Use of headlamps (dip + main) whilst stopped/parked.

[Who me ?]

I'm sick & tired of the Taxi fraternity round here that think it's ok & not illegal to park/stop ( as in the case of a Taxi etc) picking up /dropping off and dropping back to parking lights. Result, a lot of dazzled drivers. Twice tonight. On one occasion I called the taxi company to be told "it's to stop the driver driving off without switching lights back on " and "I don't think it's illegal to park with headlight on ".
Second time it was a "taxi" dropping off, headlamps on and passenger getting out of the door into traffic. I'd slowed to a fw MPH fortunatly to be able to stop .
All I can find on HC is rules 113-116, and in particular 114 "
You MUST NOT

use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226)." ( 226 refers to use of headlights in poor visibility). "
I'm looking for the wisdom of PH to suggest other laws/regulations that this lot are missing.
To me ( and I've done a fair bit of part time taxi work ) ,it's simple. at drop off point, turn off headlights and before driving off turn them back on.

[matjk]

Just chant “Uber, Uber, Uber “ until they turn them off or start crying !

[Pica-Pica]

I don’t get the issue here, they are not on main beam are they?

[meatballs]

I assumed when they stop on the wrong side of the road.

[shovelheadrob]

I'm guessing that you're talking about them facing incoming traffic? They're taxi drivers, they're exempt form any form of consideration for other road users, any form of common sense & generally ignorant.

[lyonspride]

Pica-Pica said:

I don’t get the issue here, they are not on main beam are they?

In the UK the beam pattern opens up high on the left to highlight potential dangers from the side of the road, so when you park at night facing oncoming traffic, it's like having your high beams on.

[Pica-Pica]

lyonspride said:

Pica-Pica said:

I don’t get the issue here, they are not on main beam are they?

In the UK the beam pattern opens up high on the left to highlight potential dangers from the side of the road, so when you park at night facing oncoming traffic, it's like having your high beams on.

Duh. Do you think I don’t know that?, so the issue is stopping on the wrong side of the road at night then. Yes?

[lyonspride]

Pica-Pica said:

lyonspride said:

Pica-Pica said:

I don’t get the issue here, they are not on main beam are they?

In the UK the beam pattern opens up high on the left to highlight potential dangers from the side of the road, so when you park at night facing oncoming traffic, it's like having your high beams on.

Duh. Do you think I don’t know that?, so the issue is stopping on the wrong side of the road at night then. Yes?

Of course, so why didn't you just say that in the first place?

[meatballs]

lyonspride said:

Pica-Pica said:

lyonspride said:

Pica-Pica said:

I don’t get the issue here, they are not on main beam are they?

In the UK the beam pattern opens up high on the left to highlight potential dangers from the side of the road, so when you park at night facing oncoming traffic, it's like having your high beams on.

Duh. Do you think I don’t know that?, so the issue is stopping on the wrong side of the road at night then. Yes?

Of course, so why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Because it's not his ambiguous thread

[Flumpo]

lyonspride said:

Pica-Pica said:

lyonspride said:

Pica-Pica said:

I don’t get the issue here, they are not on main beam are they?

In the UK the beam pattern opens up high on the left to highlight potential dangers from the side of the road, so when you park at night facing oncoming traffic, it's like having your high beams on.

Duh. Do you think I don’t know that?, so the issue is stopping on the wrong side of the road at night then. Yes?

Of course, so why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Careful, do you know who you’re talking to?

He’s Ronnie ‘pica-pica’ Pickering of PistonHeads.

[Who me ?]

Pica- issue is stopping on any side of road with headlamps NOT being switched off and not obeying HC rule 114 "failure to not dazzle oncoming traffic". HC rule 114, has a MUST NOT attached, so it's a legal requirement. Imagine that said taxi is parked on wrong side of road, with passenger alighting, and door open. Vehicle approaching has no sight of passengr or door, and is forced by car on othr side to gt close to parked taxi. Bang goes taxi door and passenger is hit. I nearly had this tonight. Passenger was drunk and alighted into my side of road. I'd suspected problems and slowed to crawl, and then spotted car door and passenger and hit the brakes.

[4rephill]

lyonspride said:

Pica-Pica said:

I don’t get the issue here, they are not on main beam are they?

In the UK the beam pattern opens up high on the left to highlight potential dangers from the side of the road, so when you park at night facing oncoming traffic, it's like having your high beams on.

Please show us where in the original post, Who me ? mentions the taxi being stopped facing oncoming traffic (I'll give you a clue - There is no mention of it!) :

Who me said:

I'm sick & tired of the Taxi fraternity round here that think it's ok & not illegal to park/stop ( as in the case of a Taxi etc) picking up /dropping off and dropping back to parking lights. Result, a lot of dazzled drivers. Twice tonight. On one occasion I called the taxi company to be told "it's to stop the driver driving off without switching lights back on " and "I don't think it's illegal to park with headlight on ".
Second time it was a "taxi" dropping off, headlamps on and passenger getting out of the door into traffic. I'd slowed to a fw MPH fortunatly to be able to stop .
All I can find on HC is rules 113-116, and in particular 114 "
You MUST NOT

use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226)." ( 226 refers to use of headlights in poor visibility). "
I'm looking for the wisdom of PH to suggest other laws/regulations that this lot are missing.
To me ( and I've done a fair bit of part time taxi work ) ,it's simple. at drop off point, turn off headlights and before driving off turn them back on.

A slight irony here is, Who me ? gets annoyed by taxi drivers dazzling them with their lights at night , and wants something done about it, and for taxi drivers to change their ways.

Now if you try to quote any post by Who me ?, the Pistonheads quoting system no longer functions correctly, due to there being a "?" in the member's name (the system can't cope with it) - which is annoying (Try it yourself - if you leave the "?" in the name, the quoting system no longer works. The only way to make it work is to delete the "?" from the name!)

So the irony?

A couple of years ago or more, I told Who me ? about the annoying issue that their name creates when it comes to the Pistonheads quoting system, and suggested they drop the "?", to be less annoying, and make it easier for people to be able to quote them. Their response was that they didn't feel they should have to change their name, and that the annoyance concerned wasn't their problem - In just the same way that taxi drivers wont feel they should change what they do, and that the annoyance caused is not their problem!

It's always funny when someone who does something annoying, and refuses to change, complains about someone who does something annoying, and refuses to change!

[ReverendCounter]

4rephill said:

It's always funny when someone who does something annoying, and refuses to change, complains about someone who does something annoying, and refuses to change!

Either utterly bizarre or completely telling that you're comparing the use of a question mark by a forum member to the practice of taxi drivers causing a risk to other road users, pedestrians etc.

[meatballs]

[quote=Who me ?]I'm sick & tired of the Taxi fraternity round here that think it's ok & not illegal to park/stop ( as in the case of a Taxi etc) picking up /dropping off and dropping back to parking lights. Result, a lot of dazzled drivers. Twice tonight. On one occasion I called the taxi company to be told "it's to stop the driver driving off without switching lights back on " and "I don't think it's illegal to park with headlight on ".
Second time it was a "taxi" dropping off, headlamps on and passenger getting out of the door into traffic. I'd slowed to a fw MPH fortunatly to be able to stop .
All I can find on HC is rules 113-116, and in particular 114 "
You MUST NOT

use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226)." ( 226 refers to use of headlights in poor visibility). "
I'm looking for the wisdom of PH to suggest other laws/regulations that this lot are missing.
To me ( and I've done a fair bit of part time taxi work ) ,it's simple. at drop off point, turn off headlights and before driving off turn them back on.

[/quote]

I don't get dazzled by parked cars on the correct side of the road (unless they are parked on an uphill bit) - no more than of they were moving?

[ED209]

I saw someone recently at work parked up, headlights on facing downhill into traffic also on the zig zags of a zebra crossing.

Decided to get out and have a word with the driver. Walked up and opened the car door, absolutely stunk of cannabis. Few bags in the door pocket.

Idiotic parking now created a bigger problem for the driver. Whoops


I have also reached the conclusion that most people are thick as mince and don’t even realise they are doing it.

[Pica-Pica]

Who me said:

Pica- issue is stopping on any side of road with headlamps NOT being switched off and not obeying HC rule 114 "failure to not dazzle oncoming traffic". HC rule 114, has a MUST NOT attached, so it's a legal requirement. Imagine that said taxi is parked on wrong side of road, with passenger alighting, and door open. Vehicle approaching has no sight of passengr or door, and is forced by car on othr side to gt close to parked taxi. Bang goes taxi door and passenger is hit. I nearly had this tonight. Passenger was drunk and alighted into my side of road. I'd suspected problems and slowed to crawl, and then spotted car door and passenger and hit the brakes.

I think I know the HC, and have an up to date copy on my iPad, but thank you for telling me what MUST NOT means, thoroughly enlightening. NOT.
However, it is perfectly possible (indeed highly likely), that a vehicle parked or stopped on its correct side of the road, with dipped headlamps will NOT dazzle oncoming traffic/road users. Such a situation occurs at traffic lights, do you expect drivers to turn their lights off there?

Now, a chance for you to say what the real issue is. (Hint - Stopping on the wrong side of the road maybe?).

[donkmeister]

I can't speak for the taxi company, but if it's any consolation my FIL is diligent to the point of obsession about turning his lights off when he stops at night. He has been known to reach over and turn the lights off when I'm driving, before I've even stopped.

Unfortunately he is also known for regularly pulling away and driving 100 yards before remembering to turn them on again...

I get the annoyance for the OP but this is one of those situations where he won't be able to change them, so as the (presumably) better driver needs to ameliorate the actions of the other one.

[chow pan toon]

Pica-Pica said:

I think I know the HC, and have an up to date copy on my iPad,

[Lonely]

Who me said:

HC rule 114, has a MUST NOT attached, so it's a legal requirement.

Never during my thirty year career have I encountered anyone being prosecuted for breaching any advice or guidance contained within the Highway Code.

[the tribester]

Lonely said:

Who me said:

HC rule 114, has a MUST NOT attached, so it's a legal requirement.

Never during my thirty year career have I encountered anyone being prosecuted for breaching any advice or guidance contained within the Highway Code.

there's usually a link after a MUST NOT, to the Legislation.

In this case it's likely Reg 27 RV Lighting Regs.