Fog Lights

chris89 · 14 Jan 2016

pdq said:
With all new cars having DRLs (daylight running lights) it's becoming a bit too common to see drivers forgetting to put full lights on because the DRLs light up ahead of the car, resulting in no tail lamps.

jonmorris0844 said:
I'm amazed the EU decided on no rear lights in the day, even though the energy consumption multiplied by all vehicles would have been high (but still tiny for LEDs).

All cars like this should have automatic lights.

Gladly Cars such as Volvo's do stick the rear lights on automatically, same as some Mercs, Audi's now.

With other drivers of cars with DRL's i can't see how they can forget about turning them on, yea the Ford Kuga my dad has/ i drive has auto headlamps, but still never forget to turn them on. Although been put into my mind, be seen etc by my dad, as he was a Advance driving instructor etc.

RailUK Forums

Wallsendmag · 14 Jan 2016

With Audis the rear lights can be set to come on with the DRLs if you have the right lead and software , it's a regional setting so most others will be the same

455driver · 14 Jan 2016

tsr said:
Yes, agreed, when referring to traffic going in the same direction - I mean traffic approaching in the other direction from a long way off. I can't just reduce my visibility as soon as I see a headlight in the distance; on some routes it's not feasible to go for three quarters of a mile on a road with no signs, no cats' eyes and no markings to speak of, and expect to see where I'm going at any reasonable speed with just dipped lights!

Please define 'at any reasonable speed'?
Or do you just mean you want to go faster than the prevailing conditions allow?

AM9 · 15 Jan 2016

beeza1 said:
According to a friend of mine, a retired police officer, you can only use fog lights when it is foggy, obviously, or when there is falling snow, otherwise you are committing an offence, though he has never heard of anyone being prosecuted.
Regarding cars with only one headlight working, this could be down to the cost of a replacement bulb, I understand it can cost over £100 to have a bulb changed on some of the modern cars.

I find it helpful to use rear foglights in heavy spray conditions, based on my visibility of cars in front of me. I've never been challenged on the legality of that, maybe as a fine water mist is akin to fog anyway.
As far as the cost of changing headlights on some cars goes, well it is the reponsibility of the driver to choose and buy a car that he/she can afford to keep in a roadworthy condition. Halogen bulbs normally last a long time so even that odd relatively expensive replacement cost would be lost in the overall cost of mpotoring. If the cars with high cost of ownership didnt sell, they wouldn't last long on the market.

Zamracene749 · 15 Jan 2016

Heavy spray conditions are absolutely the worst time to use your rear foglights. The whole point of foglights is to make your vehicle more visible from a distance- note distance- in the extended gloom of fog- not from a few metres away. In wet, rather than foggy, conditions vehicles can easily be seen from hundreds of metres away because the spray only travels a few metres behind them. putting on rear fogs, in particular in heavy traffic and spray, masks the brake lights of your vehicle and those around you- a visual cue that is essential for avoiding accidents.

Oh and if a car is close enough behind you, in particular on a two lane road, turn em off. Its polite and safer than dazzling the driver behind you.....

Oh and if you are doing over 50mph and you have foglights on, you are doing something very wrong- either you need to slow down, or you don't need the fogs......

AM9 · 15 Jan 2016

beermaddavep said:
... putting on rear fogs, in particular in heavy traffic and spray, masks the brake lights of your vehicle and those around you- a visual cue that is essential for avoiding accidents.

That would apply equally to driving in fog so are you suggesting that fog lights would obscure brake lights application then?
Most cars on the road now have high level brake lights which are quite distinct from fog lights, and those have been LEDs for some time so far less chance of failure as well. These high level lights are often above the densest spray so are easily seen.
It's not the speed that I am doing that is the problem, it's those who do pass at 60+ who create the spray.
It seems that I am not the only one who regards judicious use of fog lights in high spray conditions beneficial to all. On the M25 in such condition, there are frequently a majority of drivers that think that way. Then the situation is that a car not using them appears in the mist of spray, just like cars who drive on (front) parking lights in darkness.

Wallsendmag · 15 Jan 2016

Absolute bollocks they're fog lights not spray lights the clues in the name

AM9 · 15 Jan 2016

Wallsendmag said:
Absolute bollocks they're fog lights not spray lights the clues in the name

Then why aren't they called 'Falling Snow and Fog Lights'?
I'm not hung up about a name and nor would I use offensive language defending my views.

