Rear fog lights in VWs?

My Fox doesn't have fog lamps. But my Chevy Blazer does. They are pointed upward. They hit average treetop level (30-40ft) at around 200 yds. Can't adjust them any lower. One is brand new including the housing and its correspoding height adjustment screw.

I can't say about current models, but...

Both of my '87 Sciroccos have the wiring and sockets for the fog light position. There's no hole in the position which corrosponds to them in the tail light housing, though it is marked out where it should be. So, I cut them open, put in another set of parking (not brake) light bulbs, and now rather than the normal 3" or 4" square tail lights I've got what amounts to double-wide ones. The fog light postion, despite having the same bulb as the parking light, appears somewhat brighter. Perhaps the lense/reflector in that section is formed differently. What I really like about this is that I've not only got twice the area worth of tail lights than I had before, but if one goes out, I've still got an active tail light on each side.

The car has been inspected three times since I did this, by three different shops. Nobody ever complained about them, and one time I actually got pulled over because one of my tail lights (one of these) was out the trooper (state police here in Mass.) made no comment about them. I suppose if I'd put brake light bulbs in there might have been issues with them. I did try a pair when I first did this, but they looks almost (but not quite exactly) like the brake lights. I also did a "fog" test with them. Parked the car, left the lights on, and walked away from it. I could see the "fog" position lights somewhat (but not a lot) further away than the others.

My '84 Scirocco also has the same un-lit section in it's tail light array, but I don't remember of it had the sockets in the light block.

- Bill

This turns out to not be absolutely, always, true. Although it's awfully near to being so.

I was there, passenger, with a friend where he rear-ended a car backing up an entrance ramp onto Rte. 128 several years back. I gathered that the other guy had missed the exit ramp, stopped just past the entrance ramp and got the bright idea that, being it was 2:00 in the morning, nobody would ever notice if he backed up the wrong ramp. Why, given those circumstances, he just didn't back down the shoulder and take the exit ramp, I don't know.

Anyway, as it happened, a police cruiser was following us down the ramp (he thought we were acting "suspiciously") and the cop saw the whole incident. The other driver got cited, on the spot, for causing the accident. I wasn't standing close enough to hear what he was cited for, but he was. And my friend was not.

On the other hand, the cop did point out that it was the first time he'd ever written up, or even heard of someone writing up, the driver of the front vehicle in a rear ending.

He never got any points on his license and never paid any surcharges for the accident, so I guess everyone agreed with the cop.

- Bill

((..attributions lost..))

Tell you what, None, I'm an attorney, and I've done a lot of insurance-defense work, a large portion of which arises out of rear-enders. If someone stops abruptly or hits the brakes hard in circumstances in which it's negligent to do so, and it causes a rear-ender accident, the driver of the car that gets hit will be at fault. Hate to burst your bubble, but that's a fact, and I've argued it to juries and gotten verdicts in my favor.

Most cops will issue citations to both drivers in that kind of accident, which is a knee-jerk reaction by the cop. That doesn't determine liability or trigger insurance coverage, though.

What is almost-unheard-of is for the rear-ending driver to be without fault. There will always be contributory negligence, and the rear driver is virtually always going to bear some of the fault.

i put a rear-fog light bulb in my driver's side taillight. it was something fun to do one saturday and now when it's dark and raining i just switch it on!

What about situations that are obviously insurance scams (e.g. cut close in front of someone, then slam on the brakes before they can back off to a safe following distance)?

I wouldn't doubt that most drivers who rear end someone else are at least partially at fault, since most drivers tailgate, don't pay too much attention to driving, and don't adjust speed over hills or around blind curves where there may be stopped traffic jams. But there seems to be plenty of insurance fraud around.

In heavy fog, it allows a driver behind to see the back of your car more easily. The rear fog lamp is brighter than the normal tail lamp. Usually only one is used on the driver's side, because two would look like brake lamps being used.

Meaning that they create a lot of glare for oncoming drivers (and drivers you are behind when they look in their rear view mirrors). If you use them in the fog, they would create a lot of glare back at you.

Proving it is where it's tough. You can say all you like that it was a swoop and squat, but proving it is a he said, she said sort of proposition.

E.P.

I agree. Most drivers these days seem to be either impatient, angry, or just plain stupid (like the ones with cell phones growing out of their ears).

Well the swoop and squat should be pretty easy to prove. In order to make the swoop and squat worthwhile, it would have to be performed several times a day. Oh, and insurance companies frown on these types of claims if there is no police report. So just ask the police officer who does the report to state how many times (whoever) has been rear-ended in the past few months. You've been hit twice from behind, on average, every day for the past YEAR? sheesh -Dave

So easy that the scam is widespread.

Yeah, that makes sense.

BTW, to make a living at it, you get someone else to do it for you, for a cut. And the money is made from the phantom injuries.

Sheesh, indeed - a little googling tells you exactly how this scam works.

E.P.