being dazzled
being dazzled
I'm getting fed up with cars and lorries with super bright head lights right up my rear , as I start work at 5am on earlies or 10 pm on lates i tend to be driving in the dark, the other day I had a range rover sport up my back end so I adjusted the off side mirror to shine back at him, so he moved closer to the curb, so I adjusted the near side mirror to do the same that seemed to do the trick as he quickly moved back a lot , my next idea is to get some mirror film to put onto the draft screen that fits onto the roll bars even though I have the hard top on at the moment, I think that might do the trick save me having to dip my rear view mirror all the time, I will keep you posted as to how effective it is
peter2b
peter2b
Re: being dazzled
I agree with you Peter. What I find is as bad, is modern led brake lights. They seem brighter than fog lights when on and annoy me as much as the bright headlights.
Re: being dazzled
This has been annoying me for some time now. Why is it that most people these days insist on holding their car on the foot brake at traffic lights and dazzling the poor driver behind with the high intensity brake lights. I always put the hand brake on and put the car in neutral.
Re: being dazzled
probably the engine shut off is why they hold the footbrake on.
Old eyes are the biggest cause of dazzle.
I should know.
Old eyes are the biggest cause of dazzle.
I should know.
Z3 2.8 Progress Journal (Mine)
Z3 1.9 Sport Progress Journal (Wifey's)
I have an element of 'M-styling' on my car, If that's a good enough reason for the manufacturers to adorn a 320 with the M badge, then its certainly a good enough reason for me..
Re: being dazzled
Also front fog light moaners have seemed to ignore these new turn lights where the relevant side fog lamp is lit to turn. but put the two on together and they have a fit
Dont know what all the fuss is about front fog lights, they are designed with a low cut off anyway, they only dazzle on a wet road
Dont know what all the fuss is about front fog lights, they are designed with a low cut off anyway, they only dazzle on a wet road
Z3 2.8 Progress Journal (Mine)
Z3 1.9 Sport Progress Journal (Wifey's)
I have an element of 'M-styling' on my car, If that's a good enough reason for the manufacturers to adorn a 320 with the M badge, then its certainly a good enough reason for me..
Re: being dazzled
I find the OEM mesh wind blocker great in the winter for this very reason, the bright lights do not fully penetrate the mesh.
Re: being dazzled
It's the enduring curse of the low-slung sports car. In the old days it wasn't too bad: the only vehicle likely to piss you off thus was a somewhat myopic Series Land Rover but now it would seem most new cars are getting bigger - and taller - each successive model: they are all becoming a bloody nuisance. I had this problem all the time in the X1/9 and ended up hating driving at night as it was a total dazzle-fest.
Re: being dazzled
I've found LED running lights annoying since Audi first made them popular (at least Volvos where old type bulbs). They have two brightness levels but often just seem too bright when light levels are duskish.
I was shocked to find that on Range Rovers they now have "intelligent" headlights. If you leave them on this setting then your headlights ome on automatically until they can "sense" another car (presumably from lights) and they then switch off. I thought the whole point was to turn your headlights off BEFORE you saw other lights full on, not after you have already dazzled them ! I turned this feature off but you have to find the setting hidden in menus and I think most just leave it on not even realising (who reads the manual anyway).
I was shocked to find that on Range Rovers they now have "intelligent" headlights. If you leave them on this setting then your headlights ome on automatically until they can "sense" another car (presumably from lights) and they then switch off. I thought the whole point was to turn your headlights off BEFORE you saw other lights full on, not after you have already dazzled them ! I turned this feature off but you have to find the setting hidden in menus and I think most just leave it on not even realising (who reads the manual anyway).
Re: being dazzled
Leave them on, the tech is well proven.Jonttt wrote:I've found LED running lights annoying since Audi first made them popular (at least Volvos where old type bulbs). They have two brightness levels but often just seem too bright when light levels are duskish.
