HIDs - Now bikes are at it!

[RainbowFire]

Coming home around 00:30 today, in the rear distance there was a blinding glowing orb. It drew closer and closer. At first I thought it could be ball-lightning, but then I relised it was a motorbike, with the obligatory "need to have main-beam on", only this time with such a blue-ish tint that you could see it was HID. Definately a reflector too.

Great. What a truely fantastic idea. I mean, if you're going to blind someone with your main-beam, might as well do it properly!

I am still at a loss as to why bikers feel the need to drive around with main-beam on anyway, even during the day, but now we have the added attraction of super-blinding people with HID main-beam. How cool is that. You can even buy single light kits especially for bikes.

I know there'll be the usual comments from the bikers about having main-beam on so that they can be seen whilst line-splitting and weaving in and out of traffic (because the speed limit and RVLR don't apply to bikes, do they), but of course, and for some obscure reason, fitting DRLs to a bike would just seem so sensable. For bikes they could be white during the day and green at night, of a sufficient brightness to be noticed, but not to blind, and being green would distinguish them at night from the other idiots who've fitted DRLs badly.

Now all I'm waiting for is an accident report involving a Halfords Corsa and the Star Of Bethlehem bike meeting head-on, any survivors would be claiming to have been blinded by the vehicle coming the other way!

[@Lee]

have you seen the intensity of some of the ones used by the humble cyclist? Enough to burn your retinas from 50 paces I did read that research was being carried out in Germany regards the new fangled HID's/ Xenons, with a view to banning them EU wide, as oncoming drivers have been temporarily blinded, especially on bends, leading to accidents. Great for the driver of the car with them fitted, not so great for the unsuspecting oncoming traffic though.

[RainbowFire]

Yeah have seen cyclists with those, and just as many with no lights, reflectors or hi-viz at all, usually at the last moment. Cyclists won't be covered by RVLR, and given the attitude of most of them to the highway code (cue the "not me" brigade) having lights set not to blind other road users is again, something that doesn't apply.

If you're in the "wrong" part of the beam set-up, you get hit by the light anyway, even on halogens.

http://en.wikipedia....nt_Light_System

....Pixel Light. First offered by.............VAG.

Edited 14 July, 2012 by RainbowFore

[@Lee]

sounds interesting and I hope it will be introduced across the whole VAG range. Time will tell but these things have a habit of filtering down slowly :(

[jobsworth]

Coming home around 00:30 today, in the rear distance there was a blinding glowing orb. It drew closer and closer. At first I thought it could be ball-lightning, but then I relised it was a motorbike, with the obligatory "need to have main-beam on", only this time with such a blue-ish tint that you could see it was HID. Definately a reflector too.

Great. What a truely fantastic idea. I mean, if you're going to blind someone with your main-beam, might as well do it properly!

I am still at a loss as to why bikers feel the need to drive around with main-beam on anyway, even during the day, but now we have the added attraction of super-blinding people with HID main-beam. How cool is that. You can even buy single light kits especially for bikes.

I know there'll be the usual comments from the bikers about having main-beam on so that they can be seen whilst line-splitting and weaving in and out of traffic (because the speed limit and RVLR don't apply to bikes, do they), but of course, and for some obscure reason, fitting DRLs to a bike would just seem so sensable. For bikes they could be white during the day and green at night, of a sufficient brightness to be noticed, but not to blind, and being green would distinguish them at night from the other idiots who've fitted DRLs badly.

Now all I'm waiting for is an accident report involving a Halfords Corsa and the Star Of Bethlehem bike meeting head-on, any survivors would be claiming to have been blinded by the vehicle coming the other way!

A lot of motorcycle main beams are hard wired as always on....including mine.. Haven't seen too many HIDs yet. All helps wake up sleepy car (corsa) drivers and stops them pulling out on a clear road.... Er sorry mate I didn't see you.

There was a lot of debate when DRL were introduced to cars as motorcycles would just blend in again....

[RainbowFire]

A lot of motorcycle main beams are hard wired as always on....including mine.. Haven't seen too many HIDs yet. All helps wake up sleepy car (corsa) drivers and stops them pulling out on a clear road.... Er sorry mate I didn't see you.

There was a lot of debate when DRL were introduced to cars as motorcycles would just blend in again....

