Driving with Full beams on Motorways

Saruman

With the new motorways we have around the country, most of which are unlit i have noticed a lot of drivers just driving along and not switching off their high beams when a car comes in the opposite direction.
Maybe they think the other driver cant see it or they do not care because there is a barrier but its just the same as being blinded on a normal national road.

The M4 and new N6 dual carriageway are prime examples!! Its a pain in the ass... or eyes If someone is particularly blinding i will put mine on and they usually get the message so i turn mine off then. I know its tit for tat (and against the rules of the road even) but its the only way people will learn.

Bard

People do it on the M1 at night time too. These roads should be properly lit in the first place. I don't have a problem with people putting on their full beams on the motorway, as long as they flick back to standard heads when faced with oncoming traffic or come up behind someone - but, as we all know, people are stupid/ignorant.

Saruman

No problem with it as long as they change back myself... though in fairness i see absolutly no reason to ever use high beams on a motorway with the exception of lighting up an upcoming sign. I can see perfectly fine for kilometeres with ordinary headlights.

peasant

Have any of you ever driven on a Belgian motorway at night?

They have their motorways fully lit, a lamp every 50 metres or so.

Geez, it does your head in ....bright light, dim light, bright light, dim light... kind of like the ta-tum, ta-tum on an old fashoned train, only in your eyes instead of your ears.

After a while your eyes go all funny and you sart seeing things, doesn't help concentration one bit.

So, for me, thankyouverymuch, no lighting on motorways please ...I'd rather get annoyed by the occasional oncomer with their full beams on than have that psychedelic Belgian experience

Alun

peasant wrote:

Have any of you ever driven on a Belgian motorway at night?

Yes, many, many times ... usually when racing back to the UK from Germany at something like 3am. I never had a problem with it at all personally, on the contrary in fact. Having said that I was usually going at least 180km/h, so maybe you just needed to go faster to increase the frequency a bit

unkel

There is no need for full beams on any motorway in this country when not driving above the speed limit. If there is, the driver needs glasses

I find the lights on all motorways in Belgium quite good myself, but I usually do at least twice the speed of a campervan

Hotblack Desiato

unkel wrote:

There is no need for full beams on any motorway in this country when not driving above the speed limit. If there is, the driver needs glasses

If your dipped beams go as far as the stopping distance from 120km/h, they're set illegally high! OR your perception of how much vision you need to have to be safe and how long it takes to stop is seriously off.

There wouldn't be a problem with main beams on a motorway if the NRA had a clue and included French-style bits of plastic at right angles to the direction of travel. They form a very effective barrier to lights in the distance but you can still see across the motorway. This would be far preferable to expensively lighting up the whole motorway. Only junctions need to be lit.

I would not dip if I was in lane 1 with nothing in front of me and the oncoming traffic was in lane 1. They'd simply not be in my beam pattern and I wouldn't be happy doing 120km/h on a dipped beam. So if I did dip I'd slow down.

unkel

ninja900 wrote:

If your dipped beams go as far as the stopping distance from 120km/h, they're set illegally high! OR your perception of how much vision you need to have to be safe and how long it takes to stop is seriously off

Interesting point. Firstly, let's presume my dipped beams are set correctly. I have never failed an NCT for incorrect beam alignment

Secondly, @120km/h my stopping distance would be what, about 60-80m? Surely I can see 60-80m in front of me with dipped beams?

As to best practice, I have to give that one to the Belgians...

Spit62500

unkel wrote:

Interesting point. Firstly, let's presume my dipped beams are set correctly. I have never failed an NCT for incorrect beam alignment

Secondly, @120km/h my stopping distance would be what, about 60-80m? Surely I can see 60-80m in front of me with dipped beams?

As to best practice, I have to give that one to the Belgians...

http://www.lireland.com/theory/stopping.htm

According to this (the first that I could find), stopping distance in wet conditions would be a total of 184m (24m reaction time plus 160m stopping time). That's for a car, not an SUV or truck. Maybe the official DOE figures are different but I can't think that they'd be that different.

Just after the start of the M9 as you leave the M7 heading towards, say, Athy, not only is it pitch dark but there's a sign warning that deer may be wandering around that stretch of road. While you may spot a vehicle with reflectors in the distance, you won't spot debris on the road or a deer while you're using dipped lights at the legal speed limit. To make matters worse, there's a bend at the start of that road too so you can't use headlights without pointing them directly at traffic going in the opposite direction. A couple of weeks ago, I came across a spare wheel from a truck on that stretch - practically impossible to spot in the dark even on full beams.

Hagar

ninja900 wrote:

There wouldn't be a problem with main beams on a motorway if the NRA had a clue and included French-style bits of plastic at right angles to the direction of travel. They form a very effective barrier to lights in the distance but you can still see across the motorway.

These are very effective indeed. They are fitted to the top of median barrier... oh wait, I forget they don't put median barriers on all motorways in Ireland because people drive magic cars that can be stopped by the scrawny bits of bushes planted where the median barriers would be in all the countries where the laws of physics apply.

Drax

Saruman wrote:

I can see perfectly fine for kilometeres with ordinary headlights.

That must be some set of lights you got there Saruman...

Seth Brundle

Spit62500 wrote:

http://www.lireland.com/theory/stopping.htm

According to this (the first that I could find), stopping distance in wet conditions would be a total of 184m (24m reaction time plus 160m stopping time). That's for a car, not an SUV or truck. Maybe the official DOE figures are different but I can't think that they'd be that different.

The Irish stopping distances match the UK ones which were calculated yonks ago using a Ford Anglia which had all round drum brakes. Do you really think it takes that much to stop now?

jayok

kbannon wrote:

The Irish stopping distances match the UK ones which were calculated yonks ago using a Ford Anglia which had all round drum brakes. Do you really think it takes that much to stop now?

From Autocar tests done in Jan 10th 2001 the average stopping distance of a typical modern car at 70mph (112km/hr) is 76m (including drivers response time) in good conditions.

Full-beam, allows you to see about 100m ahead of you. Dipped beams about 30m (look at ninja900's sig)

Problem is people don't seem to understand just how far 76 meters actually is! Also in typical driving conditions (not testing circumstances) few drivers scan the furthest proximity of their range (i.e. 75+ meters) instead focusing on the conformatable 50-60 meter range.

So at night doing the 120 km/hr on Dipped beams on a motorway where you stopping distance WILL be greater than 76m you are basically driving blind.

Yes, I use full-beams on the motorway when possible this includes if I am in the driving lane and the opposite traffic is also in the driving lane. It also includes if I am turning on a slow bend and my beam pattern is pointing away from the median into my hard-shoulder. But this notion is beyond most people.

unkel wrote:

There is no need for full beams on any motorway in this country when not driving above the speed limit

If you want to drive on Dips on a motorway you will need to limit yourself to about 70km/hr just to ensure you can stop in time. Now that's another problem.

HelterSkelter

unkel wrote:

There is no need for full beams on any motorway in this country when not driving above the speed limit. If there is, the driver needs glasses

Really? If you are driving at 112kmh then the stopping distance is 97m on a dry road, according to http://www.lireland.com/theory/stopping.htm. Can you see 97m ahead with your dipped lights?

embraer170

In Germany it's illegal to use full beams on the motorway, not sure about France etc.

jayok

embraer170 wrote:

In Germany it's illegal to use full beams on the motorway, not sure about France etc.

I thought on only on lit sections of the motorway.

Seth Brundle

jayok wrote:

embraer170 wrote:

In Germany it's illegal to use full beams on the motorway, not sure about France etc.

I thought on only on unlit sections of the motorway.

Don't you mean lit sections?

unkel

I'm not sure what the law is in Germany, but from many years of night time driving on motorways across the continent, having full beams on is just not done generally

jayok wrote:

So at night doing the 120 km/hr on Dipped beams on a motorway where you stopping distance WILL be greater than 76m you are basically driving blind

I'll accept that driving at a certain speed on motorways, the stopping distance is greater than the view one has - dipped beams or full beams. Is that so bad?

Blazer

I know when you're driving in France it's mandatory to fit a kind of sticker to each headlamp so when the fulls are on the light only shines dead straight ahead and not wide of the car..must look them up again and post the link

..ah they we go...Headlamp converters are compulsory.

http://driving.drive-alive.co.uk/driving-in-france.htm

Hagar

Mathew Reilly wrote:

I know when you're driving in France it's mandatory to fit a kind of sticker to each headlamp so when the fulls are on the light only shines dead straight ahead and not wide of the car..must look them up again and post the link

..ah they we go...Headlamp converters are compulsory.

http://driving.drive-alive.co.uk/driving-in-france.htm

But not for LHD cars. That is just to stop RHD car beams aiming to the left, oncoming traffic, while driving on the right.

jayok

unkel wrote:

I'll accept that driving at a certain speed on motorways, the stopping distance is greater than the view one has - dipped beams or full beams. Is that so bad?

Driving at a speed that means you'll stop further than you can see is bad, very bad.

jayok

kbannon wrote:

Don't you mean lit sections?

Opps. Yep I meant lit - edited this now.

unkel

jayok wrote:

Driving at a speed that means you'll stop further than you can see is bad, very bad.

Why is it very bad?

Hagar

Because if you see an un-avoidable obstacle on the road it's already too late to brake.


/edit Typo

jayok

unkel wrote:

Why is it very bad?

Imagine for a moment that you are on a motorway at night driving along at 120 km/hr. Your current braking distance is now say 100 odd meters. For the purposes of demonstration you are on dipped headlights. You are within the law by all accounts.

With your 30 meters of vision from your dipped headlights an obstacle lies ahead. Say a loose horse, a shedded tire, a pile up. You will not see this obstacle on him and if you apply the brakes at the right time, you've a further 70 (100-30) meters to travel before coming a halt. Unfortunately the obstacle in the way is at a dead stop (tire, horse, etc). As you are 30 meters you will impact with the object with all that energy to dissipate (as you intended to travel a further 70 meters). It is likely that injury will occur to either or both parties from the collision and significant chaos, pain, hassle will endure. May be it's just me, but this is very bad.

HelterSkelter

Holy **** man, have people driving no common sense at all? I can't believe people are wondering why it is very bad to be driving at 120kmh and not know what is ahead. Might as well be driving with their eyes closed. No wonder there are so many accidents on our roads at night.

Actually has anyone heard about people driving with their lights turned off in the country areas? What is that all about?

unkel

The world would be a safer place if every single driver would do about 50km/h on motorways at night. Or just stay at home in bed

In practice, are all of you that advocate this stopping distance rule saying hundreds of millions of continental drivers are wrong?

To avoid obstacles, in the vast majority of cases it is not necessary to come to a complete stop. Unless of course the full width of the motorway including hard shoulder and central reserve is blocked. About as likely as being hit by a meteorite

Hotblack Desiato

unkel wrote:

Why is it very bad?

Unbelieveable!

The golden rule of safe driving is to ALWAYS be able to stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear.

HelterSkelter

unkel wrote:

To avoid obstacles, in the vast majority of cases it is not necessary to come to a complete stop. Unless of course the full width of the motorway including hard shoulder and central reserve is blocked. About as likely as being hit by a meteorite

So you are driving in the motorway in the driving lane at 120kmh (at night) and suddenly you see a horse right in front of you. Do you seriously think you (or the majority of other drivers) can swerve to avoid the horse without skidding and losing control?

Your ignorance is shocking. I think you should go into the council today and give your licence back.

Hagar

Don't mind him. That was his 7500th post (congrats), he's just winding us up.
Aren't you? Please say yes.

ScumLord

I don't care what I'm allowed to get away with under the law I'll treat a moterway like any other road. High beams on until I have to dip them. I like to be able to see whats off to the side and whats miles off, not just whats within stoping distance of the car. Especially on motorways where your concentration level isn't as high.

People might be more likely to forget they have highbeams on when using the motorway give em a flash to let them know very few mean to give you the high beam. Whats the problem?

unkel

HelterSkelter wrote:

So you are driving in the motorway in the driving lane at 120kmh (at night) and suddenly you see a horse right in front of you

A horse (or more likely a deer) could jump out right in front of you making an accident unavoidable - no matter what your speed is

HelterSkelter wrote:

I think you should go into the council today and give your licence back.

Along with those hundreds of millions of continental drivers that drive at 120km/h on dipped beams on unlit motorways?

HelterSkelter

unkel wrote:

A horse (or more likely a deer) could jump out in right in front of you making an accident unavoidable - no matter what your speed is

Oh right, so we should throw all other common sense out the window then? If I hit this deer then I could be killed on the spot so I should not bother wearing a seat belt as it would not save my life?

BTW, it is the law in this country that you drive with full beam headlights at night:

When driving at night you must use your full headlamps except:

1. For a short period just after the beginning or before the end of lighting up hours (the period commencing half an hour after sunset on any day and ending half an hour before sunrise on the following day) provided visibility is adequate.
2. When stopped in the course of traffic.
3. In a built-up or special speed limit area where there is good street lighting.

You must dip your headlamps:

1. When meeting other traffic.
2. When driving in a built-up or special speed limit area except where the roads are unlit.
3. On continuously lit roads outside built-up or special speed limit areas.
4. When following close behind another vehicle.
5. At the beginning and end of lighting up hours.
6. Where there is dense fog or falling snow.
7. Generally to avoid inconveniencing other traffic.

From the national safety council web site

Don't overdrive your headlights. You should be able to stop inside the illuminated area. If you're not, you are creating a blind crash area in front of your vehicle.

comanche

Generally on a motorway there is other traffic going in the same direction, this should give you enough clues as to what is going on ahead...

And well if there are oncoming cars and you are not following cars dip your lights - motorways generally do not have obstacles on the - why would there be a horse/cow/laama/ostrich on a motorway? Car, trucks etc have lights. Personally I'm alright with the odds and will continue to take my changes!

Something that people in this country don't seem to get either - esp on single carriage roads is

1. You can remember what was in your way when you dip your head lights
2. The car coming towards you is also illuminating the road - that means your side too

unkel

So no comments then about best practice in continental europe where people do not generally use full beams when driving around @120km/h on motorways?

HelterSkelter wrote:

BTW, it is the law in this country that you drive with full beam headlights at night

The rules of the road were probably written before there were motorways here. Unfortunately most people still seem unable to use them properly - I guess nobody told them how to do it!

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing in principal wrong with using full beams. Just:

- people leave them on (either out of ignorance or because they only care about numero uno) blinding another driver

- people switch them off, but too late. The other driver is already blinded. I am almost always the first to switch off the full beams when coming upon a driver going in the opposite direction

- having full beams on in the driving lane still blinds a driver coming in the opposite direction imho, even if they are in the driving lane too

- I really can't see that visibility on motorways is only 30m @120km/h on dipped beams. My guess is that figure is from non-motorways with no reflecting lines / poles etc.

On the balance I feel it is safer overall not to use full beams if possible. Perhaps I should be more selfish

As said it would be better to have some deflectors in the median, even dense bushes would do it. As for motorway lights, I guess we don't have the population density to make that economically viable

Blazer

Hagar wrote:

But not for LHD cars. That is just to stop RHD car beams aiming to the left, oncoming traffic, while driving on the right.

someone's a bit slow today:p

they go on both lights..:D

HelterSkelter

unkel wrote:

So no comments then about best practice in continental europe where people do not generally use full beams when driving around @120km/h on motorways?

I don't know about the laws and practices in the rest of Europe. We are talking about Ireland and the law here is that you should drive with full beam. What people do in the rest of Europe is irrelevant.

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree, I will drive with full beam on unlit motorways, you drive with dipped beam if you want.

Rovi

Mathew Reilly wrote:

Hagar wrote:

But not for LHD cars. That is just to stop RHD car beams aiming to the left, oncoming traffic, while driving on the right.

someone's a bit slow today:p

they go on both lights..:D

\pulls up comfy chair
\opens popcorn
\waits for Hagar to come back

:rolleyes:

Hagar

Mathew Reilly wrote:

someone's a bit slow today:p

they go on both lights..:D

Yes, but it's not me, where did I say anything about a single light?

LHD = "Left Hand Drive" i.e. a car designed for driving on the right side of the road, e.g. France.
RHD = "Right Hand Drive" i.e. a car designed for driving on the left side of the road, e.g. Ireland.

Re-read my previous post.;)


/edit Hiya Rovi got any spare popcorn?

jayok

unkel wrote:

So no comments then about best practice in continental europe where people do not generally use full beams when driving around @120km/h on motorways?

Here's a few:

1. To start, you are defining that the whole of continental Europe appoves of this. To be honest I don't believe you. I only know the roads I've driven across Europe and without full beams they are very dark and as per my simple example above not safe to do 80km/hr let alone 130km/hr+.

2. Furthermore this is Ireland - we drive on the left. We are generally poorly trained and have poor road markings.

3. While we have numerous bad examples of Irish driving I would tend to focus more on the use of the English road usage and system. The Brits to be fair to them are the the leaders in road-safety and developed Road Craft. The Police Advanced driving course recommends best possible lumination at all times AND ensuring a safe stopping distance above all.

Of course, you are entitled to drive as you see fit once within the law and there posts are largely irrelevant. But the law doesn't cover all safety aspects and driving at 120km/hr on dips on an Irish motorway simply isn't safe. Whether you choose to accept this or not is your preogative - but IMO ignoring this makes anyone an unsafe / dangerous driver.

Rovi

Hagar wrote:

/edit Hiya Rovi got any spare popcorn?

Here you go (Not Worksafe!)-


:D:D

unkel

Not boards.ie safe, Rovi, nevermind work safe

Link to picture of scantily clad lady removed...

embraer170

A trip to Germany where people drive at night at 200+ km/h on low beam headlights. I'm not saying it's right but it's standard practise.

Everyone who's talking about safe stopping distances, do you drive around the countless blind blends (on third class roads, but also on many national primary/secondary roads) at 10 km/h or whatever safe speed. I doubt it.

unkel

HelterSkelter wrote:

We are talking about Ireland and the law here is that you should drive with full beam

Correct. Alhtough adhering to the law is not always the safest option imho

HelterSkelter wrote:

What people do in the rest of Europe is irrelevant

I disagree there. We've only got a few bits of motorway and only in the last decade or so. Continental Europe has had experience with motorways for up to 70 years. More experience so perhaps better practices available that might improve safety here

jayok wrote:

Furthermore this is Ireland - we drive on the left. We are generally poorly trained and have poor road markings

I agree with the training as I pointed out in my previous posts. Motorways in Ireland (including road markings) are of good quality though

jayok wrote:

driving at 120km/hr on dips on an Irish motorway simply isn't safe

Driving at 120km/h on an Irish motorway in full daylight in perfect weather is barely safe

hobochris

Driving at 120km/h on an Irish motorway in full daylight in perfect weather is barely safe

depends on how alert the driver is... the problem in this country with safety is not that we dont have the laws ect in place... but people either do not know them or choose to ignore them..

for example even driving slower then the speed of traffic on a motorway can be dangerous thanks to whatever ignorant idiot is driving on your back bumper. which is why the problem need to be tackled from both sides both drivers who drive slower then the speed of traffic and thoose who drive dangerously need to be penalised...

i say slower drivers because as much as penalising dangerous drivers can help.. slow drivers for example driving in the fast line instead of observing the keep left rule also add to the problem... as they tend to provoke the dangerous drivers.. and also act as a hinderance to drivers wishing to go at a faster speed within the speed limit...

im mainly talking about the drivers who do 50kmh in the outside lane of the m50 with a clear road ahead of them, often causing delays for drivers who are normally stuck in a tail back behind them who wish to do say 120kmh...

but anyway back onto my point...

ignorance or not knowing the law should not be tolerated.. holding a driving licence is a responsabilty not just an asset... meaning that it is your responsabilty to know and abide by all
rules of the road such as the keep left rule and the keeping with the pace of traffic rule not just the ones that prevent an obvious danger such as speeding...

jayok

unkel wrote:

Correct. Alhtough adhering to the law is not always the safest option imho

Since you seem to highlight your desire for the safety option. The you need to realise that driving at 120km/hr on dipped lights is not safe. No "its done on the continent" can deny the physics involved. If you really wanted to drive with the safest option then you would at recognise that doing 120km/hr on dipped headlights is not the safest option as essentailly you are driving blind - this point seems to have bypassed you.

unkel wrote:

I disagree there. We've only got a few bits of motorway and only in the last decade or so. Continental Europe has had experience with motorways for up to 70 years. More experience so perhaps better practices available that might improve safety here

Sure Continental Europe have motorways longer than us. However, their practices are not necessarily "better" than ours. For example, the level of tailgating and speed that occurs in France is shocking. The Italians are notorously dangerous drivers (n one of stretch of motorway from Naples to Rome between the 1st June 06 and the 10th June 06 37 people lost their lives). Such dangerous driving is not as widesperead here and I don't believe that their experience had made them safer drivers.

Either way the "contental Europe" discussion is only heresay. The braking distance vs vision figures highlights the unsafe driving practice of driving beyond your vision. Fact.

peasant

Now, now ...

The whole idea of a motorway is that you can drive safely over and above the speed that your field of vision/breaking distance would normally command.

The overall idea is to provide a safe road to allow fast progress for a large number of vehicles and the whole thing is constructed in such a way, that it is reasonably safe to do 120 km/h in normal conditions (and that includes night time)

You know that there will be no crossroads, you know that the bends won't get tight and tighter all of a sudden, you know there will be no potholes and you know that construction sites will be signpostested well in advance.

You can further safely assume that there will be no tractor or horse and carriage, no cyclists or other slow moving vehicles and no pedestrians. You can assume that any slow moving vehicles will be doing at least 50 km/h (or is it 60?) because otherwise they wouldn't be allowed on the motorway.

You should further assume (outside Ireland anyway:D ) that all vehicles are lit up at night, that all vehicles are travelling at speeds close to the max (or at least 80 km/h for trucks) and that freeflowing traffic will be faster in the overtaking lane than in the driving lane. Also you can assume that you will be warned, if there are steep hills or sharp bends and that the speed will be limited in such places.

There remains the risk that there *may* be debris or deer (other loose animals) on the road ...but that risk is so small that it does not warrant rendering the whole motorway system pointless by forcing everybody down to such a slow speed that they could definetly avoid that tyre, piece of wood or deer that suddenly decides to "jump" them.

unkel

jayok wrote:

If you really wanted to drive with the safest option then you would at recognise that doing 120km/hr on dipped headlights is not the safest option as essentailly you are driving blind - this point seems to have bypassed you

It's not bypassed me, I simply don't believe the figures quoted. I believe my vision is way more than 30m at 120km/h on dipped beams on a motorway. As I suggested that figure might come from a non-motorway

I agree with you about the level of tailgating in France and more so in Spain and Italy. I do not condone it under any circumstances but most of it happens in my experience where the tailgated driver is overdue merging back into the driving lane or the driver didn't pay attention to fast approaching cars before making the move into the overtaking lane

unkel

peasant wrote:

You can assume that any slow moving vehicles will be doing at least 50 km/h (or is it 60?) because otherwise they wouldn't be allowed on the motorway

70km/h is better again. In many countries the police are quicker to take slow drivers off the motorway than fast drivers. Given the choice of either taking a 60km/h driver or a 180km/h driver off the motorway (min speed 70km/h, max speed 120km/h) in the Netherlands, the police are known to go after the slower driver

I'm convinced one of the reasons the UK motorways are very safe is that the difference in speed between the fastest and the slowest cars is very, very small. I've never experienced anything similar in Europe, but I have in the US

Blazer

Hagar wrote:

Yes, but it's not me, where did I say anything about a single light?

LHD = "Left Hand Drive" i.e. a car designed for driving on the right side of the road, e.g. France.
RHD = "Right Hand Drive" i.e. a car designed for driving on the left side of the road, e.g. Ireland.

Re-read my previous post.;)


/edit Hiya Rovi got any spare popcorn?

Ooops...looks like I was the slow one..:o
but then again I never realised that dipped lights points the left..just never took heed of it.

unkel

Mathew Reilly wrote:

I never realised that dipped lights points the left..

Dipped lights point to the left in RHD drive cars. They point to the right in LHD cars