# Side lights on cars



## totallyfixed (11 Jan 2011)

Someone tell me why. I used to live in Germany and they have been banned over there for since I think the seventies. What makes people think that if it's a little bit dark they only need a little bit of light, crazy. Also in Germany, if it rains you put your dipped headlights on, it is law, end of. In this country there are a hell of a lot of numpties out there who only use side lights or no lights in thick fog or torrential rain. I'm stopping now before I start ranting and swearing.


----------



## Smokin Joe (11 Jan 2011)

I'd like to see headlights banned in built up areas. They are not needed for vision and they create too much glare, masking anything to the side of the vehicle and making it difficult to judge approach speed.

Vehicle lighting has unfortunately gone down the more is better route, when it clearly isn't.


----------



## skudupnorth (11 Jan 2011)

They are motorists.....enough said ! Saw loads today on my morning commute with no lights on at all and it is still dark enough to matter !


----------



## ASC1951 (11 Jan 2011)

I think we should go back to what they were originally called - parking lights.


----------



## I like Skol (11 Jan 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> In this country there are a hell of a lot of numpties out there who only use side lights or no lights in thick fog or torrential rain.




Yep, it drives me nuts. The number of to**ers that belt along the 3rd lane of the motorway at 80 or 90mph in monsoon conditions with side light or NO lights at all in their nice executive silver or grey cars. If I happened to pull out in front of one and cause an accident who's fault would it be!!!!!

Also just as annoying but I suppose less dangerous (although very distracting) is the twonks that put the rear fog lights on at the first sign of a bit of drizzle, it's for FOG, not rain, drizzle or road spray. I rarely judge conditions bad enough to justify the rear fog light and even then, I switch it off once other vehicles have caught me up (it's a matter of courtesy, like not sitting at the lights with your high level 3rd brake light burning the retinas of the driver behind).


----------



## mcshroom (11 Jan 2011)

reiver said:


> But the ones that make me laugh are the clowns that put their lights on when that are driving *into* a low sun, they obviously know that their is a connection between a low sun and putting your lights on but they obviously haven't got a clue why.



They are not as daft as you think! 

The big thing about sidelights is that when they are on the rear running lights are on. I know I have been known to flick the sidelights on in those conditions for exactly that reason, in the same way as I usually run a rear light on a bike in the same conditions.


----------



## GrasB (11 Jan 2011)

reiver, in low sun often your *rear* lights make you much more visible. The lights them selves help road users behind you make more sense of the silhouette they're seeing


----------



## GrasB (11 Jan 2011)

For me, going into a low sun I have visually a load of blown highlights & dark patches. Lights in the dark patches make it much easier to work out what's going on.


----------



## Night Train (11 Jan 2011)

reiver said:


> No they don't, I doubt even a rear fog light would make any notable difference. Headlight do.



Yes they do!

In low sun, the driver can only see sun glare and a silhouette of 'something' in front. It is very difficult to judge distance and action when the glare makes the 'something' ahead just a fuzzy edged mass. 

Having tail lights showing from the car in front gives a lot of information that the driver's own headlights couldn't. It helps the driver judge distance, location and the actions of the car ahead much more easily and much sooner then just reacting to brake lights.

Even with oncoming traffic, the modern daytime running lights that some cars have as a strip of LEDs under the headlights make the car much more visible. As does the lights on motorbikes and cycles.


----------



## totallyfixed (11 Jan 2011)

One of the reasons sidelights or "parking lights" were banned, particularly in built up areas, was that if one of the front lights were to fail, partially sighted pedestrians might step out into the road thinking it was a bicycle coming towards them at a slower speed.
As the OP said, motorway driving in rain without headlights is dangerous, I used to drive a large vehicle with only wing mirrors and with the spray my vehicle threw up there was no way I could see a car on sidelights [or those fancy led ones] coming up on my outside, hence overtaking was a lottery.


----------



## Night Train (11 Jan 2011)

reiver said:


> *I don't think tail lights on the vehicle in front would make any worthwhile difference* when travelling into a low sun. Unlike the use of headlight when the low sun is behind the driver.
> However my point still remains, many drivers do not know what they are doing. When the sun is low and blinding many people put their lights on driving towards the sun yet very few put their lights on when the sun is behind them when it would actually make a significant difference to being seen.
> 
> When cycling towards a low sun I get off the bike when I hear a car coming



Well, given I drive considerably more then average mileage, in all conditions, and consider my driving ability as important, if not more so, then my career knowledge I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'll continue to use lights as and when they are required and when visibility is reduced and you continue to say that it doesn't make any worthwhile difference.

