Cycling UK Forum

I am guessing that they used an indicator when parking and that has caused the kerbside light to be left on when they leave the vehicle.
They have then, knowingly or not, just left it that way.

Well, yes, you need to use the indicator stalk to turn the parking lights on. They just clearly haven’t figured out that they’re moving it the wrong way.

More likely they just dont care.

Bez wrote:What baffles me is that round my way there seem to be quite a few people who know they’re supposed to use parking lights on unlit roads, but they *all* seem to think they’re supposed to illuminate the side nearest the verge.

Of course they are not -thinking- they just indicated to the near side to park and did not cancel
My parking light makes a noise if I do that
..
What reasons might one have for driving forward in and reversing out?

meic wrote:More likely they just dont care.

May one use the word "moton" here?

Oddly enough, cycling home from the station just now I passed a car which had been parked with the parking lights correctly illuminuted on the offside.

So that’s me telt, then.

Bez wrote:Well, yes, you need to use the indicator stalk to turn the parking lights on. They just clearly haven’t figured out that they’re moving it the wrong way.

Do they actually realise they have parking lights operated by the indicators? Indicate pulling in, stop car, turn off ignition, get out of car (on other side to now lit parking light), walk away.

Although I'm aware of the existence of this feature, I don't think any of the variety of makes of car I have owned or driven have had it.

RickH wrote: ... Although I'm aware of the existence of this feature, I don't think any of the variety of makes of car I have owned or driven have had it.

It used to be standard on VW's. May still be. FWIW, and AFAIK, in E&W if you need lights on while parked, you need both sides on. ie This feature wouldn't be street legal, although that's academic these days.

The way I remember it, you MUST show sidelights when parked if the road is more than a 30mph limit.
Furthermore, you MUST show sidelights if there's no street lights irrespective of the speed limit.
Loads of 30 limits round here with zero streetlighting but you never see a car with its lights on all night. It's a recipe for a flat battery!



As for my OP question, I reckon that if you are riding on the pavement, some people wouldn't bother with lights, despite the common sense of not riding on a pavement in the first place. Pavements? Lights? Who cares?

I thought that parking with one position light only was not legal in UK. Not that it's illegal to do so but that it does not satisfy the legal requirement to park with lights. In some countries eg Germany it does. But I can't point you to any legislation, so can't be certain.

I reckon that if you are riding on the pavement, some people wouldn't bother with lights,

My assumption is that it is the reverse of that. They havent bothered with lights so they stay on the pavement. If my lights were to fail on a ride, I would revert to riding on the pavement instead of the road.

Mick F wrote: the common sense of not riding on a pavement in the first place.

Where roads are busy and/or narrow, and pedestrians practically extinct, it often seems common sense to me to ride on the pavement. And more considerate to road users going faster than me.

meic wrote:

I reckon that if you are riding on the pavement, some people wouldn't bother with lights,

My assumption is that it is the reverse of that. They havent bothered with lights so they stay on the pavement. If my lights were to fail on a ride, I would revert to riding on the pavement instead of the road.

Very good point indeed.

nirakaro wrote:

Mick F wrote: the common sense of not riding on a pavement in the first place.

Where roads are busy and/or narrow, and pedestrians practically extinct, it often seems common sense to me to ride on the pavement. And more considerate to road users going faster than me.

Also a good point.

My statement was a sweeping one, and making sweeping statements is a bad? habit of mine.

Cyril Haearn wrote:What reasons might one have for driving forward in and reversing out?

In my case our drive is on a reasonable slope, so when the kids were smaller (old enough to open the doors etc, but still physically small) we used to drive in forwards so that the doors would fall open, not closed, if they lost control of them.
In part this is because a decade ago a car door slammed shut (because we were parked on a hill) and broke and trapped my wife's fingers. It was actually very difficult for her to open the door (just in terms of being pinned to the car in the wrong position).

The kids are now substantially larger (and better able to catch/dodge a closing door), and we now tend to reverse in. It doesn't actually significantly affect our view as we exit - which is mostly compromised by a bush/wall/fence and, when we really need the visibility, parked cars.

In our case, the drive entrance is at a sharp angle to the road.
Come from one direction, we drive straight in. From the other direction, we reverse in.
There's sufficient room at the top of the drive to turn round if required, but we may reverse out or go forwards out depending on which direction we're going.