OK, I have just (last night) found a new 'bright light dazzle' effect. The latest trend on pedestrian crossings is to install belisha beacons with led lighting, which is dazzlingly bright, to compound the problem the poles are also brightly lit on the white sections, there are overhead led street lights, the nett result is that the brightness of everything around means that it is actually harder to see the pedestrians, aaargh. I am not sure, but I believe the colour rendering of the leds also compounds the problem. So watch out for them, they will be with you soon.
And we are back to a 'human level' of things. Ok, so the LED solutions might look good on paper, they might last longer and be cheaper to run but how well to they work for *us*?
I was considering replacing the real lamp on my motorcycle with my own tailored LED array. I was going to build it such that when lit, it looked *exactly* the same as the original.
Too many other and more important things to do ... ;-)
Yes, but what I was saying was I don't generally have an issue with high level (as in height ... 4x4's, lorries, motorcycles etc) headlights in my mirrors *if* they are running std incandescent headlamps. Anything else is generally a different colour temperature, a higher level of brightness or 'wobbling', as if the lamp isn't fitted in the fitting correctly.
I've driven many twisty miles recently, at night and down unlit roads. It's rare that I'm ever at the front of any traffic , but if I am (because of the weather or my load or towing etc) I still find that
*most* dipped beam headlights are no issue, especially if they stay back a reasonable distance. Then you see those *very* bright headlights, often up high on the front of a 4x4 / MPV and because they don't generally care about anyone else, sit with said lights right in my rear window. I have then often had to both dip my interior mirror
*and* adjust my side mirrors to simply not be dazzled by these things. Please tell me how that could be considered 'acceptable' to anyone (ignoring the fact it's illegal to 'dazzle or cause discomfort')? Or maybe divers of said vehicles have auto dipping mirrors all round so have forgotten what it feels like?
Then they blast past and normality returns.
Years and years ago Dad and his mates were coming back from a photography session and were going down some twisty roads, 4 up. Someone came up really close with headlights ablaze but didn't seem to want to go past, even when given the opportunity do so. Fedup with this intimidation, one of the guys in the back charged a big studio flashgun, put it on the parcel shelf and fired it and the car dropped right back. I think that would count as 'self defence'. ;-)
Again, that you know of. See, for any of those to be of true value, what you would have to do is have your, and a similar car with std lights side by side and then, after the tests, ask if either was brighter to the point where they would have preferred it not so bright.
Quite. ;-)
Possibly, but see above.
You only seem to be able to deal with extremes Arfa? I can guarantee that if you tried the same test with a tall 4x4 running HID's ... or any of the vehicles that *you yourself* complain about then you would have seen the reaction your seem to be looking for. From that down to the headlights you had in your car before you made the modification you will have a sliding scale. So, lets say your HID modifications are only half as bad as the worst you see out there:
1) People are having to learn to accommodate such lights in general, often without a vote in the matter.
2) Yours may only cause half the discomfort as the worst and so by comparison they aren't 'as bad'.
Wow, they must be bright! ;-) You seem to be trying to justify your actions based on your subjective observations of possibly bogus reactions of others.
If someone on a motorcycle with a loud exhaust lets you out, you may be more likely to ignore the fact that the exhaust noise made you jump / wince?
I'm not saying *your* (potentially illegal) HID modifications are the worst on the road or were guaranteed to give others discomfort, but the mere fact that *you* find the results of your modifications better
*because* they are brighter (and possibly other factors), they *must* by definition be more likely to affect others than the lights did previously?
If they didn't put out more light *for you* you wouldn't be trying to justify them so much here.
It is as if you think that just because no one actually says anything, they don't mind? Have you never heard someone mowing their lawn or smelled someone burning some rubbish and wished they weren't doing so?
Did you go and knock on their door and tell them your feelings?
It sounded like you were getting there, needing all this extra light. ;-)
And you can be absolutely sure you can see either of two people blink though a car window at night, when driving and from 15 feet?
No, but it is often the minutia of the detail that is important here ... and not making claims that would be very difficult if not impossible to support.
Yes, indicative in a very subjective way ... (by someone who is potentially trying to prove a point in their favour). For any of this to have a value you *must* ask *their* opinion on it all. You are not in any position to make judgments on their behalf.
Which simply confirms how confused you seem to be about me (/us, anyone who feels your modifications may not be 'allowed' or in the best interests of anyone other than you) and it all? It seems that if I (/we) don't simply accept your explanations on everything, we are just having a go at you (and that isn't the case).
Ok, you appear to have made an effort to ensure your (potentially illegal and I believe we are still waiting to hear what the insurance Co say ...) modification doesn't dazzle or cause discomfort to others. You have tried to argue your case reasonably and it will be difficult to do when doing the sort of thing you are doing (like Fox hunters trying to justify their hobby by saying 'we only kill a few', or people parking across your drive / gates with 'I'll only be 5 minutes' etc). You have made a decision to actively do something (hopefully), fully understanding the position your actions may put you in (and that not everyone may think you have done 'a good thing' in all cases).
