Main beam warning light.

I can't believe this discussion is still going on.

Jerry,

Just out of interest, do you vary your speed and style of driving according to the visibility at the time?

Do you find that you can drive at a higher speed when you have better visibility, and that you need to drive at a lower speed when the visbility is poorer?

So, if you have the option of improving visibility in some circumstances, doesn't it make sense to take that option?

Al

You obviously have a very narrow knowledge of the English language - below is the Collins GEM Thesaurus alternatives for 'need'

need

v.1. call for, demand, lack, miss, necessitate, require, want n.2.longing, requisite, want, wish

1. destitution, distress, extremity, inadequacy, insufficiency, lack, neediness, paucity, penury, poverty, privation, shortage
2. exigency, obligation, urgency, want
3. demand, desideratum, essential, requirement, requisite

You pick one which suits your argument - I'll stick to my meaning of the word in the context I used it. Which makes me correct.

Neither can I. I'd assumed most right thinking people had simply killfiled the thread. ;-)

I've never claimed to be a right-thinking person! Now, do you want a fight? ;-]

Al

I won't reply by trying to insult other people, I'll just reconstruct the sentence to use one or more options from the list Dave supplied, if you still don't understand so be it...

It is not essential, nor is there a requirement or is it a pre requisite to use main beam to drive safely along any road at a speed suitable to the road conditions and visibility.

What part of "You don't / need / high beam to drive" do you not understand ? Are you really saying that it is impossible to drive if you don't use high beam, it might explain why there are so many idiots dazzling other road users....

I would never dream of driving with high beams on when there are other road users in front or oncoming. I am not saying it is impossible to drive without high beam.

My problem with your statement "You don't need high beam to drive" is not that it is incorrect, but that there is an implicit assumption that you drive the same way regardless of the current road visibility. I would suggest that you probably reduce your speed at night when driving with dipped beams, compared to a bright sunny day. I would also suggest that imroving the visibility by using high beams when circumstances allow lets one drive at a speed closer to (but not the same as) that which you can in clear daylight.

I fully accept that one _can_ drive around without high beams. I could also live my life without fruit, but I choose not to, because (a) I like it, and (b) it makes me feel healthy. Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean it isn't useful.

Al

Now are you going to answer my questions?

Saying that it is not necessary to use high beams to drive safely at a speed suitable to the visibility is to assume that the visibility is fixed. It isn't - it can be affected by your use (or otherwise) of the high beams.

If you have a way of increasing the visibility, so that you can drive at a higher (but still safe) speed appropriate to that visibility, is that wrong?

Al

So you must also reduce your speed when driving at night where there are oncoming cars, as you admit to using dipped beam in those situations.... I've never said that I don't use main beam, just that one doesn't need to use high beam.

And I have never said it isn't or that I never use main beam.

I altrady have.

Some else who doesn't seem to be able to understand plain English ! :~(

If you can not drive safely using dipped beam (which is the default beam setting), even if that means driving at a reduced speed or what ever, you really should not be driving.

It is strangely compelling.

Well, I've given up. Head, brick wall.

HTH HAND

It's always best to give up on these threads, I find. It means that everyone feels like they've won, even though one of the parties is clearly wrong. At least if everyone gives up then the collective consciousness that is Usenet will be the final judge.

Al

Don't you have a strange sense of deja vu

Because in this instance you are simply wrong and know it ?

I'll have another go. You're driving along a completely deserted unlit motorway - no traffic in either direction - on a pitch black night, at exactly 70 mph on dipped headlights in a modern car - the sort with the sharp cutoff. Unknown to you or anyone, a bridge has collapsed onto the motorway, completely blocking it. Do you think dipped headlights of the sort I mention would give enough warning to allow you to stop?

Somehow, I doubt it. Main beams, on the other hand, with many times the range, would.

So on that bases all those who drive classic cars with indifferent lights should be banned from the road ?...

And I'll have another go, can you or can you not drive alone a road using dipped beam ? That is all I have said (there is no / need / to use main beam to drive along a road), no one other then you have mentioned speed, nor have I ever doubted the advisability of using main beam when appropriate. You have blown this up out of all proportion by simply miss interpreting the word need.

I've already given you the dictionary definition*s* of the word 'need'. How you choose to think what I meant it to mean is up to you.

And I have already reconstructed the original sentence to use 'you' definitions, yet you still seem to be saying that you can't drive without using main beam - perhaps you can't, as most of your driving is probably done under street lights and thus could well be un-used to unlit roads...