Headlights in daytime

[Leschenauds]

Can anyone give the definitive answer regarding headlights in the daytime? I was told this week by a french friend that after Nov 1 it is obligatory to have headlights on during the day. During the past week, the only cars I've seen with headlights during daytime have been a couple of english cars and, of course, Volvos. On mentioning this to another french friend said that that was supposed to be the law but the government had backed down to making it only 'advisory', only a trial until April and only in the open country not towns.

[Miki]

The answer is. that it is regarded as facultif and thereby not compulsory. The voluntary period until sometime in March I believe, is for the time being, in areas non urban. Around here barely 20% are complying with the demand for everyone to join in.

Figures are hoping to be collated to see if running on dipped beams will improve the safety on the roads. There have been demonstrations by the moto brigade (motorbikers) about them now losing the advantage of being seen more clearly when they keep their headlight on.

So no fines or penalties for not running around with the lights permanently on.

 

 

[Punch]

[quote]Can anyone give the definitive answer regarding headlights in the daytime? I was told this week by a french friend that after Nov 1 it is obligatory to have headlights on during the day. During the pa...[/quote]

Yes no problem. As an artisan today i received a very useful article in our trade magazine from the CAPEB regarding this very subject.

The principal factors are;

1. It is an experiment by the French government started on 30 october and runs until the end of march 2005.

2. It concerns all motor vehicles out of town ie; in the countryside (hors aglomeration), although it is just as effective en ville, but the majority of road deaths in France ocur out of town.

3. It is a recommendation only and there are no fines for non compliance.

4. the idea is simply to save lives and if succesfull, the Government may make it compulsory.

Hope this clears up your query,

Regards,

Paul

 

[Leschenauds]

Thanks for your replies, makes more sense now. As an ocassional biker I appreciate the concern of other bikers. I don't believe, personally, that it will make a significant difference to road safety (car on car). I always thought it safer to drive at night when you have a good warning of an approaching vehicle.

[Tresco]

I appreciate the concern for bikers and all other road users too, but don't understand how car drivers using their side lights during the day make bikers less safe? Can someone explain.

My father worked in a civilian capacity for South Yorkshire Police for about 10 years, and was involved in recording details of thousands of road acidents. His attitude to lighting up in dull weather and rain changed completely as a direct result. This was also before wearing seat belts became compulsory for front seat passengers, and we were among the only family I knew who all grew up using sealt belts. (given my fathers appalling driving, it was a good job).

Driving at night, we tend to over rely on seeing oncoming beams from other vehicles. What about unlit vehicles, people with unlit cycles, obstacles round bends - for instance broken down vehicles, large dead animals etc?

tresco

 

[Miki]

Tresco,

What the bikers are saying is that, cars do not often run on dipped headlights (not sidelights) during the daylight hours and so, for years they have been advised to run on dipped headlights, thereby making them stand out and be seen.

I have even seen adverts on UK TV telling motorbikers to make themselves be clearly visible and for car users to make more use of their mirrors at all times, lest cyclists or motorbikers are just out of sight of vision and not to turn the car without ensuring that you have really had a good look around.

So now that cars are being told to do the same thing, the bikers feel it has rather taken away the, however slight, advantage they had of being seen. They feel the motorists will not be so attentative. That is what I have heard on French TV, what do British motorbikers think about it?

 

 

[Tresco]

Thanks, I see what you mean. It is really hard to see bikers isn't it, unless we drive as we are taught to, looking in all mirrors every few seconds, and as you say Miki, doing the full observation routine before manouvering. The thing is, they just seem to appear from nowhere.

I would be very interested in what any bikers, especially those who are also car drivers have to say. One more question for the pot; why do bikers so rarely seem to have any part of their protective clothing in reflective or even brightly coloured material. Not getting at bikers at all here.

Tresco

[Alcazar]

<<<Not getting at bikers at all here.>>>

 

Well I am! They are a blasted nuisance, and not just a few of them, most of them. They ride at speeds that would see car drivers banned, around town as well as in the country, they are immune from prosecution by forward facing cameras, and know it!, they drive in your blind spot more often than not, (i'm an HGV driver), they weave in and out of traffic to make headway, instead of waiting, they then complain if you block the weaving route, and complain more if someone knocks them off while they are weaving, they are involved in a VERY high percentage of the serious accidents on our roads, consideringn the low number of bikers, many being single vehicle accidents, (lost control), they tailgate appallingly, and even the advert on TV: "NOW you see him", shows the biker to be at fault............you can clearly hear the car driver indicating to turn right when the biker chooses to overtake, but it's the car driver that gets the blame

If it were me, I'd ban bikes except for pushers! In my previous existence I can think of more than 20 kids, killed on bikes over a period of 25 years......and they were only the ones I taught!!!

Alcazar

[Dick Smith]

I think I read it here that the medical term for motorcyclist is 'donor'. The accident rate is appalling, and must be getting even worse with lots of kids on modern scooters with absolutely no idea of riding defensively.

However - I find French motards much more polite than those in the UK.

