Oh dear, "Lightmare", lol, you'd get on well with them. They spend their time with their heads in the wrong place too. Anyway as we're still part of Europe, if Europe approves it, it's an automatic approval here. (ECE98)

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120606172804/http:/assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/dft-information-sheets/aftermarket-hid-headlamps.pdf

 

"The Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 regulate the situation in the UK. Under these Regulations, HID/Gas Discharge/Xenon head lamps are not mentioned and therefore they are not permitted according to the strict letter of the law.

However new vehicles have HID headlamps. This is because they comply with European type approval regulations. The UK cannot refuse to register a vehicle with a European type approval. These approvals relate to ECE Regulation 98 (for the HID headlamps which are tested on a rig in a laboratory) and ECE Regulation 48 (lighting installation on the vehicle)"

 

Maybe that will change in the future, maybe it won't. I supose it depends on which "Europe" we're leaving. (A different discussion, I'm sure you'll agree). Until such time, Lightmare are (still) barking at the wrong people.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Clunkclick said:

Its even more worrying when you realise that 6-7/10 cars on the road are  fleet. So any deficiencies in maintenance are a corporate responsibility.

 

Nope, it's the driver that will get points and fined, not the company, if the vehicle is use and not in a roadworthy condition. Drivers are resonsible for completing and ensuring a FLOWER check has been done. (It's a good idea for everyone to do one at least once a week anyway.......well, with the exception of F, there's a guage inside for that.) A driver is within their rights to refuse to use a vehicle that is not in a roadworthy manner. (Whether he remains in employment is also a different discussion.)

 

A fleet may be nationalwide and impractical for a company to actively keep track of the maintenance of all vehicles. When you get a company car, it is not unusual for the company handbook to state that the driver is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is maintained and serviced as required. I've not heard of any fleet driver that has had their company refuse to have a vehicle serviced or maintained. For starters if a vehicle is not in a roadworthy condition, it becomes a health and safety issue, especially around such things as tyres. (Indeed many fleets will insist that tyres are changed at 3mm, not 1.6mm)

 

I doubt that 60-70% of cars on the road are fleet too. Fleets don't usually run cars beyond 4 years, so everything beyond 13 plates is unlikely to be fleet.

 

Deficiency in MOT testing will always be with us. I've seen testers who claim to do the whole thing in less than 20 minutes. It seems that 45-60 minutes is what is usually expected. VOSA will do their best to try and catch centres out, but, like most things, it's an uphill battle.

 

Tax and insurance: maybe in the days of 78rpm things were different (maybe less cars and more police gave a better deterrent?) but now it'll be down to the individual's conscience more than enforcement. Dealing with it via ANPR and the post is too slow, and police are usually chasing each other, getting Corsas blown up, or chasing old duffers doing 3mph over the limit.

 

 

I suspect if you want to reduce the glare, go and clean headlights when people are in traffic queues. ;0

Ooo, and while I think about it......

 

Glare will come off a wet road too. No amount of alignment or technology will cure that. (Maybe just a move to somewhere where lights aren't required?)

I wouldn't think the corporates would get off scott-free, if there was evidence that vehicle neglect was a consistent feature across the fleet. Particularly, if the provisions of the recent Corporate Manslaugther legislation were applicable.

 

Just look what happened with the poorly maintained 10-tonner in Bath and the sentences handed out.

 

Nick

3 minutes ago, RainbowFire said:

Ooo, and while I think about it......

 

Glare will come off a wet road too. No amount of alignment or technology will cure that. (Maybe just a move to somewhere where lights aren't required?)

The issue here is the type and frequency of light, not whether its direct or reflected, although reflection usually means its scattered more.

 

Nick

Edited 7 February, 20179 yr by Clunkclick

It would be more than distressing to find out, 40 years on, that this a slow burn issue like asbestos.

 

If it is, perhaps Chessington and Milton Keynes  should give consideration to starting a "Sinking Fund" to meet the future corporate liability.