I'm sorry? They're actually designed and built to blind other road users, in contravention of RVLR? Continues to show that bikers believe themselves above the law IMHO.

Edit:

It would appear that, in an effort to be safety concious, bike manufacturers are hard-wiring the dipped-beam as a DRL, but not the main-beam (the one with the blue tell-tale on the instruments.)

Edited 14 July, 2012 by RainbowFore

[Holmesie]

Normally on many new motorcycles the dipped beam is hard wired although if set up correctly this should not blind other road users, Although as a car driver / motorcyclist i also find the constant use of main beam annoying. I have seen a few bikes with selective yellow headlights, this makes them stand out from the cloud alot and does not blind other road users at all

[rockhopper]

I have a great LED front light for my bicycle. When on the road i set it to flash - battery lasts forever, but when offroad I have it on full. When on road I generally point mine down so as not to blind drivers - unless they annoy me that is

[Number14]

I have a great LED front light for my bicycle. When on the road i set it to flash - battery lasts forever, but when offroad I have it on full. When on road I generally point mine down so as not to blind drivers - unless they annoy me that is

I've a very bright flashing led bicycle light as well. Didn't stop the silly lady pulling out from a side street in front of me. When I asked why she did it the reply was "I couldnt see what was coming because you're light was too bright". Seems lights move down the road by themselves now.

[Latte]

On my bike I have a very bright 100 watt industrial laser front light. Well I say light, actually deadly cutting tool to be more accurate.

Some people flash other road users to let them through. I flash other road users to let me through by cutting them in two.

They cut me up, I cut them up.

As the two smoking halves of their vehicle fall apart, I ride through the gap with a cheery "Coming through!"

It goes through a few batteries though.

[Volvomeg]

Bikers have had Hids for years, couple of lads at work had them about 4 years ago,

My parents live on a main A road and i've seen the aftermath of a couple of bike accidents, if there blinding you then they have more chance of the drivers with there brains on the passenger seat seeing them aswell,

I had a bought a grey s40 and had it 3 weeks and somebody pulled out on me on above road as i had done trick to turn headlights off so they wern't on all time, it was only the fact i was awake and saw what was happening that i didn't end up in one hell of a smash, after that i de modded it to put headlights back on and putted a set of Hids in dipped beam and never had a problem again

[Llanigraham]

As an aside, you couldn't use a green light, as these are specifically reserved for Doctors.

As specified in the RVLR

[FUBAR]

The bikes having lights on "Dipped Beam" as highway code calls it is a legal requirement in the United Kingdom during the day. I think above the wording confused a little as many call dipped headlights and main beam the same thing then full beam for the brightest setting. The use of main beam/full beam is something that is commonly practised in the UK and many other countries around the world. The best people to ask about this is the traffic police bikers who will generally also be doing the same because they don't fancy someone not paying enough attention in a car (which is generally every car driver not on their driving test) killing them.

The whole thing in post 1 is you saw what you believe to be some modified extra stupidly bright lights that in turn dazzled you. That in itself would be wrong if someone has modified it to a level that this has happened. However during a normal well lit day the effect and visibility highlighted by having a single headlight on, on a bike is less and less the brighter and clearer the day is but also the brighter and clearer the day is the less effective the lights become in dazzling other road users. Used at the right time in the right conditions it is perfectly permissible and LEGAL to ride with full beam/ main beam on. I have read the RVLR on this matter have you? As I said a Police biker would happily educate you if you expressed your concerns and frustrations at the practice itself in general. I fully disagree that in the middle of a day a bike with its full beam/main beam on will "blind" or dazzle" you unless you in any way shape or form it will hopefully stand out more as brighter than anything else around and you should specifically and vitally be able to observe it from a much greater distance away and if you do not it gives a greater amount of time to which it is clearly visible to another driver in which time they may see it and decide to not cause death by dangerous and or careless driving.

[RainbowFire]

As an aside, you couldn't use a green light, as these are specifically reserved for Doctors.

As specified in the RVLR

That's why it was made as a suggestion(?) :|

RVLR (and many other laws) has not been set in stone since Adam and Eve. Laws evolve, due to changes in circumstances.

