mk1-forum.net

Exminiman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:10 am ……..cyclists definitely have priority, scenario: two cyclists, cycling two a breast on a country lane - impossible to give 1.5 M clearance between them and the car…….but they are in the right ?

This seems to be how some cyclists are reading it…..especially the old skinny ones, in Lycra with beards….

6D86AB31-E96D-4FA3-92F0-328FE2535B75.png

Two abreast is perfectly legal and sensible, overtake them as you would a vehicle ie. when it's safe and fully across into the other lane, it's not difficult. Unfortunately the majority can't wait a minute to pass safely as obviously their lives depend on that minute. It's an entitled attitude that many have unfortunately and are quite happy to risk others lives just for the inconvenience.
Personally when on narrow country roads, when I'm aware of any vehicle behind I always pull over at the first safe opportunity, if everyone did this it would reduce the rage, unfortunately very few do.

111Robin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:48 pm Whatever happened to dim dip ?. I remember that being a big thing in the 80s.

Dim dip i had forgotten about that !!
Sure my mother's mk4 escort had dim dip
It was the predessor to daylight light running
10%-20% of dipped beam

111Robin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:23 am Please don't turn this into a cyclist hating post, there's plenty of that shite elsewhere on the web.
I am constantly passed very dangerously on my bike by arrogant, ignorant a-holes with this opinion and I'm sick and tired of it. You should try cycling yourselves sometime and see how you like it, maybe then your opinion might change.
There are plenty of dicks on bikes but not as many as those on four wheels.

Hey, lots of assumptions and jumping to conclusions there.....and no my opinion is not likely to change soon, as I do cycle.

.....but I also drive a lot on country lanes where it is obvious that some cyclists (not all) now believe that it is their right to cycle two a breast and make drivers wait. It was a badly drafted law IMHO, because the 1.5m means if there is two cyclists abreast it is not actually possible for some one to pass. Unfortunately, some "entitled" cyclists now see it as their right, regardless of common sense.

Exminiman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 3:41 pm

111Robin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:23 am Please don't turn this into a cyclist hating post, there's plenty of that shite elsewhere on the web.
I am constantly passed very dangerously on my bike by arrogant, ignorant a-holes with this opinion and I'm sick and tired of it. You should try cycling yourselves sometime and see how you like it, maybe then your opinion might change.
There are plenty of dicks on bikes but not as many as those on four wheels.

Hey, lots of assumptions and jumping to conclusions there.....and no my opinion is not likely to change soon, as I do cycle.

.....but I also drive a lot on country lanes where it is obvious that some cyclists (not all) now believe that it is their right to cycle two a breast and make drivers wait. It was a badly drafted law IMHO, because the 1.5m means if there is two cyclists abreast it is not actually possible for some one to pass. Unfortunately, some "entitled" cyclists now see it as their right, regardless of common sense.

The wording should be changed to perhaps state that a group of four or more should ride two abreast where safe and practical to allow vehicles to pass in the shortest possible distance. If a group strings out in single file on a country lane it makes it even more impossible to overtake. You will never get everyone to agree on any of this. This is the main reason I cycle solo all of the time as I can try my best to not become an inconvenience to those in a hurry to get to the loch side carpark for their cup of tea

Not the age old cyclist question…

Look, you need to give adequate space when passing a vulnerable road user. On most roads, passing one cyclist means you’re going to have to go into the opposite lane. So what’s the big deal about overtaking them 2,3,4 or more abreast.

Just share the road and let’s be kind to one another. We’re all trying to get somewhere for some purpose or other and we’re all trying to arrive alive.

Amen to that.
Back on topic, so what did happen to dim dip ?. It seems to be a better solution as tail lights are on with the headlights and the lights didn't dazzle from memory.

gs.davies wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:26 pm Just share the road and let’s be kind to one another. We’re all trying to get somewhere for some purpose or other and we’re all trying to arrive alive.

Surely this applies to all users of the road, but may I add the pavement which is not for parking on when there are pedestrians using it !

111Robin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 8:51 am Amen to that.
Back on topic, so what did happen to dim dip ?. It seems to be a better solution as tail lights are on with the headlights and the lights didn't dazzle from memory.

"Apparently the UK was the only country to require such dim-dip systems, though vehicles so equipped were sold in other Commonwealth countries with left-hand traffic. UK regulations briefly required vehicles first used on or after 1 April 1987 to be equipped with a "dim-dip" device.
However in 1988, the European Commission successfully prosecuted the UK government in the European Court of Justice, arguing that the UK requirement for dim-dip was illegal under EC directives prohibiting member states from enacting vehicle lighting requirements not contained in pan-European EC directives. As a result, the UK requirement for dim-dip was quashed. Nevertheless, dim-dip systems remain permitted and dim-dip functionality was fitted on many new cars well into the 1990s."
http://dastern.torque.net/techdocs/dimdip.html

Perhaps with Brexit this could be an opportunity for the UK to bring dim-dip back.....

It's me again but this time an immediate response to the last post.
Very interesting about EU effect. Takes me back to 1966 in Monaco.
Last night I drove to a local motor club night on undulating B and A roads and my wife was surprised at the large number of different colour headlights coming towards us; from brilliant white to dim white/yellowed.
Some of the very bright lights did not dip until after I had been dazzled (auto dip feature? or dim dipper?). Also the number of direction low level lights when turning.
The first encounter was a HGV (40ft) and the lights were so bright I wasn't just dazzled I was blinded.
Don't get me wrong, I know I am of senior years but I do take an interest in driving in all conditions and fortunately for my age have good night vision.
That's all folks for tonight as I'm going to rest my eyes with a free airline eye mask
Cliff

It's in the news again !
"In response to these growing concerns, the Department for Transport (DfT) said that international rules were agreed last April by the United Nations. These make it mandatory for new cars to automatically adjust headlight height according to how much weight they're carrying." In 2027!
BUT what about all the EV's with multiple intensity lumens, one model has an illuminated strip across the front. And what about the vehicles equipped with directional under bumper lamps which seem to replace the things which I think were called indicators and orange in colour !
I have an SUV with LEDs and when I switch on the ignition at night I can see the headlights adjusting to the weight of the car but I must check if it does when passengers get into the vehicle.
Hey ho, the wonders of modern car electronics.
Cliff
ps Regularly read a message saying key fob not recognised - but car running and all good.
pps Handbook suggests contacting dealer if warning appears on display. Hang on, do they know how far it is to a dealer nowadays.
pps glad I still have cars which have carbs.

I'd started to notice how bright and dazzling the modern oncoming lights were. So bright that here seemed to be a halo around them - twice over!!!!!

By chance I went to the optician for an eye test because of this. Yep..... cataracts were causing it. It was the only problem I'd noticed. Just had one corrected and the other one next month or so. The difference is immediate.

The lights are still bright but the brightness doesn't dazzle or blind like it used to with the halo effect.

There is no need for LED lights. Xenons were good enough and halogen lights are useless when fitted behind a plastic outer lens cover.

Costafortune wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 4:43 pm halogen lights are useless when fitted behind a plastic outer lens cover.

I am curious, what's the reasoning for this?

Government-commissioned project looking at dazzling headlights to kick off.
"From October 2024 through Spring 2025, TRL will equip a car with instruments to measure light levels encountered by drivers on UK roads.
The Transport Research Foundation’s subsidiary, the TRL has begun its research into headlight glare, following contributions from the RAC.
The TRL has started practical trials to assess the conditions that drivers complain of as glare from the headlights of oncoming vehicles – particularly at night. TRL has announced that they will be working with the Department for Transport (DfT) to understand the factors that can cause headlight glare.
Results of the research will be used to address the problem."
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motori ... -kick-off/

Peter Laidler wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 7:39 pm I'd started to notice how bright and dazzling the modern oncoming lights were. So bright that here seemed to be a halo around them - twice over!!!!!

By chance I went to the optician for an eye test because of this. Yep..... cataracts were causing it. It was the only problem I'd noticed. Just had one corrected and the other one next month or so. The difference is immediate.

The lights are still bright but the brightness doesn't dazzle or blind like it used to with the halo effect.

But with your new interocular lens do you find you get a sort of "spiders web" effect when looking at some bright points of light. I ask because I've had cataracts corrected in both eyes and I'm very pleased with the results but was immediately aware of this change . . .

The only thing I noticed was that the NON cataract eye was has a very pale yellow tinge to it. Whereas the operated-on eye is crystal clear. But my wife says this is due to my weekend whisky or cans of Fosters that I partake in. On the other hand, I blame that on my late 60's years in Australia and NZ

Costafortune wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 4:43 pm There is no need for LED lights. Xenons were good enough and halogen lights are useless when fitted behind a plastic outer lens cover.

I would agree that there is NO need at all for LED headlamps and I'd also put Xenons in that too. I've only ever run Halogens in all my cars, granted, never bothered with any covers, but found them quite adequate and they don't piss off the other road users.