I thought this might have been aired before but a 'dazzle' search was negative. Does anyone else find this a problem?
Over the age of 50 eyesight gradually deteriorates and being dazzled becomes more of a problem, especially in the wet. Often all you can see are bright headlights - and very little else, even when visual acuity is 6/6 on a well lit Snellen chart.
Why not use only driving lights in a 30mph zone? This would allow other dimly lit hazards such as pedestrians and cyclists to be seen more easily.
Unfortunately not all cars seem to have this halfway house between dim sidelights and dazzly headlights.
I wonder how often being dazzled has been a contributory cause of accidents and injuries, especially to unseen pedestrians and cyclists?
Perhaps a change in behaviour might follow the growing realisation that changing a modern headlight bulb is often difficult and expensive.
And does anyone ever get prosecuted for inappropriate use of foglights? Perhaps HJ might know. I would have thought that was just the thing a camera could detect. I guess such cameras would be supported as strongly as speed cameras are detested - £60 fine, doubled in wet weather!
|
Can you please define "driving lights". Subject refers to headlights and foglights.
I am old enough to remember when driving on "side lights" was the norm in town and woe betide anyone who deviated. I was even told off for driving my Mini which had the side lights visible in the sealed beam headlight.
"Dim dip" in the 80's was a peculiarly British idea and seemed quite sensible.
|
Not sure what the original poster is referring to. Is he referring to headlights that are on but not main beam?
My car has the light switch with the following positions:
- Off
- Parking lights etc.
- Headlights on
- Main beam (push stalk forward)
If he is saying headlights are too bright then I cannot see what could possibly be done. But maybe he's referring to some cars that use brighter bulbs than the headlights were designed for? Or maybe he doesn't like the look of Xenon HID headlights?
I know I sometimes get flashed with people thinking I have main beam on but they have probably mistaken my Xenons since they will be brighter. Soon show them to be wrong by flashing main beams back ;-)
|
I think part of the problem is that headlights are now much brighter than they used to be. You also have 4x4s, SUVs and people carriers where the lights are higher up than other cars. Then also add in things like the phillips bulbs which are supposed to be 80% brighter, no wonder people are being dazzled.
I find it very hard when its been raining and you get the extra glare reflecting off the road. I also find it worse when going downhill, as the cars coming up the hill tend to squat down slightly.
Then of course there's the numptys who leave main beam and 100w foglights on...
|
"Then of course there's the numptys who leave main beam and 100w foglights on... "
Annoys me too. Surprised some on here say they use main beam all the time at night on motorways. Worst for me is the brightness in the rear view mirror - yes you can dip it but it's not as good as having an auto-dimming one.
|
Cataracts are the problem. Sort them out, and you can see again.
|
Just reread and saw "Often all you can see are bright headlights - and very little else"... please get your eyes tested. Mapmaker may be right but I have no experience.
All I know is when I get dazzled even with main beams my eyes do adjust and I can still see things besides the bright lights ;-)
|
Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but I certainly find the Xenon HID lights - especially on 4x4s (Range Rovers, BMW X5s & Discoveries are worst) exceptionally dazzling. Even worse is when they feel the need to put on as well their foglights / driving lights / whatever they want to call them.
Is it possible that older driver's eyesight isn't actually getting worse? Just more sensitive and that younger peple's eyesight is less sensitive due to sitting playing on computers, Xboxes, watching TV etc which is why they feeel the need to light up the universe.
Edited by grumpyscot on 12/02/2008 at 19:01
|
Regarding rear fog lights; given the recent advances in lens and bulb technology, I wonder if they really serve any purpose on modern cars?
My gripes with rear fogs are as follows;
1) Drivers forget to turn them off after the fog has cleared. Simply proves to me that they have not read the owners manual and have no idea what that cute little light is on the dashboard!
2) On some models of car, it is difficult to see the brake lights come on when rear fogs are on. High-level brake lights mitigate this but I find that you're not always looking out for them, you're expecting the stop lights to be where they "normally" are.
