Traffic light procedure

[trashbat]

I don't see that as a problem. If those who are waiting at the temporary traffic lights switch their headlights off, and position themselves suitably, they will be seen in the headlights of the oncomers, who don't have to cope with the glare of headlights on the waiting vehicles.

In general I prefer headlights to be switched off when we're not moving, unless the stop is for a very brief period.

I'm meaning front of the queue, where in my view you're not much less of a hazard than when you're moving along, and you wouldn't drive about with your lights off for fear of dazzling people. There's nothing reflective on the front of your car bar the numberplate, and people are numpties, so why introduce a major risk to counter a potential minor annoyance to others?

If you're further back in the queue, I don't care about that either, since your headlights shouldn't be pointing into the opposing lane and should be largely obscured by vehicles in front.

[TripleS]

I have difficulty coping with bright lights and I am affected by dipped lights in door mirrors. I switch to sidelights in queuing traffic to improve visibility around the traffic which makes pedestrians and cyclists easier to spot.

I don't have particular difficulty with bright lights, but I do find things easier if those who are not moving leave their headlights off, so that those who are moving can see better. At least I find it works like that.

[TripleS]

I definitely wouldn't turn the lights off. It's another complication in the setting off procedure that might cause you to make a mistake (including leaving your lights off). I too can't recall being particularly annoyed by them, and certainly never thought the driver should do anything about it, unlike brake lights.

I think I can cope with one more task! In fact, I switch on when the lights change to amber.

I wouldn't turn them off at chicane roadworks either, although I understand the aim, since it's exactly the time you need to be seen.

I think that is bad. Roadworks often involve digging things up. Oncoming traffic should not have their vision impaired by dazzle when there may be hazards in consequence of the works. If you are waiting, then you are behind the "wait here" sign aren't you?

Thank you Graham, you've explained my feelings very well there. Picking your way through roadworks, with bits and bobs lying around, possibly including displaced cones etc., can sometimes need a bit of extra care,and I would rather do it without the added handicap of facing the unnecessary glare of headlights on stationary vehicles.

[trashbat]

The problem is that you're both looking at it from the perspective of a competent driver.

I'm sure this was discussed on here or similar before, but I don't know what to search for.

[TripleS]

The problem is that you're both looking at it from the perspective of a competent driver.

I'm sure this was discussed on here or similar before, but I don't know what to search for.

I'm sorry but I can't help you with that. I never seem to be able to find what I'm looking for when using the search function, but I think that's probably more my fault than the system.

As far as headlights are concerned (and I know I've got a bit of a bee in my bonnet about it), but 'everybody' now seems to sit around in stationary vehicles in a variety of situations where they don't need their headlights on for their own purposes, nor are they needed so that others can see them. They just don't bother to switch them off. In the 'good old days' of relatively feeble dynamos and charging systems, people would be worried about ending up with a flat battery. Now we have high output alternators that will charge the battery even at idling revs, so people can get away with these sloppy tricks and there is no penalty. Pah, they have it too easy.

Right: that's got the day off to a good start! I think I'll go for a walk and cool it a bit.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Graham Wright]

If the vehicle in front has an autodimming mirror, it will take time to react. When you turn your lights off, the mirror will un-dim - then when you turn them on again you'll distract the driver as it will take time for the mirror to react and dim to the brighter lights. Given you'll be turning them on about the time the driver moves off, isn't there also the risk they think you're flashing them out of impatience?

Do wing mirrors autodim or autodip?

I ask because on my route home last night, I established that, at the recommended separation hang back distance, my headlights do not penetrate the interior of the vehicle in front. Thus the interior mirror is not affected. As I normally drive my company van which has no rear interior view, the wing mirrors are the ones that reflect the dazzle from the vehicle behind.

In the family car, an N registration Volvo (300,000 miles!), the wing mirrors are manually dipped. The action of reaching up to manually dip the interior mirror is never taken as a hint to the car behind that a dip or douse would be appreciated.

[jont]

The problem is that you're both looking at it from the perspective of a competent driver.

I'm sure this was discussed on here or similar before, but I don't know what to search for.

I'm sorry but I can't help you with that. I never seem to be able to find what I'm looking for when using the search function, but I think that's probably more my fault than the system.

As far as headlights are concerned (and I know I've got a bit of a bee in my bonnet about it), but 'everybody' now seems to sit around in stationary vehicles in a variety of situations where they don't need their headlights on for their own purposes, nor are they needed so that others can see them. They just don't bother to switch them off. In the 'good old days' of relatively feeble dynamos and charging systems, people would be worried about ending up with a flat battery. Now we have high output alternators that will charge the battery even at idling revs, so people can get away with these sloppy tricks and there is no penalty. Pah, they have it too easy.

Right: that's got the day off to a good start! I think I'll go for a walk and cool it a bit.

I think you'll find in a lot of cars these days people don't switch their lights on either - they just leave the car in "auto". With day time running lights this isn't quite as dangerous as it used to be in drizzle/fog - for the front of the car - but people don't seem to realise they have no lights at the back.

On the other hand DRLs have caused their own problems of "light wars" that in order not to be feeling left vulnerable more people are running with their lights on all the time. I certainly used to do this in the Elise as without lights it was amazing the number of people that just didn't see the car.

[sussex2]

The same with my MX5 as a lot of people simply don't see you. The thing is by the way the California model which is bright yellow!
Slightly off topic but I also notice that people will follow you much more closely in a bright coloured car than a darker one. It is notable in the Mazda.
My own theory is that the eye is attracted to bright colours and that we consider them more safe; hence are happier to get close to them. That would blow the theory about HiViz jackets and cyclists out of the window

[sussex2]

If the vehicle in front has an autodimming mirror, it will take time to react. When you turn your lights off, the mirror will un-dim - then when you turn them on again you'll distract the driver as it will take time for the mirror to react and dim to the brighter lights. Given you'll be turning them on about the time the driver moves off, isn't there also the risk they think you're flashing them out of impatience?

Do wing mirrors autodim or autodip?

I ask because on my route home last night, I established that, at the recommended separation hang back distance, my headlights do not penetrate the interior of the vehicle in front. Thus the interior mirror is not affected. As I normally drive my company van which has no rear interior view, the wing mirrors are the ones that reflect the dazzle from the vehicle behind.

In the family car, an N registration Volvo (300,000 miles!), the wing mirrors are manually dipped. The action of reaching up to manually dip the interior mirror is never taken as a hint to the car behind that a dip or douse would be appreciated.

A few years ago MOT inspectors had a bee in their bonnets about headlight adjustment and when my cars came back they all had the lights adjusted too high; as if you were looking for birds in trees or low flying aircraft!
They were swiftly adjusted back.
MOT inspectors seem to have 'fashionable' things to look for.

[Ancient]

The same with my MX5 as a lot of people simply don't see you. The thing is by the way the California model which is bright yellow!
Slightly off topic but I also notice that people will follow you much more closely in a bright coloured car than a darker one. It is notable in the Mazda.
My own theory is that the eye is attracted to bright colours and that we consider them more safe; hence are happier to get close to them. That would blow the theory about HiViz jackets and cyclists out of the window

Sorry of the diversion but yes, indeed it would, it's a complex decision:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7513005113

Highlights

• Visibility aid prevalence is low among injured bicyclists.
• In daylight, white or light upper body clothing decreased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash.
• In the dark, red/orange/yellow upper body clothing and tail lights increased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash.
• Using multiple visibility aids is associated with reduced odds of severe injury in bicyclists.

The significance of the first point can only be understood if the prevalence of visibility aids amongst uninjured bicyclists is known.
However, light upper body clothing may assist in avoiding daylight collisions.
But after dark, a bicyclist is more likely to be run into when abiding by the HC than when not
But the resulting injuries are likely to be less if multiple visibility aids are used (? so they are magic vests after all?)

[sussex2]

It's an old one but:

What you use to protect yourself may be used against you.

As an aside the daftest use of HiViz I've ever seen was a sentry at the gangway of a UK warship in a home port.
The sentry (they seem to be armed these days which they weren't in mine despite the IRA threat) was wearing the now fashionable camouflage gear and on top the HiViz jacket.
The irony of the mixture seemed lost on the young person wearing it.

[sussex2]

The same with my MX5 as a lot of people simply don't see you. The thing is by the way the California model which is bright yellow!
Slightly off topic but I also notice that people will follow you much more closely in a bright coloured car than a darker one. It is notable in the Mazda.
My own theory is that the eye is attracted to bright colours and that we consider them more safe; hence are happier to get close to them. That would blow the theory about HiViz jackets and cyclists out of the window

Sorry of the diversion but yes, indeed it would, it's a complex decision:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7513005113

Highlights

• Visibility aid prevalence is low among injured bicyclists.
• In daylight, white or light upper body clothing decreased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash.
• In the dark, red/orange/yellow upper body clothing and tail lights increased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash.
• Using multiple visibility aids is associated with reduced odds of severe injury in bicyclists.

The significance of the first point can only be understood if the prevalence of visibility aids amongst uninjured bicyclists is known.
However, light upper body clothing may assist in avoiding daylight collisions.
But after dark, a bicyclist is more likely to be run into when abiding by the HC than when not
But the resulting injuries are likely to be less if multiple visibility aids are used (? so they are magic vests after all?)

I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to measure the clearance given to cyclists by other wheeled road users when the former is wearing different clothing.

[Ancient]

The same with my MX5 as a lot of people simply don't see you. The thing is by the way the California model which is bright yellow!
Slightly off topic but I also notice that people will follow you much more closely in a bright coloured car than a darker one. It is notable in the Mazda.
My own theory is that the eye is attracted to bright colours and that we consider them more safe; hence are happier to get close to them. That would blow the theory about HiViz jackets and cyclists out of the window

Sorry of the diversion but yes, indeed it would, it's a complex decision:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7513005113

Highlights

• Visibility aid prevalence is low among injured bicyclists.
• In daylight, white or light upper body clothing decreased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash.
• In the dark, red/orange/yellow upper body clothing and tail lights increased the odds of a bicyclist–motor vehicle crash.
• Using multiple visibility aids is associated with reduced odds of severe injury in bicyclists.

The significance of the first point can only be understood if the prevalence of visibility aids amongst uninjured bicyclists is known.
However, light upper body clothing may assist in avoiding daylight collisions.
But after dark, a bicyclist is more likely to be run into when abiding by the HC than when not
But the resulting injuries are likely to be less if multiple visibility aids are used (? so they are magic vests after all?)

I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to measure the clearance given to cyclists by other wheeled road users when the former is wearing different clothing.

Funny you should ask that
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513004636

Highlights

• An instrumented bicycle recorded passing proximities from 5690 motorists.
• Overtaking proximities were not related to a bicyclist's apparent experience level.
• Drivers responded to a ‘police’ vest which suggested the journey was being videoed.
• 1–2% of overtakes came within 50 cm of the rider no matter how they were dressed.
• Bicyclists probably cannot prevent close overtakes by manipulating their appearance.

[sussex2]

I'm surprised by the 50 cm clearance but relieved it was such a small percentage.

[Ancient]

I'm surprised by the 50 cm clearance but relieved it was such a small percentage.

"Within 50cm": I have had one driver overtake so close as to catch hold of the end of my peddle (toe straps in those days) in his wheel arch. It was quite exciting being pushed along at 40mph+ (but he got a bit annoyed at my attracting his attention by beating on his bonnet). Another time, in a traffic jam an overtaking far managed to pull my front wheel out by catching the axle-end. That's sort of on topic as it was at TLs

Ahhh, exciting days.