If you car had come with these HID lights factory fitted, or if the lamp units were designed with this modification in mind, or if the legislation, *all* other car drivers and your insurance company were behind you ... then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
Oh, and you do know this Usenet ... a discussion group and you started this thread don't you? ;-)
My last two cars came with factory fitted xenons (Mini) or HIDs (Honda Civic). Each have atrocious low beam settings and attracted regular flashes from other drivers. In fairness, the Honda less so, but the kerb illumination is incredibly high, and from my POV, I can see very well.
This was despite my asking for the lights to be thoroughly checked at MOT time.
I'd give the conversion kits a go. I think the OP has gone to reasonable lengths to ensure safety, save - I'd arrange the drive-by test, and perhaps have them checked at an MOT station once I was happy in principle.
And that's the thing isn't it ... we (human, drivers) get used to stuff ... noise and vibration levels and if we are 'mechanically minded' will often hear a sound or feel a 'bump' in someone else's car that they themselves had never noticed. So we also get used to what is considered 'normal' (and therefore traditionally 'acceptable') levels of light from all sorts of things, from poor street / sign lighting to overbright headlights.
I was showing the Mrs the latter on our way home the other night. Maybe one in 10 cars coming toward us had headlights lights that were noticeably brighter and of a colour / temperature that was far less 'comfortable' than the rest and that caused us more 'discomfort'. One in 20 was particularly bright to the point where we wondered if they were still on dipped beam (and a couple were as we saw them finally dip them). So, we were 'putting up with' someone's main beam because 'it could be' an overbright dipped beam. Can't be right can it?
Of course ... if we were the only people on the road I'm sure we would all 'enjoy' a row of rally spec headlights across the front of our cars but that's the rub isn't it, we do have to share the roads with others so can be both transmitter and receiver of pretty well anything.
Again, that is possibly where the likes of Arfa (who chose *after* an MOT to do this modification ) the difference between 'is it acceptable' and 'is this solution the ideal / preferred / legal one'.
Agreed.
Yup.
Whilst that sounds like a good idea I'm not sure how you would broach the subject such that you got an impartial view. Like I said, there is the 'go this pass current lighting requirements' (which I imagine would cover defects in the lamps / lenses, beam heights and about it) and having them fully tested by a body who *really* know about this stuff.
I'm sure all of us have had a vehicle pass an MOT one day to have something break or go intermittent the next day, simply because there are many limitations to the current MOT test (like not being able to remove stuff to check behind / under etc).
My Mums Morris Minor 4dr saloon passed the MOT one day and I had to do an emergency stop in it the next (cat ran out) and the brake pipe in the chassis under the drivers footwell burst.
And whilst the MOT is supposed to be impartial and consistent, I'm sure an MOT tester that also happens to work on race cars might be more tolerant of a slightly noisy exhaust than one who wasn't (or bother to look if it was a road legal system, especially as a road spec system could be put on just for the MOT in any case).
Something like this might need a 'panel' of interested parties. People who know what they are being asked to judge and be willing to give an honest evaluation.
I have no issues whatsoever with anyone doing anything with or on their vehicles, as long as they remain insured and don't affect me. ;-)
A group of us students had dragged a Bradford Van back from the scrapyard. It needed massive shimming to stop the king pins wobbling, then we took it to a recommended friendly garage for its MOT. One of the rear lights didn't come on, until somebody hit it, the Tapley Brake Meter fell on the floor as the passenger seat folded up, the battery broke loose from its moorings and dripped acid on the forecourt. But it passed its MOT. This was in about 1969. Them wuz the days.
It's what I've suspected. Quite a few vehicles with the lights in 'perfect' condition dazzle oncoming drivers more than others. But of course it's also common to see quite new vehicles where one headlight is worse than the other.
I took my Lambretta LD150 (shaft drive) scooter (that was my Dads before I was born, then my Uncles) to my local MOT place. I went in the office, asked if I could get an MOT done and he asked me if I had it with me (thinking he was just checking if I wanted the MOT done there and then or just asking if I could book it in etc). When I said 'yes' he asked me to get the mileage off it and that was that. ;-)
Now, the point was ... 1) he knew me as he had (actually) tested many of my mopeds, scooters and motorbikes (all passed), 2) he knew I wouldn't be riding them unless they were right, 3) he knew I wasn't just looking for a dodgy MOT to sell them on and 4) that I probably knew more about the important bits than he did (as I'd rebuilt most of them from the ground up). ;-)
Now days I actually want my MOTs to be a good real-world test of my vehicles roadworthiness.
It's funny though. You get an advise on something one year and without doing anything (because nothing really needed doing), next year, no advise. ;-)
I wonder how much 'discretion' MOT testers have to apply, when they know each vehicles weak points? Like, I had my Bedford CF camper MOTd and it failed on some front steering / suspension joints. I replaced them (myself) and took it back for a retest. A different guy did it, said the new joints were fine and commented that these new joints would probably be as loose as the old ones within a couple of months. Apparently they all went loose pretty quickly but unless really bad, didn't pose any issues.