I was shocked to find that on Range Rovers they now have "intelligent" headlights. If you leave them on this setting then your headlights ome on automatically until they can "sense" another car (presumably from lights) and they then switch off. I thought the whole point was to turn your headlights off BEFORE you saw other lights full on, not after you have already dazzled them ! I turned this feature off but you have to find the setting hidden in menus and I think most just leave it on not even realising (who reads the manual anyway).
Sent from my iPhone
Re: being dazzled
I hate LED headlights ..........................
Rear brake holders should get points on there licenses.
As for that new detection then dip beam, what a load of old tosh.
You should not be running on full beam.
Rant over.
Rear brake holders should get points on there licenses.
As for that new detection then dip beam, what a load of old tosh.
You should not be running on full beam.
Rant over.
----------------- BMW Z3 Das Beste Auto -----------------
Mein altes Auto riecht nach Nudeln, hat dieses Auto eine Wurst Geruch.
Mein altes Auto riecht nach Nudeln, hat dieses Auto eine Wurst Geruch.
Re: being dazzled
Regarding the rear brake lights I fully understand what you mean however it is sometimes difficult in an automatic not to do this; if in traffic with a lot of stop start I find I don't have much of a choice but to keep feathering the brake pedal to prevent the car creeping too quickly (even when locked to 1st manually), and it would not be practical to engage the handbrake for every few seconds I might spend in a completely stationary moment.
The other thing to consider is that most manual drivers I've been in cars with (including myself) will often hold the clutch in, coast the last foot or so towards the car in front whilst feathering the brake to come to a stop, then remove their foot from the brake but never engage the handbrake unless waiting for a longer period of time (or on a significant incline). This is fine, but less safe as they are more prone to being pushed by another car should they be shunted, not to mention those that don't even realise their car is rolling forwards or backwards!!! (Fortunately the latter is fairly rare, but I have had a few close calls with the car in front slowly edging back and requiring a blast of the horn for them to "wake up" and brake! - I'd rather see some lights than have my front bumper dented.).
I always thought it would be a simple solution to have the brake pedal not activate the brake lights as long as the car is stationary (or at least drop them to some lower, dimmer output) maybe with the prerequisite that at least the dipped beam is also on. There must be a legal/safety reasons why this is not the case.
The normal argument I hear is "red lights don't dazzle" but in my personal experience it is heavily dependant on the car/light.
As an aside - in the winter, when driving the 650 I get at least a couple of flashes a week from oncoming motorists that think I'm riding on full beam, I am conscious of it, but having had the lights tested and verified to be correct, and passing every MOT really it's down to the manufacturers and law makers. I often flash back to try to make them understand that I don't have the full beam on, but they probably don't even think of that and assume I'm just being a knob !
The other thing to consider is that most manual drivers I've been in cars with (including myself) will often hold the clutch in, coast the last foot or so towards the car in front whilst feathering the brake to come to a stop, then remove their foot from the brake but never engage the handbrake unless waiting for a longer period of time (or on a significant incline). This is fine, but less safe as they are more prone to being pushed by another car should they be shunted, not to mention those that don't even realise their car is rolling forwards or backwards!!! (Fortunately the latter is fairly rare, but I have had a few close calls with the car in front slowly edging back and requiring a blast of the horn for them to "wake up" and brake! - I'd rather see some lights than have my front bumper dented.).
I always thought it would be a simple solution to have the brake pedal not activate the brake lights as long as the car is stationary (or at least drop them to some lower, dimmer output) maybe with the prerequisite that at least the dipped beam is also on. There must be a legal/safety reasons why this is not the case.
The normal argument I hear is "red lights don't dazzle" but in my personal experience it is heavily dependant on the car/light.
As an aside - in the winter, when driving the 650 I get at least a couple of flashes a week from oncoming motorists that think I'm riding on full beam, I am conscious of it, but having had the lights tested and verified to be correct, and passing every MOT really it's down to the manufacturers and law makers. I often flash back to try to make them understand that I don't have the full beam on, but they probably don't even think of that and assume I'm just being a knob !
