Getting blinded from behind

[MurF]

I cycle 8 miles to and from work through country lanes with no street lighting at all. I also have to do a number of right hand turns that are on a straight roads. Now when approaching said right hand turns, a high percentage (84% last year) of drivers approaching me from behind either have there head light on main beam, or switch it to Main Beam the second they see me. I call these 'I'm coming through' lights.

One good example was a single track road where I turn right at the end (T junction). When about 100 yards from the end of the road a car from behind switched to Main Beam just as I was looking behind to check. Now not only was he dazzling me trying to see where his car was, but he was also dazzling the 2 motorists waiting to turn into the road. After making the turn I pulled over as I was a bit annoyed and the car that was dazzling me pulled up and said :-
'Sorry mate, I thought switching my Main Beam on would help you out'
My response :-
'What dazzling 3 other road users is helping who out?'

Firstly is this illegal, I thought using Main Beam whilst someone else is in front of you even if they don't have a rear view mirror was dangerous?

Also does anyone else have problems like this? Or is it just me

[reohn2]

I cant say Ive had that problem,it's usually on coming traffic with lazer strength headlights

[mjr]

'Sorry mate, I thought switching my Main Beam on would help you out'
My response :-
'What dazzling 3 other road users is helping who out?'

Firstly is this illegal, I thought using Main Beam whilst someone else is in front of you even if they don't have a rear view mirror was dangerous?

Yes, dazzling other road users is always illegal. I think the "SMITSMy Main Beam on" claim is a feeble attempt at coming up with something other than "it's only a bike" which they probably thought made it OK to use main beam.

Also does anyone else have problems like this? Or is it just me

No, I've not suffered that one yet. I have a rear light with a fairly large illuminated area so hopefully might be mistaken for a motorbike from a distance - and when they're close enough to see the pedal reflectors, most drivers probably think twice about annoying a six footer on a big Dutch bike wearing a bulky coat (I'm not very big but you wouldn't know it in winter! ).

[rjb]

And there was I thinking all cyclists had eyes in the back of their heads!

[Bonefishblues]

I don't think it's illegal - there was clearly no intent to dazzle, nor was there negilgence per se as I can see why a motorist would do it when faced with a cyclist to overtake on an an unlit road. I expect I'd do it myself - I've certainly done it in the past in a similar circumstances, albeit the motorist here made a mistake in not seeing the cars waiting to join the carriageway. It also reassures the cyclist that they have been seen, one hopes. My motivation certainly isn't to make a statement anything like "I'm coming through".

Sounds like a civil exchange and everyone went on their way.

[mjr]

I don't think it's illegal - there was clearly no intent to dazzle, nor was there negilgence per se as I can see why a motorist would do it when faced with a cyclist to overtake on an an unlit road.

Intent is not required for the dazzling offence and I can't see why any motorist should put main beam on to overtake as it will inevitably dazzle the overtakee. http://highwaycode.info/rule/115

[Bonefishblues]

I don't think it's illegal - there was clearly no intent to dazzle, nor was there negilgence per se as I can see why a motorist would do it when faced with a cyclist to overtake on an an unlit road.

Intent is not required for the dazzling offence and I can't see why any motorist should put main beam on to overtake as it will inevitably dazzle the overtakee. http://highwaycode.info/rule/115

No it won't inevitably blind the overtakee where said overtakee is a cyclist, to whom it would be pretty obvious that lights were on main beam. It's obvious that rule is written with vehicles routinely fitted with a RVM in mind.

ETA

AIUI "Shoulds" in the Highway Code do not necessarily indicate offences. That''s referenced by "Must nots", or indeed where the word "offence" is mentioned.

Wording here:
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

[mjr]

I don't think it's illegal - there was clearly no intent to dazzle, nor was there negilgence per se as I can see why a motorist would do it when faced with a cyclist to overtake on an an unlit road.

