Mr Bone's question in the House



Clive George wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>> For making it fricking impossible to see anything else on the road.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And fortunately there are rules determining these things. Mr Nugent
>>> appears to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars
>>> and the beam pattern emitted by them are both regulated. Since he has
>>> in other threads indicated that he is keen on even technical breaches
>>> of the law being punished, regardless of danger caused, he'll have no
>>> problem accepting that people with "too powerful" lights should be
>>> charged under the appropriate laws since they do present a real
>>> danger as well as simply being illegal.
>>
>>
>> Is there any evidence that non-approved, over-bright, lamps are in
>> (wide) use?
>>
>> If there are any, I'd agree that there should be a crackdown.
>
>
> There's definitely evidence that such lamps are for sale - see ebay or
> your local motor factors for examples of those for sale. "Not for road
> use" are the words you're looking for. If you're naive enough to believe
> that that isn't sufficient evidence that they're being used, then try
> listening to conversations about such things - google groups will
> probably find you some, or many car forums, if you need online rather
> than real life sources.

So who uses these things? Boy racers? BMW-owners with too much spare
weekend time on their hands?

In my social circles, no-one would be seen dead with so much as a
go-faster stripe on a car.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, clive@xxxx-
> x.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
>>And fortunately there are rules determining these things. Mr Nugent appears
>>to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars and the beam
>>pattern emitted by them are both regulated. Since he has in other threads
>>indicated that he is keen on even technical breaches of the law being
>>punished, regardless of danger caused, he'll have no problem accepting that
>>people with "too powerful" lights should be charged under the appropriate
>>laws since they do present a real danger as well as simply being illegal.

> What's the chance of that? Halfords sells over powered bulbs and given
> that even blatantly visible breaking of the rules such as driving while
> using a mobile phone is ignored, what are the chances of someone with
> overpowered headlights being stopped for them?

> OTOH how many of us can talk - how many of us have front lights limited
> to 2.4W which is the legal limit?

I would never blame a cyclist for using high-powered lamps (I'm far
more concerned about under-powered or non-existent lamps). The
brighter the better, for me.
 
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:53:41 +0100, JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tony Raven wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, clive@xxxx-
>> x.fsnet.co.uk says...
>>
>>>And fortunately there are rules determining these things. Mr Nugent appears
>>>to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars and the beam
>>>pattern emitted by them are both regulated. Since he has in other threads
>>>indicated that he is keen on even technical breaches of the law being
>>>punished, regardless of danger caused, he'll have no problem accepting that
>>>people with "too powerful" lights should be charged under the appropriate
>>>laws since they do present a real danger as well as simply being illegal.
>
>> What's the chance of that? Halfords sells over powered bulbs and given
>> that even blatantly visible breaking of the rules such as driving while
>> using a mobile phone is ignored, what are the chances of someone with
>> overpowered headlights being stopped for them?
>
>> OTOH how many of us can talk - how many of us have front lights limited
>> to 2.4W which is the legal limit?
>
>I would never blame a cyclist for using high-powered lamps (I'm far
>more concerned about under-powered or non-existent lamps). The
>brighter the better, for me.

Unfortunately, some motorists think the same.

ME
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>
>
> Is there any evidence that non-approved, over-bright, lamps are in (wide)
> use?
>
> If there are any, I'd agree that there should be a crackdown.
>

Not quite the same thing, but as someone who has been dazzled a number of
times by idiots driving with spotlamps when it is illegal to do so, I'd
definitely support action against drivers who do so. And don't get me
started on the complete imbeciles who park facing oncoming traffic with
their headlights on, also illegal.
 
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:52:50 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Mr Nugent appears
>to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars

AFAIAA it electrical input power is regulated.

What should be regulated is the light output.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:31:18 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:52:50 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Mr Nugent appears
>>to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars
>
> AFAIAA it electrical input power is regulated.
>
> What should be regulated is the light output.

Well, technically speaking, light output *is* limited by limiting
electrical input power; what may be confusing you is that due to
differences in efficiency, the same electrical input may result in
different amounts of light output.
 
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:38:56 GMT someone who may be _
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Well, technically speaking, light output *is* limited by limiting
>electrical input power;

Only if the engineering of converting electricity to light remains
static. If it does not remain static then the light output is not
limited. This is precisely what has happened with various types of
lamp over the past few decades.

>what may be confusing you is that due to
>differences in efficiency, the same electrical input may result in
>different amounts of light output.

That doesn't confuse me in the least, it is precisely the point I
made.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>OTOH how many of us can talk - how many of us have front lights limited
>to 2.4W which is the legal limit?

