Ban bright car lights

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:09:20 -0000, Alycidon wrote:

On Monday, 28 December 2015 16:53:36 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:38:39 -0000, 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.

What made you think it wasn't? Have you ever thought to compare it to a car headlamp?

Yes - a car headlamp is 700 lumen, so my bike light is nearly six times as bright - he had a point.

Well I never, I didn't think you (or any other cyclist) would admit to that. Why did you buy it in the first place? I guess you can use it on full power as a full beam when there's nothing coming the other way. Can you switch the brightness of it?

It wasn't flashing aswell was it?

--
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:47:15 -0000, Norman Rowing wrote:

On 28/12/2015 16:49, Tosspot wrote:
On 28/12/15 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

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-high...e/introduction


As I said, you will never be charged with breaking a rule of the Highway
Code.

Pedantically, no you won't. But the MUST NOT means there is a law saying the same thing, which you can be done for.

--
"The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire."

On Monday, 28 December 2015 17:59:34 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:

Yes - a car headlamp is 700 lumen, so my bike light is nearly six times as bright - he had a point.

Well I never, I didn't think you (or any other cyclist) would admit to that. Why did you buy it in the first place?

To see where I am going, what else?

I guess you can use it on full power as a full beam when there's nothing coming the other way.

I have it on full power when I am riding on old rail lines or bridle paths.

Can you switch the brightness of it?

Yes.

It wasn't flashing as well was it?

I only have it on flashing during the day.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:21:04 -0000, Alycidon wrote:

On Monday, 28 December 2015 17:59:34 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:

Yes - a car headlamp is 700 lumen, so my bike light is nearly six times as bright - he had a point.

Well I never, I didn't think you (or any other cyclist) would admit to that. Why did you buy it in the first place?

To see where I am going, what else?

And you never thought it might dazzle others? Do you use full beam all the time in your car?

I guess you can use it on full power as a full beam when there's nothing coming the other way.

I have it on full power when I am riding on old rail lines or bridle paths.

And clearly when the driver you mentioned was coming the other way.

Can you switch the brightness of it?

Yes.

It wasn't flashing as well was it?

I only have it on flashing during the day.

Why would that make it any less stupid? What makes you think you're as important as an ambulance?

--
In 1977, researchers detected a strong radio signal from space that lasted 72 seconds. It hasn't been detected since.

On 28/12/2015 13:43, JNugent 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.

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.

Cyclists do not read or comprehend the Highway Code

On 28/12/2015 20:32, Mrcheerful wrote:

On 28/12/2015 13:43, JNugent 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.

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.

Cyclists do not read or comprehend the Highway Code

But they frequently advise others to read it.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:33:30 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 28/12/2015 20:32, Mrcheerful wrote:

On 28/12/2015 13:43, JNugent 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.

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.

Cyclists do not read or comprehend the Highway Code

But they frequently advise others to read it.

The Highway Code is only for motorised vehicles (according to the likes of Simon with his flashing headlight which is 4 times the brightness of a car light).

--
If a deaf person swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

On 28/12/2015 20:37, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:33:30 -0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 28/12/2015 20:32, Mrcheerful wrote:

On 28/12/2015 13:43, JNugent 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.

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.

Cyclists do not read or comprehend the Highway Code

But they frequently advise others to read it.

The Highway Code is only for motorised vehicles (according to the likes
of Simon with his flashing headlight which is 4 times the brightness of
a car light).

That does often seem to be the case.

On Monday, 28 December 2015 18:53:41 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:21:04 -0000, Alycidon wrote:

On Monday, 28 December 2015 17:59:34 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:

Yes - a car headlamp is 700 lumen, so my bike light is nearly six times as bright - he had a point.

Well I never, I didn't think you (or any other cyclist) would admit to that. Why did you buy it in the first place?

To see where I am going, what else?

And you never thought it might dazzle others? Do you use full beam all the time in your car?

The full beam on my car does not point at the road surface like my bike light does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU1jRlmsee0

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:43:48 -0000, Alycidon wrote:

On Monday, 28 December 2015 18:53:41 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:21:04 -0000, Alycidon wrote:

On Monday, 28 December 2015 17:59:34 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:

Yes - a car headlamp is 700 lumen, so my bike light is nearly six times as bright - he had a point.

Well I never, I didn't think you (or any other cyclist) would admit to that. Why did you buy it in the first place?

To see where I am going, what else?

And you never thought it might dazzle others? Do you use full beam all the time in your car?

The full beam on my car does not point at the road surface like my bike light does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU1jRlmsee0

I don't have personal experience of your light, but every single bike I've seen with a bright light has it facing the same as a full beam on a car, straight through the windscreen of oncoming traffic. Unlike cars, bike lights do not have an intricate mechanism for adjusting the beam angle. They're just clamped willy nilly onto the handlebars and probably move a bit when you've been riding over a few bumps.

--
When you own Llamas... spit happens