People who won't use main beam at night

[Drive Blind]

Did quite a few miles last night mostly along relatively quiet A and B roads. Regularly got held up by the 40mph brigade. Almost all of them never used their main beam when conditions allowed.

I can't understand this.

You have a device fitted to your car that allows you to see 100-200 metres ahead instead of the 20-30 metres you get with dipped beam. So why not use them?

[g3org3y]

From a thread over on the AD section:

timbob said:

Here's the thread: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=...

The chap you're after is rossk26 who first posts at post #9 - saying he thought that the OP's use of main beams indicated that he didn't know the road very well, as he only ever uses them on roads he doesn't know...

Check the link. Beyond comprehension. Rossk26 does appear a little bit 'special'.

[joe oliver]

Said 40mph brigade find it difficult enough to drive in daylight, you cannot expect things to improve during night time with the added confusion of 2 lighting modes to help them along.

[kazste]

I drive as quick as I can see, this is the reason I don't use main beam as if I'm travelling as quick as I can see with main beam on, and have to turn it off due to oncoming traffic I have a problem.

[Chicane-UK]

g3org3y said:

Check the link. Beyond comprehension. Rossk26 does appear a little bit 'special'.

There are some utter knuckle draggers in that thread. The OP looks like a decent guy and seems to know how to drive well enough especially knowing when to bail out of that overtake.

F@ck knows what the Civic driver was thinking.

[PoleDriver]

This always boils my piss! If you come up behind someone who is doing 40 in a NSL with dipped beams you can't see far enough to overtake!

Complete PITA

[Dr Jekyll]

They just don't understand the concept of looking more than 20-30 metres ahead.

[Tonberry]

Chicane-UK said:

F@ck knows what the Civic driver was thinking.

Rude boy in his wicked Type-R innit. His almighty 200bhp means that he has the power (or thinks he does) to control the speed of those around him by blocking overtakes and driving below the speed limit intentionally.

[IAmAHorse]

kazste said:

I drive as quick as I can see, this is the reason I don't use main beam as if I'm travelling as quick as I can see with main beam on, and have to turn it off due to oncoming traffic I have a problem.

Really? ... ... really?!

But doesn't that mean you might be driving a little bit to quickly?
And if you're making progress don't you want all the vision and visibility you can get?






Really?

[Disco You]

g3org3y said:

Check the link. Beyond comprehension. Rossk26 does appear a little bit 'special'.

bahhhhhhh! That thread made me want to bash myself over the head with a rock when I read it the first time over there, please don't bring it here!

[MrGman]

This annoys the hell out of me on roads i don't know, it makes over taking almost impossible!

[bazking69]

I use mine whenever it is remotely necessary and clear to do so. Doubles visability at the flick of a switch.

[kazste]

IAmAHorse said:

Really? ... ... really?!

But doesn't that mean you might be driving a little bit to quickly?
And if you're making progress don't you want all the vision and visibility you can get?






Really?

Am serious, I understand the reasons for main beam but I only drive to speed where I believe at least, I can stop in the distance I can see. Therefore if I put the main beam on I then get drawn into believing I can go faster as I can see further, if I then need to turn off the main beam and go back to normal lights I am going faster than I feel comfortable with.
Would like to point out that I have no issue with people going faster than me with main beam on and would just signal to allow an overtake if I felt I was holding someone up.

Feel free to explain the reason for using main beam being better than normal (dipped) lights. Honest question to which I would consider the answer to see if it changes my thinking.

[kazste]

As stated I understand that point, but find myself driving to the distance I can see which becomes a problem when I have to go back to dipped headlights due to oncoming traffic, as now I can't see further and am now going at a speed adjusted for having a further view down the road than I now have.

I understand that the obvious answer is to then slow down but this cannot always be done quick enough.

[kazste]

To be fair I was reading it thinking does this make sense!

What I mean is, if using dipped beam I can see 30 metres ahead I will drive at a speed where should a obstacle appear in the road I believe I would be able to react and come to a stop before the obstacle, let's say this speed is 50mph.

If I were using main beam and could see 100 metres and now drive at a speed where I could safely stop for the obstacle I could now do 70 mph. However, if whilst using main beam and doing 70 I come across another vehicle and have to go back to dipped beam I am back down to a sight distance of 30m but travelling too quickly in order to react and safely bring the car to a halt in this distance.

Hope this makes my reasoning a bit clearer, even if you still believe it to be nonsensical.

