FAQ  •  Register  •  Login

objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

<<

andtym

Dudette

Posts: 10

Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:24 pm

Post Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:50 pm

objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

the law on lighting has changed.

It used to be that Fog Headlights showing below 500mm could only be illuminated during times of fog or falling snow. Dating back to ~ 1975 when Britain metricated and a similar rule prior to metrication.

That rule has been replaced with:
...226 You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally
when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use
front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility
improves (see Rule 236).
[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]
and
236 You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously
reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and can obscure your
brake lights. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves.
[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]


It seems very clear to me that some objectivity has been introduced into assessing "visibility is seriously reduced"
Is night time when outwith a lit up area, deemed to be "visibility is seriously reduced"?

Comments welcome
<<

Gren

Dudette

Posts: 6

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:44 am

Post Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

Where to begin?

OK :- Rule 226 and 236 are covered in the following Highway Code section - "Driving in adverse weather conditions".

There's a clue in the title. Reduced visibility (in adverse weather conditions) means exactly that - heavy fog or thick falling snow can actually prevent you from seeing things that are more than a certain distance away. Things that would otherwise be seen. Like cars with their lights on, for example. Not objectivity, just facts.
Fog lights have a scattering and penetrating effect that increases the chances of other cars actually seeing you in very bad visibility. This is achieved by throwing the beam wide and high, and can also aid in seeing the side of the road. Under regular driving conditions, because the beam is not controlled or dipped, it can seriously dazzle other road users, especially in damp or dusk conditions.

At night, cars should have their dipped lights on. Obviously. And by all means use full beam when no other road users are around.
Under normal weather conditions you will be able to see car lights and street lamps up to 3 miles away (and possibly further).
However, using fog lights does not help other road users (the reason you should use them) - and will cause dazzling.
It also does not give an advantage over full beam in non-lit areas because of the angle of the beam, and there is NO excuse for using them in oncoming traffic.

The fools that drive round at night with only side lights on (no dip) and fog lights, not only look like retards, but they are also at serious risk of being in an accident themselves because of the lack of light they will be throwing onto the road ahead.

Such drivers should be classed as un-insurable. Might take a few more plebians of the road...
<<

gaz

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 37

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:28 pm

Location: West Yorkshire

Post Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:45 pm

Re: objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

Nice post Gren..... spot on!
:D
<<

andtym

Dudette

Posts: 10

Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:24 pm

Post Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

Gren wrote:Where to begin?

OK :- Rule 226 and 236 are covered in the following Highway Code section - "Driving in adverse weather conditions"..
there are many points I cannot agree with you in your reply.
Not least that driving at night in unlit areas is an "adverse visibility condition"
<<

gaz

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 37

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:28 pm

Location: West Yorkshire

Post Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

Sorry but I'm totally on Gren's side here....
IMHO, darkness alone cannot be described as adverse visibility conditions.
<<

andtym

Dudette

Posts: 10

Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:24 pm

Post Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:55 pm

Re: objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

Am I allowed to present a hypothetical situation to support my contention that night constitutes impaired visibility and then proceed to developing the argument to whether "visibility is seriously reduced" applies irrespective of other weather conditions? Then finally to what logic we should apply to deciding when visibility improves?
<<

gaz

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 37

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:28 pm

Location: West Yorkshire

Post Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:36 pm

Re: objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

You can try but so far your argument is very flawed.....
I'm open-minded though so I look forward to your attempt to convince me otherwise.....

I have to say though - you really have picked the wrong place to attempt to justify the use of fog lights :D
<<

andtym

Dudette

Posts: 10

Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:24 pm

Post Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:04 pm

Re: objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

I don't see Fog Headlights as the problem.
I see the change in the law and the introduction of ambiguity allowing objectivity/subjectivity/opinion being allowed into the decision whether certain lights are allowed or not.
<<

Nikki Lewis

Dudette

Posts: 10

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:42 am

Post Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:36 am

Re: objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

gaz wrote:Sorry but I'm totally on Gren's side here....
IMHO, darkness alone cannot be described as adverse visibility conditions.


Exactly, ask any meteorologist and they will tell you that visibility increases at night.
<<

Nikki Lewis

Dudette

Posts: 10

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:42 am

Post Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:43 am

Re: objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

andtym wrote:Am I allowed to present a hypothetical situation to support my contention that night constitutes impaired visibility and then proceed to developing the argument to whether "visibility is seriously reduced" applies irrespective of other weather conditions? Then finally to what logic we should apply to deciding when visibility improves?



This is a FogsOff forum, not FogsOn!

Visibility 100 meters or less fog lights on.
Visibility more that 100 meters fog lights off.

Everyone can estimate 100 meters can't they? If not, they shouldn't be behind the wheel.
<<

gaz

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 37

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:28 pm

Location: West Yorkshire

Post Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:52 am

Re: objectivity in "visibility is serious reduced"

Only just seen this reply :lol:
Was really enjoying this thread too. Really wanted to hear the justifications for darkness constituting impaired visibility...
Can we continue?

Return to Why do you / they do it???

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron