Should use of motor vehicle rear fog lamps only be allowed on special roads eg motorways?

[AlaninWales]

When queuing in traffic at night, I find brake lights at best irritating and I thought there was some system which dimmed them a bit when the vehicle's lights were on. Perhaps that's no longer the case. Queuing traffic isn't the same thing as somebody coming to a standstill on an open road with otherwise fast-moving traffic, where even flashing beacons aren't sufficient warning for some drivers.

I can't help noticing a contrast between some views and the attitudes to bright, flashing cycle lights where the brighter-the-better is often the mantra and hard luck to anybody who is dazzled.

It's 'Handbrake on, foot off brake pedal' once there's a couple of stationary vehicles behind you. One problem is that some stop-start systems on auto boxes then restart the engine

[Cyril Haearn]

When queuing in traffic at night, I find brake lights at best irritating and I thought there was some system which dimmed them a bit when the vehicle's lights were on. Perhaps that's no longer the case. Queuing traffic isn't the same thing as somebody coming to a standstill on an open road with otherwise fast-moving traffic, where even flashing beacons aren't sufficient warning for some drivers.

I can't help noticing a contrast between some views and the attitudes to bright, flashing cycle lights where the brighter-the-better is often the mantra and hard luck to anybody who is dazzled.

It's 'Handbrake on, foot off brake pedal' once there's a couple of stationary vehicles behind you. One problem is that some stop-start systems on auto boxes then restart the engine

Handbrake on foot off brake pedal, engage neutral and release clutch, we learnt
Most motons just press the clutch (causes wear!) and use the footbrake not the handbrake
Having a vehicle that is smarter than the driver does not help, the vehicle should be programmed to apply the handbrake!

[pwa]

When queuing in traffic at night, I find brake lights at best irritating and I thought there was some system which dimmed them a bit when the vehicle's lights were on. Perhaps that's no longer the case. Queuing traffic isn't the same thing as somebody coming to a standstill on an open road with otherwise fast-moving traffic, where even flashing beacons aren't sufficient warning for some drivers.

I can't help noticing a contrast between some views and the attitudes to bright, flashing cycle lights where the brighter-the-better is often the mantra and hard luck to anybody who is dazzled.

I sometimes keep my foot on the brake pedal if I am the last in a queue of stationary traffic at night, until a vehicle approaching from behind visibly slows, assuring me that I've been seen.

[mjr]

I don't understand the problem, with pulsing brakes. It may not be completely necessary these days, as most cars have ABS, but it is a useful way to shave off speed when you don't need to brake hard and it can alert following drivers to the fact that people are braking ahead.

No problem with pulsing brakes in that situation AFAIK. The problem is when a vehicle is stopped at a red traffic light or similar and its driver pushes the pedal to dazzle an approaching following driver.

I can't help noticing a contrast between some views and the attitudes to bright, flashing cycle lights where the brighter-the-better is often the mantra and hard luck to anybody who is dazzled.

Contrast? Or correlation? Isn't it the proponents of the brighter-is-better make-yourself-seen madness who are the advocates of using brake lights to dazzle the approaching driver?

I sometimes keep my foot on the brake pedal if I am the last in a queue of stationary traffic at night, until a vehicle approaching from behind visibly slows, assuring me that I've been seen.

That's the situation where people are enraged by it - or actually, I think it's more when someone taps their foot on the brake pedal only when they see a vehicle approaching from behind. Although I don't get enraged, I can understand why it's disliked. It's arrogant, judgmental and often painful - brake lights are designed to be noticeably brighter than tail lights from over 100m away (I think they used to be 20W focused bulbs when tail lights were 5W dispersed) and can be painful for a driver pulling up to within 10m. If someone did it to me while I was cycling, I'd pull up alongside and inform them that their brake lights are faulty and flickering.

[Cyril Haearn]

I don't understand the problem, with pulsing brakes. It may not be completely necessary these days, as most cars have ABS, but it is a useful way to shave off speed when you don't need to brake hard and it can alert following drivers to the fact that people are braking ahead.

No problem with pulsing brakes in that situation AFAIK. The problem is when a vehicle is stopped at a red traffic light or similar and its driver pushes the pedal to dazzle an approaching following driver.

I can't help noticing a contrast between some views and the attitudes to bright, flashing cycle lights where the brighter-the-better is often the mantra and hard luck to anybody who is dazzled.

Contrast? Or correlation? Isn't it the proponents of the brighter-is-better make-yourself-seen madness who are the advocates of using brake lights to dazzle the approaching driver?

I sometimes keep my foot on the brake pedal if I am the last in a queue of stationary traffic at night, until a vehicle approaching from behind visibly slows, assuring me that I've been seen.

That's the situation where people are enraged by it - or actually, I think it's more when someone taps their foot on the brake pedal only when they see a vehicle approaching from behind. Although I don't get enraged, I can understand why it's disliked. It's arrogant, judgmental and often painful - brake lights are designed to be noticeably brighter than tail lights from over 100m away (I think they used to be 20W focused bulbs when tail lights were 5W dispersed) and can be painful for a driver pulling up to within 10m. If someone did it to me while I was cycling, I'd pull up alongside and inform them that their brake lights are faulty and flickering.

Arrogant judgemental painful?

