How was the birthday Dave?
Just a bit worried about the full beam thing. You see your headlamp is at my head height and if I'm dazzled by your beam as the bike lifts under power I might just miss someone passing you.
David
|
David W wrote:
>
> How was the birthday Dave?
One of the best. Good food, good company. Very slight headache is proving difficult to shake off. ;-) Came in this morning to a very welcome pay rise. (I may be able to revarnish Tiny Tim's crutches now...)
> > Just a bit worried about the full beam thing. You see your
> headlamp is at my head height and if I'm dazzled by your beam
> as the bike lifts under power I might just miss someone
> passing you.
True, I do dazzle some drivers even in broad daylight - I know 'cos they flash me. I think older drivers are more sensative too it. (Or more prone to flashing)
But IIRC 75 per cent of biker deaths are caused by someone pulling out of a junction into the path of the rider and in the real world *all* of the near misses I've ever had are cars pulling out into my path. (I'm not totally blameing the other drivers - if I'm honest sometimes I will arrive a bit quicker than they might expect...)
I'm convinced full beam is the lesser of two evils. Now you've brought that point I will use dip beam on dull days... (Rarely out on Dull days though)
|
I have mentioned before that a good friend was killed riding his motorbike when an unlicenced female drove out of a side road into his path.
He had his headlights on and was wearing a set of day-glo yellows. She said she thought he was further away and, when she realised how close he was, she stopped right in his path. ( Fined £125 for driving without due care and another £125 for driving on a provisonal licence unaccompanied)
However, I do think that bikers riding on full beam are dangerous. Our eyes seem to be drawn to the beams and we say "That b..... is dazzling me"
My cousin is a biker and he would agree with you that drivers often don't see bikes as they can be lost in the background of street furniture.
Perhaps fewer signs would be safer!
Take care
|
|
|
|
I agree with David W. Spectacle wearers are more prone to dazzling by the inapprpriate use of main beam, leading to misjudgement of distance and not beaing able to see vehicles near to the light source.
Also it's completely contrary to advice about headlights in the highway code, but maybe that doesn't bother you.
|
Darcy Kitchin wrote:
>
> I agree with David W. Spectacle wearers are more prone to
> dazzling by the inapprpriate use of main beam, leading to
> misjudgement of distance and not beaing able to see vehicles
> near to the light source.
I can't deny it. But if I did obscure another vehicle the vehicle that was hidden would almost certainly be less vulnerable than me. But I do take your point. (Let's not start on the issue of whether people with specs should be allowed on the road...[1] )
> Also it's completely contrary to advice about headlights in
> the highway code, but maybe that doesn't bother you.
The highway code says to wear a flourescent jacket walking on the pavement at night. I've never seen *anyone* do that. (Do you D'arcy?) So I'd say conforming to the highway code is a low priority for most people and I suspect few know it as well as I do. (It's sits on the shelf in my Lav.)
The highway code says wear a white helmet [2], flourcent jacket/sam browne, and dip beam. I do the first two but dipped beam simply isn't visible enough. It's only my own personal observation but full beam is *much* easier for others to see and I see the effects. People still pull out on me but not very frequently. When I used to ride on dip beam it would happen a lot. - And there's no chilling fear like it!
So yeah, I take your point 100 per cent. But I'm alive and nobody's yet crashed 'cos of my full beam.
[1] Joke.
[2] But cars don't have to be white...
|
Sorry, Dave, but I tend to agree with the others. I'm a biker (with glasses!) and I used dipped beam at all times in daylight. I think that permanenet daytime full beam, whilst certainly making you visible, is also a distraction to other drivers and riders. When I'm riding, being followed by a guy on full beam, it destroys the rest of my mirror vision, so I pull over to let him/her pass. Does that count as 'get out of my way' intimidation?
Faced by oncoming full beam, whether I'm on the bike or in the car, is potentially dangerous. It affects judgement of distance AND takes your eyes off other road users.
As you say, the Highway Code can be OTT in some areas, but I don't think that gives us carte blanche to override the rest of it.
Perhaps you've just been unlucky with drivers 'pulling out', but I think that's all to do with THEIR training, rather than your lighting. Some of my friends have had similar experiences, but thank God I haven't.
|
Derek wrote:
>
> Sorry, Dave, but I tend to agree with the others.
Hey I don't disagree with the others. I just choose to lessen one major risk to myself at the expense of increasing a minor risk for others. Although this sounds selfish I am a *lot* more vulnerable than most other road users.
> I'm a
> biker (with glasses!) and I used dipped beam at all times in
> daylight.
> I think that permanenet daytime full beam, whilst
> certainly making you visible, is also a distraction to other
> drivers and riders. When I'm riding, being followed by a guy
> on full beam, it destroys the rest of my mirror vision, so I
> pull over to let him/her pass. Does that count as 'get out
> of my way' intimidation?
Dunno. I find it hard to intimidate on my Divvy 600! ;-)
> Faced by oncoming full beam, whether I'm on the bike or in
> the car, is potentially dangerous. It affects judgement of
> distance AND takes your eyes off other road users.
True, but let's get it into perspective. Driving west into a sunset for 2 hours can leave your retinna begging for mercy. One bike beam for 10 seconds on bright day doesn't make a massive differece.
> As you say, the Highway Code can be OTT in some areas, but I
> don't think that gives us carte blanche to override the rest
> of it.
I wasn't. I read the highway code regularly. But if someone accuses me of ignoring or having no respect for it I think my best defence is to point out that it contains rules that everyone ignores. But no, I think a copy and roadcraft and the HWC should come free with your driving license.
> Perhaps you've just been unlucky with drivers 'pulling out',
I can honstly say it happes frequently on dip and rarely on full. That's how marked the difference is.
> but I think that's all to do with THEIR training, rather than
> your lighting.
That would be of *great* comfort to my greiving parents. ;-)
> Some of my friends have had similar
> experiences, but thank God I haven't.
I've never had *real* near miss. But even having to dab the brakes give me heart failure.
|
|
|
|
As a biker too, I can't agree with full beam at all times.
Just think about a bike on full beam coming towards you, but in between that and you is a dark coloured car on side lights. The car simply disappears! (even worse if it's coming up behind you, actually).
Personally, I use dipped beam on the bike at all times, though I know there are some prominent bikers who don't advocate all day use.
But , to get back on topic, what about bikes that scoot around at night with just a "side" light on? Why do manufacturers put side lights on any vehicle at all? Why are they recommended in the highway code?
I dunno.
|
Mitchell Humphreys wrote:
>
> As a biker too, I can't agree with full beam at all times.
>
> Just think about a bike on full beam coming towards you, but
> in between that and you is a dark coloured car on side
> lights. The car simply disappears! (even worse if it's coming
> up behind you, actually).
True. As I say though 75 per cent of bikers deaths aren't caused by that. They're cause by someone not seeing you!
> Personally, I use dipped beam on the bike at all times,
> though I know there are some prominent bikers who don't
> advocate all day use.
They must like adrenalin. You're invisible on a bike to anyone over 50. ;-)
|
Dave - please don't! I'm 55! And your Divvy isn't that much different from my CBR (that's the 600, my missus won't let me have a 'Blade).
I think we agree to disagree on this one. Stay safe.
|
Derek wrote:
>
> Dave - please don't! I'm 55! And your Divvy isn't that much
> different from my CBR (that's the 600, my missus won't let me
> have a 'Blade).
That was a joke. My dad's in his late 50's. He's got eyes like a hawk. He's quicker *and* safer than me on a bike or a car.
> I think we agree to disagree on this one. Stay safe.
We're not a million miles apart anyway! - You too!
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the opinions about full-beam seem to stress the advantages to their owner, with little consideration of disadvantages to others. For the owner it means (1) I can see better; (2) others must be able to see me better(?). The unfortunates at whom the beams are aimed are probably able to see less, especially older people at night, whose corneas may be showing the first signs of cataract - i.e. milkiness. They may be able to see very little EXCEPT the oncoming beam - it may be hard to see the nearside kerb, unless they retaliate with their own full beam. As with many other things, use full beam in moderation.
|
And if the other person retaliates with full beam that means both of you cant see.
I've said this before, it was a recognised technique in WWII for the RAF to use landing lights to dazzle enemy gunners to destroy their perception of speed and distance.
|
|
|
Andrew Tarr wrote:
>
> Most of the opinions about full-beam seem to stress the
> advantages to their owner, with little consideration of
> disadvantages to others.
Listen, if I'm not seen I could very likely be killed. If an oncoming guy gets dazzled (and in broad daylight a full beam aint that bright!) he has to ease off for 5 seconds while I pass...
Incidently in 10 years of driving I've never been dazzled in daylight.
Does everyone realize I'm talking about full beam in *daylight*? Not at night which would obviously stupid.
|
|
I hope everyone realizes I'm talking full beam in daylight hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