[Nick Trollope]

[quote]<<<Not getting at bikers at all here.>>> Well I am! They are a blasted nuisance, and not just a few of them, most of them. They ride at speeds that would see car drivers banned,...[/quote]

In the UK. most deaths of motorcyclists (where another party is involved) are caused by car drivers. All motorcyclists are better trained than your average cage driver (HGV drivers apart, who should know better). Nowadays, most "bikers" (& I use that term in the literal, not perjorative sense) ride bikes (read supersport motorcycles) because they can afford to do so, not because they are trying to get from A to B. Most car drivers (in the UK, not France) resent the ostentatiousness of bikers and some actually aim for them. I am a biker, a car driver and a former HGV driver. All the bikers I know stay close to cars for as little a time as possible, because that is when they at highest risk. A bike does not affect you when it weaves through traffic, just stay out of it's way, which is what it wants you to do. Unless of course, you have something to prove.

All bikers (even the 16-years old ones) are more responsible than "Gary" in his remodelled Nova (Vauxhall, not Chevrolet). And a lot quieter.

If we all rode bikes, then the UK traffic situation would be significantly eased. You'd also learn alot more tolerance, which is useful in everday life!

As for that bloody TV advert, it is as useful as a chocolate silencer....

[JohnM]

I can't agree totally with either Alcazar or Nicktrollope, but can see some sense in what both of them say (sitting on the fence or what). However, I find that too many bikers and drivers want to have fun while riding / driving and I am not convinced that the public roads are the right place to have fun.

 

[Miki]

.....but didn't I read that a fair percentage of these motorcyclists, being over 50 and many of them nouveau riche, are now buying high powered bikes and having a somewhat low powered ability, were causing accidents through their own inability to ride the bike and on occasion leading to their actual demise.

Much of the blame was apportioned to the fact that their licence was gained some years before, often on a less powerful bike and the years that have passed since they rode regularly, have seen a huge change in power from a similar engine size and some were just not equipped to meet the new "strength" of these motorbikes.

 

 

[Leschenauds]

Having driven cars most of the time for over 40 years, I think thet Nick is about right. I have often thought that if all potential car drivers were required to ride a motorcycle for a year before he could pass his car test, they would be more sensitive to road conditions awareness of what was going on around them and better drivers for it.

[Alcazar]

Nicktrollope: just finished watching an interesting programme on UK cable TV, mostly about the Berkshire police.

They said the following:

1. Most motorcycle accidents are NOT the fault of the "other driver", but of the motorcyclist themselves, either excess speed, not driving to conditions, lack of control, silly stunts, showing off, or a combination of all 5!

2. Motorcyclists are most commonly at fault for either driving too close to other vehicles, or weaving through traffic.

3. BOTH are illegal.

I rest my case.

PS: just when did you pass your motorcycle test?:

Alcazar

[Tresco]

Alcazar, earlier in the thread you say about bikers, 'they drive in your blind spot'. (I missed this first time )

Did you really mean that, I thought your, or my blind spot was for you, or me to be aware of????

Have people in other areas of France been getting little tutorials after the early evening news in how do drive around roundabouts, and keeping your distance?

I'm still in the dark as to why motorcyclists wear all black, generally.

[Dave&Olive]

[quote]Alcazar, earlier in the thread you say about bikers, 'they drive in your blind spot'. (I missed this first time ) Did you really mean that, I thought your, or my blind spot was for you, or me to be ...[/quote]

because you would look a bit of a PUFF in pink leather riding a macho machine wrong quote wanted

I'm still in the dark as to why motorcyclists wear all black, generally.

[jrhartley]

Level-headedness and tolerance weren't the things that crossed my mind as the motorcyclist who aimed for me at 60mph+ whilst I was crossing the TCR in London.  When I looked at him in disbelief at his recklessness, he dismounted his bike, took off his helmet, and started shouting obscenities at me.  As I walked away, he followed me, meaning I actually had to run down into the Underground to escape him.  He was a courier.

Or the time at Tower Hamlets when an aggrieved motorcyclist who was sure I'd somehow interfered with his divine right to use both sides of the road parked his bike in front of my car, dismounted, and with his helmet threatened to smash the windscreen of my car in.

So, I'd definitely have to take issue with the notion of the UK roads being a more tolerant place if they were occupied solely by bikers. 

[Moulin]

I'd like to get back to the roots of this thread.

As a car driver and keen cyclist I am against anything that reduces the awareness of drivers to the presence of other types of road users. It's a fundamental law of physics that if you make one item more visible then another becomes less so.

As a driver I've noticed that with the growing trend, particularly in the uk, of switching headlights on as soon as the sun goes in, 'bikes' and pedestrians are becoming less obvious and need to be really looked for, something which as a cyclist (wearing bright florescent clothing,) I find few drivers actually do. I now fell more vulnerable in dull light conditions than I do in full darkness!

I know others will disagree but I really don't see any advantage to anyone, except possibly motor vehicle manufacturers, I bringing in this type of legislation.