RE: 10 Secrets of the Highway Code
Discussion
So its not safe to Cycle on a pavement, unless there a tiny sign somewhere hundreds of feet away saying you can, then its perfectly safe all of a sudden?
I will continue to cycle on the pavement if i feel like the roads are so poorly maintained, so full of blind pensioners or so full of railway lines ( a Tram is a TRAIN ) that its not safe to do so. Afterall if a Cyclist has to dismount for a level crossing, then how should they be expected to share a road with a TRAIN.
And whos going to arrest me? Oh thats right, one of those mentally ill traffic wardens turned police who sit in their cars drinking coffee and pop while lil kids get raped by certain ethnic groups and they wont do anything because their mad. But Cylcing on a pavement Whoooa youve crossed the ( Train ) line there naughty boys and girls.
Welcome to England.
I will continue to cycle on the pavement if i feel like the roads are so poorly maintained, so full of blind pensioners or so full of railway lines ( a Tram is a TRAIN ) that its not safe to do so. Afterall if a Cyclist has to dismount for a level crossing, then how should they be expected to share a road with a TRAIN.
And whos going to arrest me? Oh thats right, one of those mentally ill traffic wardens turned police who sit in their cars drinking coffee and pop while lil kids get raped by certain ethnic groups and they wont do anything because their mad. But Cylcing on a pavement Whoooa youve crossed the ( Train ) line there naughty boys and girls.
Welcome to England.
RacerMike said:
article said:
4) Your mate's 911 has broken down (ha!) and he's conned you into rescuing him with that trailer you stupidly bought. Which way around should you load his infernal machine?
A far more pertinent question would be 4) Your mate's 911 has broken down (ha!) and he's conned you into rescuing him with that trailer you stupidly bought. You passed your driving test after 1997. Can you tow it?
Most relative youngsters like myself (a spritely 33 years of age I'll have you know) who are petrolheads in some way have probably encountered this issue before. When I had my Caterham, it took me a solid few hours to decipher the Highway Code's rules on towing. Basically, it's nearly impossible to understand without at least an A Level in Maths.
The truth of the regs are. If you passed after 1997:
- You cannot tow any trailer that has a maximum mass (weight of the trailer plus load) that's higher than that of the car you're towing with
- The combined weight of the car and trailer at maximum mass cannot be more than 3.5 tonnes (so the heaviest car you can tow with is 1.75 tonnes which prohibits most 4x4s)
- Even if you only carry a 1kg bag of sugar on the trailer, you'll still be breaking the law if the trailer is plated to allow a maximum mass greater than the to car's mass.
Yes, providing that the weight of the 911 and the trailer is less than the weight of your car. And your trailer has been classified by it's original manufacturer to have a maximum allowed mass no greater than the weight of your tow car!
Alternatively, you can just give up and go and do a trailer test and be done with it all......
If you want to know what you can or can't tow, use this;
https://www.gov.uk/towing-rules
noble12345 said:
So its not safe to Cycle on a pavement, unless there a tiny sign somewhere hundreds of feet away saying you can, then its perfectly safe all of a sudden?
I will continue to cycle on the pavement if i feel like the roads are so poorly maintained, so full of blind pensioners or so full of railway lines ( a Tram is a TRAIN ) that its not safe to do so. Afterall if a Cyclist has to dismount for a level crossing, then how should they be expected to share a road with a TRAIN.
And whos going to arrest me? Oh thats right, one of those mentally ill traffic wardens turned police who sit in their cars drinking coffee and pop while lil kids get raped by certain ethnic groups and they wont do anything because their mad. But Cylcing on a pavement Whoooa youve crossed the ( Train ) line there naughty boys and girls.
Welcome to England.
Stop drinking during the week.I will continue to cycle on the pavement if i feel like the roads are so poorly maintained, so full of blind pensioners or so full of railway lines ( a Tram is a TRAIN ) that its not safe to do so. Afterall if a Cyclist has to dismount for a level crossing, then how should they be expected to share a road with a TRAIN.
And whos going to arrest me? Oh thats right, one of those mentally ill traffic wardens turned police who sit in their cars drinking coffee and pop while lil kids get raped by certain ethnic groups and they wont do anything because their mad. But Cylcing on a pavement Whoooa youve crossed the ( Train ) line there naughty boys and girls.
Welcome to England.
TobyLerone said:
From the government website...
So, let me get this straight - I have BE entitlement - so I can buy the heaviest car I can, with the biggest engine, so long as it weighs less than 3,500kgs, I'm good.
Then, since my licence is pre 2013, I can tow ANY size!? So a 10T trailer is legal?