Not quite the same thing AIUI - using an _additional_ more powerful front
light is legal on a bike, but using non-conforming auxiliary lights on
a car on the road isn't.

And bike lights of higher power are still not as likely to be "Used so
as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road"
as a car headlight used on full beam inappropriately.

(HID bike lights without a properly shaped beam may be an exception -
haven't you described yours as anti-socially bright?)
 

>> People driving
>> with too powerfull lits on urban roads should be bought to book

> ???

> For what?

Snoring de trop?


--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.
 
[email protected]m wrote:

>>>People driving
>>>with too powerfull lits on urban roads should be bought to book

>>???
>>For what?

> Snoring de trop?

Pour les conducteurs des wagons?
 
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Clive George wrote:

> > And fortunately there are rules determining these things. Mr Nugent
> > appears to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars
> > and the beam pattern emitted by them are both regulated. Since he has in
> > other threads indicated that he is keen on even technical breaches of
> > the law being punished, regardless of danger caused, he'll have no
> > problem accepting that people with "too powerful" lights should be
> > charged under the appropriate laws since they do present a real danger
> > as well as simply being illegal.
>
> Is there any evidence that non-approved, over-bright, lamps are in
> (wide) use?

Lots: just look at the number of people who use fog lights to drive in
fine weather conditions. Those lights are non-approved and over-bright
for the conditions.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Clive George wrote:

> > There's definitely evidence that such lamps are for sale - see ebay or
> > your local motor factors for examples of those for sale. "Not for road
> > use" are the words you're looking for. If you're naive enough to believe
> > that that isn't sufficient evidence that they're being used, then try
> > listening to conversations about such things - google groups will
> > probably find you some, or many car forums, if you need online rather
> > than real life sources.
>
> So who uses these things? Boy racers? BMW-owners with too much spare
> weekend time on their hands?
>
> In my social circles, no-one would be seen dead with so much as a
> go-faster stripe on a car.

Mine too, but I think you've hit the nail on the head with the type of
person who uses them.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
> >
> >OTOH how many of us can talk - how many of us have front lights limited
> >to 2.4W which is the legal limit?
>
> Not quite the same thing AIUI - using an _additional_ more powerful front
> light is legal on a bike, but using non-conforming auxiliary lights on
> a car on the road isn't.

Effectively the same though. How many here with high power front lights
also use a legal front light as well to make it all legal?

>
> (HID bike lights without a properly shaped beam may be an exception -
> haven't you described yours as anti-socially bright?)
>

Only in respect of riding with other cyclists who have lower output
lights and get shadows cast by my HID if I ride behind them. I've not
had any car flash me or complain.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
 
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Clive George wrote:

>>>And fortunately there are rules determining these things. Mr Nugent
>>>appears to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars
>>>and the beam pattern emitted by them are both regulated. Since he has in
>>>other threads indicated that he is keen on even technical breaches of
>>>the law being punished, regardless of danger caused, he'll have no
>>>problem accepting that people with "too powerful" lights should be
>>>charged under the appropriate laws since they do present a real danger
>>>as well as simply being illegal.

>>Is there any evidence that non-approved, over-bright, lamps are in
>>(wide) use?

> Lots: just look at the number of people who use fog lights to drive in
> fine weather conditions. Those lights are non-approved and over-bright
> for the conditions.

There are always definition problems. Who can say with anything
remotely approaching certainty what distance visibility is down to in
misty conditions? And of course, visibility densities will vary over
quite short distances.

As for fog-lamps. some seem to use them for extra security and some
because they like "toys". AFAICS, most vehicles don't have them.

But even so, do those lights cause dazzling in "fine weather"?

I got the impression that the earlier complaint was about effects
experienced during the hours of darkness.
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> [email protected] says...
>>Tony Raven wrote:

>>>OTOH how many of us can talk - how many of us have front lights limited
>>>to 2.4W which is the legal limit?

>>Not quite the same thing AIUI - using an _additional_ more powerful front
>>light is legal on a bike, but using non-conforming auxiliary lights on
>>a car on the road isn't.

> Effectively the same though. How many here with high power front lights
> also use a legal front light as well to make it all legal?

>>(HID bike lights without a properly shaped beam may be an exception -
>>haven't you described yours as anti-socially bright?)

> Only in respect of riding with other cyclists who have lower output
> lights and get shadows cast by my HID if I ride behind them. I've not
> had any car flash me or complain.

And neither will you (I suspect).
 