Re: being dazzled
Loads of new cars with xenons are set at the "upper limit" of dip so that they can often look dazzling, Porsche, Mercedes etc all seem to be like this.
Re: being dazzled
[quote="RobTFC"]Regarding the rear brake lights I fully understand what you mean however it is sometimes difficult in an automatic not to do this; if in traffic with a lot of stop start I find I don't have much of a choice but to keep feathering the brake pedal to prevent the car creeping too quickly (even when locked to 1st manually), and it would not be practical to engage the handbrake for every few seconds I might spend in a completely stationary moment.
The other thing to consider is that most manual drivers I've been in cars with (including myself) will often hold the clutch in, coast the last foot or so towards the car in front whilst feathering the brake to come to a stop, then remove their foot from the brake but never engage the handbrake unless waiting for a longer period of time (or on a significant incline). This is fine, but less safe as they are more prone to being pushed by another car should they be shunted, not to mention those that don't even realise their car is rolling forwards or backwards!!! (Fortunately the latter is fairly rare, but I have had a few close calls with the car in front slowly edging back and requiring a blast of the horn for them to "wake up" and brake! - I'd rather see some lights than have my front bumper dented.).
I always thought it would be a simple solution to have the brake pedal not activate the brake lights as long as the car is stationary (or at least drop them to some lower, dimmer output) maybe with the prerequisite that at least the dipped beam is also on. There must be a legal/safety reasons why this is not the case.
Having the brake pedal not activate the brake lights when stationary would be an excellent idea.
Regarding legalities there seems to be a bit of a double standard in that driving with your rear fog light on is illegal, other than in fog or falling snow, but having your brake lights illuminated, probably three of them at very close quarters in a traffic queue, isn't.
I take gookah's point that old eyes probably are the biggest cause of dazzle but it seems to me that holding the car on the foot brake has now sadly become the norm. I guess all I can do is continue pulling down the sun visor to block out as much as I can and hope the driver in front spares a thought for the poor chap behind.
The other thing to consider is that most manual drivers I've been in cars with (including myself) will often hold the clutch in, coast the last foot or so towards the car in front whilst feathering the brake to come to a stop, then remove their foot from the brake but never engage the handbrake unless waiting for a longer period of time (or on a significant incline). This is fine, but less safe as they are more prone to being pushed by another car should they be shunted, not to mention those that don't even realise their car is rolling forwards or backwards!!! (Fortunately the latter is fairly rare, but I have had a few close calls with the car in front slowly edging back and requiring a blast of the horn for them to "wake up" and brake! - I'd rather see some lights than have my front bumper dented.).
I always thought it would be a simple solution to have the brake pedal not activate the brake lights as long as the car is stationary (or at least drop them to some lower, dimmer output) maybe with the prerequisite that at least the dipped beam is also on. There must be a legal/safety reasons why this is not the case.
Having the brake pedal not activate the brake lights when stationary would be an excellent idea.
Regarding legalities there seems to be a bit of a double standard in that driving with your rear fog light on is illegal, other than in fog or falling snow, but having your brake lights illuminated, probably three of them at very close quarters in a traffic queue, isn't.
I take gookah's point that old eyes probably are the biggest cause of dazzle but it seems to me that holding the car on the foot brake has now sadly become the norm. I guess all I can do is continue pulling down the sun visor to block out as much as I can and hope the driver in front spares a thought for the poor chap behind.
Re: being dazzled
I've got no real issue with brake lights, they are designed to be bright to warn of stopping/stopped. If they are a little intense, at least you are a. aware of them and b. maybe stopped!
Re: being dazzled
why not? things have moved on, clearly some dinosaurs haven't.Vic-Z3 wrote:I hate LED headlights ..........................
Rear brake holders should get points on there licenses.
As for that new detection then dip beam, what a load of old tosh.
You should not be running on full beam.
Rant over.
Sent from my iPhone
-
- Joined: Fri 26 Jul, 2013 09:28
- Posts: 1733
- Location: Manchester
Re: being dazzled
Not quite a constructive set of comments going on here....kjb1 wrote:why not? things have moved on, clearly some dinosaurs haven't.Vic-Z3 wrote:I hate LED headlights ..........................
Rear brake holders should get points on there licenses.
As for that new detection then dip beam, what a load of old tosh.
You should not be running on full beam.
Rant over.
For what it is worth, I agree with a lot of what has been said about being blinded by headlights from behind - however the fact is our cars are small. Infact all cars were much smaller 20 years ago. Also, the MOT does not say that a headlight must point at the ground - instead the setting headlights is relevant to the height of the vehicle they are on - if the car is high then the headlight will be too.
I'm not sure I concur that new headlight tech is flawless and proven by any means. I am guilty of laziness in the A5 and the girlfriends Kia, both of which have an "Auto" setting for the headlights which turns them on when the ambient light reaches a certain level - however, it does not take into consideration when I pass under a bridge momentarily resulting in the lights temporarily illuminating which is not helpful if you are also approaching a junction with a car thats waiting to pull out. Taking this further, I have to say that I work in IT but I certainly wouldn't like to think that my car will automatically switch between dipped and main beam perfectly so as not to impact other drivers based on a predetermined set logic rules it was given when it left the factory
As for brake lights, I agree the brighter they are the quicker I notice - turning them off automatically when stationary for stop/start engines would not work because people approaching would take longer to realise the car in front was stationary. (Yes I know the same applies already if the handbrake is used - this is how I know that it can impact the recognition of a stationary car)
Re: being dazzled
To clarify I was not referring to automatic lights on the Range Rover which I think most cars have now, I agree that is proven technology. The Range Rover has intelligent full beam ie if it senses it's ok it auto switches on full beam and then reverts to dipped when it needs to. I don't know how it can do this without sensing lights but surely that can't be as good as a human and thus there must be a period of time when you dazzle another car. Anyway I'm paranoid it will and like to choose when I want full beam on which is not very often so I have changed the setting to off. I just hope more cars don't go that way as I don't see how you can't dazzle even for a second before the car senses lights coming your way
-
- Joined: Fri 26 Jul, 2013 09:28
- Posts: 1733
- Location: Manchester
Re: being dazzled
Interesting you mention this Jon, last night coming over Saddleworth I went round one of the bends and was confronted by a new Range Rover coming the other way. I was in the A5 which has good lights already but the headlights from the RR were incredible and I couldn't see anything - not the best place in the world to not be able to see the edge of the road.Jonttt wrote:To clarify I was not referring to automatic lights on the Range Rover which I think most cars have now, I agree that is proven technology. The Range Rover has intelligent full beam ie if it senses it's ok it auto switches on full beam and then reverts to dipped when it needs to. I don't know how it can do this without sensing lights but surely that can't be as good as a human and thus there must be a period of time when you dazzle another car. Anyway I'm paranoid it will and like to choose when I want full beam on which is not very often so I have changed the setting to off. I just hope more cars don't go that way as I don't see how you can't dazzle even for a second before the car senses lights coming your way
I did flash him as there was no way they were dipped lights but they didnt change and I ended up having to slam on as I was unable to see the road. I wonder if he was using the new tech or whether he was just a cock
Re: being dazzled
I think we know the answer .bertiejaffa wrote:... or whether he was just a cock
The footbrake activates the auto engine cut-out in the Smart. As an aside, the key doesn't need to be in the car for the footbrake light to work, but you do need the key to flash the lights or toot the horn.
I think that auto-lights were the invention of a bored engineer and has suffered from the law of unintended consequences. People at not using their lights at dusk when it is getting dark, or in bright sunlight when the sun is behind them. Lights should be used to see and to be seen.
Pingu
Re: being dazzled
I've also noted lots of cars are leaving thier front fog lights on even though it's not fogy
peter2b
peter2b
Re: being dazzled
In reply to just the below ......................
fuk u..................why not? things have moved on, clearly some dinosaurs haven't.
