I bet Craig says they're wrong ....

[EmilysDad]

As discussed many times before ....

RAC says new headlights 'blinding drivers' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43525525

 

[L John]

"About 15% of those drivers polled said they had nearly suffered a collision as a result of being dazzled by other drivers using full-beam headlights."

Not a design problem if people are using full beam to dazzle.
Also the only time I've had the problem is with HID's that people fit into standard units that appear to be full beam even when dipped, the article doesn't mention the illegal HID's/LED's.

 

[Westheath]

As much as I don't want general motoring being state regulated to the last nut and bolt,
I would like to see a VOSA/Police kind of check point at night getting these cars off the road fitted with incorrect lighting.
its simply dangerous and i have had to stop let the car pass and carry on after a few seconds and this is in streets with lighting around South London.

As for the new vehicle lighting the Audi Mercedes systems seems very bright and blinding at night,
I have lost count of the times I've flashed a Mercedes Audi driver coming towards me
only to have them flash back indicating they are on dipped beam all ready.
This is mainly on country roads with no ambient lighting.

 

[EmilysDad]

"About 15% of those drivers polled said they had nearly suffered a collision as a result of being dazzled by other drivers using full-beam headlights."

Not a design problem if people are using full beam to dazzle.
Also the only time I've had the problem is with HID's that people fit into standard units that appear to be full beam even when dipped, the article doesn't mention the illegal HID's/LED's.

But it's not those that are the main problem. It's those new car cars fitted with legal led headlamps that were the focus of the article ......
Two-thirds of drivers say they are "regularly dazzled" by oncoming headlights even though they are dipped, the survey of 2,061 motorists suggests.

 

[Chrishazle]

I really hate having a chelsea tractor behind me at night, their headlights are so far off the ground they're straight into my rear view mirror and blinding, despite my rear view mirror being auto dimming. Couple that with one coming the other way and I have to slow and pull left as I'm fast loosing sight of the road.

 

[L John]

But it's not those that are the main problem. It's those new car cars fitted with legal led headlamps that were the focus of the article ......
Two-thirds of drivers say they are "regularly dazzled" by oncoming headlights even though they are dipped, the survey of 2,061 motorists suggests.

"The RAC Opinion Panel survey of 2,061 motorists found that six in 10 (58%) motorists think modern vehicle headlights are so bright they risk causing other motorists to have accidents."

It's an opinion survey, based by the questions the panel was asked and how the questions were structured.
Questions can easily be written to lean whichever way your preferred outcome is.
If so many people are so much more likely to have an accident due to the new lights, there must be real data to show if it really is the case that so many accidents are caused by new legal lights.
I dare say some accidents are caused by them... and some saved by them lighting the road better.
Modern lights have a better spread and better cut off on dip.
It is important for drivers to look where they're going, some drivers will look directly at the light for a fraction of a second and that will cause temporary reduced sensitivity.

 

[EmilysDad]

"The RAC Opinion Panel survey of 2,061 motorists found that six in 10 (58%) motorists think modern vehicle headlights are so bright they risk causing other motorists to have accidents."

It's an opinion survey, based by the questions the panel was asked and how the questions were structured.
Questions can easily be written to lean whichever way your preferred outcome is.
If so many people are so much more likely to have an accident due to the new lights, there must be real data to show if it really is the case that so many accidents are caused by new legal lights.
I dare say some accidents are caused by them... and some saved by them lighting the road better.
Modern lights have a better spread and better cut off on dip.
It is important for drivers to look where they're going, some drivers will look directly at the light for a fraction of a second and that will cause temporary reduced sensitivity.

OK .... they were all wrong and their opinion counted for Fcuk all.
I high lighted the article as it'd been mention here too

 

[L John]

I didn't say they're all wrong, if there's data showing the number of accidents caused by modern lights I'd be happy to read and accept it.
I'm just stating the survey was opinion based, not fact based.

 

[EmilysDad]

I didn't say they're all wrong, if there's data showing the number of accidents caused by modern lights I'd be happy to read and accept it.
I'm just stating the survey was opinion based, not fact based.

How can you have survey any other way? If somebody says they've been blinded, then in their opinion they've been blinded ..... you can't call them a liar.

 

[Craiglxviii]

There is a survey. It’s official and taken every year and it’s called the National Accident Statistics. It attributes 5% of collisions and 2% of casualties to over-bright/ dazzling lights.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Anyway. Does Craig say they’re wrong? No. The people in the survey believe those answers.

