Andy cap wondered
You'll have to forgive me for thinking he's full of crap and was making something up because you'd actually caught him driving with his foggers on.
I also wondered this myself wether he was just covering his bottom, but I enquired elsewhere and got the same answer, and I see no reason to lie because it was only him in the police car and only me in my car so If any wrong things were said there would be no third party witnesses to effect any complaints, he would also know perfectly well any rear view camera would be worth more than the old banger I was driving at the time so really I cant see why he would need to lie as there would have been no proof and besides everyone, knows perfectly well that even if there was a valid case against the police they can practically break the law as much as they like anyway, Just look at how often you see them traveling above the speed limit without blue lights on etc or how often the cps ever so accidentaly loose bits of information when it doesnt suit them.
He also was actually being quite sociable for a traffic cop and we were cracking on how modern technology is complicating vehicle legislation amongst other things....and he also told me how fast he has had out of his car which was considerably above 60mph so No it wasnt one of them self righteous types of traffic officer
Anyway all this is getting off topic
Drl menace reduction
-
Andy Beats
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:12 pm
- Drives: Nissan Leaf 40KW (and Polo United)
- Location: aberdeen
Re: Drl menace reduction
I've owned a LOT of different cars since 1983.idriveapolo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:23 pm I also wondered this myself wether he was just covering his bottom, but I enquired elsewhere and got the same answer,
Hell, I had 5 different makes of car in one year a couple of years ago.
I can't think of a single one that had a switch that said 'driving lamps', he's full of poo.
-
idriveapolo
Re: Drl menace reduction
https://www.motester.co.uk/mot-test-of-lights/
Pay attention to the section where it talks about the behaviour of optional lights being fitted (fog lights aside) and their behaviour when the dip beams are activated and how they must also either dip or go out.
ANY one with half a brain can clearly stipulate that if the lights arnt considered to dazzle in the first place then they can be considered as being dipped already without further intervention.Thats why you never saw police doing people for illuminated washer jets, wagons and pickups with all the christmas decorations on the front and all the rest of it (though I expect some jobsworth somewhere to try)
Granted, its common cortesy to other road users to make shure that only dip beam remains visible to oncoming traffic at night buts thats not the law but really I dont care how many cars you have owned, all this means is that it isnt a very common setup! because lets face it, whats the point?
Also pay attention to where it mentions that drls only need to dim if they are part of the sidelights when rear side lights come on (obviosly the front sidelights generally as well unless front fogs are on instead in foggy conditions but either way stipulating activation of the side light switch position) As mine are seperate there is no need for them to dim, besides I think this law has only been designed to prevent flat batterys when the car is parked etc. (people using one large bulb for both jobs instead of two seperate filaments etc) If I wanted to be anti social I could also allow my drls to remain on full power when I activate the main/dip beam because the law says they may (and most cars do) switch them off when this light position is operated, it doesn say they MUST (as long as they cant be considered to dazzle)
Pay attention to the section where it talks about the behaviour of optional lights being fitted (fog lights aside) and their behaviour when the dip beams are activated and how they must also either dip or go out.
ANY one with half a brain can clearly stipulate that if the lights arnt considered to dazzle in the first place then they can be considered as being dipped already without further intervention.Thats why you never saw police doing people for illuminated washer jets, wagons and pickups with all the christmas decorations on the front and all the rest of it (though I expect some jobsworth somewhere to try)
Granted, its common cortesy to other road users to make shure that only dip beam remains visible to oncoming traffic at night buts thats not the law but really I dont care how many cars you have owned, all this means is that it isnt a very common setup! because lets face it, whats the point?
Also pay attention to where it mentions that drls only need to dim if they are part of the sidelights when rear side lights come on (obviosly the front sidelights generally as well unless front fogs are on instead in foggy conditions but either way stipulating activation of the side light switch position) As mine are seperate there is no need for them to dim, besides I think this law has only been designed to prevent flat batterys when the car is parked etc. (people using one large bulb for both jobs instead of two seperate filaments etc) If I wanted to be anti social I could also allow my drls to remain on full power when I activate the main/dip beam because the law says they may (and most cars do) switch them off when this light position is operated, it doesn say they MUST (as long as they cant be considered to dazzle)