Anyway:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/11/made

RVLR Part 2, Section 11 - Colour of light shown by lamps and reflectors

1) Discusses red shown to the front

2) Discusses various colours shown to the rear

DRLs are shown to the front of the vehicle, if I recall correctly.

However, in all these things, as you well know from our discussions elsewhere on here, I'm always open to being shown where the legislation differs from my knowledge.

Edited 15 July, 2012 by RainbowFore

[RainbowFire]

The bikes having lights on "Dipped Beam" as highway code calls it is a legal requirement in the United Kingdom during the day. I think above the wording confused a little as many call dipped headlights and main beam the same thing then full beam for the brightest setting. The use of main beam/full beam is something that is commonly practised in the UK and many other countries around the world.

As far as I am concerned "main-beam" illuminates a blue tell-tail on the instrument cluster. Pages 26, 51 & 56 of my Octavia Owners manual also refers to such as "main-beam".

Highway code rule 86:

"Daylight riding. Make yourself as visible as possible from the side as well as the front and rear. You could wear a light or brightly coloured helmet and fluorescent clothing or strips. Dipped headlights, even in good daylight, may also make you more conspicuous. However, be aware that other vehicle drivers may still not have seen you, or judged your distance or speed correctly, especially at junctions."

.....does not quote any relevant law, unlike many many other rules.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069854

Wearing a hi-vis jacket goes along way to raise visiblility during the daytime, unless obscured by the brighter main-beam. Granted it's not as cool but if it helps you to stop being dead, it's not a bad thing. (we'll come back to hi-viz gear in a moment or two as well.)

The best people to ask about this is the traffic police bikers who will generally also be doing the same because they don't fancy someone not paying enough attention in a car (which is generally every car driver not on their driving test) killing them.

Have yet to see a police bike (and I see quite a few of them on my travels) driving with a steady main-beam on, at any time of day. Mind you Police bikers also drive sensibly, so observation of speed limits and lane discipline. (i.e not weaving in and out of traffic, nor creating a 4th lane at 90 mph). When I've seen them, they usually drive in formation, and steady. It's also amazing how many bikers, upon seeing a Police bike, suddenly remember lane discipline and that there are speed limits.

Also note: again whilst not being "cool" Police bikes and bikers wear hi-viz gear.

The whole thing in post 1 is you saw what you believe to be some modified extra stupidly bright lights that in turn dazzled you. That in itself would be wrong if someone has modified it to a level that this has happened.

The blue-ish tint puts it outside of a halogen bulb specification, and quite clearly in a reflector, not a projector. (Not seen any projector main-beam on any vehicle yet.) Given that we've have the whole "needs approval to be on the road" discussion before, are you saying that bikes aren't covered by ECE approval and 'E' markings?

However during a normal well lit day the effect and visibility highlighted by having a single headlight on, on a bike is less and less the brighter and clearer the day is but also the brighter and clearer the day is the less effective the lights become in dazzling other road users. Used at the right time in the right conditions it is perfectly permissible and LEGAL to ride with full beam/ main beam on. I have read the RVLR on this matter have you? As I said a Police biker would happily educate you if you expressed your concerns and frustrations at the practice itself in general. I fully disagree that in the middle of a day a bike with its full beam/main beam on will "blind" or dazzle" you unless you in any way shape or form it will hopefully stand out more as brighter than anything else around and you should specifically and vitally be able to observe it from a much greater distance away and if you do not it gives a greater amount of time to which it is clearly visible to another driver in which time they may see it and decide to not cause death by dangerous and or careless driving.

The original post did say that this was at 00:30, i.e not in daylight. Visibility was excellant and very few other vehicles on the four-lane carridgeway. The bike was in lane 3, over-taking air. (I was in lane 1)

"Right time and conditions...." sadly it seems that any time of day or night appears to be the "right conditions". Elsewhere on here there's a discussion on rear foglights on the Octavia that highlights people's different interpretations of "right conditions" for their use. There are no defined conditions. As well as the Police not using main-beam, I've also seen motor-cylce schools of motoring not using them, in fact I've yet to see a SoM on the move with main-beam on, on the instructor or the students.

You don't get dazzled or distracted by a bike on main-beam sitting behind you? Personally I like to concerntrate on what is in front and beside me when I'm moving, not be distracted by someone tailgating me with his main-beam on, be it bike or BMW.

If you can quote the relevant RVLR where is shows that bikes are exempt from whenever the phrase:

"........its aim shall be set so as not to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road."

....is used, I will happily retract the original statement. However, I've not yet seen where bikes are exempt from the instances this phrase appears. So far all I have seen is where the differences are (cars having two headlights, bikes only needing one etc).

Oh I love these "infomercials".

First time through the bike doesn't appear in the footage until just before impact. Second time it is clearly visible (just by car driver's left cheek as he looks right)

First time through the bike is about 2 feet from the kerb, Second time, just off the middle of the road.

......and we're also back to the "visibility" issue. The biker is dressed in black, urban camouflage my be cool, but......well, you know where we'll go with the whole "being seen and not dead" thing.

This one is funnier:

The biker decides to over-take a vehicle turning right. (oh and before anyone wets their pants on this: at 12 seconds in, you can hear the indicator relay clicking in the car, 4 seconds before the bike runs into the car.) Not to mention the biker's position on the road being inconsistent.

[Llanigraham]

The use of Green lights for Doctors is in the RVLR, but I'm stuck at work and can't get into them at the moment, but like Blue lights for the other Emergency Services, I can't see that changing just so that bike DRL's are more "obvious".

[Babs]

<snip>

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Although, your whole post is pointless, because FUBAR has replied. And he knows everything. Especially about donning leather and riding a throbbing machine.

[Ootohere]

What a load of tosh i just read about Police Motorcycle riders safe riding.

Maybe the Majority do.

Not the 2 tw4ts around my way, or the one **** that rides with other riders.

Lane disipline, changing lane and peeling off at junctions, indication or lack of, tailgating, overtaking without indication after coming close onto your rear at speed, lights not on in poor light.

He or she or several of Taysides finest appear to practices doing just about everything that would get a civilian rider pulled or dead,

just about everything wrong on a daily basis and so much that it makes you wonder if he is showing how not to ride to the partner he is out with.

george

Edited 15 July, 2012 by sk4gw

[jobsworth]

Well I have just returned from a lovely morning out on two wheels, dipped beam all the way I may add.

Nearly got run off the road by someone in a silver octavia.... best ban the colour silver...

[FUBAR]

As far as I am concerned "main-beam" illuminates a blue tell-tail on the instrument cluster. Pages 26, 51 & 56 of my Octavia Owners manual also refers to such as "main-beam".

I already said this....... I pointed out that I believed that earlier replies had been confused with people considering "main beam" to be "dipped beam" (calling them in turn main and full beam). I didn't say "main beam" was "dipped beam" .......... Highway code and RVLR also refer to it as "Main beam" doesn't stop ordinary people confusing them.....

Highway code rule 86:

"Daylight riding. Make yourself as visible as possible from the side as well as the front and rear. You could wear a light or brightly coloured helmet and fluorescent clothing or strips. Dipped headlights, even in good daylight, may also make you more conspicuous. However, be aware that other vehicle drivers may still not have seen you, or judged your distance or speed correctly, especially at junctions."

.....does not quote any relevant law, unlike many many other rules.

http://www.direct.go...ycode/DG_069854

The relevance of this post escapes me............ Reason a legal reference is not given by many things in the highway code is that it is only "advice" unless a relevant legal reference is given......

Wearing a hi-vis jacket goes along way to raise visiblility during the daytime, unless obscured by the brighter main-beam. Granted it's not as cool but if it helps you to stop being dead, it's not a bad thing. (we'll come back to hi-viz gear in a moment or two as well.)

Have yet to see a police bike (and I see quite a few of them on my travels) driving with a steady main-beam on, at any time of day. Mind you Police bikers also drive sensibly, so observation of speed limits and lane discipline. (i.e not weaving in and out of traffic, nor creating a 4th lane at 90 mph). When I've seen them, they usually drive in formation, and steady. It's also amazing how many bikers, upon seeing a Police bike, suddenly remember lane discipline and that there are speed limits.

A high vis vest is a great way of increasing your chances of someone noticing you when riding. The coolness is irrelevant its not a legal requirement in the UK yet (will be in a few years) and we are allowed to wear what we like.

