On 18/10/2019 13:11, TMS320 wrote:

On 18/10/2019 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 08:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 00:51, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 14:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 13:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/10/2019 12:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

As for banning the use of headlights, I have rarely heard a more
Â*obtuse suggestion.
Do you not know what headlights are for?

This might ellp:
Requir'n 4+ wheeled mowti vehicles ter use side lights only ed lit
Â*30mph roads would also ellp safety.
Translation provided by http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

You too don't like the idea of other people being able to see
where they're going (plus dark-clad pedestrians, cyclists without
lights, etc), then?

Yes, it's a good for people to seeing their surroundings.

Try that sentence again?

No worse than some of your typos.

If it's a typo, there is more than one there, within ten words. It
isn't possible to discern your meaning (if any).

You don't appear to have tried using your telepathy act so much recently
but dropping it doesn't rule out a happy medium of deduction.

Try:
Yes, it's good for people to see their surroundings.
Yes, it's a good thing for people to see their surroundings.

I have long suspected that English is not your first language. Sentences
written is some sort of pidgin seem to confirm it.

Streetlights
are pretty good with that. Our night vision is far better than we
realise. Except we keep shining unshaded lights in our faces and
never give it a chance.

Streetlights are - sometimes - good enough for travellers moving at
walking pace or a bit faster. They are rarely good enough for
traffic moving at up to 40mph in an environment where pedestrians
and cyclists share the space.

I guess the car must warp the light.

Guessing is all very well, but there's no substitute for knowledge.

In my world I do know that light does not warp around cars. I have to
guess about what happens in Nugent world.

You're the one doing the guessing.

My approach to this issue is very straightforward. If it's dark
enough for the law to require the use of side-lights, it's certainly
dark enough for the use of headlights to be an invaluable safety
move. I never drive on just side lights. There are all sorts of
things you need to be able to see in advance, including rain puddles
(espoecially near pedestrians), craters and pot-holes as well as
pedestrians and cyclists, some of whom sem to be doing their best to
be invisible in the murk.

When we had yellow streetlamps, black provided extremely good
contrast, able to highlight things several hundred yards away.

Whenever that was, that was then. This is now. Headlights were
always advisable

You don't remember?

I do remember sodium lights. They weren't used everywhere (as you may
not remember).

Translation. If something was extremely common but not universal it
didn't exist.

Let me correct that for you: A journey rarely started, continued and
finished on roads solely lit by sodium lamps.

Even in a city, the vehicle's lighting has to be adequate in varied
lighting conditions. Very few roads were ever floodlit, whether by the
old inefficient sodium lamps or anything else. Sensible drivers prefer
to be self-reliant.

(and in my view should always have been compulsory) in any case.

You're confusing the two functions of lighting.

Not at all.

You provide no clues that you do. (*)

I do indeed provide no clues that I confuse the two functions of lighting.

I will leave you to work out the difference.

Streetlamps would give you this ability if your vision wasn't
obliterated by oncoming headlamps.

Headlights don't "obliterate" (or even obscure) my vision.

You're either lucky or not observant.

Neither.

Given the pattern of the things
you say in your posts over the years, I don't think it is luck.

I don't mind what it is. I don't find headlights to be a problem
(provided they're dipped, of course). That has to be shared with most
people, because it's only cyclists who complain about vehicle lights,
which is sort of ironic, really.

You seem to have a particular street in mind. Wherever it is (and
assuming it isn't only inside your head), not all streets are lit to
a standard that will allow traffic to proceed without the use of
headlights.

If you don't feel safe you could slow down a bit.

Or use headlights, which fix the problem (as required by law - not
that law means much to cyclists).

The law *allows* use of sidelights under steetlamps...

....and makes their use compulsory in conditions of low or no light (even
during what is nominally daytime).

AAMOF, I'd rather see the use of headlights made compulsory
everywhere when in motion (or when the engine is running) and the use
of sidelights restricted only to marking the position of a stationary
(ie, parked) vehicle. Upgrading the requirements for cycle lights
(requiring a car-like floodlighting of the whole area for some yards
in front of the vehicle and for the whole width of the traffic lane)
would be a good idea too.

That's the religion that produced those stupid fairy lights. I would
disconnect them if it was legal to do so.

What are you on about?

When was the last time your carer let you out?

What are you on about?
Do you actually know what you're on about?

I do. It looks as though you haven't been near a road for at least 5 years.

Fairy lights?

What are you on about?

When some countries mandated headlamp use in 1998 (give or take a
couple
of years), casualties went up. Austria recognised their folly after
just
a year. The other countries were unable to shake off the religion.

Much light is far better than a little light, and immeasurable
better then the total lack of light *some* road-users seem to
"think" is OK.

Wow, look at those goal posts move.


(*) Including this
A lot of light = best
Less light = not as good
No light (cyclist default) = bad.

What's wrong with that (to a normal person, I mean - not a cyclist)?