Drivers and Driving

[nightrider]

I assume that is your own opinion, and not from the highway code?

Surely indicators do not dazzle and do help cyclists and bikers know where you are going?

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2015 at 11:07 ----------

 

 

But having headlights on when there is no reduced visibility breaks the highway code and could be used against them if involved in an accident.

It is distracting when people break the rules, if the weather is a little dull, you might not see that cyclist because others have their headlights on.

 

Several european countries (e.g. Switzerland) require usage of headlights at all times - why would they do that if it is dangerous?

[RonJeremy]

Really?

Seems an odd time for engine to restart, unless you're talking about automatics?

 

In mine (manual box) the engine cuts when I come to a stop and am not in gear.

When I put clutch down to engage gear, engine restarts.

 

Nothing to do with brake.

 

Yes. Automatic.

[Cyclone]

Mine would probably come on today, they're automatic and it's gloomy.

Indicators work as well, optional extra fitted to BMW (and all other cars equally I find).

[El Cid]

Several european countries (e.g. Switzerland) require usage of headlights at all times - why would they do that if it is dangerous?

 

I do believe it is dangerous for some cars to use them and some not; headlights are not compulsory during the day in Switzerland, just recommended.

If we had the same system as Switzerland, many more cyclists would need dazzling headlights too. Its the cyclists that would not be seen when all the cars had their headlights on.

 

Despite 60 percent less traffic on the roads, more than 40 percent of all fatal car accidents occur at night. Motorists interpret the rules in many different way, we should all be made to do the same.

[Cyclone]

Despite 60 percent less traffic on the roads, more than 40 percent of all fatal car accidents occur at night. Motorists interpret the rules in many different way, we should all be made to do the same.

 

Can you explain?

 

Firstly, are you saying that the increase in fatalities at night is down to interpreting the rules in different ways?

Secondly, are you saying that we should all be made to interpret the rules differently?

 

Are you suggesting that the increase in accidents at night is down to using headlights? Rather than it being down to being dark?

 

Is this supposed to somehow show that using headlights inappropriately is somehow dangerous?

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2015 at 14:03 ----------

 

But having headlights on when there is no reduced visibility breaks the highway code and could be used against them if involved in an accident.

 

Did anyone challenge you on this?

I think you're wrong. The highway code says nothing about not using headlights when there is no reduced visibility.

It specifically says that fog lights must be switched off when visibility improves.

[Nagel]

People get very heated about other drivers on Sheffield Forum.

[El Cid]

Did anyone challenge you on this?

I think you're wrong. The highway code says nothing about not using headlights when there is no reduced visibility.

It specifically says that fog lights must be switched off when visibility improves.

 

Not sure if I got that right, I will check

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2015 at 14:20 ----------

 

Are you suggesting that the increase in accidents at night is down to using headlights? Rather than it being down to being dark?

 

 

I am merely discussing the issue. I know that I find driving in the dark makes things harder to see.

There is something called, night blindness, perhaps some see better than others at night?

I think more about cyclists being harder to see, most are anti-cyclist.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyctalopia

[RonJeremy]

Not sure if I got that right, I will check

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2015 at 14:20 ----------

 

 

I am merely discussing the issue. I know that I find driving in the dark makes things harder to see.

There is something called, night blindness, perhaps some see better than others at night?

I think more about cyclists being harder to see, most are anti-cyclist.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyctalopia

 

I'm not sure most are anti cyclist. I'm certainly pro well driven cars and definitely anti badly riding cyclists. Especially the not very clever ones who ride two abreast on country roads.

[Cyclone]

Not sure if I got that right, I will check

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2015 at 14:20 ----------

 

 

I am merely discussing the issue. I know that I find driving in the dark makes things harder to see.

There is something called, night blindness, perhaps some see better than others at night?

I think more about cyclists being harder to see, most are anti-cyclist.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyctalopia

 

I'd suggest that finding it harder to see things at night is just because it's dark. Unless there's more to it than "harder to see"...

 

Who said cyclists were harder to see? Did I miss that?

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2015 at 14:32 ----------

 

I'm not sure most are anti cyclist. I'm certainly pro well driven cars and definitely anti badly riding cyclists. Especially the not very clever ones who ride two abreast on country roads.

 

You realise that riding two abreast is safer for them?

 

And if you're driving well (as you say you prefer well driven cars) then it won't alter your behaviour at all.

 

After all, when overtaking cyclists, give them as much room as you would a car. Which means you shouldn't be squeezing past, you should be in the other carriageway entirely.

And in addition to that, it's quicker to pass two cyclists abreast than 2 cyclists in line. Same lane change required, but only 6 feet of bike + safety at both ends to pass, instead of 2 * 6 feet of bike, and the gap in between, making 16 feet, plus safety...

 

Surely ignorance of basics like this is a demonstration that you're not a good driver though?

[L00b]

You realise that riding two abreast is safer for them?

Methinks your country lanes of reference might be wider and/or with less sharp corners than the ones Ron is on about

 

Passing one or two oncoming or same direction-travelling cyclists (trailing one another) on these is never an issue, with a lane and a half road width to play with, leaving a good half lane lateral distance.

 

Coming up to two oncoming cyclists abreast means stopping to a crawl or less, rather than merely decelerating for a safe passing speed, like you would for an oncoming car.

 

Following two cyclists riding abreast, who decide to stay abreast (for whatever reasons best known to themselves - and I've had some like these a few time), means you're stuck behind them for a while.

 

For the observant and courteous driver, it's not a question of safety (self or the cyclists), it's more frequently a question of common courtesy.

 

But hey-ho. Mostly redundant problem at this time of year