[VolvoT5]

kazste said:

To be fair I was reading it thinking does this make sense!

What I mean is, if using dipped beam I can see 30 metres ahead I will drive at a speed where should a obstacle appear in the road I believe I would be able to react and come to a stop before the obstacle, let's say this speed is 50mph.

If I were using main beam and could see 100 metres and now drive at a speed where I could safely stop for the obstacle I could now do 70 mph. However, if whilst using main beam and doing 70 I come across another vehicle and have to go back to dipped beam I am back down to a sight distance of 30m but travelling too quickly in order to react and safely bring the car to a halt in this distance.

Hope this makes my reasoning a bit clearer, even if you still believe it to be nonsensical.

You could always put the main beam on and NOT drive excessively fast?

[Benbay001]

kazste said:

I drive as quick as I can see, this is the reason I don't use main beam as if I'm travelling as quick as I can see with main beam on, and have to turn it off due to oncoming traffic I have a problem.

I can sort of see thinking behind this, and, if im 100% honest there are plenty of times when im driving at a perfectly safe speed with main beam and a car comes the other way, i dip yet dont slow down, despite greatly reduces visibility.

But i also dont agree with driving around at a speed appropriate for dipped beam.

[Wafflesmk2]

You know what fks me off?

Probably can be applied to 80% of the people in this topic.

Those morons who come hurtling towards you with main beam on, blind you for 3-4 seconds then turn it off. I can see your main beam and killed mine early, why couldnt you do the same idiot? I dont even have to see the beam, i can see their light hitting the corner/hedge/whatever in front of me, way before they even get close.

I also drive with main beam off, if it's a bendy road and im not going fast. Can i stop in the distance covered by dipped? If yes, then there's no real need for full is there?

Obviously if someone is behind me i'll get a move on.

[Rude-boy]

kazste said:

To be fair I was reading it thinking does this make sense!

What I mean is, if using dipped beam I can see 30 metres ahead I will drive at a speed where should a obstacle appear in the road I believe I would be able to react and come to a stop before the obstacle, let's say this speed is 50mph.

If I were using main beam and could see 100 metres and now drive at a speed where I could safely stop for the obstacle I could now do 70 mph. However, if whilst using main beam and doing 70 I come across another vehicle and have to go back to dipped beam I am back down to a sight distance of 30m but travelling too quickly in order to react and safely bring the car to a halt in this distance.

Hope this makes my reasoning a bit clearer, even if you still believe it to be nonsensical.

The reason your approach is flawed is that it is very rare that it is either light or dark. There are lots of shades of grey in there to. When you dip your lights you aren’t losing sight of everything you would have seen if you had remained on full beam. Sure at the extreme you are losing sight but in the middle ground you are losing level of clarity mainly, not any ability to see where you are going.

Also you forget that the car coming towards you will also (one would hope!) have it’s lights on and so will have illuminated the area of road that you can no longer see with perfect clarity from your lights alone.

Might I suggest that you have a try along a stretch of road you are familiar with for a few nights to see how this all works, whilst still driving at your usual speed.

Edited by Rude-boy on Tuesday 27th March 10:33

[IAmAHorse]

kazste said:

To be fair I was reading it thinking does this make sense!

What I mean is, if using dipped beam I can see 30 metres ahead I will drive at a speed where should a obstacle appear in the road I believe I would be able to react and come to a stop before the obstacle, let's say this speed is 50mph.

If I were using main beam and could see 100 metres and now drive at a speed where I could safely stop for the obstacle I could now do 70 mph. However, if whilst using main beam and doing 70 I come across another vehicle and have to go back to dipped beam I am back down to a sight distance of 30m but travelling too quickly in order to react and safely bring the car to a halt in this distance.

Hope this makes my reasoning a bit clearer, even if you still believe it to be nonsensical.

I think I see where you're coming from, but say you're on full beam and doing 60 then: (i) you'll normally get to see another vehicle's headlights before you meet it (over the tops of hedges etc.) and (ii) you can use that information to plan to reduce your speed in advance of meeting it, so when you do have to dip your lights your vision isn't compromised.

Also, if your dipped beams let you see 30m—as per your example—doesn't that mean you should be doing a maximum of 35-ish? (seeing as stopping distance at 30mph is 23m and at 40mph is 36m).

Therefore, if you want to make safe progress anywhere near to the NSL you'll almost certainly need to be on full beam—otherwise you simply won't be able to see far enough to stop safely, shirley?