If you can find a 3500 kg car that is plated to tow 10t then yes. I'm not aware of any though. Also the trailer has to be less than 7m long.So, let me get this straight - I have BE entitlement - so I can buy the heaviest car I can, with the biggest engine, so long as it weighs less than 3,500kgs, I'm good.
Then, since my licence is pre 2013, I can tow ANY size!? So a 10T trailer is legal?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/towing-...
TobyLerone said:
From the government website...
So, let me get this straight - I have BE entitlement - so I can buy the heaviest car I can, with the biggest engine, so long as it weighs less than 3,500kgs, I'm good.
Then, since my licence is pre 2013, I can tow ANY size!? So a 10T trailer is legal?
Beware the gov site on that So, let me get this straight - I have BE entitlement - so I can buy the heaviest car I can, with the biggest engine, so long as it weighs less than 3,500kgs, I'm good.
Then, since my licence is pre 2013, I can tow ANY size!? So a 10T trailer is legal?
more here
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Having trouble with posting on iphone so I have reposted.
Grumpy52 said "No 2 , have they changed the rules then ?
Illegal to sound your horn in the vicinity of a Hospital .
The boundaries are given by the blue H signs ."
Thats a new one to me, was it ever in the hc, cant seem to be able to find it.
Grumpy52 said "No 2 , have they changed the rules then ?
Illegal to sound your horn in the vicinity of a Hospital .
The boundaries are given by the blue H signs ."
Thats a new one to me, was it ever in the hc, cant seem to be able to find it.
"2) The Highway Code says you MUST NOT (their caps) use your horn while stationary on the road, except when another road user poses a danger (3:112). Bipping someone for failing to move away from a green light, for example, might not be regarded as acceptable under the terms of the appropriate law (Law CUR reg 99)"
Another good reason to leave a decent amount of space in front of you when you're stopped at lights: you can then slowly roll up to the vehicle ahead that hasn't spotted the traffic moving off and legally give them a toot.
Another good reason to leave a decent amount of space in front of you when you're stopped at lights: you can then slowly roll up to the vehicle ahead that hasn't spotted the traffic moving off and legally give them a toot.
tannhauser said:
Ray_Aber said:
Flibble said:
Ray_Aber said:
What's wrong with sidelights?
Genuinely curious.
When moving? They are way too dim to be of any use - if you're moving and lights are required you should be using headlights.Genuinely curious.
I once saw a fellow switch his headlights off on a motorway because we were in a lit section. That seemed particularly foolhardy (and illegal; the rule doesn't apply to motorways).
The moment it gets dark - whether dark clouds, rain, twilight, Saharan dust storms, underpasses in towns - the dipped lights go on.
Fogs - used in fog, and sometimes on really small back roads, because (a) they light up the verges and (b) my dipped lights are rubbish.
And you admit to being a fog light w
ker?! Fog lights only light up about a metre or two in front of your car! You should be looking much further ahead!! They're used primarily for being visible during very low fog; and are only of any practical use to the driver when crawling along in such low level fog - they are not for general navigation of country roads! Edited by tannhauser on Wednesday 6th December 15:03
2. Side lights work well in the part of the UK I'm from. They are a useful option on my lighting list. Volvo thought so too when they introduced the idea many years ago. You do know that they also activate the rear lights as well, don't you? I didn't say that I never use dipped lights in daylight; I do. I also use sidelights. Makes you wonder why manufacturers put them on their cars, sometimes....
3. I admit to only what I use fogs for - that is mainly fog, but also narrow lanes where the verges are not that clear. What you failed to discern from my comment was that the fogs light up the periphery of ones immediate vicinity - broadly, where the verges are. As the country roads in question are without traffic (which would conveniently inform me where the road was going, it seems I'm not bothering anyone on the odd occasion that I use said lights. I switch them off if any cars are about. Also, when I use the word "sometimes", that infers a greater paucity of use than your "general navigation" comment, which - to me - infers general use.
If you think I'm a knuckle shuffler for that reason, you're welcome to your thoughts.
Vipers said:
Always though side lights were to indicate the width of a vehicle, hence some old land rovers had headlights in the grill.
I thought that as well, not that I've ever really done much investigation into it beyond just "thinking" it but yes, those older cars/trucks/vans/tractors which have inset headlights also have sidelights to indicate the full width of the vehicle - useful if you're on a narrow lane and think its only a small car comign towards you which actually turns out to be a full size tractorThe fact that SP&L is full of debate about most of these grey areas proves that the highway code should be renamed the highway guide. Shame they did not highlight the 2 get out of jail free cards, When instructed to do so buy a police officer in uniform or when avoiding an accident.
Now debate for 12 pages weather it is an accident or a collision.
Now debate for 12 pages weather it is an accident or a collision.
Dixy said:
The fact that SP&L is full of debate about most of these grey areas proves that the highway code should be renamed the highway guide. Shame they did not highlight the 2 get out of jail free cards, When instructed to do so buy a police officer in uniform or when avoiding an accident.
Now debate for 12 pages weather it is an accident or a collision.
My instructor always said "If your going to have an accident, stop. If your stationary you can't have an accident, your only involved" Now debate for 12 pages weather it is an accident or a collision.
ukaskew said:
My sidelights are my DRLs so I have no choice but to drive around with them on all the time. I thought that was pretty common now (I have a 2 year old Skoda)
Well then its fair enough because they've been designed to be DRLs.I don't know if it's common, I think it depends on the design.
The sidelights discussion is one that I've had before but I continue to hold my existing views - in that using sidelights only is perfectly acceptable in streetlit areas, and that if everyone used them, there might even be less accidents (collisions... whatever...).
How so?
Well, please bear with me and I’ll expand on my thoughts, as follows.
The human eye is amazing and can adapt from starlight to the midday sun, a massive difference in lux levels, but it cannot do both at the same time. If it is a bright sunny day, the pupils are constricted so that levels of light coming into the eye are managed, meaning that areas of darkness cannot be resolved. If it is night and the pupils are dilated to allow the maximum amount of (limited) available light in so that one can see what is in the darkness, a bright light will dazzle and obscure the dark areas because the pupil will constrict to protect itself.
This second point is neatly demonstrated by the classic 'War film' scenario - a slightly beaten man is tied to a chair in a dark room, the bright desk lamp pointing at his face. The glare from the lamp is stopping his pupils from dilating to deal with the lower light levels in the rest of the room, which means the only thing he can see is the bulb from the lamp. If the lamp was turned off, his pupils could adjust to the darkness by dilating, meaning he would be able to see more of the room. (And we haven’t even touched on ‘night vision’ kicking in after c.20 minutes.)
In essence, exactly the same thing happens on the road - glare from dipped beams (not to mention poor headlight alignment, reflection of wet road surfaces, the aforementioned 'cool' foglight use, left-hand-drive vehicles without headlight stickers to adjust the beam, and morons driving around with their main beam on) means that one's pupils constrict and one's vision is dominated by the brightest light source(s). This means that it is much harder to see areas that are not so bright, or even see past the headlights that are dazzling you. (How many times have you squinted as the latest Range Rover or Audi Q-thing comes past in the outside lane of the motorway, with HID/LED dipped beams so high off the ground and so bright that they obliterate everything else in your mirrors?)
Photographic or video cameras suffer exactly the same issues. If one meters to expose the brightest object(s) correctly, everything else in the frame will be under-exposed. If one meters to expose the darkest object(s) correctly, the brighter objects will be completely blown out. One can ‘get over this’ now to a degree using photo editing software, to lighten the darker areas of a photo and create a more even level of light across the picture, but the human eye cannot do this.
If there was a more even level of light on the road, so that everyone used sidelights in streetlit areas, meaning there were fewer (or no) massively-brighter lights dominating the view, road users’ eyes would not be struggling to resolve very bright areas (headlights) against a less bright background environment – the 'picture' would have a more even level of light across it, which would mean that the details of all the streetscape and the (lit and unlit) road users could be seen.
Think about this situation – if you are standing on a quiet streetlit road with no cars around (or sitting, to better replicate being in a vehicle), and assuming that there are streetlights that are spaced closely enough and with bright enough lamps to illuminate the highway evenly, you can clearly see everything around you and can walk around safely, can’t you? And if a car then turns on its sidelights, say, 100 yards down the street, you are aware of them (because their light-emitting properties means they are visible) but they are not dominating your vision, so you can still see everything around you? You can very probably even see the driver in the car, or at least their general shape moving about? But what then happens if the car turns on its dipped beam? Or its main beam? Your overall vision levels are reduced, are they not? And you can no longer see the driver, or in fact anything that is behind the position of the lights because they’re blotting everything out?
On that basis, if everyone used sidelights in streetlit areas, all road users would be able to see more, and we wouldn’t be in the ‘headlight arms race’ that we’re in now, whereby everyone needs/wants brighter and brighter headlights to help them see past other headlights on the road, and cyclists wouldn’t have to be buying these 500000lumen front lights in an attempt to be seen amongst the sea of glare from all the dipped beam headlights.