3) Following on from (1); on wet roads, the reflection of rear fogs off the road surface is a real pain (literally!) in a lorry cab. Car drivers don't notice this because they sit lower, but believe me it is not nice and furthermore does little for your forward observation.
4) Worst of all, as has been said by others elsewhere; there are some drivers who think that by switching their fog lights on they can safely drive flat-out even in poor visibility.
When rear fog lamps were first introduced (around 1978 IIRC) car lighting design and technology was far inferior to today's; furthermore unless I'm mistaken, fog does not seem to be so dense nowadays. Time to scrap fog lamps? Discuss.
Edited by Harleyman on 12/02/2008 at 20:55
|
|
People need to get their vision fixed - there is nothing wrong with the lights, or it would affect everyone. Try laser surgery, it is very cheap and takes only 25 seconds for each eye nowadays, they no longer have to slice your cornea up like a flap either. Spectacles (especially cheap ones) will always have aberrations and internal reflections at night causing light streaks and starbursts.
|
|
|
|
There are definitely times when something less than dipped headlights would be sufficient. Driving around a well-lit built up area at night, or anywhere during the (albeit relatively brief) period of evening twilight, I can see the road ahead perfectly well and don't notice the difference to what I can see if I turn my lights off completely. But I need some lights on so other road users can see me. However, while I don't find other cars' dipped headlights dazzling at these times, the problem I do find is that other hazards, for example pedestrians and cyclists (including those with lights), are harder to see when my eyes are adjusted to the light level of the headlights of oncoming traffic than when there is no oncoming traffic and my eyes can adjust to a lower overall light level. And the difference seems much greater than it needs to be.
The problem is that there isn't a sensible option between dipped headlights and no lights on modern cars. My rose-tinted spectables suggest to me that it was not ever thus. 15 to 20 years ago, my recollection is that cars had the sort of sidelights (or whatever you want to call the level between dipped headlights and off) that would be perfect in this situation. Not bright enough to illuminate anything for the driver, but that's not important, while still clear and obvious attention-grabbers when they come into your field of view. Nowadays, cars have sidelights/parking lights, but the game played by designers seems to be, given a 5W bulb and a piece of clear glass, who can design the lens pattern that permits the least amount of light to get out. All good fun to play that game I'm sure, but not very helpful.
|
|
I have replaced my 5W sidelight bulbs with W5W that are both brighter and whiter.
|
|
|
Front fog lights serve no real purpose other than filling the expanse of bumper frontage to make it pleasing on the eye.
It has been proven in tests that rear fogs give a false sense of security for those following. It has been recommended that rear fogs should be removed placing more onus on the skill of the driver and keeping a distance. This should allow the brake lights do do their job.
Maybe brake lighting should be made brighter instead.
|
Front fog lights serve no real purpose other than filling the expanse of bumper frontage to make it pleasing on the eye.
They might serve no real purpose in the way they are most often used, but on the rare occasions it is seriously foggy - funnily enough, the situation they were invented for - they are rather handy.
It has been recommended that rear fogs should be removed
Really?! But they are really useful too.
placing more onus on the skill of the driver and keeping a distance.
What about the period when I am on an initially empty road but then start to come up behind some traffic? Keeping a distance isn't an issue yet - I haven't caught them up yet. But if it's foggy (and probably day time and with no street lighting), I can be quite close before I see normal tail lights, but get to see them from a much safer distance if they have their brighter fog lights on. I don't think this benefit should be a surprise either, since this is the situation rear fog lights were invented for isn't it?
This should allow the brake lights do do their job. Maybe brake lighting should be made brighter instead.
What if the traffic ahead of me that I am catching up with isn't braking at all? How will extra-bright brake lights help if they aren't on? (And anyway, with the number of people who sit at junctions and other queues with their foot on the brake, their brake lights in my face are quite bright enough already).
|
So you were involved with this report then. I'm afraid their opinion is that fog lights are just replacements for better concentration in low light conditions.
