[Phil №❶]

I can't recall ever having a problem with glare from standard brake lights.....

Maybe our pommy friends have sensitive eyes from all those drab days they have to suffer through? 

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.

Actually, one of the best lighting systems I've seen is on Hy vehicles, particularly the Getz. What Hy have done is use dimpled reflectors to simulate many points of light, which works well and is not too intense IMO. The failing of this system is that if the bulb filament breaks, then no light. Now, here is the big problem of intensity that you are referring to, many foolish car makers have embraced large red LED brake lights, this is a mistake because they have particularly focussed the LEDs straight at the rear of the car through a plain semi circular lens which intensifies the light even more. These lights are dazzling, and bordering on dangerous IMO. I am an avid supporter of LEDs but not in this type of configuration. What is needed is a fresnel type lens to evenly distribute the light over a wider area.

[bumpkin]

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"....

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.

[Shambles]

You should get out more

As long as I live and drive in this country I will never alter my view that holding a car on the footbrake, other than momentarily on a slope, is a big no no.

Anyway, let's have more pics of the hawk, which is what we're here for 

[eye30]

I thank you and goodnight.

You're going to bed early.

Been a naughty boy today? 

[rustynutz]

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.

No need to take it so personally, Brian....even the best of us can be wrong....

[Doggie 1]

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.

That's an excuse for a headache that I haven't heard before.
How do women keep coming up with them? 
"I'm sorry, not tonight dear. The brake lights have given me a migraine."
And Brian goes without again. 

[Surferdude]

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"....

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.

I don't think you're wrong Brian.
And lights can do more than cause headaches. They can also bring on epileptic fits in certain configurations.

[rustynutz]

And lights can do more than cause headaches. They can also bring on epileptic fits in certain configurations.

Isn't that usually flashing or rapidly flickering lights, Trev?.....
If an epileptic person is likely to be triggered by brake lights being applied, then they have no place being behind the wheel of a motor vehicle... 

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: 

Should – Indicates a recommendation.

[Phil №❶]

I think you need to sleep more, Rusty 

[bumpkin]

This depends on how you read the rules in the UK it would seem.

From the introduction to the UK Highway Code we gain this information;

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'."

If we then go to the section on lighting requirements which I linked to before we get the following;

"114

You MUST NOT

    use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
    use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226)

In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again."


My (and this is only MY) opinion of how this is written is that the "recommendation" to remove your foot from the brake pedal to deactivate the brake lights (using the word "should") is backed up by the law above stating that failure to do so and thereby not prevent dazzle or discomfort to other road users is an offence in UK law by the use of the phrase "MUST NOT".

 

[Shambles]

 

That's exactly how I see it mate. Thanks for posting that up

[Phil №❶]

That rule simply doesn't work for auto's. 

[rustynutz]

If your "interpretation" was right, Brian (& Steve), the very act of applying brakes when someone is behind you would mean you could possibly be dazzling them....and leaving yourself open to being fined.....

The fact that your i40 holds the brake light on after you've removed your foot from the pedal would surely be an indication that your interpretation is in fact, wrong....

[rustynutz]

I think you need to sleep more, Rusty 

Why's that, Phil?

It was 1pm in the afternoon when I posted that....and I don't do nana naps.... 

[bumpkin]

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?

If you check back to the original post I made about this, you will see that I claimed to be uncertain about the feature, but I also pointed out that many manufacturers now have this static brake light feature in the UK.  I also stated that the rule and the way it is written in the Highway Code would have to be re-visited due to this feature becoming prevalent.  I have actually left feedback on the DVLA website pointing out the brake light feature and hazard light feature anomalies to the written advice/rules in the Code.  Unfortunately this has to be left anonymously so until the Code actually changes I will not get a personal response to my feedback.

Going to your point about "interpretation", we would need to delve into the warning signals we are supposed to give to other road users which would come above these rules.  The brake lights are classed as a warning signal, it warns other users that you are stopping.  This is not using the lights to dazzle or cause discomfort. it is being used as a warning.  What CAN cause dazzle or discomfort is sitting for minutes on end with the car in front of you blazing red into your windscreen,  but (as I also stated in the original post) if this rule is being relaxed or omitted completely due to manufacturer "features" then it is something that those of us who do not like it will have to become tolerant of.

You will also notice that I left two "undecided" smileys at the end of this post, I would be interested in seeing other peoples "interpretations" of the Code as written.

847563 states "That rules simply doesn't work for auto's.  "

The advice given for driving an auto box contains the following;

"When needing to stop briefly, at a traffic queue for example, you don't need to move the transmission out of Drive and into Park. However, you should use the parking brake to ensure the car is safely immobilized."

This means you have your foot off the brake pedal to adhere to the lighting rules we have spoken about.

[bumpkin]

Thread split and moved to Road Rules.

[Phil №❶]

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: 

Should – Indicates a recommendation.

That's why.

Don't read that stuff, there's more to life 

[rustynutz]

I do like to keep up with the rules, Phil and anything that helps me not get a fine is fine by me.........

[rustynutz]

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?

Reading back over this thread it seems you could also be accused of doing the same thing, Brian....
Regardless, I can live with being called black & white....I've been called worse..... 

Anyhow, I'm happy to now leave it for others to comment....

[bumpkin]

Well, I have mulled this over and reread the thread on a number of occasions.

I fail to see where I have been black and white, I have queried a UK law (which is black and white) and whether that law is now relaxed in the UK, to the extent where it is actually a redundant law due to the features of new cars.  if it is now redundant, then they need to update the Code to remove it.  You will note that the drivers in the UK who have responded to the thread are in general agreement with me, but as far as you are concerned that means nothing.

You, in your infinite wisdom and no doubt referring to the trusted tome, "The World According to Me", have decided once again that what Rusty says is, and there is no room for debate.

You will note that I have kept out of the Aussie rules thread, I have never been to Oz, i have never driven in Oz, I don't need to know the rules there for the time being and I have bowed to the people who do live and drive there, the thread is interesting, but my opinion is not required, it does not apply to me.

[rustynutz]

Brian, if the law is so black and white, why have we been querying it?

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.... 

[Phil №❶]

I do like to keep up with the rules, Phil and anything that helps me not get a fine is fine by me.........

I was just having a lend Rusty, I'm actually glad there's someone to ask about these things 

[Shambles]

I hope nobody takes offence at me saying or doing this, but..

(click to show/hide)

I changed the topic title to "Brake lights"

[rustynutz]

Good thinkin', ninety nine...

[bumpkin]

We have been querying the law because it appears to have been altered in daily use, but not in the Code where it is written in black and white.

I have tried to show where the law in the UK has changed and queried whether that has just become an acceptance and if so why is it written?

I have reread the posts I have made here and fail to see (and you still have not shown) where I was being black and white and/or blinkered.

I simply pointed out that the word should whilst being a recommendation (which you and Lester helpfully pointed out), applies to a LAW, which Steve helpfully agreed with.  You respond to that with the statement "You are wrong" WITHOUT showing why that is wrong. 

I have over 6800 posts on here and the only time there have been issues have been where you have decided that everybody else is wrong.  Many of my posts have been questioned and we have managed to have healthy, rational debate.

I am sorry that this has gone personal, that was never the intention, I will now desist from contributing to the forum any further.

[Surferdude]

Brian, if the law is so black and white, why have we been querying it?

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.... 

Maybe because Brian and I tell it like it is.

[Dazzler]

Brian, if the law is so black and white, why have we been querying it?

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.... 

Maybe because Brian and I tell it like it is.

I think all three of you do.. maybe you should all read shades of grey 

[Phil №❶]

Brian, if the law is so black and white, why have we been querying it?

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.... 

Maybe because Brian and I tell it like it is.

I think all three of you do.. maybe you should all read shades of grey 

  I thought you don't read books 

[Surferdude]

Brian, if the law is so black and white, why have we been querying it?

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.... 

Maybe because Brian and I tell it like it is.

I think all three of you do.. maybe you should all read shades of grey 

I'm happy to meet those criteria Dazz. But you'll notice my posts along those lines are generally only filed in self defence.

[Phil №❶]

Quo vadis, guys