Police bikes riding in formation generally would have no need as they do so to massively increase their presence and general visibility its more of a solo thing. A shame that bikers should have to consider using "main beam" and or high vis vests trousers etc because other road users predominantly car drivers fail to drive at the required standards.

Also note: again whilst not being "cool" Police bikes and bikers wear hi-viz gear.

That is their uniform if you didnt realise....... it's not their own clothes they pay for themselves. Whilst outside where possible on road networks most police have to wear high vis clothing. On bikes or in cars.

The blue-ish tint puts it outside of a halogen bulb specification, and quite clearly in a reflector, not a projector.

(Not seen any projector main-beam on any vehicle yet.) Given that we've have the whole "needs approval to be on the road" discussion before, are you saying that bikes aren't covered by ECE approval and 'E' markings?

I didn't question that but if it blinded you and was this massive big orb how was it clear to see the reflectors???

My bike came out in 2006 with "quadruple projector beam headlights" meaning "dipped" and "main" beam are both projector units.

The original post did say that this was at 00:30, i.e not in daylight. Visibility was excellant and very few other vehicles on the four-lane carridgeway. The bike was in lane 3, over-taking air. (I was in lane 1)

Correct the original post did say the time as 0030 however it also said "I am still at a loss as to why bikers feel the need to drive around with main-beam on anyway, even during the day" and my reply is in response to that. Whilst passing you a vehicle where its clear to do so can use lane 23 if there were that many to afford themselves more space so if you drift out of your lane the will have more time to react (unlike the poor biker who was killed when a woman sneezed and swerved into him result biker dead woman 6 months driving ban)

"Right time and conditions...." sadly it seems that any time of day or night appears to be the "right conditions". Elsewhere on here there's a discussion on rear foglights on the Octavia that highlights people's different interpretations of "right conditions" for their use. There are no defined conditions. As well as the Police not using main-beam, I've also seen motor-cylce schools of motoring not using them, in fact I've yet to see a SoM on the move with main-beam on, on the instructor or the students.

That was my point it does not state specifically on the point as it doesn't on most things. But you having "not seen", fine you have not seen Police or ridding schools using full beam. I have so you have not I have equal argument. But I was told by instructor to keep it on during day which I though surly could not be correct practice for during test so left it on dipped and examiner instructed me to turn it on over radio at start. Also Lincolnshire Police tend to use it and recommend using main beam during their "Bike Safe" courses under certain conditions ie a bright day not over cast, dull or night time following other traffic or with oncoming. Call them and ask. They have had thousands of people threw that course now and its been rolled out all over the UK. If you call them quick and tell them how you read the legislation maybe they will change the course.

You don't get dazzled or distracted by a bike on main-beam sitting behind you? Personally I like to concerntrate on what is in front and beside me when I'm moving, not be distracted by someone tailgating me with his main-beam on, be it bike or BMW.-

You would not pass a DSA driving test with that method of observation and you exhibit standards which fall far below those of a safe and competent driver which you are required to uphold every time you strap yourself into a car and drive around.

If you can quote the relevant RVLR where is shows that bikes are exempt from whenever the phrase:

"........its aim shall be set so as not to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road."

....is used, I will happily retract the original statement. However, I've not yet seen where bikes are exempt from the instances this phrase appears. So far all I have seen is where the differences are (cars having two headlights, bikes only needing one etc).

I asked you if you had read it not ask you if you can turn the same question around because you cannot find that legislation because it doesn't exist. "Where does it say that?" "no you tell me where it doesn't" ...............

[FUBAR]

Oh I love these "infomercials".

First time through the bike doesn't appear in the footage until just before impact. Second time it is clearly visible (just by car driver's left cheek as he looks right)

First time through the bike is about 2 feet from the kerb, Second time, just off the middle of the road.

......and we're also back to the "visibility" issue. The biker is dressed in black, urban camouflage my be cool, but......well, you know where we'll go with the whole "being seen and not dead" thing.

Well you appear to have missed the point of the advert which highlights how easy it is to look but not see what's there threw complacency. Also on your analysis of the advert the camera recording the mans head turning is just that a camera at the opposite side of his head so its not in his right eye ball which to the angle he turned his head he could have seen down the road fully and the pavement and slightly behind his seated position.

