the rr will have steel a posts
i also told a couple in makro tonight that they had a brake light out the woman (driver) told me her daughter had told her the same a few days ago ,i said they are easy to change (pewgot 106) she said "oh far too complicated , i said same as a light bulb in your house bayonet fit,she said i will get the garage to change but only if i get pulled "i know noting" (her words) her husband said nothing i didnt tell her what i do for a living but can see why garages get accused of being caled ripoff if what i would call sensible people couldnt be (''''''''') to change a bulb themselves ,i moved on and kept away.
|
I have a pal who has a 2002 registered Volvo and noticed that his rear number plate only had one bulb working after he gave me a lift.
He was very grateful when I let him know, but he told me a few days later that replacing the bulb had meant his garage having to almost dismantle the boot lid to get at the faulty bulb...:-)
Was a bit surprised to say the least....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
I've had varying responses when telling someone they've either got a bulb out or no brake lights at all. The responses range from "Oh! Cheers, I hadn't noticed" to "yeah, I know" to "it's alright, the MOT isn't due yet" to "so what"
|
It should be compulsory to have a HGV ram the back of cars with non functioning brake lights.
How can people happily drive around knowing that the car behind has no idea when the are braking?
|
Don't get me started on this one again.
The easiest way to put a stop to this would be for the police (who?) to be able to issue a £50 on-the-spot fine. No time-wasting paperwork - just fine 'em and go. Give the offender 24hrs grace to sort it out otherwise they get fined £100 when caught again.
The duff brake/rear light phenomenon seems very common on older Rovers - I suspect it's due to a bad (rusty) earth in many cases.
|
I don't remember having any problems in the days before brake lights had been invented. When did they first appear?
--
L\'escargot.
|
IMO all vehicles should warn the driver that an important light is out.
I wonder what attitude the insurance company might take, if you hit a car in front because their brake lights were broken.
|
IMO all vehicles should warn the driver that an important light is out.
But if the driver isn't bothered when someone takes the time to say 'Excuse me, were you aware that your brake light wasn't working?', are they likely to be bothered if a warning light comes on?
In the winter, I'm always amazed by the number of folks who drive around with dodgy headlights. If they need a warning light to tell them about headlights, should they be driving at all?
Nope - mostly, they can't be bothered and a short sharp fine is the only answer.
|
>I wonder what attitude the insurance company might take, if you hit a car in front because their brake lights were broken.
The problem would be proving it. The impact could blow a bulb anyway.
You still have to maintain a safe distance from the car in front. It could be argued that defensive driving always assumes the worst case, such as the car in front having no brake lights...
|
The problem would be proving it. The impact could blow a bulb anyway.
Did you see Traffic Cops the other week? Following an accident which involved a driver dying they analysed the brake bulbs to see if they were on at the time of the accident. Very clever stuff.
|
|
Indeed. Twenty-five or so years ago my biology teacher was hit by a car while riding his motorbike home after school. The driver claimed he didn't have his lights on and so he "didn't see him." But the filament welded to the inside of the headlight bulb told another story. Incidentally the poor guy was very badly smashed up. He was never the same again and didn't return to work for two years if I recall correctly.
|
"IMO all vehicles should warn the driver that an important light is out."
Well said.
The sign should appear at the rear of the vehicle so that all those following also know that an important light is out! : )
|
You don?t realise how much you rely on them until they don?t work. About four times last weekend I nearly barrelled into the back of the car in front in stop start traffic. I couldn?t figure out what was wrong with me, I thought I was going mental.
Then it clicked - no brake lights. Probably the most crucial safety feature ever put on a car.
|
|
One of the problems with lights out warnings is that when this exists there are a number of people who have no clue what on earth the sign means since they never read the manual. I remember one of my mates was giving me a lift in his 02 Audi A3 which he had bought about 2 months previously. When he started up a bulb failure warning came up as did the SRS airbag light, and neither extinguished. When i mentioned this to him he said he didn't know what the lights meant. Transpired that when we tested the lights he had only a high level brake light and no other brake lights at all. (An airbag sensor had gone, and this lead to the SRS light). As an aside i helped aformentioned to change the lights but they were an absolute PIG to do, scuffed hands and foul words abounded as there was the minimum of space to do anything. V poor design.
|
|
I don't remember having any problems in the days before brake lights had been invented. When did they first appear? -- L\'escargot.
