3. Another safety feature, but one I am not quite so sure about as it creates a pet hate of mine, is the brake lights. When AutoHold is on, you draw up to a junction and stop and the handbrake automatically applies itself. The brake lights remain on until you move forward again, they do not switch off when you remove your foot from the pedal, as would be normal for instance atvtraffic lights. This is something which although safe, I find that I hate being behind a car, particularly in the wet, with its brake lights glaring into my windscreen, but I guess since mine now does it for me, I will have to be more tolerant of vehicles in front of me as they may also have this feature. :undecided:
Surely this is no different to keeping your foot on the brake pedal while stopped anyhow? :undecided:Another pet hate of mine - yet modern SOMs teach it as "good practise" :eek:
Surely this is no different to keeping your foot on the brake pedal while stopped anyhow? :undecided:Another pet hate of mine - yet modern SOMs teach it as "good practise" :eek:
Surely this is no different to keeping your foot on the brake pedal while stopped anyhow? :undecided:Another pet hate of mine - yet modern SOMs teach it as "good practise" :eek:
When I was taught to drive the practice of sitting with your foot on the brake was completely frowned upon, and indeed upon checking our road use advice still is, check rule 114.....
Surely this is no different to keeping your foot on the brake pedal while stopped anyhow? :undecided:Another pet hate of mine - yet modern SOMs teach it as "good practise" :eek:When I was taught to drive the practice of sitting with your foot on the brake was completely frowned upon, and indeed upon checking our road use advice still is, check rule 114.....
Well, I'm guilty of doing it....guess it's a result of riding motorcycles and always keeping a brake applied while stopped.
Makes sense to me because if you get rear ended at least you've already got the brakes on which hopefully prevents you being pushed into an intersection or such.
Have to disagree with just about everyone here I'm afraid. In an auto, it's necessary to have the brake applied, unless you want to roll into the dude in front. Taking the car out of gear is unsafe IMO.
I was taught in a manual that you approach the junction, stop with the footbrake, apply the handbrake and put the vehicle into neutral whilst waiting. Then into first, disable the handbrake and away.
I was taught in a manual that you approach the junction, stop with the footbrake, apply the handbrake and put the vehicle into neutral whilst waiting. Then into first, disable the handbrake and away.
I was taught that and still do it 42.9 years later.
It really annoys me when the car(s) in front of me are displaying their red brake lights then when they move off they jerk/don't do it with a smooth motion
I'll push my neck out here and state that just because some folk are "guilty of doing it", it does not make it correct. Whilst it may be different on a motorbike (and I will bow to the experts on that) if you are at a junction in a car and have applied the handbrake, you do have the brakes on to prevent you being pushed. It could be argued that excessive glare from stopped vehicles caused the rear ending perhaps?
As Steve and I have stated (and I have linked to) it would appear that despite it being a road rule in the UK, it is increasingly being disregarded and with the advent of the new systems will have to be a rule which is omitted in the future. I do wonder if I was to come against a particularly jobsworthy cop what the outcome would be though :undecided:
How many people have smooth motions? :undecided:
How many people have smooth motions? :undecided:
I do.... :whistler:
I'd just like to point out that they used the word "should" in that UK road rule which, to me means it's more of a "suggestion".... :whistler:
In English grammar 'should' is used for giving advice, such as in the Highway Code:
examples of such use:
•You should speak to him about it.
•He should see a doctor.
•We should ask a lawyer.
Other uses of "should":
'Should' can also be used to give an opinion or a recommendation.
•He should resign now.
•We should invest more in Asia.
•They should do something about this terrible train service.
'Should' can be used to express a personal opinion and is much weaker and more personal than 'must' or 'have to'. It is often introduced by ' I think'.
•I think they should replace him.
•I don't think they should keep the contract.
•Do you think we should tell her.
You gents must have sensitive eyes...I do a truckload of night driving and cannot say it has ever been an issue for me.
I think the handbrake on at lights provides a few limitations.
Firstly it limits the ability to roll forward should you identify that someone behind you won't stop in time.
Secondly if they do shunt you in the rear, with the handbrake on, ABS will not be activated when the vehicle starts moving, giving you impaired ability to regain control over the vehicle and perhaps steer to avoid an object.
Handbrake on to me suggests mind in neutral, hands off the wheel, as you are no longer exercising control over the vehicle. For mine, this should only be the case when you reach your destination and are about to exit the vehicle.
I can't recall ever having a problem with glare from standard brake lights..... :undecided:
Maybe our pommy friends have sensitive eyes from all those drab days they have to suffer through? :p
I think you should quit while you're ahead :P
I think you should quit while you're ahead :P
Not much happening at the moment as I've had a tidy out in the garage while waiting for the insurance to get back re when they will be rebuilding... so at a loose end today...
Yes :agreed:I also agree except for the part about the brake lights. They are definitely brighter than they used to be (some noticeably more than others and IIRC it's Euro cars which are the culprits.
I can't recall ever having a problem with glare from standard brake lights..... :undecided:
Maybe our pommy friends have sensitive eyes from all those drab days they have to suffer through? :p
Is it me but here in UK the red light emitted from the brake lights seems to have become brighter over the last few years.
I take it that there is a "European/international" standard of the maximum light emitted but to me when new models are launched the lights seem to be brighter...
At night it is really dazzling an "so in your face" and even in the daylight they are so intense.
I'd just like to point out that they used the word "should" in that UK road rule which, to me means it's more of a "suggestion".... :whistler:
Correct
In English grammar 'should' is used for giving advice, such as in the Highway Code:
examples of such use:
•You should speak to him about it.
•He should see a doctor.
•We should ask a lawyer.
I thank you and goodnight.
In the meantime though, once again I have crossed a line with a discussion and been deemed wrong by higher beings, I thank you and goodnight.
On a really bad night repeated stopping at traffic lights where folk sit with the brake lights on can cause my wife to have a migraine.
I don't think you're wrong Brian.I'd just like to point out that they used the word "should" in that UK road rule which, to me means it's more of a "suggestion".... :whistler:
Correct
In English grammar 'should' is used for giving advice, such as in the Highway Code:
examples of such use:
•You should speak to him about it.
•He should see a doctor.
•We should ask a lawyer.
All of the examples given here are also how the word is applied to the Highway Code, if you should see a doctor then you really should surely??
The rule does not say drivers MAY apply the parking brake it says you should apply the parking brake and take your foot off the brakes to prevent causing glare for drivers behind. This is not merely a suggestion, it is stronger, whilst it may not be illegal because of the use of the word, you could theoretically be stopped by plod for not doing it and given a warning. If it is not a recommendation to be observed why write about it in the first place??
Us UK residents do suffer from an inordinate amount of drab, miserable weather and in the dark when the wipers are smearing the traffic film across the windscreen and there are multiple sets of brake lights glaring in through the smears and fresh raindrops it is pretty grim. On a really bad night repeated stopping at traffic lights where folk sit with the brake lights on can cause my wife to have a migraine.
In the meantime though, once again I have crossed a line with a discussion and been deemed wrong by higher beings, I thank you and goodnight.
And lights can do more than cause headaches. They can also bring on epileptic fits in certain configurations.
Should – Indicates a recommendation.
I think you need to sleep more, Rusty :mrgreen:
Anyhow, what prompted me to add to this thread was that I happened to be reading some info from the NSW RTA and they had the "definitions" of words used...and for the word "should" it says this:QuoteShould – Indicates a recommendation.
That's why.
Don't read that stuff, there's more to life :mrgreen:
Russ, you make a couple of points there alluding to the fact that once again we are "wrong". You are so black and white, is it impossible for you to see that we are querying a "grey" area?
I do like to keep up with the rules, Phil and anything that helps me not get a fine is fine by me......... :D
Brian, if the law is so black and white, why have we been querying it?Maybe because Brian and I tell it like it is.
I simply pointed out that when "should" is used, then that means it's a suggestion or recommendation, something which Lester helpfully pointed out too.
Btw, it seem to me that when someone dares to question your posts you then need to resort to making it personal...and as we both know, this isn't the first time.... :neutral:
Brian, if the law is so black and white, why have we been querying it?Maybe because Brian and I tell it like it is.
I simply pointed out that when "should" is used, then that means it's a suggestion or recommendation, something which Lester helpfully pointed out too.
Btw, it seem to me that when someone dares to question your posts you then need to resort to making it personal...and as we both know, this isn't the first time.... :neutral:
Brian, if the law is so black and white, why have we been querying it?Maybe because Brian and I tell it like it is.
I simply pointed out that when "should" is used, then that means it's a suggestion or recommendation, something which Lester helpfully pointed out too.
Btw, it seem to me that when someone dares to question your posts you then need to resort to making it personal...and as we both know, this isn't the first time.... :neutral:
I think all three of you do.. maybe you should all read shades of grey :snigger:
I'm happy to meet those criteria Dazz. But you'll notice my posts along those lines are generally only filed in self defence.Brian, if the law is so black and white, why have we been querying it?Maybe because Brian and I tell it like it is.
I simply pointed out that when "should" is used, then that means it's a suggestion or recommendation, something which Lester helpfully pointed out too.
Btw, it seem to me that when someone dares to question your posts you then need to resort to making it personal...and as we both know, this isn't the first time.... :neutral:
I think all three of you do.. maybe you should all read shades of grey :snigger: