No need for headlights if there are streetlights?

[Kimosabe]

Anyone? I was just reading through a few things and came across this. In a way it makes sense and is the main reason for why I think cars with excessive lighting are pointless; a bit like using a torch to find your way about in a lit room. But I read this as saying that lights are not necessary where there are street lights. Maybe i'm having a moment...?

4. Lighting requirements (113 to 116)
113
You MUST

- ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
- use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified
- use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226).

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-dr ... 113-to-116

[Ancient]

Oh I agree!!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4117

[michael769]

That rule is a description of the minimum legal requirements. It is true that it is not mandatory to use headlamps on lit roads, however that does not mean that they are not necessary or should not be used - the law cannot be expected to cover all eventualities.

I would draw you attention to Rule 115 which sets out the Highway Code's advice on the subject:

use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen

[lordgrover]

Some time ago, decades even, I saw a car driving on side/parking lights only late at night. As he approached I thought I was being helpful by 'flashing' him, hoping he'd realize his 'mistake'. I continued on my way to the chippy and parked.
A minute or so later he pulled up wanting to know why I'd dazzled him.
I apologised saying it was only a momentary flash to let him know his headlights were off.
He became very irate, explaining that it was not illegal to drive in a lit area on sides and he was saving fuel by not using them. I laughed and offered him 10p or something.
Long story short, he stormed off with a squeak of his tyres and a shake of the fist.

[7db]

I run with my headlights on all the time.

[martine]

Whilst it's legal to have sidelights on only, I think the majority of the time you're less visible than if you had dipped headlights on. It's not like using a torch to see in a lit room - it's like using a torch to make yourself more visible in a (dimly) lit room. Headlights work both ways.

The only time I can see it might make sense is in town when the road is wet...there is a lot of glare from the road surface from headlights and if everyone was using sidelights it might be better.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I think that rule, while still valid, should be changed in light of today's customs and conditions. In wartime, cars drove around with blacked out headlamps. It was necessary, because of the war, but it wasn't safer, very much the reverse. There is no need to apply yesterday's standards to today's cars and situation. Please, just put your headlights on.

[jont]

Please, just put your headlights on.

Indeed. I don't know if it's just me, but since DRL were introduced, and particularly where manufacturers have used LEDs, people seem to think these provide adequate lighting in urban areas and don't realise they have no lights on at the rear of their car

[Ancient]

Does anyone here actually understand what is known as 'The Prisoner's Dilemma' as a psychological exercise?

Whilst it is true that you, as a car driver are more visible with headlights than with sidelights, you are (on restricted lit roads) using more light than is necessary. This is not an issue about fuel usage, it is an issue about those road users unable to deploy lights of the power and emitting area of motor vehicles. The way our eyes work is that they shut down sufficiently to protect themselves from the brightest light source in the field of view (and take a long time to recover): This puts those less able to deploy lighting technology at risk both whilst you are passing them andeven after you have passed.

"I always use headlights" is the old "I'm alright Jack" attitude. You are, but are putting others at increased risk. 'The Prisoner's Dilemma' or sheer selfishness?

[7db]

For game theorists, the payoff for not cooperating is higher than the cooperating payoff, so it's not really a prisoner's dilemma (characterised by a higher cooperation payoff): it's more a tragedy of the commons.

If others are running with lights then your optimal strategy is to run with as much lighting as you can manage. It's always better for everyone to run with more lights. The world becomes a more lit place and worse for those people who are poorly lit. Tant pis.

[Ancient]

For game theorists, the payoff for not cooperating is higher than the cooperating payoff, so it's not really a prisoner's dilemma (characterised by a higher cooperation payoff): it's more a tragedy of the commons.

If others are running with lights then your optimal strategy is to run with as much lighting as you can manage. It's always better for everyone to run with more lights. The world becomes a more lit place and worse for those people who are poorly lit. Tant pis.

Nope, because those with poorer lights are drowned out in the noise created by the ones with powerful lights and are not seen.

[7db]

That's the tragedy.

[TripleS]

For game theorists, the payoff for not cooperating is higher than the cooperating payoff, so it's not really a prisoner's dilemma (characterised by a higher cooperation payoff): it's more a tragedy of the commons.

If others are running with lights then your optimal strategy is to run with as much lighting as you can manage. It's always better for everyone to run with more lights. The world becomes a more lit place and worse for those people who are poorly lit. Tant pis.

Nope, because those with poorer lights are drowned out in the noise created by the ones with powerful lights and are not seen.

Not only those with poorer lights, but also those with no lights, e.g. pedestrians and, quite often, cyclists!

I've never believed that more light is necessarily better. What is needed is sufficient light.

[Astraist]

I find that streetlights usually offer poor view. The better the lighting, the further is the distance you can see to be clear, the wider (so you can ensure it will remain clear) and the clearer, so your reaction time is reduced, and thus your ability to stop safely within that margin is increased.

Also, your conspicuousness increase (so long as you don't dazzle them with the main beam) and you might even help other road users by lighting the road for them, as well. As far as I know, there is no strong proof in research for lights "masking" other road users; again, as long as they aren't strong enough to dazzle.

So, even in roads with streetlights I would drive with my headlights on, where possible with my full beams. If I must dip, I'd use the area that the other cars' lamps illuminate or resort to occasional flashes of the main beam to get a "peek" deeper into the road ahead and to all sorts of "dark corners" to the sides. Then again, I also support the use of lights during the day (DRLs)...

[Mulski]

Don't forget some vehicles would not be able to apply the OPs principle as their lights are hard wired to the ignition switch, which remain on all the time - modern Bikes are configured this way, but can't remember which year it came into force.

The point about light clutter in urban environments is well made, hence a number of riders add additional high intensity LEDs to try to overcome the issue. Unfortunately, even this does not always achieve the desired result.

Cheers