When to dip headlights?

[sospan]

I use main beam to be able to see clearly. If a car is coming towards me I decide when to dip by assessing when
a) there is no dark area where an obstacle could be unseen between my lit area and oncoming veh lit area.
b) dip to prevent affecting oncoming driver getting dazzled.
it is a dynamic situation that will vary due to conditions etc. and slowing down to leave a stopping distance should something pop into sight from the “dark zone”.
Cyclists.......
If overtaking stay on main beam as no dazzling (assume no rear view mirrors).
If oncoming cyclist dip to prevent dazzling cyclist but maintain a lit zone with no dark zone.
I take the view that lights are to enable visibility and situations vary so use of/timing of dipping/restoring main beam need to vary.
If being overtaken I dip as the car comes level so both get benefit of longer vision.
If overtaking go to main as drawing level.
I hate drivers in front on dip when they should be on main as it creates a foreshortened dark zone.

[Matthen]

lyonspride said:

JM said:

lyonspride said:

waremark said:

lyonspride said:

I use dipped beam all year round, except for bright sunny days, I never driver on just side/parking lights.

How old a car do you drive? For several years all cars sold have been fitted with daylight running lights which are brighter than sidelights and intended for this purpose.

Like others, I am surprised by your opinion on the use of main beam, and I strongly disagree.

Why do I need main beam on a street lit road? You just don't............

Do you only drive on roads that have a lighting system?

If so, then fair enough.
But what about roads without lighting, do you not think it appropriate to use main beam then?

This is not a black/white subject, and it really depends on the road.

I prefer dipped on say narrow country lanes, because i'm driving more slowly anyway and it allows me to see oncoming cars much earlier than if I were on main beam.

Unlit dual carriageway, yeah that's probably the longest time the main beam comes on.

Then sometimes just as it's going dark, i'll use main beam briefly before I round a blind corner, just to make sure that anyone coming the other way knows i'm there.

Overall I prefer dipped, because I can still see far enough at all but NSL speeds. Who knows, as eyesight worsens with age, perhaps my "night vision" won't be quite so good in 10-20 years time?

I drive on DCs a hell of a lot, and very, very rarely is there opportunity to use the main beam for more than a few seconds. You're not one of those aholes that assumes people on the opposite carriageway/distance are immune to the effects of 2.5k lumens being sprayed at them are you? If so, stop. Please. Rear view mirrors can be dipped, door mirrors cannot (on most cars).

You should be using your main beam on unlit country roads, for improved visibility and to give oncoming motorists warning of your presence. The fact that you think you can see far enough without it suggests you are not looking far enough into the distance.

[lyonspride]

Matthen said:

I drive on DCs a hell of a lot, and very, very rarely is there opportunity to use the main beam for more than a few seconds. You're not one of those aholes that assumes people on the opposite carriageway/distance are immune to the effects of 2.5k lumens being sprayed at them are you? If so, stop. Please. Rear view mirrors can be dipped, door mirrors cannot (on most cars).

You should be using your main beam on unlit country roads, for improved visibility and to give oncoming motorists warning of your presence. The fact that you think you can see far enough without it suggests you are not looking far enough into the distance.

I don't know why some people only see black or white, the use of main beam is subjective and it depends on the situation. I don't think it's appropriate to use them for extended periods where you either get no benefit OR doing so actually hinders your ability to see oncoming vehicles around a bend or over a blind crest..... I mean how fast are you going into a blind bend that main beam is of any benefit?

Unfortunately as I mentioned, some people see everything as black and white, either you use them or you don't.
Not unlike the subject of using indicators and whether they should be used all the time regardless, OR as the IAM teach using them only when they would be of benefit and constantly scanning your surroundings to consciously make that decision. Another subject where some people can only see black and white, use them or never use them, and the debate usually rages on for hundreds of pages with people who just can't quite grasp the concept of not simply doing things in autopilot.

[jamei303]

lyonspride said:

I don't know why some people only see black or white, the use of main beam is subjective and it depends on the situation. I don't think it's appropriate to use them for extended periods where you either get no benefit OR doing so actually hinders your ability to see oncoming vehicles around a bend or over a blind crest..... I mean how fast are you going into a blind bend that main beam is of any benefit?

I always find main beams let me see more. On blind bends and crests they illuminate the sides of the road better, which helps to identify hazards such as wild animals. I've never found they hinder my ability to see oncoming vehicles - the beam pattern of approaching cars is always different to mine.

[RobM77]

lyonspride said:

Matthen said:

I drive on DCs a hell of a lot, and very, very rarely is there opportunity to use the main beam for more than a few seconds. You're not one of those aholes that assumes people on the opposite carriageway/distance are immune to the effects of 2.5k lumens being sprayed at them are you? If so, stop. Please. Rear view mirrors can be dipped, door mirrors cannot (on most cars).

You should be using your main beam on unlit country roads, for improved visibility and to give oncoming motorists warning of your presence. The fact that you think you can see far enough without it suggests you are not looking far enough into the distance.

I don't know why some people only see black or white, the use of main beam is subjective and it depends on the situation. I don't think it's appropriate to use them for extended periods where you either get no benefit OR doing so actually hinders your ability to see oncoming vehicles around a bend or over a blind crest..... I mean how fast are you going into a blind bend that main beam is of any benefit?

Unfortunately as I mentioned, some people see everything as black and white, either you use them or you don't.
Not unlike the subject of using indicators and whether they should be used all the time regardless, OR as the IAM teach using them only when they would be of benefit and constantly scanning your surroundings to consciously make that decision. Another subject where some people can only see black and white, use them or never use them, and the debate usually rages on for hundreds of pages with people who just can't quite grasp the concept of not simply doing things in autopilot.

Indeed, there are lots of subtleties here. However, when on unlit country roads at night the default should be main beam, and only dipping for a good reason.

[jamei303]

A similar logic would surely apply to using sidelights at night in street-lit areas instead of headlights. Do main beam shunners also advocate switching headlights off if the street lights provide enough light to see by?

[Timbuktu]

lyonspride said:

I don't know why some people only see black or white, the use of main beam is subjective and it depends on the situation.

I don't think it's appropriate to use them for extended periods where you either get no benefit OR doing so actually hinders your ability to see oncoming vehicles around a bend or over a blind crest..... I mean how fast are you going into a blind bend that main beam is of any benefit?

Now you're saying you get NO benefit from using high beam? I think you need your eyes testing.

lyonspride said:

Unfortunately as I mentioned, some people see everything as black and white, either you use them or you don't.
Not unlike the subject of using indicators and whether they should be used all the time regardless, OR as the IAM teach using them only when they would be of benefit and constantly scanning your surroundings to consciously make that decision. Another subject where some people can only see black and white, use them or never use them, and the debate usually rages on for hundreds of pages with people who just can't quite grasp the concept of not simply doing things in autopilot.

lyonspride on the first page said:

I rarely use main beam at all, I just don't see the point.

I use dipped beam all year round.

It seems like it's just you that sees things in black and white.

[akirk]

lyonspride said:

I don't know why some people only see black or white, the use of main beam is subjective and it depends on the situation. I don't think it's appropriate to use them for extended periods where you either get no benefit OR doing so actually hinders your ability to see oncoming vehicles around a bend or over a blind crest..... I mean how fast are you going into a blind bend that main beam is of any benefit?

How do you see cars over a blind crest?!
maybe you see their headlights - and maybe you will see them better & sooner if they have them on full beam!

If you are out at night - unless you will cause issues by doing so (blinding someone) or the area is so well lighted that they are not needed, then lights should be on full beam - you can often leave them on longer than you think - e.g. tight right-hand bend with car coming the other way, your lights will be shining mainly into the verge, so you might be able to dip them later than a left-hand bend when you would blind them. Pedestrians in a village on the road - better you blind them temporarily, but see them, then be courteous and run them over... the car in front of me yesterday bimbling at 40mph on dipped headlights up a country road - a) he could have gone a bit faster with full beams and b) I could have seen better to get past...

so sometimes you have to think wider about why light is needed...

[lyonspride]

Timbuktu said:

lyonspride on the first page said:

I rarely use main beam at all, I just don't see the point.

I use dipped beam all year round.

It seems like it's just you that sees things in black and white.

Context....................

I use dimmed beam on all but the most sunny of summer days, so I literally do use them all year.

Comparatively how much do I used main beam?

Dimmed beam is more than adequate in most conditions, I certainly won't use them on street lit roads, but I may flash the main beam on approaching a corner, or if a car is coming the other way, just so that others know i'm there. As the evenings get darker i'll probably use the main beam more, but still only when it's really dark.

In contrast it seems many people use them far too much (which is their choice), but they forget to dim them for oncoming cars, why? Because it's like the indicator thing, they're on autopilot, they're not observing their surroundings or thinking about whether they actually need them.

[Timbuktu]

lyonspride said:

I rarely use main beam at all, I just don't see the point.

I don't see how I've taken it out of context.


I drove about 40 miles in the dark last night.

On dipped beam I have to crawl along at 40-50 at most.

On full beam I can do 80+ safe in the knowledge that I can see far into the distance.

I really don't see how you can argue with this.

Anyway I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall so I'm not going to debate any further.

[lyonspride]

Timbuktu said:

lyonspride said:

I rarely use main beam at all, I just don't see the point.

I don't see how I've taken it out of context.


I drove about 40 miles in the dark last night.

On dipped beam I have to crawl along at 40-50 at most.

On full beam I can do 80+ safe in the knowledge that I can see far into the distance.

I really don't see how you can argue with this.

Anyway I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall so I'm not going to debate any further.

I'm not doing 80mph, there's your answer. I don't think I drive on any road regularly, which has no street lighting, where i'd be doing more than 50mph.

[Ed/L152]

lyonspride said:

I'm not doing 80mph, there's your answer. I don't think I drive on any road regularly, which has no street lighting, where i'd be doing more than 50mph.

You sound exactly like the driver I overtook last night. 50mph on a regular, unlit country A road. I was following behind and satnav suggested a long straight but of course neither of us had any idea what was beyond 20 metres ahead because they were driving on dipped beam. As there was no indication of any danger, I pulled out and immediately main beamed to show that the 1/2 mile straight was completely clear of vehicles, junctions, etc and was able to safely overtake. Except, of course, I had to dazzle the driver ahead until I'd drawn level.

Should I have unnecessarily remained behind because the driver ahead was acting thoughtlessly?

There's also the case of deer crossing the road ahead - invisible without main beam so you had no warning before the second deer jumps out directly in front of you.

Edited by Ed/L152 on Wednesday 21st November 13:17

[RobM77]

lyonspride said:

I'm not doing 80mph, there's your answer. I don't think I drive on any road regularly, which has no street lighting, where i'd be doing more than 50mph.

No matter what speed you're doing, you are always safer being able to see further.

Some figures to ponder: the stopping (thinking + braking) distance on a dry road at 50mph is 53 metres. If your dipped beam is adjusted correctly, you won't be able to see 53 metres in front of your car with it. Then there's the wet to consider...


https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-dri...

[Muddle238]

OP's argument that he shouldn't use main beam because it means he can't see the headlights of traffic approaching round bends is laughable. For a start, the use of main beam will give greater warning to the approaching car of your own presence, because they will see your high beam on the bend long before your car. If both cars are on high beam, both drivers get advanced warning of the other. Secondly, your own high beam in 99% of cases will not mask the other beam, you will see objects ahead lit from two sources. The idea of NOT using your lights at night to aid in seeing oncoming traffic SOONER is the mental model of either a lunatic or someone who has a severe lack of awareness.

I use high beam as much as possible, as others have said it is highly frustrating coming up behind a slower car that refuses to use main beam. Even in sections that are streetlit, if the street lights are so far apart that they're creating dark sections then I'll switch to mains to fill those sections, although here I'm more actively scanning for pedestrians in dark clothing.

[Ed/L152]

A deer crossed the road in front of me just last night which I only managed to see because it was faintly silhouetted by the lights of oncoming cars. Had I been driving on dipped headlights on a clear road I wouldn't have seen it, and barrelled into its mate at 60mph which entered the road immediately in front of me. As it was I'd already anticipated the second one and was slowing through 30mph which gave it time to turn around.

Use full beam unless you're dazzling someone, simples.

Edited by Ed/L152 on Thursday 22 November 10:57

[lyonspride]

Muddle238 said:

I use high beam as much as possible, as others have said it is highly frustrating coming up behind a slower car that refuses to use main beam..

Mostly, the only time anyone is behind me is when there's someone in front of me.

I actually might (depending on the road) prefer them not using main beam, because then I can see oncoming vehicles from much further away, maybe around a corner through tree's, maybe just a slight reflection of their headlights on a house window or parked car or perhaps the flashing lights of a broken down vehicle.
What i'm saying is that you can't apply blanket rule for every situation.

[akirk]

lyonspride said:

Muddle238 said:

I use high beam as much as possible, as others have said it is highly frustrating coming up behind a slower car that refuses to use main beam..

Mostly, the only time anyone is behind me is when there's someone in front of me.

I actually might (depending on the road) prefer them not using main beam, because then I can see oncoming vehicles from much further away, maybe around a corner through tree's, maybe just a slight reflection of their headlights on a house window or parked car or perhaps the flashing lights of a broken down vehicle.
What i'm saying is that you can't apply blanket rule for every situation.

Sorry - that is so wrong...
main beam on the car in front of you does not prevent any of those things - how can extra illumination make it harder to see...
however what it does allow you to do is to look ahead and spot the pothole at the side of the road / the deer about to come out / the pedestrian or cyclist all in black and with no lights / etc. etc. - i.e. it allows you to drive properly...

added darkness benefits no driver

[Pica-Pica]

akirk said:

lyonspride said:

Muddle238 said:

I use high beam as much as possible, as others have said it is highly frustrating coming up behind a slower car that refuses to use main beam..

Mostly, the only time anyone is behind me is when there's someone in front of me.

I actually might (depending on the road) prefer them not using main beam, because then I can see oncoming vehicles from much further away, maybe around a corner through tree's, maybe just a slight reflection of their headlights on a house window or parked car or perhaps the flashing lights of a broken down vehicle.
What i'm saying is that you can't apply blanket rule for every situation.

Sorry - that is so wrong...
main beam on the car in front of you does not prevent any of those things - how can extra illumination make it harder to see...
however what it does allow you to do is to look ahead and spot the pothole at the side of the road / the deer about to come out / the pedestrian or cyclist all in black and with no lights / etc. etc. - i.e. it allows you to drive properly...

added darkness benefits no driver

Indeed. It is annoying when the car in front is on dipped beam and you feel, but are not sure, that the road ahead is clear. In that case, I feel justified in pulling out, squirting the main beams, and going if clear and safe.

With regards to added darkness benefits no one, I agree. Just ask, given the same volume of traffic, would I prefer to drive in daylight? Most would say yes.

One final thing. If you are driving with the sun low and behind you, please use dipped beam.

[yellowjack]

giantdefy said:

Haltamer said:

As for cyclists, I've seen it mentioned elsewhere from their perspective that they prefer you to maintain high beam - There are no mirrors to glare them, and the additional light allows them to tuck in closer to the curb for you where possible.

The last thing I, as a cyclist, would do is to tuck closer to the curb in anything less than broad daylight, absolute recipe for an off due to potholes, ironwork, general roadside st.

I think it might have been me that Haltamer is referring to.

I've said it numerous times too.