 

Nick

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/accessories-tyres/consumer-news/94753/dangers-of-illegal-hid-headlight-conversion-kits-explained

 

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=68133

 

Reported . . . . many of the after market kits are illegal or poorly fitted making them illegal . . . a lot of the kits don't have levelling mechanisms . . many new cars fitted with EU type approved HIDs cause dazzle, particularly SEATs and AUDIs . . . . . some of the worst offenders are those fitted in 10+ year old cars utilising the car's existing part textured glass enclosures and reflectors, which just scatter the light . . . . . . . . . whilst HIDs may improve your night vision they don't improve safety if oncoming traffic is dazzled, loses the plot and crashes, deflecting into your vehicle.

 

Nick

Edited 8 February, 20179 yr by Clunkclick

41 minutes ago, Clunkclick said:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/accessories-tyres/consumer-news/94753/dangers-of-illegal-hid-headlight-conversion-kits-explained

 

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=68133

 

Reported . . . . many of the after market kits are illegal or poorly fitted making them illegal . . . a lot of the kits don't have levelling mechanisms . . many new cars fitted with EU type approved HIDs cause dazzle, particularly SEATs and AUDIs . . . . . some of the worst offenders are those fitted in 10+ year old cars utilising the car's existing part textured glass enclosures and reflectors, which just scatter the light . . . . . . . . . whilst HIDs may improve your night vision they don't improve safety if oncoming traffic is dazzled, loses the plot and crashes, deflecting into your vehicle.

 

Nick

 

Oh dear, old articles (again), oh well.

 

However, no HID kit is illegal. Autoexpress exaggerate the issue: the kits are not illegal. What is illegal is to use them on Her Majesty's highways. Much the same as was in the 80's and 90's about speed-trap detectors: not illegal for sale, or purchase, or even have in your car......but illegal to use one. (There is a major difference.)

 

HIDs in reflectors is a subject that's been covered on here more than BT's apparent "service issues" in Harrow......you're preaching to the choir on that one Nick.

However, there is a law enforcement officer on here that has, on numerous occasions, stated that the law on this is just a "guideline". So there's little hope really, is there.

36 minutes ago, RainbowFire said:

 

Oh dear, old articles (again), oh well.

 

However, no HID kit is illegal. Autoexpress exaggerate the issue: the kits are not illegal. What is illegal is to use them on Her Majesty's highways. Much the same as was in the 80's and 90's about speed-trap detectors: not illegal for sale, or purchase, or even have in your car......but illegal to use one. (There is a major difference.)

 

HIDs in reflectors is a subject that's been covered on here more than BT's apparent "service issues" in Harrow......you're preaching to the choir on that one Nick.

However, there is a law enforcement officer on here that has, on numerous occasions, stated that the law on this is just a "guideline". So there's little hope really, is there.

Not many of those who purchased illegal HID kits will be keeping them in the box, so, lots of "Moving vehicle" offences out there.

Significantly, its happened to me about half a dozen times in the last 3 months - nothing much before. That might suggest that the source is a dodgy batch of lights (Or a dodgy fitter) being used locally.

 

With regard to DOT/Home Office/Police movement on the issue, I hope we don't have to wait until there's the motorway equivalent of Hillsborough. 

 

Nick

Edited 8 February, 20179 yr by Clunkclick

3 minutes ago, Clunkclick said:

Not many of those who purchased illegal HID kits will be keeping them in the box, so, lots of "Moving vehicle" offences out there.

Significantly, its happened to me about half a dozen times in the last 3 months - nothing much before. That might suggest that the source is a dodgy batch of lights being used locally.

 

With regard to DOT/Home Office/Police movement on the issue, I hope we don't have to wait until there's the motorway equivalent of Hillsborough. 

 

Nick

 

Indeed, not many will keep them in the box, however, the boxes usually say (as does the website) "Not for road use". To be fair, if you want to stretch the point beyond beyond being reasonable, you could accuse Halfords of selling illegal bulbs.....100w bulbs are not legal for road-use, but are readily available off-the-shelf. (Actually 100w is legal, but only for cars registered before 1st April 1986) However the boxes are colour-coded in red, there is a big "Not for road use" warning on them, and the staff highlighted this when they were purchased (well, OK then, the till flags it up). There are many things labelled "not for road use" (Show-plates, black and white plates, blue strobes, for example), it doesn't make them illegal to sell or purchase, it's just illegal to use them on the road.

 

We had a major incident a couple of years ago, involving well over 100 vehicles, so far nothing has been done to tackle the issue that was the cause, so don't hold your breath on anything else being done.

35 minutes ago, RainbowFire said:

 

Indeed, not many will keep them in the box, however, the boxes usually say (as does the website) "Not for road use". To be fair, if you want to stretch the point beyond beyond being reasonable, you could accuse Halfords of selling illegal bulbs.....100w bulbs are not legal for road-use, but are readily available off-the-shelf. (Actually 100w is legal, but only for cars registered before 1st April 1986) However the boxes are colour-coded in red, there is a big "Not for road use" warning on them, and the staff highlighted this when they were purchased (well, OK then, the till flags it up). There are many things labelled "not for road use" (Show-plates, black and white plates, blue strobes, for example), it doesn't make them illegal to sell or purchase, it's just illegal to use them on the road.

 

We had a major incident a couple of years ago, involving well over 100 vehicles, so far nothing has been done to tackle the issue that was the cause, so don't hold your breath on anything else being done.

At least on the continent, they recognise the problem - last time I travelled on  a French expressway (2011), they'd fitted anti-dazzle barriers.

Still that doesn't help me - this week the problem occurred on a straight and level country lane in the outer London suburbs, whilst I was passing stationery traffic in the opposite carriageway !!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13143206

From what's reported here, dazzling drivers is an offence.

 

Is there a "Fix my street" type website for this problem, in which case, I will start taking Regs.

 

Any on-line petition to HMG going yet ?

 

Yet another reason for re-installing the car cam.

 

 

Nick

Edited 8 February, 20179 yr by Clunkclick

54 minutes ago, RainbowFire said:

 

However, there is a law enforcement officer on here that has, on numerous occasions, stated correctly that the law on this is just a "guideline". So there's little hope really, is there.

You just have to read the guidance keeping in mind that it talks about "PD should have..." rather than "PD must have..." to realise that it is guidance on "correct practice" and not a statement of law.

Here's one list of  shame:-

 

http://www.blindedbixenon.co.uk/prob.htm

 

http://www.blindedbixenon.co.uk

 

Just look (If you can still see) at all those motoring organisations that blanked Mr Perham:-

"I have being shunned by RoSPa, the IAM, Brake, Road Safety, Motor Manufacturers and many more."

 

And the organisations that backed him:-

 

"However, people who are expert drivers such as the Driving Instructors Association (DIA), Diamond Advanced Drivers and Approved Driving Instructor News (ADI News) have supported me along with motoring journalists like Honest John and James Baggott's Autoblog"

 

http://www.lightmare.org/Why_are_we_campaigning.htm

 

And just in case management, wherever they be, have forgotten:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/19/section/1

 

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

You just have to read the guidance keeping in mind that it talks about "PD should have..." rather than "PD must have..." to realise that it is guidance on "correct practice" and not a statement of law.

 

Maybe we're at different points. There are clear laws laid down about what is legal and what isn't. Unapproved light sources (non E-approved) are illegal for use on the roads. The approval system is designed around a set of standards so that an approved bulb in an approved reflector/projector has a consistent and predictable output. This is where putting HIDs in reflectors is illegal, as the source will not produce the required output. (See the many, and long, discussions that litter Briskoda.) Playing "mix and match" puts the apparatus out of approval status, and hence illegal on the road as you can only legally use approved lighting systems on the road. It's not a "best practice" issue, it is clearly laid out.

 

The officer involved has the opinion that RVLR is a set of guidelines, not laws.....with this mindset, it would be perfectly ok to remove all lighting from the car, or that it's perfectly ok to have non-approved/non-standard kit on a vehicle glaring and blinding everyone (not just Nick). If that is the case, then permanently on LED main-beams and light-bars for all, Corsa drivers can use 12000K bulbs,  and if I made a unit that runs on Martian Swamp Gas, it's perfectly fine and legal, because RVLR is "just a guide". (Clearly, not a good idea.)

What I am increasingly seeing is cyclists with blinding lights. As LED lamps get more powerful and more efficient, they are becoming an increasing danger to drivers (and the cyclists themselves). There is one cyclist on my commute who has what I can only describe as floodlights on the front of their bike, pointed straight at oncoming traffic. This is a segment that has zero regulation, guidelines or enforcement and is only going to get worse.

As with any blinding oncoming lights on any vehicle, as long as no-one else other than the perpetrator is affected, I'll just full-beam the bellends.

3 minutes ago, Huskoda said:

What I am increasingly seeing is cyclists with blinding lights. As LED lamps get more powerful and more efficient, they are becoming an increasing danger to drivers (and the cyclists themselves). There is one cyclist on my commute who has what I can only describe as floodlights on the front of their bike, pointed straight at oncoming traffic. This is a segment that has zero regulation, guidelines or enforcement and is only going to get worse.

 

My one on that is those that have the high-power lights that flash. I always thought (and I'm prepared to be corrected) that the idea of lights on the front was so you can see where you're going. Having a light that's on intermittently surely negates that, especially as your eyes will constantly be adjusting to light-dark-light-dark etc.

 

(Oh and remember, cyclists are not covered by any regulations and laws, apparently. )

 

It takes eyes a long time to adjust between bright and dark, orders of magnitude longer than the flash rate of most bike lights.

34 minutes ago, Clunkclick said:

Here's one list of  shame:-

 

http://www.blindedbixenon.co.uk/prob.htm

 

http://www.blindedbixenon.co.uk

 

Just look (If you can still see) at all those motoring organisations that blanked Mr Perham:-

"I have being shunned by RoSPa, the IAM, Brake, Road Safety, Motor Manufacturers and many more."

 

And the organisations that backed him:-

 

"However, people who are expert drivers such as the Driving Instructors Association (DIA), Diamond Advanced Drivers and Approved Driving Instructor News (ADI News) have supported me along with motoring journalists like Honest John and James Baggott's Autoblog"

 

http://www.lightmare.org/Why_are_we_campaigning.htm

 

And just in case management, wherever they be, have forgotten:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/19/section/1

 

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nick, Lightmare haven't "campaigned" for years. Ken, bless his cotton socks, his website is even older (2008) and apparently just about every vehicle ever made has made it to his "problem" list. Mind you, when I'm driving, I tend to stick to driving, not identifying vehicles coming towards me with mis-aligned headlights. (It does seem that Porsche, Renault and VW are singled out for some reason on that list) Ken's website is so far out of date now, such links as the petition no longer function.

 

Sadly neither "origanisation" (Lightmare nor Blindedbyxenon) address such issues as our 2-wheeled cousins, who feel that they *must* blind everyone else as a matter of course. (See about about cyclists and LED lights, and the also done-to-death "why do motorbikers need their main-beam on all the time?" threads)

 

 

 

 

I suppose it would be interesting to contrast and compare what the reaction of the day was when the halogen system was introduced many years ago. (I had a Morris Marina with the pre-halogen headlights, was better off with a couple of candles at the front.)

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, and Nick, this is an example of something that will help, until you get the car-heater fixed:

http://www.bmstores.co.uk/products/auto-tech-car-heater-12v-309090

Driving with a misted windscreen is probably a bigger danger to other road users.

Interestingly, the de-misting system is not covered by MOT, and yet is a major safety system. A non-functioning de-mister would cause a hazard to other road users.

Have you tried one of those 'heaters'?

Cigarette lighter sockets don't supply nearly enough power to produce useful amounts of warm air.