Full beams in built up areas

[Mattt]

I assume there is no law against this (like in the case of horns), I try to avoid it due to common courtesy - but sometimes I find it is safer to leave them on when street lighting is poor (or where they have the silly 'turn out the lights to save CO2' schemes).

[Dwight VanDriver]

Reg 27 Road Vehicles Lighting Regs 1989......

Headlamps:

must not cause undue dazzle or discomfort or to bet lit when parked.

?

dvd

[Hooli]

shirley headlights are there for use when required to see or be seen? (if only the numpties in the rain knew the 2nd bit). if your not blinding oncoming drivers i see no problem with mainbeam in builtup areas.

[Greendubber]

Hooli said:

shirley headlights are there for use when required to see or be seen? (if only the numpties in the rain knew the 2nd bit). if your not blinding oncoming drivers i see no problem with mainbeam in builtup areas.

There is no problem with using them in built up areas as long as you're not dazzling other drivers.

So for example, on a road with no other traffic on it = no offence

However

Driving on a road with other traffic on it and using full beam, resulting in other drivers being dazzled = what DVD said.

[flemke]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Reg 27 Road Vehicles Lighting Regs 1989......

Headlamps:

must not cause undue dazzle or discomfort or to bet lit when parked.

?

dvd

As a bearded chap once said, "the law is an ass". Which must mean, the more laws, the more asses.

One man's due is another man's don't.

[saxmund]

A pedant writes...

Surely undue means unneccessary? ie it accepts that you might occasionally cause dazzle - for example if an oncoming car appears round a corner or you go round a corner and find someone ahead of you. As long as you dip your beam in good time you should be OK. However surely don't would mean you were never allowed to dazzle anyone which would mean you would have to drive on dipped unless you were 100% sure no one else was around. I'm sure a lawyer will come on soon and explain it much better than I.

[flemke]

saxmund said:

A pedant writes...

Surely undue means unneccessary? ie it accepts that you might occasionally cause dazzle - for example if an oncoming car appears round a corner or you go round a corner and find someone ahead of you. As long as you dip your beam in good time you should be OK. However surely don't would mean you were never allowed to dazzle anyone which would mean you would have to drive on dipped unless you were 100% sure no one else was around. I'm sure a lawyer will come on soon and explain it much better than I.

I think the OP's question related to dazzling people in their homes.
A driver might unintentionally do this, and be penalised for it.
The driver's defence possibly would be that main beams were necessary in order for him to see the road properly - that is, to illuminate the space in which he could stop his car safely whilst travelling within the speed limit.
I can readily imagine an authoritarian jobsworth replying, "But you could have driven much more slowly, so that you could have stopped within the distance that dipped beams would illuminate."

[herewego]

flemke said:

saxmund said:

A pedant writes...

Surely undue means unneccessary? ie it accepts that you might occasionally cause dazzle - for example if an oncoming car appears round a corner or you go round a corner and find someone ahead of you. As long as you dip your beam in good time you should be OK. However surely don't would mean you were never allowed to dazzle anyone which would mean you would have to drive on dipped unless you were 100% sure no one else was around. I'm sure a lawyer will come on soon and explain it much better than I.

I think the OP's question related to dazzling people in their homes.
A driver might unintentionally do this, and be penalised for it.
The driver's defence possibly would be that main beams were necessary in order for him to see the road properly - that is, to illuminate the space in which he could stop his car safely whilst travelling within the speed limit.
I can readily imagine an authoritarian jobsworth replying, "But you could have driven much more slowly, so that you could have stopped within the distance that dipped beams would illuminate."

Next you'll be suggesting he drives within the limit.

[streaky]

flemke said:

saxmund said:

A pedant writes...

Surely undue means unneccessary? ie it accepts that you might occasionally cause dazzle - for example if an oncoming car appears round a corner or you go round a corner and find someone ahead of you. As long as you dip your beam in good time you should be OK. However surely don't would mean you were never allowed to dazzle anyone which would mean you would have to drive on dipped unless you were 100% sure no one else was around. I'm sure a lawyer will come on soon and explain it much better than I.

I think the OP's question related to dazzling people in their homes.

What on earth gave you that idea? Perhaps you have confused "horns" with "homes", I can't see anything in the OP that would suggest what you think - Streaky

[streaky]

saxmund said:

A pedant writes...

Surely undue means unneccessary? ...

Even more of a pedant writes that "undue" does not mean "unnecessary". It means: not appropriate or proper; unreasonable; unjustified; or not yet due - Streaky

[Mattt]

streaky said:

flemke said:

saxmund said:

A pedant writes...

Surely undue means unneccessary? ie it accepts that you might occasionally cause dazzle - for example if an oncoming car appears round a corner or you go round a corner and find someone ahead of you. As long as you dip your beam in good time you should be OK. However surely don't would mean you were never allowed to dazzle anyone which would mean you would have to drive on dipped unless you were 100% sure no one else was around. I'm sure a lawyer will come on soon and explain it much better than I.

