Side lights on cars

[Norm]

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]

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]

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

 

[Norm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

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.

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.