They tested reaction times with and without fog lights and they found that concentration and safer driving was better without rear fogs. As has been proven by other posts, the ones that drive at full pelt in fog think their fogs give them radar enablement. Unsafe driving.
As for front fogs, I disagree. They serve no purpose. Because if they did, all models would have them fitted as standard.
Normal dipped headlights work fine.Front fogs illuminate the ground you don't see from the dash.
I suppose your one of these that drive everywhere in all conditions with front fogs on because you think you look cool.
|
So you were involved with this report then. I'm afraid their opinion is that fog lights are just replacements for better concentration in low light conditions.
I haven't been involved in any report. My comments were my own opinions based on my own experience. Which report is this? It's not clear what they are getting at from what you say. Whose fog lights are a replacement for my concentration in foggy conditions?
a) My front fog lights?
b) My rear fog lights?
c) Other people's front fog lights?
d) Other people's rear fog lights?
They tested reaction times with and without fog lights and they found that concentration and safer driving was better without rear fogs.
Is that my reaction time tested with and without the rear fogs of the car in front of me switched on? If I am following someone in a line of traffic they shouldn't have their rear fog lights on, but very few people switch them off when someone is behind them. If that is the situation then I can certainly see a problem. I don't know about my reaction times, but it can certainly be very disorientating following someone with their rear fog light on when all it serves to do is illuminate the fog between me and them into a general pool of bright redness inside which it is hard to distinguish between road, verge, lane markings and fresh air. But in the situation where a line of traffic is travelling at a certain speed, and I a mile behind am travelling a little faster, I will at some point catch up with them. If it's foggy, why wouldn't I want rear fog lights ahead of me to give me the same sort of notice of traffic ahead that I get with normal lights when it's not foggy? I suppose you could argue that as long as I am driving such that I can stop within the distance I can see to be clear, I would see the traffic ahead in time to stop even if it was staionary, but by that logic why have tail lights at all under any conditions?
I can see how all that might be an argument for teaching people when to switch their rear fog lights off, but not for getting rid of them completely.
As has been proven by other posts the ones that drive at full pelt in fog think their fogs give them radar enablement. Unsafe driving.
Unsafe indeed, but now have we moved from talking about how I might be affected by d (other people's rear fogs) to how I might be affected by a (my own front fogs)?
As for front fogs I disagree. They serve no purpose. Because if they did all models would have them fitted as standard.
I don't think it's as black and white as that. They serve a purpose occasionally and they aren't free. There is therefore ample scope for individuals to come to their own decision as to whether the cost-benefit analysis comes out in favour of having them or not.
Normal dipped headlights work fine.Front fogs illuminate the ground you don't see from the dash.
I can see the pool of light on the road in front of me with front fogs on. Normal dipped headlights work. Sometimes front fog lights, if you have them, work better.
I suppose your one of these that drive everywhere in all conditions with front fogs on because you think you look cool.
Why do you suppose that? I've reread everything I posted and I honestly can't see what I said that would give you that impression. Everything I talked about was how I thought fog lights coud be of benefit when it's foggy.
|
|
|
>>As for front fogs, I disagree. They serve no purpose.
>>
I am disappointed to read this comment.
Either you have never driven in really thick fog or when you have it has been in a car with poor fog lights or you are winding us up.
I have rarely driven in a peasouped but each time fogs were a must. It may be cold driving with head out of the window but thank goodness for fog lights.
>>
>>They serve no purpose. Because if they did, all models would have them fitted as standard.
That is obviously not correct. Many thinking drivers want fog lights as you may deduce from other postings.
>>
Normal dipped headlights work fine. Front fogs illuminate the ground you don't see from the dash.
Err - No in really thick fog the glare from dip beams hinders vision.