When I'm riding my bike at night, it's usually on rural roads with 40/50/NSL limits. Often with banks or hedgrows, and frequently narrow enough to make it awkward to overtake even one cyclist. In this situation, any following car that catches me is likely to want to get past me. I definitely want any following car to pass, because the last thing I need while concentrating on remembering where all the potholes are, and looking out for fresh ones, and road kill, etc, is a frustrated driver close behind me.

My logic (and it's sound) is that I don't need to look back directly into a following driver's headlamps to know he's there. The light from his headlamps bathes the road ahead of me, throwing my shadow forward, so I know they are there. So the question then is whether the following car needs to dip, or remain on main beam.

Following logic, once again. I have bike lights. Many of them. Three each end if I know I'll be out at night. But no matter how bright they are, they don't really compete with the sheer volume of light put out by a car. So my lights are enough for me to see where I'm going, but not really enough to see passing places or farm entrances far ahead.

As I said before, I'd like to aid the car in getting past me as soon as possible. By using dipped beam, he's unlikely to cast light any further ahead than my own lights. So I may miss a passing place, or be unable to see enough detail to assess whether it's safe to pull into (many rural passing places are full of greasy mud, lethal gravel, or three foot deep potholes that could smash a wheel to pieces, never mind puncture a tyre). If the following driver keeps to main beam, I can see a lot further along the road. I can see potholes, etc in the carriageway sooner (meaning i can ride faster) and I can see farm gates, or purpose made passing places well ahead of time. So, when I can see a safe spot to pull into, I signal to pull into it (on the left or on the right) and I move into it at a reduced speed. The driver can see the passing opportunity, so doesn't think I'm slowing down to prove some bizarre point, he can see me signal and move across, and hopefully he's competent enough to plan his overtake and get it done swiftly enough that I can smoothly re-emerge onto the carriageway behind him without having to come to a complete stop. Furthermore, given the limitations of my bike lights, I'm likely to be riding well away from the left-hand edge of the road (for safety reasons, away from crumbling carriageway edges, fly tipping, road kill, etc). There may not be any passing places as such, but with a bit of cooperation (his high beams, and me paying attention ahead) then I can safely move closer to the left-hand edge where I can see it's safe to do so, and use the old 'rotating right hand' signal to indicate that I'm moving left to allow them to pass. Whether they do so or not isn't my business, all I'm doing is trying to make the decision for them to pass me easier to make.

Circumstances change in urban areas, where I'd suggest that dipped beams are generally more appropriate anyway, and I'd prefer a dipped beam from a following car if I'm having to check multiple directions at junctions and make eye contact with drivers to check that they've seen me and acknowledged any turning signals I make.

In simple terms, dipping when approaching a cyclist from behind isn't greatly helpful on a number of levels, so there's no need to do it. The very fact that your lights are throwing my shadow forward is enough for me to know where you are, and main beam helps us both get you past quicker.

As for your point about "roadside st" in the left-hand verge? I agree with you, and as I've suggested, I won't occupy that area normally. But if a following car's high beams show it to be clear, why not move over, however temporarily, if it's safe and will assist another road user to get past? I've come off after hitting debris and bursting a tyre. I've been knocked off by a vehicle. I've slid down the road due to black ice too. But I've never (yet, touch wood) come off as a result of briefly hugging a verge to allow a car to get past more easily. I won't start blindly guessing, and only ride within the area I can see to be clear. High beams on the car behind make that "safe" area bigger, so I can either ride faster (to get to a wider section sooner) or I can make (good, informed) decisions earlier.

I'm not campaigning for a change in the law, or the highway code on the matter, but lets just say that when "my" system works, it works really well, and I hope that the driver leaves thinking "Wow? Seems like not all cyclists are inept halfwits after all". If I get the cooperation I'm after from a driver I pretty much know I've met either a) a decent driver who cares about driving well, or b) a fellow cyclist driving a car...


Something for another thread perhaps, but what are people's thoughts on me, as a cyclist, signalling right and moving into a passing place on my right to allow traffic from either direction to pass? It's something I'm happy to do, rather than waiting for a passing place on the left. But I wonder if drivers think I'm a bit weird doing so?