Go on Brimmer, what's " *The* reason" ?
I can think of several reasons for, some of which may be more applicable in the "Land of the midnight sun" than they are here.
And several reasons not to.
DG
Really? I've not ever had a problem distiguishing. Now, brake lights and rear foglights on inappropriately, that's another matter.
To be seen.
Indeed.
Such as?
I sometimes have a problem... especially when you find some people who are unable to change the bulb.
But you can see them, so they would comply with the 2011 ruling.
I don't see why. Trying to force everybody to use dipped headlights at all times is doing nothing to help drivers to use their lights sensibly in the full range of conditions - and that's what I think they should be doing.
Best wishes all, Dave.
In principle I agree Dave, however far too many people go to great lengths to demonstrate that they don't have the intelligence.
I happened to (ahem!) mention to a chap one very foggy day that he had no lights on. He wanted to know why lights were needed when it was broad daylight.
Small but significant waste of fuel with coresponding increase in CO2
Short term habituation. IIRC when the first experiments were done in Sweden the greatest benefit was noticed soon after the introduction, this fell away after a short while. IE it was the *novelty* of seeing a car with it's headlights on during the day when all the rest were off that caused it to be noticed.
Long term habituation. After some years of all cars driving with headlights on during the day, a car diving during the day without headlights on became increasingly more and more likely not to be noticed, or to be noticed later. Perhaps too late.
I suppose we ought to be thankful for small mercies. It's a miracle the Frogs didn't get it stitched up so that the rest of Europe drove round with yellow beams (like they did) . What was all that about ?
There was also a British idea for something called dim /dip where a resistor was put in series with the dip filaments for daytime running, that idea went the way of all flesh.
It would make more sense to put bigger filaments (or better, 2 bulbs) in the ordinary running lights and have them on whenever the car is moving.
The Lord preserve us from self important politicians and bloated burocrats with "Good ideas", the curse of the 21st century.
I think there's a large element from such people of using technology to force people to do what's necessary (thereby using a sledgehammer etc) rather thna taking the time and trouble during training to teach them properly. Tthat's not a reflection of the trainers but the people who decide what goes into the test and thus what get's taught.
ROFL, nice one.
Brimstone ("Brimstone" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
So the bloke's got no clue. Surely educating him is a wiser move than just accepting the fact and dumbing everything down further?
Anybody else seen the new "Think!" ad on the box - aimed at bikers, but equally applicable. Lots of roadsigns in "thinking aloud" language warning of absolutely everything - tractors, cowpats, hidden dips. Bloody _superb_, and long overdue.
Education (in the widest sense) and training costs the government money, new gadgets are paid for by the user. No contest if you are a Treasury mandarin. :-(
Not seen it before (don't watch telly) but damn good and just as applicable to all road users as it is to bikers.
Brimstone ("Brimstone" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Mmmm. And sod the results.
I wonder what the results are in the US - they've had DRLs on all new cars for a few years now.
That is a problem which will not be solved by dumbing things down even more with blunt rules. Encouraging people to educate themselves and offering incentives for those who avail themselves would be a start. A bit more carrot and less stick would be nice for a change.
I haven't got a problem with it. I think it should compulsory NOW for everyone to use headlights when driving on Motorways as it is in some European countries.
What does piss me off is vehicles that have had one headlight adjusted deliberately adjust so that it dazzles the vehicle in front in an attempt to bully into allowing them to get passed. This appears to be widespread amongst white van man and parcel delivery services.
If stopped by the Police it's easy to defend one headlight by pleading they did not know.
-- Zozzer
Driving with less than dipped headlights makes no sense anyway - if illumination on the road is required, how can less bright lights be of any use? If you want to be more conspicuous, how can dimmer lights be of use?
'Clues will not be as obvious as this in the real world' - cow pats in the country, tractors leaving fields, ahem, 'hidden dips'!!!
I agree, but some tree-hugging, lentil-eating numpty will decide that in order to be fair to those with a licence, we have to accept that some people are too stupid to be taught anything other than left, right, faster, slower. They may feed in better education into the driving licence tests, they may do.
But how many people who protest about the standards of driving these days took and passed their test before the introduction of the theory test? Wasn't that supposed to improve matters?
DervMan ("DervMan" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Why would they need to be taught "faster", "slower"? As long as they can compare the number on their speedo to the number-onna-stick, they're safe.
Hrm. There's a hidden dip outside our village, on an otherwise straight road from Aylesbury. Even with nice clean warning signs, the dimwits from that chavvy market town insist on smashing into each other frequently. The farm about 100 yards from it has a tractor with towing equipment permanently attached to retrieve the dragged-up shopping trollies from the hedge and ditches.
"Clues will not be obvious if you're a total muppet" more like.
Cheers,
Yes, it does look that way, but I don't think it's helpful for the authorities to keep approaching this via the introduction of new separate little rules that only address very specific situations, which is what now seems to be happening.
What they should be doing is issuing clear messages dealing with specific problems within a policy of general education of road users, based on the need to think about what we're doing so that we learn to take correct action from our own resources to suit the range of conditions we're likely to face.
It should be a matter of talking with the various road user groups and
*communicating properly*, which is a two way thing, rather than issuing new rules from on high, rules which only address limited parts of the total problem area.Best wishes all, Dave.
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.