It's a similar thing with rubber bushes that looked perished from the outside but you realise how good they are a couple of mm under the skin when you try to get them out. This is further frustrating when you know that even if they did fail completely, nothing untoward would happen (and you would soon know about it from the cloning). ;-)
Quite. You seem to be suffering the same misunderstanding as Arfa. ;-(
Not sure I can help you with that but I'll see if I can point you in the right direction at least. The world, especially my world isn't black and white. Therefore 'we' (those of us who live in similar worlds) can have opinions on things, especially those things we see as being counterproductive, illegal or dangerous.
So, when Arfa (who happens to be the focus of this thread because he started it himself) has done more than a purely subjective 'test' to see what actual impact his potentially illegal modifications have on others ... and notified his insurance Co of said modifications ... then I can make a decision whether to include him in any lobby to have re the laws on vehicle lighting brought up to date I may get involved in.
It's called 'discussion' mate, between people who have opinions.
Ok Mr black and white. I think *anyone* would see that anything broken or misaligned is wrong in the first place. The thread you started and what we have (therefore) been discussing is any headlight that is potentially correctly aligned but may still be considered as 'over bright' by a large number of people, typically (so far therefore till LED / Laser become more common) HID.
Close. I (and many other people, including you apparently) can have issues when faced with 'over bright' headlights.
OOI, do you also generally suffer with a lack of empathy (along with this black and white view of the world)? It *is* very much 'here or there' because the law states that *you* are not to use your lights in any way that could dazzle or discomfort'. That means *to me*. So, in theory, if I determine that your headlights 'dazzle or cause me discomfort' I am well within my rights to report you to the authorities. Please note (Mr black and white) that I used 'if' there (as I have never said your headlights *do* dazzle or cause discomfort to anyone, just that by your own words and the technical facts, they
*are brighter* and they are 'aftermarket modifications' and so there is an opportunity there that they could (certainly more than the factory fitted / legal lights you removed).
Yes, nice use of the weasel words there ... 'somewhere within the EU',
*not* in the UK.
Quite.
Again, 'quite'.
However, the issue remains that you *have* made what could be an illegal modification to your vehicle, you haven't had the checked at an MOT station, you haven't conducted a drive by test and you haven't notified your insurance company.
Didn't you say you were going to do all those things? May I suggest you refrain from trying to justify your position until you do (again, something you yourself said).
Subjectively, many cars which apparently pass an MOT or are too new to need one dazzle here.
So I'm saying Arfa's subjective tests are likely just as good as the new car regs are enforced.
I actually looked at mine by observing the beam pattern on a white wall at night. You drive the car up to it and mark the headlight centres on the wall with tape etc, then back it off from the wall. The beam pattern with the HID conversion is pretty well identical to my other car which has similar OEM units with halogens.
This really is just the same as an MOT beam tester does.
Doesn't seem like it from here and as you go on to demonstrate ...
Cite? Maybe this is a sensitive subject for you and therefore why you feel reasonable discussion is difficult for you?
Cite?
How jolly decent of you? And why on earth would you be when I haven't been rude to you? Unless me not simply rolling over when you offer your personal observations and when they are not in agreement with mine offends you somehow?
I'm sure we all have.
As I said, your call.
Ok, I believe we were waiting for the outcome of (by your agreement):
1) A drive by test.
2) The MOT stations comments.
3) Your insurance companies comments.
Until you come up with those (as you suggested you would), there is nothing else to discuss in any case is there? I mean, you did agree they were all valid points didn't you (to me and others)?
Ok / agreed. That doesn't stop them failing any 'tighter' legislation, as / when it is raised? (I also realise that in some (many / most?) cases they don't / cant apply such rules retrospectively). ;-(
Agreed, his subjective test *might* be in line with such. However, he is trying to prove a case in his favour so I think we might have to allow for a little bias maybe? ;-)
I have no issue with Arfa or his modifications light wise, how can I as I have never (knowingly) seen them. The only questions I have are the legal ones and the point that he has no right to dazzle me or cause me discomfort and I have every right not to be dazzled or caused discomfort. Still not saying he is, just saying he isn't allowed to and it wouldn't be down to him (or me for that matter) to be the final judge of that
Yes, I have done similar myself when replacing headlight units etc. However, that still only assesses the beam direction and general pattern, I'm not sure it would assess just how bright the lights looked to an observer.
eg. Stand beside a lighthouse and see what it's beam illuminates. You can probably do so with no discomfort. Stand on deck of ship and look towards the lighthouse, maybe not even in the said 'main beam' and see if it creates any discomfort as the beam faces your general direction.
Oh, I'm sure it is and I'm saying like many laws that have to be changed to close loopholes that occur because of technology or the changing habits of 'people', I see no reason why a new MOT couldn't include the general light levels *as observed from the front* and especially outside the designated beam area.
Just as you can set up a mask on a CCTV camera, a similar system could be employed by an MOT test. a Camera (or cameras) look at the vehicle from the front and the light levels in and outside the designated zones are measured. There is no point having a law that states something along the lines of 'the dipped beam should be no more than
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.