Wallsendmag · 15 Jan 2016

I just don't get it in heavy traffic you can always see the next car there is no need for extra visibility unless you aren't driving to the conditions. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right , have a look at the thread title
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

carriageline said:
Willy waving I think!! I trump tho, RS6

Ah the perfect car for every occasion not at all jealous lol

341o2 · 15 Jan 2016

beeza1 said:
According to a friend of mine, a retired police officer, you can only use fog lights when it is foggy, obviously, or when there is falling snow, otherwise you are committing an offence, though he has never heard of anyone being prosecuted.
Regarding cars with only one headlight working, this could be down to the cost of a replacement bulb, I understand it can cost over £100 to have a bulb changed on some of the modern cars.

I have heard of one person being prosecuted for inaoppropriate use of foglights, yes it is an offence, in addition (and the reason for my dislike of foglights) is that to dazzle another road user by inappropriate use of lighting is an offence in itself. in my part of the world, we have free ranging animals as well, the latest suggestion is to paint them (when I saw the story thought was it April !st) and chances of a collision are increased if I can't see the road ahead due to being blinded by foglights

And if you keep or use a motor vehicle on the public highway, it is your responsability to keep it roadworthy

Kernowfem · 15 Jan 2016

I was under the impression that fogs should only be used if visibility drops below 100m? But then my test was taken far too long ago! I've never been in spray conditions where I couldn't see the car in front, normal headlights always seem ample to me.

chris89 · 15 Jan 2016

Kernowfem said:
I was under the impression that fogs should only be used if visibility drops below 100m? But then my test was taken far too long ago! I've never been in spray conditions where I couldn't see the car in front, normal headlights always seem ample to me.

Thats what i've been taught and told by my dad (Who mentioned was a Advance driving instructor)

I've had to use them a few times when it wasn't foggy, due to extremely heavy rain etc. But mostly due to fog of course.

Chris

al78 · 15 Jan 2016

It is worse when cycling at night. When I used to drive to work or anywhere on rural roads at night I found that drivers did dip their lights for me. That did happen when cycling to work but for some reason, since the clocks went back last autumn there seems to be an abundance of drivers with lights on at seemingly absurd brightness, so bright that I momentarily lose vision and my night vision is temporarily destroyed. That really is not pleasant when I am trying to look out for potholes or swathes of wet leaves both of which are hazardous to cyclists. I do wonder if some people are using full beam lights because their eyesight is not up to standard (in which case they shouldn't be driving). On the route I take home from work, even though it is tree lined and unlit there is no need for full beam lights.

cjmillsnun · 17 Jan 2016

Butts said:
I certainly agree with that, particularly when you are driving in rural areas which are unlit.

Suddenly a "cyclops" appears in your rear view mirror - most disconcerting. A lot of them utilise "full beam" to compensate if it is the "dipped" bulb gone which makes matters even worse.

My biggest pat hate. As I do a lot of mileage I do a bulb check every day and keep a bulb kit handy to replace any that have blown.

Although I do have some sympathy with Gen 2 Clio owners who have to remove the bumper and headlamp unit to change the bulb. French design at its most stupid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

AM9 said:
I find it helpful to use rear foglights in heavy spray conditions, based on my visibility of cars in front of me. I've never been challenged on the legality of that, maybe as a fine water mist is akin to fog anyway.
As far as the cost of changing headlights on some cars goes, well it is the reponsibility of the driver to choose and buy a car that he/she can afford to keep in a roadworthy condition. Halogen bulbs normally last a long time so even that odd relatively expensive replacement cost would be lost in the overall cost of mpotoring. If the cars with high cost of ownership didnt sell, they wouldn't last long on the market.

My wife's car blows on average one headlamp bulb a year. That said, it is good enough to put a bulb fail warning lamp on. Something that more cars should do as idiots don't seem to check.

cjp · 18 Jan 2016

Butts said:
Moving on from Traffic Lights my next query involves Fog Lights.

Why do so many cars drive about at night with their fog lights on when there is no fog ?

Am I missing something ?

Perhaps to indicate to other drivers that they are going slower than other vehicles because they see magic invisible fog and have slowed down in accordance with good driving practise?

Fog lights were introduced to be at a different angle to normal light so that their beam was not reflected / refracted back off the suspended water droplets which make up the fog into eyes of the driver using the headlights (not the oncoming driver's eyes). Years ago there used to be a "press the button to work" demo of this at the children's gallery of science museum)

GB · 18 Jan 2016

al78 said:
It is worse when cycling at night. When I used to drive to work or anywhere on rural roads at night I found that drivers did dip their lights for me. That did happen when cycling to work but for some reason, since the clocks went back last autumn there seems to be an abundance of drivers with lights on at seemingly absurd brightness, so bright that I momentarily lose vision and my night vision is temporarily destroyed. That really is not pleasant when I am trying to look out for potholes or swathes of wet leaves both of which are hazardous to cyclists. I do wonder if some people are using full beam lights because their eyesight is not up to standard (in which case they shouldn't be driving). On the route I take home from work, even though it is tree lined and unlit there is no need for full beam lights.

my bold.

"need" is subjective, but its the vehicle driver that gets to decide, no one else. Ive used full beam plenty of times when there hasn't been a "need", but it helps see further, wider and makes items or animals in the road easier and quicker to spot.

Poor show not to dip your lights for oncoming traffic though, including cyclists. However I don't usually dip for cyclists that make no effort to highlight themselves or have no lights.

Butts · 18 Jan 2016

GB said:
my bold.

"need" is subjective, but its the vehicle driver that gets to decide, no one else. Ive used full beam plenty of times when there hasn't been a "need", but it helps see further, wider and makes items or animals in the road easier and quicker to spot.

Poor show not to dip your lights for oncoming traffic though, including cyclists. However I don't usually dip for cyclists that make no effort to highlight themselves or have no lights.

There seem to be a lot of cyclists without lights, particularly these youths who pedal around on bikes that look as though they were designed for five year olds.

al78 · 20 Jan 2016

GB said:
my bold.

"need" is subjective, but its the vehicle driver that gets to decide, no one else. Ive used full beam plenty of times when there hasn't been a "need", but it helps see further, wider and makes items or animals in the road easier and quicker to spot.

Poor show not to dip your lights for oncoming traffic though, including cyclists. However I don't usually dip for cyclists that make no effort to highlight themselves or have no lights.

Well if I am capable of driving safely without full beam lights, I fail to see why other people can't, unless they just want to drive as fast as possible and to hell with others safety.

Just because it is the vehicle drivers choice to use them does not mean they have the right to create a hazard for others by dazzling. At its most fundamental it is called having care and consideration for other people. If you are deliberately dazzling cyclists then you are dangerous and should have your license revoked. Just because someone else is breaking the law gives you no right to break the law and put them in danger

:roll:.

GB · 20 Jan 2016

Who ever said anything about not being able to drive safe if I'm not using full beam?

cjmillsnun · 20 Jan 2016

al78 said:
It is worse when cycling at night. When I used to drive to work or anywhere on rural roads at night I found that drivers did dip their lights for me. That did happen when cycling to work but for some reason, since the clocks went back last autumn there seems to be an abundance of drivers with lights on at seemingly absurd brightness, so bright that I momentarily lose vision and my night vision is temporarily destroyed. That really is not pleasant when I am trying to look out for potholes or swathes of wet leaves both of which are hazardous to cyclists. I do wonder if some people are using full beam lights because their eyesight is not up to standard (in which case they shouldn't be driving). On the route I take home from work, even though it is tree lined and unlit there is no need for full beam lights.

I am sorry but on an unlit road where it is not foggy and there is no oncoming traffic or same direction traffic in front of you (and traffic includes cyclists) you should always use main beam. As someone else has said it will highlight hazards the bit sooner and whatever speed you do that always enhances safety.

chris89 · 20 Jan 2016

Well.

Super thick heavy fog today between Kinlet - Bewdley high amount of cars with no lights on what so ever, even fewer with fog's on.

One bit, just after leaving Bewdley and climbing the hill back towards Arley way (Before the Old folks village place) One car went past without any form of lights on, one following had dipped beam and could barely seem them. Did have my front/ rear fogs on and dipped beam, as soon as went through it all though lights went all off straight away.

Also When in Kiddy (heading towards Swan Center etc) even larger amount of cars with no lights on, side-markers or just DLR's on.

Apart from lights, large amount of cars. Well at least in Highley driving about just seeing through a hole cleared in the windscreen.

Fog Lights

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member