From my perspective, even if the difference isn't worthwhile in your opinion, if it prevents just one incident then it would have been worth while.


----------



## subaqua (11 Jan 2011)

in the late 80s there was a wonderful system called dim dip. with the ignition off they were parking lights, but when the ignition was on i.e. engine running they became a dimmed version of the dipped headlights which was significantly brighter than sidelights

worked wonderfully. i think my Audi was one of the first to have it ( OK it was many years later that i owned the Audi but you get the picture) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_lighting#Dim-Dip_Lamps


----------



## gaz (11 Jan 2011)

I've seen a few people of late driving around at night with their side lights on and their fog lights. Instead of just their main lights. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU ARS*HOLES


----------



## Brandane (11 Jan 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> I'd like to see headlights banned in built up areas. They are not needed for vision and they create too much glare, masking anything to the side of the vehicle and making it difficult to judge approach speed.



No, no, no! A million times, NO! Sorry to disagree but that is one of my (many) pet hates with regards to my fellow road users.

Sidelights in a built up area just blend into all the other lights such as street lights, shop windows etc.. In wet conditions they are all but impossible to see in your mirrors. They may not be necessary for vision, but they are most certainly needed to BE SEEN, which IMHO is more important.

As a motorcyclist with a plastic visor to see out of, with no windscreen wiper to clear it, a car with sidelights on becomes invisible in the rain.

As an HGV driver, I NEED to be able to see a car when it is a long way back, as my trailer alone is 45 feet long. A bit of rain on my mirrors, and I can assure you it is VERY difficult to pick out a car with sidelights on. DIPPED HEADLIGHTS only please!


----------



## Norm (11 Jan 2011)

The use of sidelights alone is illegal (to appease coruskate) outside street-lit areas. And what Brandane said.


----------



## totallyfixed (11 Jan 2011)

Brandane said:


> No, no, no! A million times, NO! Sorry to disagree but that is one of my (many) pet hates with regards to my fellow road users.
> 
> Sidelights in a built up area just blend into all the other lights such as street lights, shop windows etc.. In wet conditions they are all but impossible to see in your mirrors. They may not be necessary for vision, but they are most certainly needed to BE SEEN, which IMHO is more important.
> 
> ...



Thank you, but why does this country allow sidelights? Mind you the EU is now going to the other extreme in that all new cars from, I think I read next Feb [but could be wrong on the date] will have to display running lights at all times, now that is bonkers. Motorcyclists not happy.


----------



## Night Train (11 Jan 2011)

The trouble is that everything needs to be a compromise.
What is good for one road user type isn't always equally as good for all the other road user types.


----------



## Brandane (11 Jan 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> Thank you, but why does this country allow sidelights? Mind you the EU is now going to the other extreme in that all new cars from, I think I read next Feb [but could be wrong on the date] will have to display running lights at all times, now that is bonkers. Motorcyclists not happy.



A bit of nannying has become necessary because clearly a sizeable proportion of drivers don't know what lights they should be using. So the choice is being made for them. Seems a bit crazy that they will have to be on during daylight hours too, but that is the price we have to pay.

Not an ideal solution, and as a motorcyclist it does concern me slightly. Overall though, I think it will be an improvement on the situation we have just now.


----------



## Norm (11 Jan 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> Thank you, but why does this country allow sidelights? Mind you the EU is now going to the other extreme in that all new cars from, I think I read next Feb [but could be wrong on the date] will have to display running lights at all times, now that is bonkers. Motorcyclists not happy.


 I think that the history is that dim-dip were brought in because we wanted to make it impossible to drive on parking lights. They were phased out a few years later because the vehicle design regulations were harmonised across Europe, although I can't remember if it was the EU that stopped it or just some specific countries. 

And not all motorcyclists are unhappy with permanent lights. 

I've spent a lot of time working and driving in Denmark and Sweden where it has been a requirement for years. I am quite happy to have it over here.


----------



## fossyant (11 Jan 2011)

reiver said:


> I don't think tail lights on the vehicle in front would make any worthwhile difference when travelling into a low sun.
> 
> When cycling towards a low sun I get off the bike when I hear a car coming



In low sun I stick my lights on, especially my bike..........

It does make a difference visibility wise even for a car. My 2 x 3w rear LED's help with that. I'm often on a dual carriageway, in low winter sun heading south - on go the lights.

I'm with, if car lights need to be used, then it's full on. I see sidelights as parking lights only.


----------



## sheddy (11 Jan 2011)

No cyclist is happy with the introduction of DRLs. The arms race has begun...


----------



## Brandane (11 Jan 2011)

gaz said:


> I've seen a few people of late driving around at night with their side lights on and their fog lights. Instead of just their main lights. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU ARS*HOLES



+1. Why do car manufacturers waste money on fitting front fog lights anyway, other than to appeal to arrogant, selfish poseurs? They serve no purpose whatsoever even in fog. I have them fitted to my cheapo-matic Toyota and I have tried them in fog. They do nothing that dipped headlights don't already do. It was the same with a VW Golf I used to own, and several other more expensive makes that I have had the use of. So Audi/Merc/BMW drivers, you are impressing no-one. SWITCH THEM OFF!


----------



## Norm (11 Jan 2011)

sheddy said:


> No cyclist is happy with the introduction of DRLs.


This is still just as wrong as it was earlier this evening.


----------



## Cardiac (11 Jan 2011)

gaz said:


> I've seen a few people of late driving around at night with their side lights on and their fog lights. Instead of just their main lights. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU ARS*HOLES


Nothing. they are 100% perfectly functional ars*holes.

On the other hand, my car manufacturer (Volvo) has decided that my headlights stay on all of the time anyway. I also have so-called front fog lights, but don't use them.


----------



## Stephenite (12 Jan 2011)

sheddy said:


> No cyclist is happy with the introduction of DRLs. The arms race has begun...




Haha, sheddy. I get your point.

Living in norway i'm used to driving lights (as *I* call them - running lights or DRLs to others). And want them introduced to the UK. But, i concede that it could make cyclists less noticable. I usually wear hi-vis and the rear-light on when commuting by bike and this seems to stand out enough.


----------



## buggi (12 Jan 2011)

they are good as a back up light if your headlight goes tho.


----------



## Globalti (12 Jan 2011)

Brandane said:


> +1. Why do car manufacturers waste money on fitting front fog lights anyway, other than to appeal to arrogant, selfish poseurs? They serve no purpose whatsoever even in fog. I have them fitted to my cheapo-matic Toyota and I have tried them in fog. They do nothing that dipped headlights don't already do. It was the same with a VW Golf I used to own, and several other more expensive makes that I have had the use of. So Audi/Merc/BMW drivers, you are impressing no-one. SWITCH THEM OFF!



Completely agree - I've had cars with fog lights and as far as I can see they are no better than dipped headlights in fog. I can only assume that car manufacturers offer them because significant numbers of buyers still think they work, which must be some kind of throwback from the fifties and sixties when car ownership was growing fast and people had all kinds of stupid yellow lamps on their bumpers with extra switches on the dashboard. I get to spec my company car and I never get fog lights, I'd rather spend the allowance on a winter pack with heated seats and washer nozzles.

When I'm out at night and I see cars coming the other way with fog lights on I flash them the same way as I would if they were on main beam. When they don't switch off I flash them again then give them full beam and sometimes even the horn as I pass them, as long as it's open country with no houses nearby. I know it's dangerous and illegal but I hate the stupid feckers.


----------



## subaqua (12 Jan 2011)

Norm said:


> I think that the history is that dim-dip were brought in because we wanted to make it impossible to drive on parking lights. They were phased out a few years later because the vehicle design regulations were harmonised across Europe, although I can't remember if it was the EU that stopped it or just some specific countries.
> 
> And not all motorcyclists are unhappy with permanent lights.
> 
> I've spent a lot of time working and driving in Denmark and Sweden where it has been a requirement for years. I am quite happy to have it over here.




see my wikipedia link.  

in brief the EU prosecuted the UK govt for the innovation of Dim Dip becaus it wasn't a harmonised regulation. they were very shortsighted in not going the other way and making part of the harmonisation


----------



## subaqua (12 Jan 2011)

Brandane said:


> +1. Why do car manufacturers waste money on fitting front fog lights anyway, other than to appeal to arrogant, selfish poseurs? They serve no purpose whatsoever even in fog. I have them fitted to my cheapo-matic Toyota and I have tried them in fog. They do nothing that dipped headlights don't already do. It was the same with a VW Golf I used to own, and several other more expensive makes that I have had the use of. So Audi/Merc/BMW drivers, you are impressing no-one. SWITCH THEM OFF!



now thats strange cos on Her Skoda it gives a wider spread of light at a low level, which is really good for illuminating the kerb area. that said i do only use them when the fog levels require , same for rear fog lamps . 

now that really annoys me when idiots put them on as soon as it starts raining


----------



## GrasB (12 Jan 2011)

Globalti said:


> When I'm out at night and I see cars coming the other way with fog lights on I flash them the same way as I would if they were on main beam. When they don't switch off I flash them again then give them full beam and sometimes even the horn as I pass them, as long as it's open country with no houses nearby. I know it's dangerous and illegal but I hate the stupid feckers.


I hope you know the difference between a fog light & a supplementary driving light.


----------



## Norm (12 Jan 2011)

subaqua said:


> see my wikipedia link.
> 
> in brief the EU prosecuted the UK govt for the innovation of Dim Dip becaus it wasn't a harmonised regulation. they were very shortsighted in not going the other way and making part of the harmonisation


I was (and am) browsing on the phone, the Wikipedia link just went to a page about lights on cars with no reference to dim-dip. I'll check it later from a computer.


----------



## Brandane (12 Jan 2011)

GrasB said:


> I hope you know the difference between a fog light & a supplementary driving light.



A supplementary driving light should be wired such that they only come on when FULL beam headlights are switched on. They should also be fitted at a higher level off the ground than fog lights, i.e. about the same level as headlights. Yes I used to know my Construction and Use Regulations as part of my (then) job !

It can get a wee bit confusing when some cars (e.g. the new shape BMW Mini) seem to have sidelights where most cars have foglights. But they are not nearly as bright and don't cause a problem.


----------



## GrasB (12 Jan 2011)

Except some supplementary lights are designed to be run with dipped beams to give better illumination in certain area of the pattern.


----------



## Norm (12 Jan 2011)

On the way in this morning, over 50% of the vehicles coming towards me were on parking lights, including 3 buses and a bloody police van!  What hope for the rest of us.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (12 Jan 2011)

Globalti said:


> When I'm out at night and I see cars coming the other way with fog lights on I flash them the same way as I would if they were on main beam. When they don't switch off I flash them again then give them full beam and sometimes even the horn as I pass them, as long as it's open country with no houses nearby. I know it's dangerous and illegal but I hate the stupid feckers.



As you say yourself, this is not a great idea. All it means is that there are two dazzled drivers instead of one. The best thing to do is look away from the light source and tut under your breath in a superior fashion.


----------



## subaqua (12 Jan 2011)

Norm said:


> I was (and am) browsing on the phone, the Wikipedia link just went to a page about lights on cars with no reference to dim-dip. I'll check it later from a computer.




oh good, thought i might be on an ignore list


----------



## thomas (12 Jan 2011)

Using side lights, rather than just normal head lights in dusk and dawn is sensible IMO.

Also, when on the motorbike I like people to have lights on, especially if the weather isn't very good. It makes seeing what's behind in my mirrors a lot, lot easier. While I get some people say it makes motorcyclists more vulnerable, my bike has a 6V battery so my headlight is hardly amazing and I'd still like people to have lights on when it's cloudy or getting dark.


----------



## Davidc (16 Jan 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> I'd like to see headlights banned in built up areas. They are not needed for vision and they create too much glare, masking anything to the side of the vehicle and making it difficult to judge approach speed.
> 
> Vehicle lighting has unfortunately gone down the more is better route, when it clearly isn't.



Disagree totally.

I'd like to see all cars (old and new) compulsorily modified so that with the engine running selecting sidelights switched on the dipped beam.

Sidelights (parking lights) are as useful at the front as no lights at all.


----------



## Mad at urage (21 Jan 2011)

Davidc said:


> Disagree totally.
> 
> I'd like to see all cars (old and new) compulsorily modified so that with the engine running selecting sidelights switched on the dipped beam.
> 
> Sidelights (parking lights) are as useful at the front as no lights at all.



Why? Are you too blind to see lights of less than 60 watts? Do you find yourself driving into a lot of cyclists at night because they are invisible without headlight-bright lights?



reiver said:


> Too many people in cars just don't know what they are doing. I agree with ASC, they are parking lights. Why some drivers thing they are for when it is a little dark beggars belief.
> 
> Its a bit like front fog lights, idiots use them in all conditions because they think they make their cars look good, the fact they they are being a bloody nuisance and it is completely illegal doesn't come into it.
> 
> But the ones that make me laugh are the clowns that put their lights on when that are driving *into* a low sun, they obviously know that their is a connection between a low sun and putting your lights on but they obviously haven't got a clue why.