I think the OP's question related to dazzling people in their homes.

What on earth gave you that idea? Perhaps you have confused "horns" with "homes", I can't see anything in the OP that would suggest what you think - Streaky

Flemke is correct, I did indeed mean common courtesy as in not to shine bright lights at peoples houses as they sleep.

[oldsoak]

There is another 'notch' on the control column that ensures you don't dazzle anyone...it is called the DIPPED BEAM setting...leave the FULL BEAM for unlit rural roads.
Most cars on our roads today also have RIDE HEIGHT adjustment for the headlamp beams...if you cannot see properly with dipped headlamps I would suggest you toggle the ride height adjustment switch

[Mattt]

oldsoak said:

There is another 'notch' on the control column that ensures you don't dazzle anyone...it is called the DIPPED BEAM setting...leave the FULL BEAM for unlit rural roads.
Most cars on our roads today also have RIDE HEIGHT adjustment for the headlamp beams...if you cannot see properly with dipped headlamps I would suggest you toggle the ride height adjustment switch

Indeed, that is what I do, but is what brought on the question.

[oldsoak]

Mattt said:

oldsoak said:

There is another 'notch' on the control column that ensures you don't dazzle anyone...it is called the DIPPED BEAM setting...leave the FULL BEAM for unlit rural roads.
Most cars on our roads today also have RIDE HEIGHT adjustment for the headlamp beams...if you cannot see properly with dipped headlamps I would suggest you toggle the ride height adjustment switch

Indeed, that is what I do, but is what brought on the question.

Perhaps I mis-understood you opening post?
"I assume there is no law against this (like in the case of horns), I try to avoid it due to common courtesy - but sometimes I find it is safer to leave them on when street lighting is poor (or where they have the silly 'turn out the lights to save CO2' schemes)"

Seemed to me you thought it OK to use FULL BEAM in places where they were not required....or had difficulty seeing with dipped beam in areas of poor street lighting due to misalignment of the ride height settings...apologies if I got it wrong.

[Mattt]

oldsoak said:

Mattt said:

oldsoak said:

There is another 'notch' on the control column that ensures you don't dazzle anyone...it is called the DIPPED BEAM setting...leave the FULL BEAM for unlit rural roads.
Most cars on our roads today also have RIDE HEIGHT adjustment for the headlamp beams...if you cannot see properly with dipped headlamps I would suggest you toggle the ride height adjustment switch

Indeed, that is what I do, but is what brought on the question.

Perhaps I mis-understood you opening post?
"I assume there is no law against this (like in the case of horns), I try to avoid it due to common courtesy - but sometimes I find it is safer to leave them on when street lighting is poor (or where they have the silly 'turn out the lights to save CO2' schemes)"

Seemed to me you thought it OK to use FULL BEAM in places where they were not required....or had difficulty seeing with dipped beam in areas of poor street lighting due to misalignment of the ride height settings...apologies if I got it wrong.

I don't think it ok, like I said, I try to avoid it - but I always prioritise safety (of myself and others) over miscomfort. These aren't true built up areas either, more like small hamlets on country roads. I also have the beam height set to the correct position.

[oldsoak]

What prompted your question then?
Had someone travelling in the opposite direction flashed you?(Indicating your actions were not as safe as you thought they were)
What?

[mybrainhurts]

Why do we need to discuss this..? You know when you need main beam and you know when you must not use it...common sense, innit?

This illegal use of headlights when parked really gets up my nose. Taxis are the worst culprits. As you approach from the opposite direction, it's impossible to see pedestrians or other hazards behind the headlights.

[Mattt]

mybrainhurts said:

Why do we need to discuss this..? You know when you need main beam and you know when you must not use it...common sense, innit?

Well judging by 2 of the replies above, people have differing opinions on the subject.

[Mattt]

oldsoak said:

What prompted your question then?
Had someone travelling in the opposite direction flashed you?(Indicating your actions were not as safe as you thought they were)
What?

Do I need a prompt for a question? I have seen different people dim their lights in built up areas, and others that go blazing through.

I have stated above that I try to avoid it, this was more a question about other road users and legal position than my own driving behaviour, for which I would welcome not being belittled oldsoak.

[silk]

generally I use full beam as little as possible, I never use where theres street lighting, I just dont see the point, especially as cars these days have decent normal beam compared to the old days, sometimes better than an old bangers full beam.

I think the only time I see a need is also the time its most dangerously used - country lanes etc, i usually keep them on the straights and but flick em off before hitting the corners momentarily to check for oncoming traffic, unfortunatly drivers going the other way dont do the same and dont see my beam, xenons are a nightmare for that.

Anthony