----------------- BMW Z3 Das Beste Auto -----------------
Mein altes Auto riecht nach Nudeln, hat dieses Auto eine Wurst Geruch.
Mein altes Auto riecht nach Nudeln, hat dieses Auto eine Wurst Geruch.
-
- Joined: Fri 26 Jul, 2013 09:28
- Posts: 1733
- Location: Manchester
Re: being dazzled
Again the word Cock springs to mind...peter2b wrote:I've also noted lots of cars are leaving thier front fog lights on even though it's not fogy
peter2b
Re: being dazzled
I see at least one car per week on the motorway at night with just driving lights (so no rear lights). The well-lit sections are obviously bright enough for the auto lights not to be activated.
There was one last night M1 Jct 26 at 0200 . He got the hint when I pulled out behind him after he overtook me and I started switching between side and head and flashing him.
Lights are to see and be seen.
There was one last night M1 Jct 26 at 0200 . He got the hint when I pulled out behind him after he overtook me and I started switching between side and head and flashing him.
Lights are to see and be seen.
Pingu
Re: being dazzled
I tried that with a dozy woman in a black Range Rover on the motorway. Could hardly see her approaching in my mirrors. She thanked me by giving me the fingers and still didn't turn on her lights.
Cheers R.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
Cheers R.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
Arctic Silver '99 Z3 1.9 & Black '59 Frogeye 1275cc
-
- Joined: Wed 11 Apr, 2007 13:13
- Posts: 160
- Location: Billingham
Re: being dazzled
Noticed over the last 12 months or so that a number of recently registered vehicles (can't recall makes) had no rear lights on but had driving lights blazing away at the front. It always seemed to be on motorways as well.pingu wrote:I see at least one car per week on the motorway at night with just driving lights (so no rear lights). The well-lit sections are obviously bright enough for the auto lights not to be activated.
Lights are to see and be seen.
Pete C
2000 Z3M Coupe - Cosmos Black Metallic/Black Interior.
Previous BMWs
2003 E46 M3 6 speed manual - Carbon Black/Black Interior.
2000 Z3M Coupe - Cosmos Black/Black Interior
1986 M635
1985 E28 M5
1983 E28 528i Alpina
2000 Z3M Coupe - Cosmos Black Metallic/Black Interior.
Previous BMWs
2003 E46 M3 6 speed manual - Carbon Black/Black Interior.
2000 Z3M Coupe - Cosmos Black/Black Interior
1986 M635
1985 E28 M5
1983 E28 528i Alpina
Re: being dazzled
I thought it was just me seeing these idiotspetecossie wrote:Noticed over the last 12 months or so that a number of recently registered vehicles (can't recall makes) had no rear lights on but had driving lights blazing away at the front. It always seemed to be on motorways as well.pingu wrote:I see at least one car per week on the motorway at night with just driving lights (so no rear lights). The well-lit sections are obviously bright enough for the auto lights not to be activated.
Lights are to see and be seen.
Can someone explain to me the logic of driving a battleship grey coloured car at dusk on the A12 with no rear lights. I see this driver regularly blending in with the road and despite numerous flashes of the lights from all other drivers; does not take a blind bit of notice
Please can someone explain the manufacturers intentions.................other than causing a serious accident!!!
Re: being dazzled
sorted, I got some film off eBay that acts as a mirror I stuck it onto the wind deflecter that fits behind the roll bars(mines a flat plastic screen) , I can see through it in the rear view mirror ok but dazzling head light are just normal round lights
peter2b
peter2b
Re: being dazzled
A one-way mirror would be perfect .peter2b wrote:sorted, I got some film off eBay that acts as a mirror I stuck it onto the wind deflecter that fits behind the roll bars(mines a flat plastic screen) , I can see through it in the rear view mirror ok but dazzling head light are just normal round lights
peter2b
Pingu
Re: being dazzled
that's just what it's like brill
peter2b
peter2b