This one is funnier:

The biker decides to over-take a vehicle turning right. (oh and before anyone wets their pants on this: at 12 seconds in, you can hear the indicator relay clicking in the car, 4 seconds before the bike runs into the car.) Not to mention the biker's position on the road being inconsistent.

As with your comment above "I love these infomercials" I know of a handful of people on this forum that have lost friends / relatives in similar accidents (myself included x3 and one permanently disabled) and I am sure they would be highly offended at this sort of comment, as I am.

Point being of this video is that the driver was aware of a bike behind him bike then bike adopts a position to right of lane and then he cannot see bike he indicates to turn and mid way into his turn strikes the bike. Now your "road position" comment go back and read the highway code Rule 213. It is not new and has been in the highway code since before I was born so if you have ever read it you should have already known.

But in summary Post 1 to me reads "I was driving down the road at night and a bike behind me left his full beam on. The light emitted was brighter than can be supplied standard on a bike because I know everything there is to know about bikes. This having been a car with HID lights behind me producing over twice the light leaving "main beam" on I certainly also would have posted to let you all know so its not just because its a bike and I have an axe to grind, honest. xxxooo"

[RainbowFire]

As with your comment above "I love these infomercials" I know of a handful of people on this forum that have lost friends / relatives in similar accidents (myself included x3 and one permanently disabled) and I am sure they would be highly offended at this sort of comment, as I am.

Maybe you should take up the production of these infomercials then. I'm sure you'd be able to produce something with less error and bias in them.

Point being of this video is that the driver was aware of a bike behind him bike then bike adopts a position to right of lane and then he cannot see bike he indicates to turn and mid way into his turn strikes the bike. Now your "road position" comment go back and read the highway code Rule 213. It is not new and has been in the highway code since before I was born so if you have ever read it you should have already known.

213 states:

"Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make."

So, in order to avoid a rough surface (can't be an obstacle as the car would have hit it and the in-car camera shows no drain covers on the dry road) the biker decides to suddenly over-take a vehicle which is indicating to turn right? You're right of course, the car *must have* faulty indicators both at the rear and the side repeater so the biker couldn't have seen them, as bikers always adhere to the laws of the road and it's those silly car-drivers who are always to blame.

Upon seeing a car turning right, positioned correctly and indicating, most sensible bikers would have passed on the left of the car, especially as the road is sufficiently wide enough at that point to even have a cycle lane. (Another popular haunt of motorbikes motorcycles.)

For the car-driver to have struck the bike, the bike would have been over-taking a car that, for the previous 4 seconds, was indicating to turn right. Is that how you are taught to ride? "I can get round this guy before he makes his turn"? The taught procedure in a car is mirror-signal-maneuver. The last time the wing-mirror is checked prior to signalling, the bike is not there. Had all this been at 70mph I would have a different take on it, but it's all at <30mph (if that, given the car is turning).

But in summary Post 1 to me reads "I was driving down the road at night and a bike behind me left his full beam on. The light emitted was brighter than can be supplied standard on a bike because I know everything there is to know about bikes. This having been a car with HID lights behind me producing over twice the light leaving "main beam" on I certainly also would have posted to let you all know so its not just because its a bike and I have an axe to grind, honest. xxxooo"

Unlike your good self, I don't profess or claim to "know everthing about bikes". But, I have read up a lot on the legality and use of HIDs, which was acknowledged by yourself in another thread. The blue tinting to the light gave away the HID installation, as well as the intensity. Unless you are claiming that ECE regulations don't apply to bikes, the same rules do actually apply (like speed limits). The regulations and rules are there for valid reasons. If they weren't, we'd all be driving around with 1500w flood-lights bolted to the front of our vehicles. (Not a difficult installation either). HIDs generally aren't fitted as OE main-beam, as being flashed shortens their life. If fitted as a dipped beam, they have to remain on when main-beam is used, hence the tendancy to have "twin" headlights (Octavia for example). On a bike this certainly would not result in a single, circular light. (Plenty of bikes with twin lights.) You don't need to "know everything about bikes" to spot illegalties.

