Lives on the line in the saving of energy
We must be a mean old lot in Canterbury. We are so assiduously trying to save energy here that we will not use dipped headlamps in low light.
We already save power a lot by eschewing indicator protocols and preferring to look through a crudely wiped letterbox-shaped patch in the windscreen, rather than use our demisters, while rear windows remain cataract-like in terms of providing any view from our central mirror's point of view.
On the way to work this morning, I photographed four cars - you may not be able to make them all out - having stopped to see how long it would be before an unlit car came through. I only needed 20 seconds and a single shot to show that far from wasting electrical energy, Canterbury is on the case.
True, the Nissan Patrol in the picture had its side-lights on, but what do you expect from the owner of a gas-guzzler?
I hope these people are honoured in some way, should they for no apparent reason be half of a head-on collision scenario, with something on their headstones like: "Gary died so we might stay warm," or "Sacrificed in the name of energy saving."
But you know darn well what the explanation will be when they have a coroner's enquiry or a court case about the crash. The other half of the equation will try the time-honoured excuse: "I never saw him coming."
Typical!
» Follow NZStuffBlogs on Twitter and get fast updates on all Stuff's blogs.
Sponsored links
Yes it is sad that people don't turn their headlights on in fog. Park lights don't count. It is quite common to not be able to see an unlit car 200m away when a lit car 500m away is clearly visible.
Overtaking in fog is a bad idea unless you can see far enough to make out everything that could be there, regardless of whether it is lit or not. If you can't see then it is not acceptable to take the risk.
Likewise, driving at speed in fog, or any other poor visibility, is not acceptable. Slow down until to can clearly see and stop for all potential hazards.
So what if you have to travel 10km at 70kph instead of 100kph. That only adds 3 minutes to the trip.
Too right Dave - I saw just the idiocy you describe on my drive this morning. I have given up flashing my headlights at oncoming vehicles to suggest they turn theirs on (they assume it means 'slow down, cop ahead1'). It seems that many folks assume the only purpose of headlights is to enable them to see, but not the corollary purpose of enabling others to see them!
I'm glad you broght this up, Dave. I agree entirely. How can you justify not having your headlights on in poor light or reduced visibility? Ignorance? It's not uncommon to see many drivers in our cities at night without their headlights on. Do they not look at their instrument panel? Park lights are just that and nowhere near sufficient for driving. An extremely worrying situation yet this fundamental safety issue gets very little publicity.
Sidelights, otherwise known as *Park* lights. Moderately useful for pinpointing where a parked vehicle is, but less than useless for improving the visibility of a moving vehicle.
I drive a couple of variations on road coloured cars, so any time I can't distinguish the end of the bonnet from the road (colourwise) then my lights go on.
What's the bet the plonker in the 4WD has just two modes of illumination, park lights, or full beam...
Agree agree agree. Such a paradox, its murky/overcast/foggy people drive around with no lights, middle of the day or slightly dull and the full beams are out in force.
Seperate driving issue, I can barely contain my anger and frustration at 2 of the headlines this afternoon on Stuff. The girl who got away with Manslaughter when driving drunk. Fled from a police checkpoint (failing to stop/resisting arrest) then killed a person when well over the limit. 6 MONTHS HOME DETENTION????? SERIOUSLY? This should be minimum 5 years.
And the Rugby star who was so completely trashed that he had to be run off the road by members of the public to stop him killing someone. Gets a 6 MONTH ban and <$1000 fine. Oh wow, im sure thats going to effect him a lot.
TO DAVE MOORE, sorry for ranting but I just dont see anywhere else to vent my borderline homicidal rage at the complete pointlessness of these punishments. I understand you write for a lot of publications with regard to driving etc, is there anywhere else that is a more appropriate forum?
Sorry for hijacking.
@ Dandy #6: It just looks like full beam because the 4WD is so high that its headlights are at the same height as normal cars' windscreens.
Things are a menace.
The second prize goes to those who in clear weather drive with their rear fog lights on.
I'm sure they think that they're being "more visible", butt he fact is that rear fog lights (not true for front fog lights) are designed to be very bright. The effect is that those following are dazzled by the over-bright light in their eyes, or being able to tell when they brake becomes impossible as they just don't show up as well.
Not to mention it being <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303648.html#DLM303648">against the law</a>.
Low beam headlights (or foglights) in fog. Yes. Absolutely. But there are other times when headlights are completely inappropriate. Especially at dusk or dawn.
Headlights are designed to illuminate the road. Some do this well; many modern headlights are poor at it. (But that's another issue.) Their prime purpose is to project light ahead on to the road. Their use for announcing the presence of the vehicle they are attached to is accidental. They are not even good at it.
Headlights have entirely the wrong beam pattern for marker/identification/daytime running lights. (Except, as it happens, in fog, or motorway spray.)
If it is still light enough to see perfectly well - as is typically the case 15 minutes or so after sunset - headlights are truly a menace. They don't provide enough illumination to help the driver see. Their beams are completely undetectable on the road ahead. But they still dazzle oncoming drivers, obscuring all unlit objects with their glare. Things like other cars, bikes, kids...
At such times, sidelights provide more than enough contrast to highlight approaching vehicles.
Think of it this way: Front sidelights and rear tail lights have almost identical levels of brightness. If tail lights are unquestionably bright enough to stop us running into the backs of cars, then surely sidelights are also bright enough so we can see the fronts? And they don't dazzle or annoy anybody.
Bikers and drivers - pull yourselves together
Downsize fuel bills - buy an SUV!
Stupid driving? Call the police, save a life
Clean, light diesels discouraged in NZ
Yaris - new car has more competition
Steven Joyce has too many portfolios
Coroner mistaken over cold-weather tyres
130kmh limit for NZ? Yeah, right
Toyota Hilux ads - which is best?
Un-signposted speed cameras: revenue first
Promised baby Jaguar here at last
Why not change ALL the road rules?
Parents don't want son's killer in town
Million-dollar view, shame about the house
'Naughty' toilet traps terrified toddler
Trap for burglars catches policeman
Brothel scares and stresses neighbourhood
Degrassi star died five years ago
Daily trivia quiz: February 18
Banking on return of blue magic
Bid to scrap race relations office
'Naughty' toilet traps terrified toddler
Wellington earthquake fear: No way in or out
High cost of living mars return to NZ
Cathedral repair bill intimidating
Which theme is worse: Bones or NCIS?
Newest First
Oldest First
Not only does that car have poor lighting, but he seems oblivious to the 2-second rule about following distances.
It's a shame that the Darwin Awards have so much collateral damage when they're handed out on our roads.