One could even make a comparison to noise, in that if your neighbour has a loud TV or stereo system banging away at high levels, you don’t simply turn yours up to a higher level to compensate; you knock on the front door and ask them to turn it down so that you can both enjoy your electronic equipment at a lower, more sociable and perfectly appropriate, level.
If I could knock on others doors to ask them to ‘turn your excessive lights down’, I would, but sadly the mantra has for so long been “dark = headlights” and/or “headlights = I’m more visible” (with no regard for it if makes others less visible, such as the aforementioned cyclists, nevermind unlit pedestrians), that many (most?) wrongly assume that sidelights-only use in streetlit areas is against the law or stupid. This thought process is engrained even more deeply now thanks to unintelligent ‘auto lights’ being standard kit on so many new cars nowadays.
I despair that intelligent conversation on the subject seems no longer possible – it seems that the standard response to sidelight users is “You’re an idiot! No-one can see you! You must use dipped beam at all times when driving!!!” without asking why people are doing it or thinking about the science. The reason ‘no-one can see you’ is because you are obliterated in a sea of unnecessary light, so if we remove that unnecessary light, then you’ll be able to be seen more easily. There is a difference between needing to see (and therefore use dipped beam) or just be seen (and therefore only needing to use sidelights) - in an adequately streetlit area, arguably there should be enough ambient light for a driver to see, so they therefore only need to be seen, which can be achieved by using sidelights alone.
It is a fair comment that some sidelight bulbs are so old and weak as to be virtually non-existent, but a tenner buys a set of decent, name-brand, LED sidelight bulbs that are much brighter and bridge the gap between ‘useless’ and ‘dipped beam’. Perhaps if ‘dim-dipped’ had continued to be a feature on cars, rather than being phased out, we wouldn’t be having this discussion? Who knows. Either way, I will continue to exercise my right to not blind you unnecessarily – I have learned to expect no thanks for this, and I fully expect others to continue to unthinkingly abuse me for my actions while blinding me pointlessly and/or dangerously
Anyway, I hope that might shine a light (pun intended ) on the reasons behind the decisions I and others take with regards to sidelight use. 
If you disagree, that's fine, but please provide your thought processes behind your disagreement so that us on 'the other side' can understand them!
How so?
Well, please bear with me and I’ll expand on my thoughts, as follows.
The human eye is amazing and can adapt from starlight to the midday sun, a massive difference in lux levels, but it cannot do both at the same time. If it is a bright sunny day, the pupils are constricted so that levels of light coming into the eye are managed, meaning that areas of darkness cannot be resolved. If it is night and the pupils are dilated to allow the maximum amount of (limited) available light in so that one can see what is in the darkness, a bright light will dazzle and obscure the dark areas because the pupil will constrict to protect itself.
This second point is neatly demonstrated by the classic 'War film' scenario - a slightly beaten man is tied to a chair in a dark room, the bright desk lamp pointing at his face. The glare from the lamp is stopping his pupils from dilating to deal with the lower light levels in the rest of the room, which means the only thing he can see is the bulb from the lamp. If the lamp was turned off, his pupils could adjust to the darkness by dilating, meaning he would be able to see more of the room. (And we haven’t even touched on ‘night vision’ kicking in after c.20 minutes.)
In essence, exactly the same thing happens on the road - glare from dipped beams (not to mention poor headlight alignment, reflection of wet road surfaces, the aforementioned 'cool' foglight use, left-hand-drive vehicles without headlight stickers to adjust the beam, and morons driving around with their main beam on) means that one's pupils constrict and one's vision is dominated by the brightest light source(s). This means that it is much harder to see areas that are not so bright, or even see past the headlights that are dazzling you. (How many times have you squinted as the latest Range Rover or Audi Q-thing comes past in the outside lane of the motorway, with HID/LED dipped beams so high off the ground and so bright that they obliterate everything else in your mirrors?)
Photographic or video cameras suffer exactly the same issues. If one meters to expose the brightest object(s) correctly, everything else in the frame will be under-exposed. If one meters to expose the darkest object(s) correctly, the brighter objects will be completely blown out. One can ‘get over this’ now to a degree using photo editing software, to lighten the darker areas of a photo and create a more even level of light across the picture, but the human eye cannot do this.
If there was a more even level of light on the road, so that everyone used sidelights in streetlit areas, meaning there were fewer (or no) massively-brighter lights dominating the view, road users’ eyes would not be struggling to resolve very bright areas (headlights) against a less bright background environment – the 'picture' would have a more even level of light across it, which would mean that the details of all the streetscape and the (lit and unlit) road users could be seen.
