 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I love my Volvo, and just to really get things going I put the new Osram Nightbreaker Unlimited bulbs in - and verily a great light will shine in the Alps! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Altis Hmmm. Compared to perhaps 10 litres an hour overall consumption...
Are we going to ban empty roof racks, rapid acceleration, tyres at the wrong pressure, open sunroofs or any of the other things which waste fuel?
Very sensible law.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 7-01-14 19:40; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Whitters wrote: |
| Boris wrote: |
Automatic lights are not the answer as they only come on in the dark - not when it is foggy, snowing, raining but can be light |
Maybe it depends on the make of car, but mine come on automatically after three swipes of the wipers |
So presumably you flash your lights every time you use the washers, how odd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Get over it.
Here in the Nordics it is required by law at all times. You get used to it, and yes, it is certainly safer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
The trouble with this law is that it only makes the roads safer for people in cars. Car drivers get used to only looking for that pair of headlamps and are then less likely to see pedestrians, cyclists or even motorbikes. The example given up thread of needing lights on a sunny day when going through a dark tree lined lane is a classic example. If headlamp use is compulsory then the car drivers are more likely to go into the shaded area at speed as they'll assume that anything already there will have lights on too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not convinced Valkyrie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
foxtrotzulu, yes, propper LED-based DRL with low energy consumption makes sense. Forcing other cars to use their inefficient headlights does not.
Valkyrie, +1
Years ago, Britain tried to introduce dim-dip headlights for use around town for just this reason. However, this was seen as against European law by the EC and we had to stop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_lighting#Dim-dip_lamps
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Valkyrie wrote: |
| The trouble with this law is that it only makes the roads safer for people in cars. |
That is simply not true.
It makes the roads safer for anybody who needs to see cars.
If anything, it is more important for pedestrians and cyclists to see moving vehicles than it is for other car drivers, since they are much more vulnerable in the case of an accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boris, well no, it can distinguish between when I use the washers or when the auto wipers have detected rain or have been put on manually. Cars are quite clever these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Whitters, but you worried you'd leave the lights on and the battery would go dead? Not clever enough to warn you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Well it does ding once the door is opened and I'm sure I'd notice, but not all cars do (a hire car we once had for example didn't and so the battery went flat) and not everyone has great hearing.
My main concern is being stopped and fined for forgetting to put them on in the first place on a bright sunny day when the need to have them on anyway is minimal, not to mention any unsuspecting tourists driving into the country, as I have yet to see any notification on the roads (admittedly I've not been through any major border posts yet)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was around before seat belts were compulsory. We had exactly the same type of arguments against them being mandatory. Including the objection that they'd add to the cost of the car, which was impossible to counter. Statistical evidence for belts was always met by another set of numbers dug out of somewhere which proved the opposite. Observations by the police, ambulance and medical community who had to deal with the aftermath were also rejected by non-belters as biased. Personal choicers moaned about the nanny state etc. But once introduced, compulsory belts clearly saved loads of lives and injuries and there are thousands of people alive or uninjured now who would be dead or disabled otherwise. We don't argue about it any more.
The same general points are being made about daytime lights. My conclusion is that the discussion is nothing to do with the proven statistical benefits of using them. It comes down to the same three groups of people: logical types who look at the stats and agree that the benefits outweigh the objections; people who probably don't care either way but don't regard it as an imposition; and a minority who view any imposition as an infringement of their human rights or who think it's just nanny-state, health-and-safety madness and who don't view the issue as a statistical one.
When I come back from driving in Switzerland I really find it hard to adapt to the UK situation where some people do have lights on but many don't. Especially in the 'marginal' conditions we so often get at commute times in the late autumn and early spring. I am inclined to accept the road stats on the benefits of daytime lights, and the value of everyone being consistently illuminated. I'm actually keen on mandatory lights, just like I was for compulsory belts. I'd rather save my ire against government intervention for other issues that I think are a far greater invasion of privacy and attack on liberty and which have no benefits at all to me as an individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
On some radio stations they still mention that archaic concept of “lighting up time” in UK. Surely that enforces the idea that it is OK (and perfectly legal) to drive around without lights for 30 mins after sunset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
JanA, I hadn't realised that the UK had stopped using street lights. I am impressed at the lengths that the Cameron government will go to to save money and not waste energy.
Bravo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
msej449, how can you compare seat belts to lights? If I get hit by another car or hit a tree a seat belt is going to do me a lot more good then having my lights on. Its a bit like saying the benefits of wearing a ski helmet is comparable to wearing a flourescent Nevica jacket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| under a new name wrote: |
JanA, I hadn't realised that the UK had stopped using street lights. I am impressed at the lengths that the Cameron government will go to to save money and not waste energy.
Bravo. |
Eh?
Legal ‘lighting up time’ refers to the compulsory use of headlights on vehicles...nothing to do with what time street lights are lit.
Aren't street lights on sensors nowadays so that they go on in response to low light conditions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
alex_heney, it's you that is wrong on this one. Accidents caused by cyclists riding into cars they hadn't noticed are very rare, where as accidents caused by drivers driving into cyclists are all too common. SMIDSY type incidents must be pretty damn common if they've got their own acronym. It's important that people see cars, but it's equally important that they see other road users. Making cars more conspicuous will make other road users less conspicuous, it's just the way the brain works. There's effectively an arms race going on just now with cyclists getting ever brighter lights to try and compete with the increasing light levels that surround them. Ultimately the cyclists will lose out as they aren't carrying around an electrical generator to power the lights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
altis, Simples, put a small wind powered generator on the roof, then the faster you go the cheaper your lights will be to run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Valkyrie, I'm pretty sure that yours is not actually an argument against headlights being permanently on but for everyone who is at risk of being hit by a car too make themselves as visible as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
meh, you haven't seen the light!
The point is that road users like pedestrians and cyclists cannot compete with the attention demanded by modern, bright headlights. With all the 'shouting' going on they simply get lost in the noise.
As a challenge, try driving at night on sidelights alone in a built up area (legal in the UK but I'm not sure about Iceland). See how often cars start to pull out in front of you. Now imagine what it would be like as a cyclist with just a 2.4W front light.
Cycle lighting:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
altis, we're lights on 24/7 even when we have 20 hours of daylight. AFAIK there isn't a mass massacre of cyclists!
Cyclists and pedestrians in the road suffer from not being huge as well. The requirement is not to be the most visible thing in the world ever but to be visible enough. I don't find the argument that running headlights during the day as well as at night would result in increased danger to pedestrians and cyclists very compelling particularly with direct experience of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whitters wrote: |
| msej449, how can you compare seat belts to lights? If I get hit by another car or hit a tree a seat belt is going to do me a lot more good then having my lights on. Its a bit like saying the benefits of wearing a ski helmet is comparable to wearing a flourescent Nevica jacket. |
Yes I can. If I'm killed in an accident caused by either it's the same. If I'm maimed in an accident caused by either it's the same. If I'm injured in an accident caused by either its the same. The proposition from legislators is that making both compulsory is justified, based on empirical evidence that it reduces the risk of accidents.
Of course, people can disagree, but I don't find the objections convincing because they don't counter with empirical evidence. Either the assertion is true or it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
What about all the people that suffer a premature death because of the pollution caused by all the extra fuel consumed?
I think it was this calculation that made them abandon the idea when it was first mooted in the seventies. Now that high-efficiency LED lighting has come along it now makes sense to have DRL. But to force everyone to use headlights regardless does not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
altis, as above that assertion is pretty baseless without some evidence. It's possible to think all kinds of things without that having any bearing on reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Edit: WTF am I thinking. NIMBYs will be NIMBYs and hilariously biased sources are funny. People should also learn what the words "not statistically significant" mean.
Enjoy railing against headlights but I'm out. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
| ...It's possible to think all kinds of things without that having any bearing on reality. |
...and THAT, my friend, is why we luv it here 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
There is another angle to consider. As we all know, with safety measures, there is the element of risk compensation. This measure could make drivers more reckless. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
No-one has mentioned all the extra pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of all the bulbs that will burn out so much more quickly.......just sayin'
Whitters, I am amazed that your car has rain sensing wipers and lights which come on automatically in the dark, but don't go off when you take the keys out of the ignition. OH's lowly 207 can't manage the first two tricks, but it can with the third. If you want a parking light, turn the engine off, turn the lights off and turn them on again.
I think the motorbike/bicycle argument has some sway, but that is more down to driver education/ignorance than the lights being 'lost in the noise.' On my way home tonight I was followed by a cyclist with flashing LED front light. It was bright enough to repeatedly trigger the auto-dim/anti dazzle function on my rear view mirror. Dipped heads don't trigger it.
As for OP - I am guessing that they will have an education period (if they have any sense.)....similar to mandatory seatbelt use and mobile phone use. For the first 6 months/year, you just got stopped and got a polite reminder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Whitters, WALOADof .. bollox. I live here and they don't care . I look forward to being officially admonished .. just a view
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Quick reminder as I know there's a few workers on here and those who may be going through switz, they are now stopping and fining people at the border for not having their headlights on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
matteevan90, Which border area is this, exactly? In the Valais I noted that we had the normal two local Cantonal policemen in the village on Saturday and it struck me that (a) I was in a CH registered 4wd without the headlights on (because I was rushing for bread at 8am and had forgotten to put them on) and they said and did.....nothing. (b) at that point I looked around, and some CH registered cars, including delivery wagons, did not have their headlights on, and (c) most foreign cars did not have their headlights on. Now....I respect the law, and put the headlights on whenever I remember to do so, which is most of the time. But I have seen no instances of draconian action anywhere, including 'at the border' - where the vignette seems a much bigger issue for the police than headlights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I sailed in through Bardonnex 10 days ago and I'd say that by far the majority of foreign cars didn't have their headlights on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
altis, nice theory but the alternator is spinning with the same resistance whether it is charging or not - you can't turn the alternator off so you can't get that inefficiency back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
altis, nice theory but the alternator is spinning with the same resistance whether it is charging or not - you can't turn the alternator off so you can't get that inefficiency back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Panda, Err, an alternator is just an electric motor reveresed, the greater the current being drawn, the greater the reactive torque/resistance, and secondly you can turn an alternator off with a magnetic clutch as they do in BMW efficient dynamics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Panda, wow....magic energy.
As later posts say, when you want more electrical energy from an alternator, that increases the mechanical load, which then demands more power from the engine and thus more fuel is consumed. I'm afraid that newton and faraday keep on being right, dammit, and there's no free lunch when it comes to generating electrical energy.
Yes there's a residual load on a non clutched alternator but the load goes up the moment you demand more by switching on the lights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