My point was: bikes running around with main-beam on all the time is bad enough ("Hello, yes I *can* see you, saw you a mile back up the road too.") and that, for better or worse, appears to be accepted practice amongst the majority of bikers. But to augment this practice, installing HIDs appears to be gaining popularity. HID produces between 300% and 500% more light than halogens. At night, the blinding effect of main-beam is multiplied by upto a factor of 5. You might well feel safer with all that extra light, and indeed the cars on the other side on a single-lane carridgeway will certainly see you. When you've blinded grandpa in his Metro and he swerves into your path, you'll be safe in the knowledge that you'll be able to clealy see the look of fear in his eyes as you crash through his windscreen. You'll go down as just another biker killed by a car-driver, and no-one will know what actually happened.

I have no axe to grind. Personally I keep a lookout for suicide jockeys motorcyclists, especially whenever I'm in the car. It's all part of hazard perception......everone else on the road is a potential hazard and there is a potential hazard waiting to pop out at every oppurtunity, especially those on two wheels......both types.

Not so sure about the hugs and kisses at the end of your last mail though...... :o :p :p

[RainbowFire]

As for the infomercials:

The message of this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4-4w5xTiEo

.....is slightly lost.

Whilst the girl caused the original impact, what was the driver of the burgundy Fiesta doing?

(14 seconds pass between 1st and 2nd impacts, plus, factoring in that amount of time, why was the Fiesta on the wrong side of the road? Seems the Mondeo family was doomed either way round.)

The problem with infomercials is that they are always contrived and presented with a particular message in mind, usually to the exclusion of "real world" factors.

Like it or loathe it, footage on YouTube is the best place to see what happens in accidents. No contrivance, no targeted message, just raw footage.

[FUBAR]

Maybe you should take up the production of these infomercials then. I'm sure you'd be able to produce something with less error and bias in them.

I used to ( not producing though)

213 states:

"Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make."

So, in order to avoid a rough surface (can't be an obstacle as the car would have hit it and the in-car camera shows no drain covers on the dry road) the biker decides to suddenly over-take a vehicle which is indicating to turn right? You're right of course, the car *must have* faulty indicators both at the rear and the side repeater so the biker couldn't have seen them, as bikers always adhere to the laws of the road and it's those silly car-drivers who are always to blame.

Upon seeing a car turning right, positioned correctly and indicating, most sensible bikers would have passed on the left of the car, especially as the road is sufficiently wide enough at that point to even have a cycle lane. (Another popular haunt of motorbikes motorcycles.)

For the car-driver to have struck the bike, the bike would have been over-taking a car that, for the previous 4 seconds, was indicating to turn right. Is that how you are taught to ride? "I can get round this guy before he makes his turn"? The taught procedure in a car is mirror-signal-maneuver. The last time the wing-mirror is checked prior to signalling, the bike is not there. Had all this been at 70mph I would have a different take on it, but it's all at <30mph (if that, given the car is turning).

Bike had left his view in mirror before he indicated his intention to turn right in video so may have been overtaking at this point may have moved to left of lane where car driver didn't look, may have been turning into the road themselves. Videos like this generally are not made to show a model driver/rider v a bad one. In an accident like this both driver and rider had the ability to avoid a collision at one or more stages however the video in question was to highlight the attention which is required to be paid to vulnerable road users and how easily it can all end in tears. The scenarios are not purely fabricated they are taken from real life incidents which occur and generally ones which are common and need to be addressed. These videos ultimately although extremely hard to prove save lives.

Unlike your good self, I don't profess or claim to "know everthing about bikes".

Claimed where/when? Any profession can only be established by your own perception and in this case would be incorrect. My bike experience and qualifications are fairly standard little above the minimum pass some tests and go. Car's LGV's and PCV's on the other hand is a very different story.

But, I have read up a lot on the legality and use of HIDs, which was acknowledged by yourself in another thread. The blue tinting to the light gave away the HID installation, as well as the intensity. Unless you are claiming that ECE regulations don't apply to bikes, the same rules do actually apply (like speed limits). The regulations and rules are there for valid reasons. If they weren't, we'd all be driving around with 1500w flood-lights bolted to the front of our vehicles. (Not a difficult installation either). HIDs generally aren't fitted as OE main-beam, as being flashed shortens their life. If fitted as a dipped beam, they have to remain on when main-beam is used, hence the tendancy to have "twin" headlights (Octavia for example). On a bike this certainly would not result in a single, circular light. (Plenty of bikes with twin lights.) You don't need to "know everything about bikes" to spot illegalties.