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> >>Is there any evidence that non-approved, over-bright, lamps are in
> >>(wide) use?
>
> > Lots: just look at the number of people who use fog lights to drive in
> > fine weather conditions. Those lights are non-approved and over-bright
> > for the conditions.
>
> There are always definition problems. Who can say with anything
> remotely approaching certainty what distance visibility is down to in
> misty conditions? And of course, visibility densities will vary over
> quite short distances.

As a guideline, I consider that if I cannot see two vehicles ahead on a
motorway (which is where I drive most) then it might well be fog-light
time.

> As for fog-lamps. some seem to use them for extra security and some
> because they like "toys". AFAICS, most vehicles don't have them.

My last two cars (a Renault Megane and a Mercedes C180) have both had
front fog lights. I fail to see how they can be used for extra security.

> But even so, do those lights cause dazzling in "fine weather"?

In my opinion, yes, particularly when it's dark. Maybe I'm just
particularly sensitive, as I find those who insist on keeping a foot on
the brake rather than applying the parking / hand brake (thus dazzling
me with brake lights) irritating too.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:

> As for fog-lamps. some seem to use them for extra security and some
> because they like "toys". AFAICS, most vehicles don't have them.


True story alert:

My grate frend gNick: X, tell me, why do you drive around with your front
fog-lamps on all the time?
X: It makes my car look lower!
MGFgN: I think you'll find it just makes you look like a ****!

X's reaction to this news remains unrecorded.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Better hide the pork scratchings...
 
On Oct 25, 7:49 am, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> OTOH how many of us can talk - how many of us have front lights limited
> to 2.4W which is the legal limit?

You'll no doubt be able to cite the legislation that makes using a
brighter light illegal?

IIRC you are incorrect, but it gets a bit technical. A cycle (OK, all
vehicles) must display a front and rear position lamp. These must
conform to certain spec which include the 2.4W filament bulb limit.
In addition a vehicle may display auxillary lights, the limitations on
which are position and colour. There is no intensity limit (save for
cars where there may be, and there certainly is a limit for light shed
in certain directions).

So using your high powered bike lights is fine, as long as you also
have a pair of 'bobby dodgers' to ensure you are legal.

...d
 
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>Is there any evidence that non-approved, over-bright, lamps are in
>>>>(wide) use?

>>>Lots: just look at the number of people who use fog lights to drive in
>>>fine weather conditions. Those lights are non-approved and over-bright
>>>for the conditions.

>>There are always definition problems. Who can say with anything
>>remotely approaching certainty what distance visibility is down to in
>>misty conditions? And of course, visibility densities will vary over
>>quite short distances.

> As a guideline, I consider that if I cannot see two vehicles ahead on a
> motorway (which is where I drive most) then it might well be fog-light
> time.

That's fair enough, I assume you have arrived at that rule of thumb by
some reliable method.

>>As for fog-lamps. some seem to use them for extra security and some
>>because they like "toys". AFAICS, most vehicles don't have them.

> My last two cars (a Renault Megane and a Mercedes C180) have both had
> front fog lights. I fail to see how they can be used for extra security.

"Security" probably wasn't the best word in the sense I was aiming at.
"Safety" is better. You have more chance of avoiding things if you can
see them. It's one of the reasons why headlights - and streetlights -
exist.

>>But even so, do those lights cause dazzling in "fine weather"?

> In my opinion, yes, particularly when it's dark. Maybe I'm just
> particularly sensitive, as I find those who insist on keeping a foot on
> the brake rather than applying the parking / hand brake (thus dazzling
> me with brake lights) irritating too.

Oh, you mean the rear fog lights?

I agree; it's a problem.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>> >
>> >OTOH how many of us can talk - how many of us have front lights limited
>> >to 2.4W which is the legal limit?
>>
>> Not quite the same thing AIUI - using an _additional_ more powerful front
>> light is legal on a bike, but using non-conforming auxiliary lights on
>> a car on the road isn't.
>
>Effectively the same though. How many here with high power front lights
>also use a legal front light as well to make it all legal?

Have a backup light which incidentally happens to be legal is probably
more common, but I agree not _that_ common. I don't recall much mention
of who runs 2.4W and who 3W in the "dynamo hubs are great" threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Peter Bone MP calls for helmet law
Replies
10
Views
610
UK and Europe
Martin
M
B
Bone(head) again
Replies
7
Views
207
UK and Europe
Martin Dann
M
B
Bone constituency mag
Replies
1
Views
284
UK and Europe
David Lloyd
D
M
Bone in the house quotes "85%"
Replies
52
Views
788
UK and Europe
Rob Morley
R
China Diapers
London commuting question
Replies
4
Views
824
UK and Europe
ThEdge
T
Top Bottom Back