Therein lies the problem. It’s a survey. What we find is that most surveys reflect the conscious/ unconscious bias of their creators to a much greater extent than the applicability of the responses to factual truth. That is why surveys need to be done double blind and as anodyne/ neutral as possible in order to generate responses that are applicable to the market audience.

Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?

Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.

[survey two]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

[does a double-take]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

So, rather than surveys one needs to look at evidence. As close to established fact as possible. The results of investigations. That’s what the accident statistics do.

Seeing as this thread has my name in it then here’s my two pennorth. The increasing trend of beauty in the performance of headlamps has driven ever-narrower lamp units with bluer tinged light output. Both those significantly increase the ability of the lamp to move the lower edge of its beam pattern towards oncoming drivers eyes and shine higher colour temperature white light, verging on blue to green, which causes most people the most trouble. In addition to this European manufacturers have been driving increased light output, from ~800lm in the Nineties to 1500-2000lm nowadays. So together that increases both the ability of lights to dazzle, the effects of their dazzling and the probability of dazzling occurring.

OEMs haven’t ignored this and so intelligent lighting systems have come about. These are meant specifically to address the dazzling problem by moving a black spot over oncoming cars. The first systems can only do this laterally but the new electronically-addressable systems also incorporate a height adjustment function too.

It goes further than that. Increasing connectivity between cars can automate the beam function so that two cars approaching over a blind crest can each automatically attenuate their lighting beam patterns before reaching the point at which the oncoming beams will dazzle each oncoming driver.

 

[Rappey69]

The comments section below the article seems to blame 4x4 and other taller vehicles as the worst offenders.
Personally ive not noticed that.
I,m sure these lights are tuned to perfection -to work on a perfectly flat smooth surface..
Add our bumpy roads and the headlights momentarily flash to the sky.
Its literally only a quick flash or a few seconds worth of dazzle before it acts like every other normal headlight again.

 

[star]

This.

 

[Jasandjules]

It is the 4*4s out there, almost every other car around here is 20ft off the ground, hell a Fiat 500 was sat higher than the Merc...... Their lights are in my face......

I mean, it used to be bad years ago when I had an Elise but now it seems just as bad in cars that aren't 2" off the floor.

 

[EmilysDad]

The comments section below the article seems to blame 4x4 and other taller vehicles as the worst offenders.
Personally ive not noticed that.

I have, and NOT just in my low Smart Roadster, I experience it in my R Class too.

 

[EmilysDad]

It is the 4*4s out there, .

Not mine. The standard incandescent candles in mine are sh1te ..... both my Smarts are better. All cars fitted with the same H7 bulbs.

 

[LostKiwi]

Not mine. The standard incandescent candles in mine are sh1te ..... both my Smarts are better. All cars fitted with the same H7 bulbs.

To be fair Smart lights are pretty good for what they are....

 

[Chrishazle]

I fully agree about the comments re chelsea tractors, whether coming towards me or right behind me. The problem is compounded when the roads are wet so you get glare reflected off the road surface. OK, I'm an old git so my eyesight may not be as good as a youngster, but I'm no longer comfortable driving at night on single carriageway roads precisely because of this. Before anyone comments, I drive in prescription specs with anti-glare coating, but have been tempted to swop to my prescription sunglasses at times.

 

[peterws1957]

.

It goes further than that. Increasing connectivity between cars can automate the beam function so that two cars approaching over a blind crest can each automatically attenuate their lighting beam patterns before reaching the point at which the oncoming beams will dazzle each oncoming driver.

One of the options on my 60 year old Chevy was a gizmo which automatically dipped headlights when detecting headlights on oncoming traffic. Fairly simple but 60 years later manufacturers should be capable of something better.

 

[Botus]

I don't care what the laws are, the fact is all std fit LED lighting systems dazzle like hell and should be illegal. They are much brighter and have much more dangerous and highly focused light straying straight in to eyes of oncoming traffic.

Hoodies will budget megawatt fireballs exploding across the entire light unit are laughable and mildly irritating, but cause very little real distraction.

The best option is good old std fit xenons. They work for the driver and are around 1000% less **** for on coming drivers vs merc's clever LEDs. Then you get well fitted high quality after market LEDs which are no issue at all, but like xenon's provide adequate light for the driver to proceed safely.

the law is an ass