No


Smokin Joe said:


> I'd like to see headlights banned in built up areas. They are not needed for vision and they create too much glare, masking anything to the side of the vehicle and making it difficult to judge approach speed.
> 
> Vehicle lighting has unfortunately gone down the more is better route, when it clearly isn't.



Too true, to the misfortune of cyclists: It is because people are used to seeing (and reacting to) LIGHTS that they don't see us even in daylight, let alone at night, with our lights.



totallyfixed said:


> One of the reasons sidelights or "parking lights" were banned, particularly in built up areas, was that if one of the front lights were to fail, partially sighted pedestrians might step out into the road thinking it was a bicycle coming towards them at a slower speed.
> As the OP said, motorway driving in rain without headlights is dangerous, I used to drive a large vehicle with only wing mirrors and with the spray my vehicle threw up there was no way I could see a car on sidelights [or those fancy led ones] coming up on my outside, hence overtaking was a lottery.



Sidelights are not banned in UK (and hopefully won't be). The Highway Code actually requires a driver to "use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting". This allows me to turn my headlights off to allow oncoming traffic to see past me, including seeing the cyclist overtaking me (who would otherwise be invisible in my headlight glare).



RichK said:


> And the excuse for not looking will be "but you don't have any lights on" (I'm on about during daylight hours now).



Precisely.
My understanding is that the reduction in accidents seen in Scandinavian countries with DRLs is pretty much all down to reduced number of collisions with elk. It is also my understanding that we don't have many elk over here and the UK equivalent (cyclists) are (mosst of us) already quite capable of spotting an unlit car in daylight thank-you-very-much. 

DRLs will simply mean drivers see anything unlit on the (daytime) road as "not a problem" and drive into it.


----------



## Mad at urage (24 Jan 2011)

Headlights off, which on a lit road is perfectly legal.

Do you mean you can't see a two-ton car with sidelights (which incidentally exceed the light output that cycles used to be allowed) on a lit road?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Headlights off, which on a lit road is perfectly legal.
> 
> Do you mean you can't see a two-ton car with sidelights (which incidentally exceed the light output that cycles used to be allowed) on a lit road?



It may well be legal, but it's pretty silly. You might think you're as visible as a car with headlights on, but you're not. You're also not helping cyclists and pedestrians, since they're usually looking for "proper" headlights not the feeble glowworms that even modern car parking lights are. Do everyone a favour and stick to using your dipped headlights.


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2011)

If, hypothetically, car manufacturers were not all so busy fitting lights to their cars that in days gone by would have been better employed illuminating football stadiums, and car drivers weren't trying to use them all the time all at the same time, there would not _be_ any need for cyclists to go about decked up like christmas trees either. Bright car headlights have their place illuminating roads further ahead to allow for greater speeds (or worse weather), but at 20-30mph in a built-up area there would be no need for them if not for the illuminations arms race. I'm not about to start blaming the conscientious objectors in a conflict not of their making


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2011)

But, with respect, that's codswallop. As a pedestrian, it's very easy to miss a poorly lit cyclist if he's the only thing coming down the road you're waiting to cross. Granted, if pedestrians were a bit more used to looking out for cyclists lit only by glowworms it wouldn't be such an issue, but a good bright light on a bicycle is just common sense, not a symptom of some kind of war between cyclists and other road users. Which is obviously just hysterical nonsense which will do nothing but alienate us.


----------



## WJHall (24 Jan 2011)

Coincidentally two things had already become more obvious to me than usual this winter:

(a) Street lighting makes most things, particularly parked vehicles, perfectly obvious, pedestrians in dark clothes are the only important things that tend to fade into the gloom.

(b) For oncoming vehicles with headlamps on the vehicle itself tends to disappear behind the glare of the lights. This is not a problem if all you want to do is know where that vehicle is, because the lights tell you, but does emphasise that relatively small unlit objects like bicycles can just vanish into the glare. I imagine cars running with sidelights only might also disappear, but there are not enough about to put this to the test.

I thought it was more or less accepted that dipped headlamps are too bright in lit streets for every purpose except warning you of the approach of the vehicle bearing them. Otherwise all they do is spoil the design principle for street lighting which is to make things stand out against a lit road surface. I had assumed this was the idea behind the former trend for dim dip. Dipped headlamps also contribute very little to seeing where you are going under many street lamp conditions.

However, it is difficult to see parking lamps as being suitable for moving cars, even if they were normal, but when most other cars are using dipped headlamps, it is probably dangerous to use them, someone will not see you, or see you and not appreciate what you are.

This is part of the reason why people tend to put on headlamps, not just when it is dark, or sunset by the clock, but when most other people are starting to put them on, so as not to be the only unlit vehicle hidden among the dazzle.

The other thing I wondered about this very morning, when walking up from the station was whether foglamps might actually be better. One car has both head and fog lamps on, and it did seem possible that the fog lamps produced less glare.

At dawn and dusk, or in moderately dull weather, car sidelights probably are a sensible option, adding some extra visibility, but not too much dazzle,and as someone said they bring the rear lights on. However, like the constant daytime running light proposal they are obviously a marker rather than an aid to seeing, but at least a non dazzling marker.


----------



## Mad at urage (24 Jan 2011)

Yes I do remember to put headlights back on when I leave lit streets, I am after all paying attention to the job in hand (driving a motor vehicle).

Those who cannot see a car on lit streets (sidelights or no) are effectively night-blind and should not be driving (or cycling) at night. If you really can't see a car with sidelights, how do you avoid walking into skips?

"Not helping cyclists or pedestrians" - really? That explains why I've been cheerily thanked as the cyclist passes, and similarly acknowledged by car drivers who would otherwise have potentially driven into a wall edging the street because my headlights were obscuring it.


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> But, with respect, that's codswallop. As a pedestrian, it's very easy to miss a poorly lit cyclist if he's the only thing coming down the road you're waiting to cross.


If you assert this to the case then it must be true _for you_, but it's so far outwith my experience that I really can't visualise how the situation arises. Are we really talking about the same urban 30mph-limit streetlit areas? How do you deal with poorly lit pedestrians on the pavement who are crossing your path? Why are they different? For me the bigger problem by far is car headlights that make it impossible to see the rest of the car and correspondingly much harder to judge distance and approach speed. And getting dazzled by cars coming over bridges or speed humps, while a minor problem by comparison, doesn't help either


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2011)

Dan B said:


> If you assert this to the case then it must be true _for you_, but it's so far outwith my experience that I really can't visualise how the situation arises. Are we really talking about the same urban 30mph-limit streetlit areas? How do you deal with poorly lit pedestrians on the pavement who are crossing your path? Why are they different? For me the bigger problem by far is car headlights that make it impossible to see the rest of the car and correspondingly much harder to judge distance and approach speed. And getting dazzled by cars coming over bridges or speed humps, while a minor problem by comparison, doesn't help either



When you're looking for cyclists, you're quite right, they're not easy to miss. But drivers and pedestrians (and cyclists, come to that) have so much to look out for in a moderately busy urban (ie, streetlit) environment that they're often using their peripheral vision for a lot of what's going on around them. This is neither bad nor good, merely a result of being human. This is why cyclists and motor vehicles shouldn't only be visible in ideal circumstances, but should be actively drawing attention to themselves: cars have bright lights, and ideally, bikes have both bright lights and flashing LEDs. I would venture to suggest that a car's bright lights don't make it hard to jusdge distance and speed: I find quite the opposite.


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2011)

But attention is a finite resource. When _everything_ is drawing attention to itself with flashing bright lights, the best possible outcome is that none of them get any more of it than they would have if none of them looked like the Blackpool illuminations. Attaching more blinky disco balls to yourself doesn't create a surplus of mental capacity in the people around you, it just reassigns it from other things they might be looking at


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2011)

And of course, the same applies to making your lights dimmer than everything around you ... it just leads to lorry drivers peering earnestly into their mirrors, muttering "now what in tarnation is that?" and pedestrians missing the car with sidelights on behind the car with headlights on that they have seen. In reality, the only real answer is for everyone (but especially motorists) to look harder and make more effort to see and be seen.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Jan 2011)

RichK said:


> Going randomly ot - walking back from the shops this evening I was reminded that the modern incarnation of "parking lights" seems to be the four orange ones on the corners flashing on & off together.



 That means "I know I'm parked on double yellows, but look! It's ok because I've got my hazards on". 
Unless you're a lorry driver, in which case they mean "I am about to reverse this 45 foot long trailer into a space roughly the size of your garage. Feel free to blow your horn, rev your engine and cut past me when there's barely enough room while I do so".


----------