Intent is not required for the dazzling offence and I can't see why any motorist should put main beam on to overtake as it will inevitably dazzle the overtakee. http://highwaycode.info/rule/115

No it won't inevitably blind the overtakee where said overtakee is a cyclist, to whom it would be pretty obvious that lights were on main beam. It's obvious that rule is written with vehicles routinely fitted with a RVM in mind.

Firstly, cyclists still look behind them. Secondly, some cycles are fitted with RVMs and I defy any motorist to tell which ones from a distance. There is no exception in the HC rule and that's correct. Another HC rule specifically includes cyclists as ones not to dazzle.

[Bonefishblues]

Intent is not required for the dazzling offence and I can't see why any motorist should put main beam on to overtake as it will inevitably dazzle the overtakee. http://highwaycode.info/rule/115

No it won't inevitably blind the overtakee where said overtakee is a cyclist, to whom it would be pretty obvious that lights were on main beam. It's obvious that rule is written with vehicles routinely fitted with a RVM in mind.

Firstly, cyclists still look behind them. Secondly, some cycles are fitted with RVMs and I defy any motorist to tell which ones from a distance. There is no exception in the HC rule and that's correct. Another HC rule specifically includes cyclists as ones not to dazzle.

We need a clampdown on this, we should assume all cycles are fitted with RVMs and that cyclists will look backwards into main beam lights.

Or we could take a common sense approach, maybe, where we understand that a motorist in the dark might want the best view of a cycle when approaching from behind. See also my clarification of the Highway Code above.

[Spicy]

When I used to cycle on unlit roads, I used the "one eye rule." If a car came from the front, I shut one eye as it passed, then opened it again after.

When you look behind shut you left eye, it won't get dazzled and try to adjust. When you look forwards again open it. If your right eye has adjusted to the headlight, your left eye will let you see.

[[XAP]Bob]

I get this as well - vigorous arm waving normally does the trick. Had to come to a complete stop somewhere on the road last week because I couldn’t see.
Driver shouted ‘what’s your problem’, I replied ‘I can’t see anything because of your full beams’
Lights got dipped, I carried on and waved them past when safe...

Having to go that far is rare though

[Vorpal]

I've had this sometimes. Mostly, on small, dark rural lanes.

TBH, I think it's mainly down to drivers who see that there is something in the road, and turn on the main beams to identify it (cyclist), and either don't realise that they are likely to dazzle the cyclist, or forget to turn them off again.

[pwa]

I've never noticed much of a problem with lights from behind. I don't bother looking over my shoulder on single track lanes at night, I use my ears instead. If I want to turn right I signal and listen for the car slowing, and glance to the right to see what is going on by peripheral vision and their beam pattern on the road, but don't look at their lights.

The main problem for me with other people's bight lights approaching from behind is when they have passed and I am returned to relative darkness. I am used to that and use the last seconds of their light to take in as much info about the next bit of road as I can.

[mjr]

Or we could take a common sense approach, maybe, where we understand that a motorist in the dark might want the best view of a cycle when approaching from behind. See also my clarification of the Highway Code above.

Or we could take a common sense approach, maybe, where we enforce the law and punish the dazzlers. The motorist should have a perfectly good view if they slow down - and why should a motorist getting a better view be at the expense of the cyclist? See also my mention of http://highwaycode.info/rule/114 explicitly saying dazzling cyclists is a "MUST NOT" = illegal.

I've never noticed much of a problem with lights from behind. I don't bother looking over my shoulder on single track lanes at night, I use my ears instead.

Well that's just wonderful for those of you with perfect hearing. Would you prefer the rest of us be locked up at night?

[[XAP]Bob]

I've had this sometimes. Mostly, on small, dark rural lanes.

TBH, I think it's mainly down to drivers who see that there is something in the road, and turn on the main beams to identify it (cyclist), and either don't realise that they are likely to dazzle the cyclist, or forget to turn them off again.

Generally seems to be the case I come across...

Motorists mostly respond to my arm signals suggesting that they dip their lights.