Looking at the posts makes me think that I won't be the only one who can remember the "wear something white" campaign from the 70s (?).
Well I think that its about time this came back - its all well and good pedestrians complaining about "inconsiderate" motorists and full beam headlights, but normally their use is the only way we know that they are there - the modern clothing colour appears to be black or dark green or blue which is well-nigh impossible to see unless you use full beam.
As for shining a torch into the driver's eyes - thats absolute lunacy - the consequencies don't bear thinking about.
A pedestriam has much more notice of the approach of a vehicle than the driver has of a pedestrian, that is fact, they can hear an oncoming vehicle and see it well before the driver sees them, so what's so difficult about looking the other way, and stopping walking if the surface is that bad?
|
so what's so difficult about looking the other way and stopping walking if the surface is that bad?
And what's so difficult for the motorist to dip his lights once he's seen the pedestrian? He would (or at least should) do so for another car, motorbike, cycle. Why should he treat a pedestrian any differently?
|
As I said, probably because he can't see the pedestrian until the last minute because of the lack of suitable clothing being worn. And by that time he's passed them! Most cyclists who travel on those type of roads are sensible enough to have decent lights and, in many cases, an HV vest, so they will be seen in time and lights can be dipped.
If you are wearing an HV vest or something light, then i agree with you that the motorist is behaving inconsiderately, however in my experience the majority of pedestrians don't and therefore use of full beam is required just to locate them.
Motorists, cyclists and motorcyclists all have to have lights and reflectors so other road users are able to see them, perhaps pedestrians should be doing the same thing, and I don't mean just carrying a torch, I mean something like an HV vest.
Perhaps we all should get together and ask the Gov to run a campaign to raise awareness?
|
Perhaps older Backroomers will remember this dreadful accident from 56 years ago which still has a lesson for us all today.
www.rossfamily.plus.com/historicmedway/disasters/g...m
|
|
|
|
|
It must be remembered DD that a lot of pedestrians are more or less invisible. Cyclists too. I would much rather be dazzled than run over.
|
It must be remembered DD that a lot of pedestrians are more or less invisible.
Of which I am not disagreeing about. But once a pedestrian has been seen by a driver with his main beam headlights, is it too much to then ask that the driver dips his headlights? Same applies if the pedestrian is wearing dayglow stripes, A N Other reflective clothing, carrying a torch, whatever.
I don't know how much plainer I can make it - at some point or other the pedestrian should be visible to the motorist, and that is the point at which he should dip his headlights.
|
And I'm not sure how much plainer the rest of can be - the majority of peds don't wear anything bright so we don't see them til the last minute therefore its often too late to dip!!
You get all your fellow pedestrians to wear bright clothing and then come back and lecture us!
|
OK OK, sometimes we come upon other road users too late for it to be worth while dipping. A car may turn out of an obscured side turning onto the approaching carriageway just as we reach it. We momentarily dazzle him with full beam, but then are past.
But that dosn't alter the fact that when possible and reasonable, it is only polite, and probably safer too, to dip for anyone if spotted in time. I would even dip for an animal or bird if I saw it in time, rather than have it transfixed by the lights and run down.
Briefly flashing a torch at a car to draw attention is sensible, but deliberately shining it in someone's face is criminal.
|
I cycled three miles to the station for several years - cycle path alongside a 60mph A-road for half of it.
I had battery-eating Xenon headlights. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of drivers who ever thought to dip their headlights. Blimmin' uncomfortable it was.
|
|
|
|
so we don't see them till the last minute therefore its often too late to dip!!
In which case, may I suggest www.specsavers.co.uk for all those drivers who are unable to see properly. Perhaps it should be made compulsory for all drivers to have regular eye tests. I cannot recall not being able to see pedestrian in dark clothing with my main beam lights on; maybe not initially, but certainly long enough before I reach and pass him.
|
" I cannot recall not being able to see pedestrian in dark clothing with my main beam lights on"
Um. How would you know? You wouldn't be able to remember the ones you didn't see...
:)
I love this forum. The silliest little things set people off in blind rages (as it were), and this is a real get the popcorn thread.
|
" I cannot recall not being able to see pedestrian in dark clothing with my main beam lights on"
Great.
What about when you're approaching another car, so you've not got your main beam on.
And worse still, the other driver has.
Or what about when a pedestrian you have seen, because he is carrying a torch, has shone it into your eyes because he thinks you have your main beam on, which you don't, as you're coming over the crest of a hill towards him. So you fail to see the next pedestrian 50 yards further down the road.
|
What about when you're approaching another car so you've not got your main beam on. And worse still the other driver has.
Add to the mix a less-than-perfect windscreen, smudged spectacle lenses and tired eyes - and the scenario becomes that bit worse :-(
I think that many people drive far too fast on main beam, leaving themselves exposed to 'blind' driving if suddenly forced to revert to dipped beam for whatever reason.
Don't drive according to the maxim, "always be able to stop within the distance you hope will be clear 99.5% of the time".....
|
What about when you're approaching another car so you've not got your main beam on.
If the pedestrian is on the pavement, no problem. Splatt! if he isn't.
And worse still the other driver has.
Then he'll illuminate the pedestrian on my behalf.
Can't be bothered biting any more of the carrot being dangled. Sorry.
|
>>Can't be bothered biting any more of the carrot being dangled. Sorry.<<
You should, really. Carrots are good for night vision, apparantly. -:)
|
|
How many of you who believe that main beams are not necessary are city dwellers where there are few, if any, dark twisty undulating narrow lanes.
|
I don't think anyone is suggesting that main beam is not necessary, ON.
However - dark, twisty, undulating narrow lanes are precisely the ones that cause a problem in this thread's context.
Many drivers bowl along on main beam, only to be confronted by an oncoming car - often not seen early if concealed round a bend and not using mains. At the moment of dipping, they are then travelling beyond the scope of what they can see to be clear. All too often, 'macho pride' will intervene and they'll continue too fast rather that brake accordingly. That's when pedestrians are at greatest risk.
Whether or not it is felt that pedestrians shouldn't be on these roads at night is no excuse for driving 'beyond' the limits of visibility.
|
Its strange that when I suggest that pedestrians wear something light, preferably reflective, at night on an unlit road and when they don't and I use full beam headlights to see them I am criticised for it....
Sign of todays society, blame anyone but yourself....
I do dip my lights if I see someone, and I do dip them if another vehicle is coming towards me, but I objcect to people who:
1. Don't help themselves by wearing appropraite clothing at night
2. Don't dip their lights until the actually see me (despite me dipping mine in plenty of time because I'm actually looking at the road ahead!)
and, most of all,
3. Someone who thinks its clever to shine their torch in my eyes - it would be justice if the car driver invoved lost control and ran them over.
Just a minor point, but I know its illegal to deliberately shine a laser beam into a drivers' eyes (I seem to remember a court case?), so I'd think that logically it would be the same to do it with a torch if done in the manner suggested?
Edited by b308 on 24/10/2007 at 16:25
|
Just a minor point but I know its illegal to deliberately shine a laser beam into a drivers' eyes (I seem to remember a court case?) so I'd think that logically it would be the same to do it with a torch if done in the manner suggested?
I think recklessly carrying out an action that might reasonably be expected to cause someone to have an accident, and resulted in someone's death, could be argued as manslaughter. Unless it happened to the torch shiner, of course. Then it would be what is legally called "serve him right".
|
Can anyone remember when the goverment "See and be seen" campaign was run?
We could probably do with a re run. I have seen many unlit cars (and pedestrians) in fog today.
|
Can anyone remember when the goverment "See and be seen" campaign was run? We could probably do with a re run. I have seen many unlit cars (and pedestrians) in fog today.
See my original post, O-N! ;-)
|
|
Oops sorry b308 - roger 1970s
|
|
Just googled it and if you go to the BBC link there are lots of clips of the "public information" films from the 60s and 70s, though that wasn't one of them! Tufty and the Green Cross Man are though, as is Jimmy Saville and "Clunk-Click"!!
|
Jimmy Saville and "Clunk-Click"!!
Wasn't that the horrible old woman on television who put people off wearing seat belts for several years by making ridiculous noises and pretending to be phenomenally stupid?
|
I havent followed this thread but i assume its about main and dipped beam and shining in eyes?
a lot of young kids ive dealt with and the first car, they do not know what dipped and main beam is and a few have even thought that dipped beam is sidelights and main beam should be on all the time
how do i know this?
because if they come from decent stock i take the time to familarise them with all the appropiate knobs and buttons in the car
|
|
Ive always thought it was a shame that side lights were not called Parking lights in this country. But then I learned to drive in what were the colonies.
|
Ive always thought it was a shame that side lights were not called Parking lights in this country.
My dad always called them 'parking lights'.
On the original topic all I can say is that if some scally starts pointing a torch in my eyes whilst I'm driving they're likely to get it shoved in a dark place.....
|
DD,
I can understand a modicum of frustration on the part of a pedestrian, but at the end of the day all you have to do is look and shine your torch down at the pavement in front of you, you will not see the headlights coming towards you (not directly anyway). Whereas a driver has to look forwards all the time.
And in the OP example, sounds like the pedestrian "jumped on" Barney as soon as he appeared over the brow of the hill without any warning shot - as you said you give.
