Ban bright car lights

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

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

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

The phrase is used in the HC when advising against something which is
prohibited by (a) law.

If there is no law to forbid the deprecated action, the Code instead
uses the formulation "You should not".

I thought this was well-known.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

--
Follow your dream! Unless it's the one where you're at work in your underwear during a fire drill.

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

I class any light when it isn't dark as a distraction. You should only draw attention to yourself if you need to, for example you're turning, braking, or an unusual vehicle like an ambulance, motorcycle, etc. If everybody has lights, then you are less likely to notice the ones you need to.

--
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.