I would rather enrage (*irritate*) 1000 other drivers than have one crash into me. Most drivers habitually break the law and deserve no respect. If the light is too bright, drop back!

I often flash my brake light on the open road too, for obvious reasons discussed elsewhere on these fora

I like factual arguments, without too many emotions %-)

[meic]

If you are pulsing (or just applying) your brake lights so close that they are dazzling the car behind, then it is way too late in the scenario that we were talking about, ie stopped on the road in a position with limited visibility for those approaching from behind.
The aim of the exercise is to alert them to your status as stopped in their path as soon as they can possibly see you. Once it is apparent that they have worked out the situation the foot comes off.

[Vorpal]

Someone who is enraged by the tapping of a brake pedal has an anger management issue.

[mjr]

I would rather enrage (*irritate*) 1000 other drivers than have one crash into me. Most drivers habitually break the law and deserve no respect. If the light is too bright, drop back!

Yep, lots of drivers habitually break the law, apparently including many of you deliberately dazzling following road users.

I've never flashed my brake lights when stopped and a car approaches and I've never had a driver crash into me. Conversely, I'd bet that tons of cars with brake lights lit have been rear-ended, so that illegal act doesn't stop crashes either. I suspect most drivers who rear-end the car in front have misjudged their stopping distance or failed to drive so they can stop within what they can see to be clear, rather than failed to see there's a car there. So flashing one's brake lights unnecessarily is a useless action, or possibly worse than useless.

And yes, anyone who gets enraged by it probably does have anger management issues. I still wouldn't want to provoke them for no reason.

[Vorpal]

Nobody has said they were deliberately dazzling anyone.

I can't recall ever having been dazzled by anyone's brake lights, and my eyes are quite light sensitive.

I don't I understand how using the brakes or the brakes lights to warn following drivers can possibly be illegal. I have always understood the purpose of brake light to be warning following road users that a vehicle is slowing.

[mjr]

I have always understood the purpose of brake light to be warning following road users that a vehicle is slowing.

Slowing. Not already stopped.

[meic]

I suspect most drivers who rear-end the car in front have misjudged their stopping distance or failed to drive so they can stop within what they can see to be clear, rather than failed to see there's a car there. So flashing one's brake lights unnecessarily is a useless action, or possibly worse than useless.

Despite the presence of the word "so", nothing in the first sentence there gives any validity to the second one.
In most cases of coming to a halt there is no point in holding the brake lights on, it is only worthwhile in the specific case of alerting somebody to the fact that vehicles which they are expecting to be moving, have actually stopped. I have yet to come across a motorist, even those obeying the speed limit, fully able to stop in time who doesnt appreciate the tip off.

Of course flashing brake lights unnecessarily is by definition a waste of time but the flashing being talked about here is beneficial to other road users, so not covered by that.

[Vorpal]

I have always understood the purpose of brake light to be warning following road users that a vehicle is slowing.

Slowing. Not already stopped.

Please explain to me what is illegal about putting one's foot on the brake pedal when the car is already stopped.

[The utility cyclist]

I don't agree with pulsing brake lights or having them on when at a standstill, like other failed methods we lower the responsibility of those posing the threat, we absolve them and try to put in yet more idiot proof tech to overcome the negligence and it never works to prevent dangerous/reckless driving, it just mitigates it, same as with medi care, you can now fix vastly more injuries than yesteryear but it again is putting a band-aid on a deeper rooted problem.
what will they do if others don't pulse their brakes or keep their foot on the brake pedal?
Do we not invite the, 'well he wasn't pulsing his brake lights so i crashed into the back of him', isn't this exactly the same reasoning that CTC used in the 20s for not wanting rear lights on bicycles, so that you forced the drivers to drive at a speed they could stop well within the distance you could see to be clear, if that speed is 5mph then so be it. Isn't hi-vis and helmets yet another failed measure to counteract dangerous driving, DRLs, bigger/heavier/wider motorvehicles all to solve a problem and yet we still have a million road deaths solely at the hands of the killers in boxes and yet a vast swathe of those deaths the victim will be blamed for not doing x, Y, or Z to mitigate the actions of the killer.

Even judges in the highest courts are in on this victim blaming culture (and many further down the chain) and it stems from the failure to address the real issues/root cause. The police won't bother prosecuting dangerous/speeding drivers in poor weather conditions, the mass pile up on the bridge in Kent is ample proof of that.

Whilst fully automated vehicles with infra red/'night specs' could solve some of the problem (at night/fog) this relies on the motoring industry programming vehicles to take the necessary steps to avoid collision at all costs but also governments to force manufacturers to have the same level of system and for the level of inbuilt safety to be higher, much, much higher than what humans are currently doing when operating motorised vehicles.

[Bonefishblues]

I shall stop immediately - I want it to be very clear it's their fault when they crash into me when I'm stationary in a fog bank.

Actually, just considering this further, as I'm stopped, I will take my foot off the brake and apply the handbrake - I don't want to dazzle or annoy the person who may be barrelling towards me...

[thirdcrank]

I can't find the thread but I'm pretty sure that CJ has posted that there was a time when the CTC opposed compulsory rear lights on pedal cycles as they would reduce the onus on the drivers of following / overtaking vehicles to take care.