But I don't accept this is in anyway as serious for a pedestrian as it is for a driver.
|
This thread has similarities to the "should I bother to indicate if there's only a pedestrian/cyclist around". It hurts to have darkness change to twin Xenons in an instant, and if you insist that I don't matter then I'm off to Homebase for the 1.5million candlepower rechargeable torch they sell, I WILL burn your retinas out if you don't dip. If you can't see in the dark then take a taxi.
There is nothing in the highway code to say a motorist has a given right to have unimpeded passage on a road, if you are driving too fast for your vision then slow down until you can see what's walking on the road, deer/dogs/horses/cattle don't have high-viz vests.
A little bit of consideration is what makes the world a more pleasant place to live, but it's a two-way thing.
Edited by Webmaster on 26/10/2007 at 01:35
|
|
Hello, knock knock, what did I just say? Look at the ground in front of you, you don't have to look at the lights of oncoming vehicles.
|
|
Looking at the ground in front does not shield the retina from main beam, horatio. Maybe if the walker inclined the head to the horizontal, but not otherwise. All the driver has to do is move one finger, but like the many who don't bother to signal, its all too much effort.
|
|
I tell you what, I'll go out for a walk tonight, and report my findings.
|
|
I should look away and walk into some street furniture, just so you can save a flick of the wrist? You sound like the sort of person that parks on pavements, because all I have to do is breathe in and walk sideways for 12 feet, where does it end? Show some consideration.
|
>>all I have to do is breathe in and walk sideways for 12feet where does it end?
Couple of cartwheels, bit of bump and grind, wriggle your tush and look coyly over your shoulder like a drum majorette as you strut away?
It probably wouldn't make drivers dip their lights. Indeed they might switch to main beam to see better. But it would bring some joy into their drab selfish arrogant little lives.
And you would be a star!
|
And you would be a star!
Lud - maybe a large number of night-time pedestrians are actually 'restng' thespians, just waiting to be caught in the spotlight once more :-)
"Ready for my close-up now, Mr. de Ville"
Edited by OldSock on 25/10/2007 at 18:12
|
I tell you what I'll go out for a walk tonight and report my findings.
If your pavements and roadside verges are anything like the ones in my area, enjoy your trip!
|
I tell you what I'll go out for a walk tonight and report my findings.
And what was the verdict then?
|
>> I tell you what I'll go out for a walk tonight and report my findings. And what was the verdict then?
These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale.
|
Advice my driving instructor once gave me: if the sun gets in your eyes, guess what, you have to move your eyes. If you can't react in time, you were driving too fast. If it caught you unawares, you should have been aware. And so on...
To (mis)quote Gandhi, an eye for an eye and the whole world ends up blind(ed). No one really likes being corrected or reprimanded, especially on the road. Is there really any place in the motorist's toolbox for the bluntest, most destructive weapon of them all - REVENGE ?
|
I think you must have had the same driving instructor I had.
I've just read through this thread & think it really does give an insight into different peoples psyche.
It is of course only common courtesy to dip your lights for someone, be it pedestrian or driver.
If that means you cannot see far enough ahead for your speed then it is your responsibility to reduce your speed. A snippet from the Highway Code I recall ' travel at a speed that you can see the road ahead to be clear', this has been made clearer in the latest edition of the Highway Code (154) as 'Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear. '
As Bilboman says, revenge is not a weapon to be used on the road.
A pedestrian can stop instantly to avoid tripping & possibly start planning their safest place to stand. To deliberately try to dazzle someone to make a point seems foolish in the extreme when the pedestrian will be the looser if it all goes pear shaped. Everyone makes mistakes when driving & you sometimes just have to make allowances for others.
|
I read threads like this and decide I must be getting very old. It seems to me this comes down to basic courtesy, as do so many other things. My dad used to say you should live your life so that at the end of it, you can look anyone you have ever affected straight in the eye. If the pedestrian makes himself visible, if the driver dips his lights, if you park where it is considerate, if you drive safely - all show courtesy to those around you - not hard, is it?
The elderly veteran with two sticks, half blinded by the young thug he obstructed, was in the aisle BECAUSE NO ONE GAVE HIM A SEAT - what does that say about everyone else in that carriage.
Rant over! Off to collect a zimmer me thinks ;~)
|
was in the aisle BECAUSE NO ONE GAVE HIM A SEAT - what does that say about everyone else in that carriage.
Yes deepwith. Some of us were brought up to yield our seats to the infirm and pregnant women.
I once offered my seat to an elderly woman accompanied by a child in rural Tanzania - a long slow uphill bus ride. Everyone including the lady herself clearly thought I was barking mad. Not because I had offered my seat to an older person but because I had offered it to a woman, clearly not actually physically disabled. To avoid embarrassing her by insisting, I took the nipper on my knee instead. He was as good as gold.
|
|
I assume it is hard to see a pedestrian [unlit] from greater than about 30 yards away so dipping for them isn't as easy as it sounds IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
