mjr wrote:Bonefishblues wrote:mjr wrote:The common sense reading of the HWC is that MUST NOT means don't do it, which seems to be what you are arguing against.
For clarity, as one comes up behind a cyclist at night on an unlit road, is it a reasonable common sense reading of the HWC that there is a risk of dazzling by using high beam such that one should (or must) always dip?
Yes (must). How can you read "You
MUST NOT use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians,
cyclists and horse riders" in any other common-sense way?
Are people arguing that it's fine as long as the lights dip each time a cyclist looks backwards? Or that being dazzled is the cyclists' own fault for daring to look backwards like trained to do?
ETFA
Just to be clear, are you saying main beam from 2-3 miles behind is dazzling?
No, only that main beam is dazzling on such straight roads much further than they provide any "better view". I've not tested the boundary and hope I don't need to.
I am grateful for your emboldened sections, it helped me understand you better. I think I was making a more nuanced point. Allow me to explain (excuse the lack of caps/bold - I'm assuming you won't need the help you offered me).
I note the HWC says "would", not "could". That's an important distinction and to me suggests that a "risk of" dazzle perhaps falls short of that standard. A plain reading would suggest it's hard to dazzle someone facing the other way.
We all, as road users, have some reciprocal responsibilities. I am contending that an offence may not have taken place if in the circumstances someone used main beam, seeing a road user was moving away from them with their back to them. If a walker or cyclist, seeing, as they would, the level of illumination provided by a set of car main beam headlights
chose to look at those main beams such that they were dazzled (
glancing is of course entirely possible without dazzle, as in Vorpal's "life saver" example), then would that constitute an offence? I think, on balance that it would not.
I have no idea if that's ever been tested, I suspect not, but would one really seek a prosecution in that circumstance? I imagine the conversation might run thus:
"I'd like to report an offence contrary to Rule 114"
Misc back-and-forth clarification...
"So sir, you were cycling in the
same direction as the car?"
"Yes"
"The motorist had his main beams on, and you looked back at them and were dazzled?"
"Yes"
"Why?"
"Because I'm trained to"
Add your own ending to suit - mine ends in a vanishingly small chance of any action being taken, yours may not...
Whilst we're on the subject, a horse is a very different proposition to a more rational road user, and indeed, can see rearwards as its eyes are set on the side of its head, so absolutely a dip is required, because a horse
would be dazzled.