You have now convinced me you have never driven in thick thick fog.
|
|
|
|
|
Nowadays cars have sidelights/parking lights but the game played by designers seems tobe given a 5W bulb and a piece of clear glass who can design the lens pattern that permits the least amount of light to get out.
Quite agree. Time we adopted the American terminology of PARKING lamps; happy to be corrected on this but AFAIK many states forbid driving on "side-lights".
Change the law, in fact simplify it; car moving , headlamps on. Before nit-pickers move in on this I do not propose daytime headlights, the current guidelines of when lights should be used ought to suffice.
Further to rose-tinted recollections; we'd do well to remember that street-lights were less powerful and far less plentiful in the old days. Driving round town on side-lights was indeed perfectly acceptable then because the sidelights themselves were easier to see and of course there were fewer cars too; furthermore city traffic took its toll on old-fashioned batteries charged by dynamoes. My guess is that another reason for switching headlamps off in town is a throwback to this outdated and now unnecessary habit.
|
Driving round town on side-lights
I don't think I've ever seen anyone doing this, at least, not without fog lamps as well. I certainly have seen people with no lights at all - they get "flashed" more than rock stars!
|
|
|
Nice to see some sarcastic comments to the OP about getting eyes tested - mine are tested regulary as part of my job yet they are still dazzled by oncoming headlights - the reason is mainly that the headlights are badly adjusted (the most common one is one shining up and one down) or they are carrying a heavy load and have not adjusted them - how many of you ever do that then??
Then it is made worse by the newer brighter bulbs - though I wouldn't knock the technology as compared with what I started with they are great....
|
|
Side lights should be called "parking lights", its all they are any good for. I firmly belive in "See and be seen", within the law. I often use my headlights in broad daylight on fast (very) rural roads or in anythig worse than slightly poor visibility.
|
My car manual states that the first position on the light switch is parking lights. Not side lights. It's a Mazda6.
I leave mine in auto most of the time so I assume side/parking lights never used. But I do get flashed for having xenons.
|
Studies have shown that in North America more people inappropriately use their fog lamps in dry weather than use them properly in poor weather.[15]
Intersesting snippet I think it applies to most countries.
|
|
|
|
Many thanks for all responses. Clearly there is widespread ignorance about normal age related sensory deterioration. An optician looks for early signs of eye diseases such as cataract and glaucoma and checks focussing ability, issuing a prescription for glasses if necessary. However, nothing can be done about presbyopia and macular degeneration. I guess the 'get your eyes checked' comments come from the 17 - 50yr olds.
It is the greater age range of 55 - 90+ drivers who experience most distress from dazzle. Surely there is a law about the maximum watt/lux of dipped headlights. To install 'xenon' or higher-powered bulbs for dipped headlights is both selfish and hazardous.
One of my cars had sidelights which were dim when parked, but brighter when ignition on and engine running - excellent for lit 30mph zones. Can't remember which car, though. That's what I meant by 'driving lights' - needed to be seen but not to see. LED clusters and blue neon amuse, but blazing heads and fogs are just idiotically pretentious in town.
Good point about rear fog lamps - there should only ever be one, especially if in the same cluster as brake lights - as in sensible German cars. Anyone who has ever concertinered their way at high speed up a crowded dark rainyspray motorway following a peabrain with blazing rear foglights will understand this.
Perhaps HJ might do a dazzle feature in the Sat Telegraph Motoring section?
|
"I guess the 'get your eyes checked' comments come from the 17 - 50yr olds"
Yes in this case. I know little of what is to come I guess. But if you hadn't got them checked like some might not then the suggestion was worthwhile.
"Surely there is a law about the maximum watt/lux of dipped headlights."
Would think so and headlights are designed for certain watt bulbs too... so we should stick with the right spec in my opinion.
"To install 'xenon' or higher-powered bulbs for dipped headlights is both selfish and hazardous."
