Who, me?

[Clovis]

Now why would anyone in the car behind me possibly flash their lights? Just a little flash so it must be nothing.
Oh, another flash a minute later and we are still stationary in a queue of trafic at night.
Oh, another little flash. I will conspicuously look in my mirror because I could not possibly be at fault in any way
and there could not conceivably be anything wrong with my car.
There is obviously no need to check anything. The queue has not moved and that horrid man behind appears to be articulating something but it is impossible to see clearly, despite his glowing brightly red in the warm comforting light from my car.

I will just ignore it.

===========

These, I must assume, are the thought processes going through the mind of the Honda driver in front of me tonight who seems to believe that blindingly bright rear fog lights are an aid to driving whilst motionless in a queue at night. Not foggy, of course.

Are not several repeated flashes a _tiny_ hint that some sort of basic communication is in progress and might this not prompt the faint stirrings of a question to ask , "Why?. Could it be directed at me? Could I have overlooked anything? Should I care?"

Or perhaps she believed that I would welcome the chance to have the inside of my ocular cavities irradiated for fifteen minutes? Maybe it's a new sort of therapy?


+sigh+

[Gaz]

Stationary traffic: try getting out and telling them. You know, using words and such like. Works a treat

[Stu GTV]

Originally Posted by Gaz

Stationary traffic: try getting out and telling them. You know, using words and such like. Works a treat

Good call......

[VO2Max]

'Scuse me chum, do you realise your rear fog lights are on, and blinding me, old chap?

[Gaz]

I probably wouldnt have been so diplomatic: 'Turn yer f***ing fog lights off before i kick em in you silly old duffer'

[Clovis]

Well, I take your point and for "stationary" read "quasi-staionary". You may consider it artistic licence.

The other point is that a chap getting out of a car to, some might say, accost or admonish a lone female driver at night is open to misinterpretation.

[Nicky]

Originally Posted by Clovis

Well, I take your point and for "stationary" read "quasi-staionary". You may consider it artistic licence.

The other point is that a chap getting out of a car to, some might say, accost or admonish a lone female driver at night is open to misinterpretation.

The passenger window might seem less threatening

[Alfamack]

If the cretin can't look at his dashboard and see that the light for his foglights is on, he desreves being blinded by your full-beam for the rest of your time behind him!

[Keithy]

Foglit fu**wit!

We should have a thread specifically for them, name & shame.

[Joss]

In situation I like to respond with front fogs on. main beam on

[MalcQV]

Rear lasers, very annoying and certainly in Manchester where I live not many times you actually need them!

Originally Posted by Clovis

Well, I take your point and for "stationary" read "quasi-staionary". You may consider it artistic licence.

The other point is that a chap getting out of a car to, some might say, accost or admonish a lone female driver at night is open to misinterpretation.

That is a good point.

Originally Posted by Nicky

The passenger window might seem less threatening

..and this is a good idea, something to remember for the future

[techwork]

The idiots who think "Ooo it's raining so hard I'll pop on my rear fog light and dazzle everyone for a quarter of a mile behind me" Aaarggh!!! It states clearly in the highway code NOT to use them in the rain!!!! Grrrr!!!

[Faithmaster]

:

Originally Posted by Alfamack

If the cretin can't look at his dashboard and see that the light for his foglights is on, he desreves being blinded by your full-beam for the rest of your time behind him!

[VO2Max]

Originally Posted by techwork

The idiots who think "Ooo it's raining so hard I'll pop on my rear fog light and dazzle everyone for a quarter of a mile behind me" Aaarggh!!! It states clearly in the highway code NOT to use them in the rain!!!! Grrrr!!!

I think that's WRONG. I hear a lot of people say this and I get fed up with it.

HIGHWAY CODE:

226

You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves

If it's raining very hard and there's a lot of spray, you can't see ordinary rear lights unless you are too close for the conditions. That is dangerous. Conditions like these are like fog. Use rear fog lights when it is really bad and you can see the car in front of you from a safe distance.

You should only put the rear fogs on when you're having real difficulty seeing the car in front, even though he has his rear sidelights on - that means the car behind you is having difficulty seeing you as well.

Of course, quite rightly, you MUST turn the fogs off when conditions improve. Otherwise people will be dazzled.

There is no reason to use the front fogs in heavy rain. Infact, they will probably make matters worse for the driver with them on.

EDIT: Looking at the Highway Code, I think it's ambiguously written. Point 226 above is the 1st bullet point under 'Driving in adverse weather conditions'. There are then subsections for driving in heavy rain, snow, fog etc. I take point 226 to be a general point about visibility in adverse conditions because it appears on its own, not under the other headings - and I personally agree with it.

Under the fog heading, of course, there is mention of foglights. Under the rain heading, there is no mention of lights at all! And I think we would all agree that in heavy rain you should have lights on. It's badly written.

[techwork]

Originally Posted by VO2Max

I think that's WRONG. I hear a lot of people say this and I get fed up with it.

HIGHWAY CODE:

226

You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves

No I think it's wrong to use them in ANY rainy condition as the bright light is diffused by the rain and made to obscure the brake lights. So putting them on in rainy conditions makes it MORE dangerous for people behind as they cannot see clearly if the person in front is braking!

The key term is that they're FOG lights...big clue there as for when they're to be used!!!

[VO2Max]

Very heavy rain can be optically similar to fog. I'm only advocating the use of fog lights in extreme circumstances.

So when the rain is so heavy that it has reduced the level of visibility to fog and you can't see as far as the safe stopping distance, how do you know where the car in front is? You don't know where it is until you are too close to it.

Have you never been in such conditions where the rain is very, very heavy and the only people you can see in front of you at a safe distance are those with fog lights on?

[Squadrone Rosso]

They are usually called rear hi-intensity / visibility lights & not fogs anymore.

In heavy rain or reduced visibility due to spray they should be used.

Just remember to turn them off

[michaelb]

This seems to annoy everyone.

Why can't the Rear High Visibility Lights indicator light on the dash be made to flash brightly? Yes it would be irritating to use them but you could live with that for the once or twice in a year you actually need them. The rest of the time 'Honda drivers' might actually be aware the lights are on.

[Al Faromeo]

In NL, it's only allowed to use rear fog lights when visibility is under 50 meters. Which really is about as good as never.
In Belgium, it's as if they run their rear fogs when it starts to rain in Scotland.

I wish they wouldn't.

[mick.p.]

Unfortunately, the only person who can turn these lights on or off is the driver, it is up to them to decide if they are a hazard to the car behind and we are obviously not able to do that.
So, a bright flashing light on the dash,accompanied by a buzzer, could be just what we need.

Mick.