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.



Generally "must not"
implies something forbidden by law. In this case it is most certainly true.

The relevant legislation appears to be The Road Vehicles Lighting
Regulations 1989.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/contents/made

Regulation 27 seems to be the operative part.

The definition of a "Dipped Beam" here may also assist you.