On 28/12/2015 13:58, Norman Rowing wrote:
On 28/12/2015 13:30, Fredxxx wrote:
On 28/12/2015 13:15, Norman Rowing wrote:
On 28/12/2015 13:13, JNugent wrote:
On 28/12/2015 13:01, Norman Rowing wrote:

On 27/12/2015 21:31, Mr Macaw wrote:

https://www.change.org/p/minister-of...vehicle-lights





The law is clear: Highway Code rule 114 [Law RVLR reg 27] "You MUST
NOT
use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to
other
road users, including pedestrians and cyclists"

Except the Highway Code carries no legal weight at all

The use of the phrase "must not" implies that the thing which must not
be done is forbidden by law.


What it implies is not the same as what is legal.

I don't see your point. The whole point of the Highway Code is that it
is seen as a reasonable interpretation of the law.

But it is not in itself law. You cannot be summoned for failing to
comply with the Highway Code.

True.

But since, in a case of the type under discussion, there is a power to
issue a summons for alleged breach of Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles
Lighting Regulations 1989, that's not really of any importance.