As somebody else has mentioned, we are dependant on them. I was behind a car a few weeks ago with no brake lights, and at speeds <15mph it was very hard to tell when he was stopping. Part of my brain was telling me that he wasn't slowing up, and I must have been imagining it. I had to brake firmly, and the car in front was only braking gently (presumably).
In the days when there weren't brake lights (before my time) the roads would have been very different. Brakes weren't as good, cars weren't as fast. Roads were nowhere near as crowded. People probably didn't drive as aggressively. Arm signals would have also been more common in those days.
If we're supposed to allow for this with our braking distance, then it should be a lot longer. I suspect that it must take at least 5 times longer to know a car is stopping when it has no brake lights.
|
If we're supposed to allow for this with our braking distance, then it should be a lot longer. I suspect that it must take at least 5 times longer to know a car is stopping when it has no brake lights.
The 2-second rule assumes the car ahead stops dead. It doesn't matter whether it shows any brake lights.
|
The 2-second rule assumes the car ahead stops dead. It doesn't matter whether it shows any brake lights.
No. The 2-second rule assumes certain reaction times for the following driver, so it could matter very much whether it shows any brake lights.
|
>> The 2-second rule assumes the car ahead stops dead. It doesn't matter whether it shows any brake lights. No. The 2-second rule assumes certain reaction times for the following driver, so it could matter very much whether it shows any brake lights.
The rule is to allow driving only within the distance one can see to be clear. It is the time needed to stop, eg when coming round a corner and finding a fallen tree or an accident.
2 seconds at 30 mph = 88 feet. If the car ahead stopped dead at that speed, 88 feet is enough road to stop in.
I'm not saying it's easy - brake lights obviously help. In practice everyone breaks the 2-second rule by relying on brake lights.
|
So you're claiming that, whatever speed you're doing, you will be able to come to a complete halt in 2 seconds?
I disagree, the two second rule is designed to give you time to react to whatever is happening up ahead. Your reactions are likely to be much slower if there's no warning until your eyes spot the decelleration. That might happen almost instantly, but it won't happen as quickly as your eyes will notice two bright lights coming on.
An a simple example that your premise is wrong, two seconds at 70mph is 205 feet, but the stopping distance at 70mph is 315 feet. Since the highway code is responsible for both the two second rule, and that stated stopping distance, obviously the reason for the two second rule can not be as you state.
|
|
|
-The easiest way to put a stop to this would be for the police (who?) to be able to issue a £50 on-the-spot fine. No time-wasting paperwork - just fine 'em and go. Give the offender 24hrs grace to sort it out otherwise they get fined £100 when caught again. -
The police can issue a fine for this,they can also issue a ticket for the vehicle defect to be rectified.It the n has to be taken to an MOT garage,checked,form stamped(£5) and then produced at police station.I got one for rusted corners on a tailgate,although the MOT man was OK with it a couple of months earlier the BIB said a child could put their fingers in it and be injured.A valuable lesson I would have thought.
|
Surely we're not so mollycoddled now that if brake lights on the vehicle in front don't work we think we can use it as a legitimate excuse if we run into the back of them. As I said earlier, motor vehicles haven't always had brake lights. I admit that they are helpful in indicating that the driver has put his/her foot on the brake pedal, but that's the only status they should be accorded.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Surely we're not so mollycoddled now that if brake lights on the vehicle in front don't work we think we can use it as a legitimate excuse if we run into the back of them.
Unfortunately we have come to depend on them in modern driving, especially on motorways where it is very difficult to maintain comfortable distances.
This is the reason we have new LED brake lights which are a fraction of a second quicker to respond, and apparently this can make a significant difference.
One problem with brake lights is when somebody brakes gently, then harshly - it can take longer for the person behind to register the car in front is stopping.
You may say reasonably we should not need brake lights at all. As an aside if you drive a car with modern disc brakes in parts of India you can easily cause a pile up. I don't know if they would actually ban you from the roads, but I would not be surprised. Now many cars like MB have 'brake assist' which is equally frightening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've had varying responses when telling someone they've either got a bulb out or no brake lights at all. The responses range from "Oh! Cheers, I hadn't noticed" to "yeah, I know" to "it's alright, the MOT isn't due yet" to "so what"
Also. Yeah, lots of people have told me. Certain people completely panic which is a little worrying.
I am pleased to be able to pass the information on. I would prefer a nice reply but am content that I have done my best to possibly reduce the risk of a rear end shunt.
I guess my Mondeo saloon is unusual in that it has secondary tail lamps that are fitted with tail/stop bulbs so I always have spares already installed. I also have bulb failure check on start up and when running.
I do also carry a FULL set of bulbs inside one of the rear lamp covers.
|
|
So if someone runs in to the back of a pushbike/traction engine/horse what excuse do they have?
|
|
None, but it's not really a fair comparison since those vehicles (and horse) are slow moving so if you come up behind one you know you have to brake (usually).
|
1989 Astra GTE 16v (and possibly others, but only experienced this one.
Orange light comes on in a bank of warning lights in a little pod in the centre dash when you start the engine. Light goes out when the brake pedal is pressed for the first time if both brake lights are working. If the light stays on you have a duff bulb (or two)
Simple and effective. Why is it not a standard fit on all cars?
|
"Simple and effective. Why is it not a standard fit on all cars?"
Cost. Even though the cost at the factory is tiny, when multiplied by thousands of units produced it becomes of interest to the bean counters. And this saving is passed on to the customer. Maybe. Maybe not.
|
|
Yes, my old Volvo 850 had the same and it was simple and effective. The last Volvos had some crazy system to identify which bulb had failed but all it seemed to be was a random message generator.
|
|
|
|
So if someone runs in to the back of a pushbike/traction engine/horse what excuse do they have?
When was the last time you saw a pushbike/traction engine/horse doing 80mph in the fastlane? ;-)
They all do relatively low speeds and if they happen to brake, the vehicles around them will be (hopefully) going at similar speeds and should be able to adjust thier speed accordingly.
|
When was the last time you saw a pushbike/traction engine/horse doing 80mph in the fastlane? ;-)
Nobody, emergency vehicles excepted, should be doing 80 in the fast lane.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Unless you're in France :-) And it's not raining.
If you sit at 70 mpg in the fast lane, cars sit on your bumper.
|
If you sit at 70 mpg in the fast lane, cars sit on your bumper.
I really wish my car was capable of doing 70mpg in the fast lane ;)
It usually manages little over half that :(
|
I drove behind a woman in an Escort yesterday in full daylight with her rear foglight on, no doubt there's a warning light on the dashboard to let her know this. Why would anyone think a warning light showing there's a bulb out would do any good?
A fine is the easy 'new labour' way out, take £50 off them so they can't afford to get it fixed, that makes no sense at all. Bans, or the threat of, are what have an effect, fix it or walk for seven days, see how many dodgy lights there'd be then.
|
Overtake. Vanish into the distance.
If you are compelled to slow down rapidly, at least you know that your brake lights are working.
Life's too short to worry about other people and the state of their motors. If they're obviously lethal, give them a wide berth. They'll soon be pulled. And if they kill someone in the meantime, it isn't your fault for not running screaming to the so-called authorities. It's theirs.
|
Overtake. Vanish into the distance. If you are compelled to slow down rapidly, at least you know that your brake lights are working. Life's too short to worry about other people and the state of their motors. If they're obviously lethal, give them a wide berth. They'll soon be pulled. And if they kill someone in the meantime, it isn't your fault for not running screaming to the so-called authorities. It's theirs.
Since when have laws been enforced in this country? The reason why there are so many cars with faulty brake lights is because there is no law enforcement on the roads. I think I see faulty brakelights every day!
|
|
|
Which lane do you do 80 in when you aren't living up to yr handle, escargot?
|
> One problem with brake lights is when somebody brakes gently,
> then harshly - it can take longer for the person behind to register the car
> in front is stopping.
On the motorway this is usually noticable as the front end of a *normal* car dives significantly when you slam on the anchors. Just like when you see a quick puff of diesel smoke behind a car on a motorway, chances are, the driver's just changed down a gear and is giving it some beans. Will he pull out in from of you? Probably. Will he indicate? Probably not. Just little things that can help you read the situation on the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