Think about this situation – if you are standing on a quiet streetlit road with no cars around (or sitting, to better replicate being in a vehicle), and assuming that there are streetlights that are spaced closely enough and with bright enough lamps to illuminate the highway evenly, you can clearly see everything around you and can walk around safely, can’t you? And if a car then turns on its sidelights, say, 100 yards down the street, you are aware of them (because their light-emitting properties means they are visible) but they are not dominating your vision, so you can still see everything around you? You can very probably even see the driver in the car, or at least their general shape moving about? But what then happens if the car turns on its dipped beam? Or its main beam? Your overall vision levels are reduced, are they not? And you can no longer see the driver, or in fact anything that is behind the position of the lights because they’re blotting everything out?
On that basis, if everyone used sidelights in streetlit areas, all road users would be able to see more, and we wouldn’t be in the ‘headlight arms race’ that we’re in now, whereby everyone needs/wants brighter and brighter headlights to help them see past other headlights on the road, and cyclists wouldn’t have to be buying these 500000lumen front lights in an attempt to be seen amongst the sea of glare from all the dipped beam headlights.
One could even make a comparison to noise, in that if your neighbour has a loud TV or stereo system banging away at high levels, you don’t simply turn yours up to a higher level to compensate; you knock on the front door and ask them to turn it down so that you can both enjoy your electronic equipment at a lower, more sociable and perfectly appropriate, level.
If I could knock on others doors to ask them to ‘turn your excessive lights down’, I would, but sadly the mantra has for so long been “dark = headlights” and/or “headlights = I’m more visible” (with no regard for it if makes others less visible, such as the aforementioned cyclists, nevermind unlit pedestrians), that many (most?) wrongly assume that sidelights-only use in streetlit areas is against the law or stupid. This thought process is engrained even more deeply now thanks to unintelligent ‘auto lights’ being standard kit on so many new cars nowadays.
I despair that intelligent conversation on the subject seems no longer possible – it seems that the standard response to sidelight users is “You’re an idiot! No-one can see you! You must use dipped beam at all times when driving!!!” without asking why people are doing it or thinking about the science. The reason ‘no-one can see you’ is because you are obliterated in a sea of unnecessary light, so if we remove that unnecessary light, then you’ll be able to be seen more easily. There is a difference between needing to see (and therefore use dipped beam) or just be seen (and therefore only needing to use sidelights) - in an adequately streetlit area, arguably there should be enough ambient light for a driver to see, so they therefore only need to be seen, which can be achieved by using sidelights alone.
It is a fair comment that some sidelight bulbs are so old and weak as to be virtually non-existent, but a tenner buys a set of decent, name-brand, LED sidelight bulbs that are much brighter and bridge the gap between ‘useless’ and ‘dipped beam’. Perhaps if ‘dim-dipped’ had continued to be a feature on cars, rather than being phased out, we wouldn’t be having this discussion? Who knows. Either way, I will continue to exercise my right to not blind you unnecessarily – I have learned to expect no thanks for this, and I fully expect others to continue to unthinkingly abuse me for my actions while blinding me pointlessly and/or dangerously
Anyway, I hope that might shine a light (pun intended
) on the reasons behind the decisions I and others take with regards to sidelight use. If you disagree, that's fine, but please provide your thought processes behind your disagreement so that us on 'the other side' can understand them!Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 8th December 14:02
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 8th December 14:03
tannhauser said:
Ray_Aber said:
Flibble said:
Ray_Aber said:
What's wrong with sidelights?
Genuinely curious.
When moving? They are way too dim to be of any use - if you're moving and lights are required you should be using headlights.Genuinely curious.
I once saw a fellow switch his headlights off on a motorway because we were in a lit section. That seemed particularly foolhardy (and illegal; the rule doesn't apply to motorways).
The moment it gets dark - whether dark clouds, rain, twilight, Saharan dust storms, underpasses in towns - the dipped lights go on.
Fogs - used in fog, and sometimes on really small back roads, because (a) they light up the verges and (b) my dipped lights are rubbish.
And you admit to being a fog light w
ker?! Fog lights only light up about a metre or two in front of your car! You should be looking much further ahead!! They're used primarily for being visible during very low fog; and are only of any practical use to the driver when crawling along in such low level fog - they are not for general navigation of country roads! Edited by tannhauser on Wednesday 6th December 15:03
Flibble said:
Ray_Aber said:
Makes you wonder why manufacturers put them on their cars, sometimes....
Legal reasons. Genuinely I think the manufacturers would be happy to bin them off otherwise. Mine at the front are just the DRLs run a bit dimmer.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff