Ban bright car lights

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:38:39 -0800 (PST), Alycidon wrote:

On Monday, 28 December 2015 16:13:51 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:

Every headlight bulb I've ever seen for the last 30 years has been 55/65W (dual filament). 55 for dip and 65 for full.

Now common sense would make us read that as 55 or 65W OUTPUT if the bulb is made more efficient. Fitting a 55W LED for example would be the equivalent of 550W of tungsten, which would be beyond a joke.

I wondered why that car driver told me that my 4000 lumen front bike light was too bright.

Perhaps he had read the views of the CTC:

Manufacturers of bike lamps have proved they can make them bright enough for us
to see very well where we’re going. Now they need to give some thought to other
road users. The Sunday Times article, perhaps fortunately, didn't make much
impression. But I think it's only a matter of time before some MP gets his
teeth into this and then we shall be facing a clamp-down, some hasty,
ill-considered legislation like the dangerous dogs bill.

I recommend people start complaining to their MP - I am sure that quite a few
people here will have been so dazzled by a cyclist recently that they nearly
caused a very serious accident.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:52:47 -0800 (PST), Alycidon wrote:

snip


I can assure you that the clamp on my £400 lamp DOES NOT shift under the odd bump - a £5 one from Lidl may well do.



My word - you spent £400 on a light for your push-bike.

You really must have loads of money : why not tell us about it.



--

Have you noticed how often Mason has to tell us how affluent he thinks he is
I think he may be insecure.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:31:14 -0000
"Mr Macaw" wrote:

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

Better still, ban cars.
No normal person needs a car, walk or take
public transport.
Way too many people killed by cars,
think of the children.
If only one child can be save it will be
worth it.
BAN cars Now!

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 08:32:46 -0000, Judith wrote:

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:38:39 -0800 (PST), Alycidon wrote:

On Monday, 28 December 2015 16:13:51 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:

Every headlight bulb I've ever seen for the last 30 years has been 55/65W (dual filament). 55 for dip and 65 for full.

Now common sense would make us read that as 55 or 65W OUTPUT if the bulb is made more efficient. Fitting a 55W LED for example would be the equivalent of 550W of tungsten, which would be beyond a joke.

I wondered why that car driver told me that my 4000 lumen front bike light was too bright.

Perhaps he had read the views of the CTC:

Manufacturers of bike lamps have proved they can make them bright enough for us
to see very well where we’re going. Now they need to give some thought to other
road users. The Sunday Times article, perhaps fortunately, didn't make much
impression. But I think it's only a matter of time before some MP gets his
teeth into this and then we shall be facing a clamp-down, some hasty,
ill-considered legislation like the dangerous dogs bill.

I recommend people start complaining to their MP - I am sure that quite a few
people here will have been so dazzled by a cyclist recently that they nearly
caused a very serious accident.

Bicycles and cars (both are as bad for this) dazzling me simply get my full beam back, then I can see clearly, and they know they've done wrong.

--
Seen in a health food sto
Shoplifters will be beaten over the head with an organic carrot.

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:58:01 -0000, burfordTjustice
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:31:14 -0000
"Mr Macaw" wrote:

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

Better still, ban cars.
No normal person needs a car, walk or take
public transport.
Way too many people killed by cars,
think of the children.
If only one child can be save it will be
worth it.
BAN cars Now!

You may joke, but some people actually believe that. Save one life
and inconvenience a million.
The other thing that irritates me is people think we should get more
upset about a child getting harmed than an adult. Why? A person has
the same value no matter what their age. If anything, the older you
get, the more of a tragedy it is - a dead 1 year old can be re-made. A
dead 10 year old has lived 10 years to prepare for adult life, and
wasted time and money being educated.

Once more the unemployable twisted little **** PHucker has shown his true
colours.
Thank God that you are incapable of breeding. You will always be a ******.

The Peeler wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:02:27 -0000, The Brain wrote:

Way too many people killed by cars,
think of the children.
If only one child can be save it will be
worth it.
BAN cars Now!

You may joke, but some people actually believe that. Save one life
and inconvenience a million.
The other thing that irritates me is people think we should get more
upset about a child getting harmed than an adult. Why? A person
has the same value no matter what their age. If anything, the
older you get, the more of a tragedy it is - a dead 1 year old can
be re-made. A dead 10 year old has lived 10 years to prepare for
adult life, and wasted time and money being educated.

Once more the unemployable twisted little **** PHucker has shown his
true colours.
Thank God that you are incapable of breeding. You will always be a
******.

He's a TOTAL nutcase. I would like to know what his psychiatrists'
diagnoses sounded like.

He is a potential danger to society and is a worthless little ****.
When's the last time you had a woman, PHucker?

On 29/12/2015 19:37, The Brain wrote:
The Peeler wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:02:27 -0000, The Brain wrote:

Way too many people killed by cars,
think of the children.
If only one child can be save it will be
worth it.
BAN cars Now!

You may joke, but some people actually believe that. Save one life
and inconvenience a million.
The other thing that irritates me is people think we should get more
upset about a child getting harmed than an adult. Why? A person
has the same value no matter what their age. If anything, the
older you get, the more of a tragedy it is - a dead 1 year old can
be re-made. A dead 10 year old has lived 10 years to prepare for
adult life, and wasted time and money being educated.

Once more the unemployable twisted little **** PHucker has shown his
true colours.
Thank God that you are incapable of breeding. You will always be a
******.

He's a TOTAL nutcase. I would like to know what his psychiatrists'
diagnoses sounded like.

He is a potential danger to society and is a worthless little ****.
When's the last time you had a woman, PHucker?





And blow up rubber dolls don't count as 'real'

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:01:22 +0000, 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



If the highway code says you "MUST" (or "MUST NOT" do something, then
it is referring to actual law making that requirement.

In this case RVLR (Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, regulation
27.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If you can't debug it, deplug it.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:15:12 +0000, 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.


He is wrong to say it "implies".

It is fact that if the highway code says you MUST or MUST NOT do
something, then that is a requirement laid down by law.,
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If you can't debug it, deplug it.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:32:46 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:30:41 -0000, 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. 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.

The trouble is they didn't have these stupid running lights back when that was written. Presumably there is an updated one to cover the DRLs which are sometimes actually BRIGHTER than dipped beam.

There doesn't need to be an updated one.

It is caught by the catch-all at the end (para 11) "Any other lamp
Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using
the road."

Allegedly this is ok if it's daylight, but you can actually be done for using them in the dark. The world has gone mad.

Why?

A light which will dazzle in the dark may well be hardly noticeable in
daylight.

But the original petition request linked to above is a complete load
of subjective ********.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I don't eat snails... I prefer FAST food!
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom