Coline wrote:Why can we not call "Sidelights" PARKING lights as they do in the States. [...]
Surely these lights could be renamed in the Highway Code book so future drivers would not use this practice.
Smiling Assassin wrote:I would normally use sidelights when visibility is only slightly reduced to make me more visible and I don't need headlights to see where I'm going, such as dawn/dusk or in light mist or rain.
ROG wrote:Are we referring to those little tiny lights or dimdips - much difference between the two....... ????????
Gareth wrote:I'm sure I remember using sidelights alone when the system of street lighting was suitable, as still may be found in many town centres, but these days I would tend not to do so. The times when I do have sidelights on their own is when the day is overcast enough to make the instrument panel harder to see but at the same time the outside world doesn't seem dark enough to warrant headlights. Since the main reason for making a vehicle visible is to those following, there must be other times where headlights are not required and having them on only serves to make bicycles disappear.
TripleS wrote: In some circumstances I still drive on sidelights only, if I think it is helpful, and I disagree with those who insist you should always go straight from no lights at all, to dipped headlights.
Incidentally, the change took place many years ago, and I can't remember when it happened or why it was done, but sidelight and tail light bulbs used to be 6w rather than 5w. Did it concide with us (sort of) going metric?
Renny wrote:Dave, like you I sometimes do use sidelights, especially with a pale coloured car (the Discovery is a very light blue) when visibility may be reduced, but running dipped headlights would be likely to be seen as unnecessary.
jont wrote:Renny wrote:Dave, like you I sometimes do use sidelights, especially with a pale coloured car (the Discovery is a very light blue) when visibility may be reduced, but running dipped headlights would be likely to be seen as unnecessary.
On the other hand, I regard running dipped headlights all the time as very necessary given the experiences I had before I started doing so. Small, low car with minimal cross-sectional area seems to be ignored by a lot of motorists (or at least they don't realise how close it is when they pull out in front of you)
Smiling Assassin wrote:Volvo, I think, started the trend with their cars.
Smiling Assassin wrote:jont wrote:....I regard running dipped headlights all the time as very necessary given the experiences I had before I started doing so. Small, low car with minimal cross-sectional area seems to be ignored by a lot of motorists (or at least they don't realise how close it is when they pull out in front of you)
A similar excuse was given by motorcyclists for riding with dipped beam in daylight and the result has been the removal of the switch from most, if not all, new bikes in the last few years. Volvo, I think, started the trend with their cars which completely negated the value of bikers riding with a dipped beam. An old chestnut I know but it still annoys me that I cannot turn the lights off on my ST1300 which I can do on all the other vehicles I drive.
GJD wrote:Smiling Assassin wrote:Volvo, I think, started the trend with their cars.
Completely off isn't an option but my Volvo will allow me to use just sidelights. They clearly don't want me to though - the "you've still got your lights on" warning beep that sounds when you open the door to get out isn't used with the switch in the sidelights position.
Gavin
TripleS wrote: I came to appreciate the added protection it afforded them so it became OK in my mind. It is also possible that - as Jon reports - the drivers of certain cars may find they also are not being seen readily enough, in which case they too will rightly seek added protection.
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests