|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ban bright car lights
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ban bright car 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ban bright car lights
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ban bright car lights
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ban bright car lights
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ban bright car lights
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ban bright car lights
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ban bright car lights
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ban bright car lights
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ban bright car lights
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
use lights and wear bright clothes at night, how dim are these cyclists? | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 24 | September 12th 10 06:28 AM |
Bright Lights II: into the woods | Ryan Cousineau | Techniques | 6 | February 4th 09 02:19 PM |
Bright lights | Ryan Cousineau | Techniques | 76 | January 2nd 09 06:12 AM |
Bright lights | [email protected] | UK | 18 | November 8th 06 08:08 AM |
yokel sees the bright lights! | byron27 | Australia | 22 | May 10th 04 05:00 AM |