackle it (even if only incrementally over the years)
would be to require new cars to be fitted with headlights and rear
lights that operate at all times when the engine is running. But that
won't please everyone, apparently, because there are those who complain
about light pollution and "dazzle".

Absolutely NOT!

The arms race of lights on the road is already putting pedestrians and
cyclists in danger. We should be setting maximums on the amount of light
(lumens, not watts) a motor vehicle may show, with very stiff penalties for
exceeding them, and heavily penalise people who light up when it's not
necessary.

Yes, I agree that people who drive without lights in fog are dangerous, but
that cure is worse than the disease.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

((DoctorWho)ChristopherEccleston).act();
uk.co.bbc.TypecastException: actor does not want to be typecast.
[adapted from autofile on /., 31/03/05]

On 21/02/2008 18:56, Simon Brooke said,

Quoted message said:

The arms race of lights on the road is already putting pedestrians and
cyclists in danger. We should be setting maximums on the amount of light
(lumens, not watts) a motor vehicle may show, with very stiff penalties for
exceeding them, and heavily penalise people who light up when it's not
necessary.

I would say that it's not just peds and cyclists, but all road users
including other motorists. Some of the headlights on modern cars are
far brighter and more dazzling than even a 10 year old car on main beam,
and some tail lights are also far brighter than necessary.

A good few years ago, I'm sure there were limits on lighting with regard
to the amount of light. Part of the reason for vaguely remembering that
is that at the time I had a MkII Escort with the full four Cibie set. I
checked all the rules and regulations to make sure that they were
totally legal with regard to their aim, and how they came on in which
combination. IIRC, the top two were classed as driving lights so were
only allowed to come on with main beam, and the bottom two were classed
as fog lights so only allowed to come on with dipped beam. (So all four
at once was illegal on the road). I bet that even that lot still gave
far less light than some of these nuclear holocaust headlights on new cars.

These days there seem to be no rules on lights other than brightest and
most wins.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/