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

[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.

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

"No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road any vehicle on which any lamp, [...] is used [...] so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road."

If you don't think a 60cd lamp (15 times the required brightness of a bicycle tail light) shone at your face unnecessarily is undue discomfort, then

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.

In a fog bank, if your brake lights aren't basically irrelevant, then your rear fog lights (which have no regulation wattage or intensity limit AFAICT) are pathetic.

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...

You should apply the handbrake once stopped anyway. Think it through, please: if that fool barrelling towards you actually hits your car, then your foot will probably slip off the pedal and your car then hits the car in front of you - but the handbrake is on a ratchet and won't release like that, so always apply the handbrake when stopped. I'm sure I was taught this in an early driving lesson and I'm shocked that someone is making out that it's unreasonable.

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.

I didn't find it last time I tried either, but it's referenced on various other sites, such as http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fe ... ar-of.html - I'm sure I've seen part of the mentioned leaflet somewhere but I can't find it online.

[Bonefishblues]

No they aren't irrelevant. I reserve the right to do anything in my power to avoid being involved in an accident not of my own making.

I almost certainly will not have my handbrake on. Think about it a little - I am stopped, in a fog bank, I will have left sufficient space in front for safety. I expect I might be on full alert, ready to dodge out of the way, a little like the story earlier about seeing a coach bearing down on me. In that context a handbrake wouldn't exactly be helpful, I'd suggest.

[mjr]

And yet, a car parked in a fog bank will only have its side lights on... or no lights at all if parked before the fog came. But hey, you're alright, who cares if it encourages fools to expect lit objects and crash? It's the law of the jungle on the roads these days....

[Bonefishblues]

Thank you for your contribution to the debate.

[mjr]

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.

How do you know? Are you getting out of the car and asking them, or are you redefining "appreciate" as "fails to abuse or attack me immediately"?

[meic]

If you don't think a 60cd lamp (15 times the required brightness of a bicycle tail light) shone at your face unnecessarily is undue discomfort, then

No because that is the brightness specified for the lamps to do their job, so it is totally due.
It would be an absolute waste of light to shine a "to be seen" light at anywhere other than somebody's face, as this is the only place that they have eyes.
It will also be the owner of the face that has put their face in that position because the car in front is stopped still and was there first.

[rmurphy195]

No they aren't irrelevant. I reserve the right to do anything in my power to avoid being involved in an accident not of my own making.

I almost certainly will not have my handbrake on. Think about it a little - I am stopped, in a fog bank, I will have left sufficient space in front for safety. I expect I might be on full alert, ready to dodge out of the way, a little like the story earlier about seeing a coach bearing down on me. In that context a handbrake wouldn't exactly be helpful, I'd suggest.

Yes it would, some of the energy from a rear-end shunt would be absorbed, it could be the difference between being pushed into whatever is in front of you, or not.

[Bonefishblues]

I don't want to have an accident - at all, if I can avoid it, thanks.

[meic]

And yet, a car parked in a fog bank will only have its side lights on... or no lights at all if parked before the fog came. But hey, you're alright, who cares if it encourages fools to expect lit objects and crash? It's the law of the jungle on the roads these days....

A car that is parked in the middle of the road is taking a risk that somebody will fail to realise it is stationary. The point of having brake lights on is not to emphasise the fact that you have lights but to warn that you are stationary where you could be expected to be moving along. In fact the practice was mentioned in the thread because the extra light supplied by foglights would negate this warning effect.

We are talking about having brake lights on cars that are effectively blocking the road compared to parked cars which will be passed.

[pwa]

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.

As someone who was once almost rear ended by a speeding car whose driver had not noticed that I had stopped at a queue of traffic at roadworks, I only care that the next vehicle to approach from behind sees that I am stopped. Concerns about how they feel about my temporary light display (which goes off when I know they are stopping) is just a question of manners in this context. I don't feel any need to treat cyclists to this.

[thirdcrank]

This has reminded me that when the govt's consultation paper on flashing cycle lamps was published it raised at least two other flashing light questions. One was whether customs officers should be allowed to use blue beacons and the other was whether breakdown trucks should be permitted to have red flashing lights. (At that time, only certain emergency vehicles had these.) I've omitted "rear facing" because that's the only way red lamps may face. I'm pretty sure that CJ objected to the flashing red lights on breakdown vehicles on the grounds that this feature should be reserved to identify pedal cycles. (My wording.) Now, as the govt (or the bit of the govt dealing with vehicle lighting) didn't really want anybody to have red flashing lamps but had decided trying to stop cyclists having them was in King Canute territory, they continued the ban on breakdown trucks, citing the CTC's objection.

We are talking here about the light bars which fit across the roof. I seem to see plenty with red flashers. Does anybody really care?

[Cyril Haearn]

If the vehicle in front of me shows its brake lights I take my foot off the gas and keep well back

Don't know if it wants to turn off or maybe there is a *hazard* ahead that I can not see

I use the brakes as little as possible but I use the brake pedal a lot to signal

In a queue if the lights are too bright I close my eyes and wait till the idiot behind me blows her horn

[meic]

In a queue if the lights are too bright I close my eyes and wait till the idiot behind me blows her horn

Has that ever happened? The lights in front being so bright that you closed your eyes?
For me it is always the lights behind that are the problem.

[Cyril Haearn]

In a queue if the lights are too bright I close my eyes and wait till the idiot behind me blows her horn

Has that ever happened? The lights in front being so bright that you closed your eyes?
For me it is always the lights behind that are the problem.

Thinks.. yes when waiting in a queue for the folding bridge, the idiots start their motors before the bridge is down or leave it running while waiting (10 minutes) and hold the brake pedal (no handbrake?), running the motor unnecessarily, that really gets me

You are right of course, bright lights behind are much worse

Glad to report I am cycling mostly now, car just sits there rusting

[mjr]

I don't want to have an accident - at all, if I can avoid it, thanks.

Then use your handbrake instead.