I do have Xenons and find them to be good. I also do not have a problem with oncoming cars with them either. But I do have a problem with cars that are either driving around with lights that are either on main beam all the team or they have put higher wattage bulbs in for their normal headlights too.
I think the latter is what is happening. And some use ones which give off a blue tint (possibly using Xenon in the bulb) but they are not Xenon High Intensity Discharge units.
I've just had a thought on my car... It has 4 bulbs in each headlight which include
- the Xenon HID one...
- the indicator
- front fog light
- main beam (which is not xenon - I do not have bi-xenons)
- parking light
So the main beam and parking light must be the same bulb?? I'll have to check the manual.
|
|
A huge BMW SUV driven by a woman blinded me with its outer pair of lights at Notting Hill Gate an hour ago, as it waited to exit and I waited to enter the same side turning. I don't know if they were its main beams as it was on a slight upslope, but they were far too damn bright and shining straight at my window. Have these things no sidelights? It wasn't dark or anywhere near it.
|
|
|
|
>>Good point about rear fog lamps - there should only ever be one, especially if in the same cluster as brake lights - as in sensible German cars.
>>
Not a good point. IMO two fog lights is what is best and all my British cars for THIRTY PLUS years have been so equiped. Two lights give you a much better indication of distance to impact. :-)
Ideally the fog lights should of course be positioned away from brake lights.
I fitted my !600E (1971) with a pair of fogs under the bumper.
My Sierra Sapphire had side/fog lights close to the extremity of the light clusters and the brake lights adjacent to the number plate ( IIRC just like many RRs)
A good arrangement plus an added third brake light and of course dip/dim.
Well done Ford.
8< snip
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 15/02/2008 at 13:04
|
|
Only lights I find dazzling are the HID ones on Range Posers and the other "luxury" 4x4s. I doubt it's cataracts, I'm 22!
|
What really 'gets' me is the number of times I encounter people who leave their headlights switched on when parked!! For example, when their passenger (or even the driver with no passengers) gets out to visit nearby fish and chip shop.
Surely I am not alone in finding stationary vehicle lights more dazzling than moving ones? The worst offenders are those who are parked by the *left* kerb but facing oncoming traffic!!
Polite request: If any reader is in the habit of doing this...please do me (and others?) a favour and switch their lights off when parked.
Many thanks.
|
|
Thought it was illegal if the car is actually parked up?
|
|
|
|
.I fitted my !600E (1971) with a pair of fogs under the bumper.
Fair enough. My TR7 has two foglights slung under the bumper, well away from the main clusters.
8< Snipped only because it was in response to a reply that I have since removed above - DD}
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 15/02/2008 at 13:03
|
In "the good old days" a flat battery would be the result.
My VW headlights are wired though the steering lock and can not be left on- much appreciated.
An ex-colleague left his headlights on when parked and in a "tired and emotional" state.
A two year ban ensued.
|
But a VWs light on left/right can be left on for a parking light by leaving the indicator either in the left/right signalling position. So you can leave the parking light front/rear on for the side of the vehicle in the road.
My wife's car has a button to leave parking lights on near the ignition barrel (a FIAT) - otherwise they switch off when the ignition is off. My Mondeo had a position on the light switch to leave parking lights on without the warning buzzer sounding. Not sure about the Mazda6.
|
But a VWs light on left/right can be left on for a parking light by leaving the indicator either in the left/right signalling position. So you can leave the parking light front/rear on for the side of the vehicle in the road.
Thanks for that rtj70 That solves the mystery of my nearside lights staying on last night on my new Octavia
|
CGNorwich
You're welcome. You see none of us read the manuals - I only know this because of my brother when he had a MkIII Golf many many years ago ;-)
I've since figured out my car does indeed have a separate parking bulb of 5W but I've not looked for it yet. Just checked the Mazda6 manual. Also discovered the rear fogs and break lights are both the same wattage.
Biggest surprise was that the main fuse for the car is 100 amps!!! And the petrol model is higher at 120 amps! Crikey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