I know you do and you have been insightful in that area as you said, but the points above have not been specifically on the use of HID's but the use of a main/high/full beam during the day side of things. As it reads in summary though it was just some tit riding behind you then passing wide who left his main beam on, cars trucks buses all can do the same thing it happens most likely human error rather than intentionally trying to blind someone. Also to note the HID upgrades and in some cases options on bikes today are making use of better lights this is especially important on a bike the rider of which needs to see just as much as a car ahead of them on a road but only has half the lights. Most bikes where you see twin lights its 1 bulb dipped and the additional bulb for main beam on at same time. needing to see further ahead on a dark road is vitally more important for a motorcycle as they have a much longer stopping distance. The width of a bike generally restricts the amount of light emittance equipment it can be fitted with and it can be shockingly little (at night).

My point was: bikes running around with main-beam on all the time is bad enough ("Hello, yes I *can* see you, saw you a mile back up the road too.") and that, for better or worse, appears to be accepted practice amongst the majority of bikers. But to augment this practice, installing HIDs appears to be gaining popularity. HID produces between 300% and 500% more light than halogens. At night, the blinding effect of main-beam is multiplied by upto a factor of 5. You might well feel safer with all that extra light, and indeed the cars on the other side on a single-lane carridgeway will certainly see you. When you've blinded grandpa in his Metro and he swerves into your path, you'll be safe in the knowledge that you'll be able to clealy see the look of fear in his eyes as you crash through his windscreen. You'll go down as just another biker killed by a car-driver, and no-one will know what actually happened.

The seeing you is the whole point but as I said above it is considered perfectly fine to use main beam under certain circumstances, bright clear day not dull, raining or night with oncoming traffic or following traffic in front. But anyone who is blinded temporarily during the day due to a main beam needs to report themselves to the DVLA's medical board and surrender their license. The pupil's in the human eye obviously expand when its darker allowing greater perception of light so a main beam at night will dazzle someone and is annoying/dangerous/illegal 100%. Contracting as they should during day light is the reason why it is no where near the same effect on your eyes during the day, it is a bit of an exaggeration to say otherwise tbh. This also is why dipped beam on its own until fairly close is so much less effective at highlighting the position of the vehicle. LED DRL's for example now being on cars post Oct 2010 or whenever it was are there to help denote the presence of a vehicle and do a good job but when you select sidelight or dipped lights they dim because they are too bright for night time and could dazzle people, in the same sense they are too bright to have on at night but acceptable during the day its not far from the same argument.

I have no axe to grind. Personally I keep a lookout for suicide jockeys motorcyclists,

Never before in the field of Briski has a comment been so self contradictory lol.

especially whenever I'm in the car. It's all part of hazard perception......everone else on the road is a potential hazard and there is a potential hazard waiting to pop out at every oppurtunity, especially those on two wheels......both types.

Indeed such is the world we live in today awareness is the best tool to combat the risks posed and taken by us all, hence the adverts used.

Not so sure about the hugs and kisses at the end of your last mail though...... :o :p :p

Gotta have a bit of love in the thread so it doesn't look too serious. :love:

IMO DRL's aside all motorised vehicles on the road should be required to have dipped headlights on all the time, it has been proven to dramatically reduce accidents in every country which the rulings have been implemented. DRL's are as a direct result of places like Sweden and Czech Republics fantastic results. Its a shame that they didn't demand all older vehicles should have their lights on now as well.

[silver1011]

Well, I'm confused.

In my world main beam = the brightest mode (blue light on the dash) and should never be used when other road users are in view regardless of whether your are riding a bike or driving a car.

Dipped headlights used as DRL's on a motorbike makes sense to me. As a biker I'm all too aware of how vulnerable we are, when driving my car I make an extra effort to look out for other road users regardless of what they are driving / riding but I am only human. Bikes are harder to see and anything the rider can do to make themselves more visible (without dazzling / distracting) is welcome.

We are all responsible for the road worthiness of our own vehicles, if you are riding a bike or driving a car with improperly aligned / adjusted headlights or illeagal HID's then you are a danger to yourself and others.