Foggy Lights

[Darcy Sarto]

Nope, not something new. Was there when I passed my test in the '80s.

114

You MUST NOT
use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226).

In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again.
Law RVLR reg 27

And it refers to Rule 226 which is:

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 (see Rule 236). Law RVLR regs 25 & 27

(taken from the Highway code)

The highway code uses 'Should not' and 'must not' and they are distinct, should not is guidance, must not is absolute. And it is in capitals. I think they mean it!

I am not sure about use in connection with a medical condition but I don't think you can use it as a defence in this country and the law might state that if you cannot drive at night in accordance with the highway code then you should not drive however I am not a lawyer.

[Kateg28]

My partner and I followed a police car yesterday evening (not in a stalker way, they were going the same way as us...) and in that journey we passed another half a dozen or so moving cars. Two of these vehicles each had a headlight out and one of them was using fog lights to compensate (which were slightly irritating in a dazzling kinda way). The police car did nothing.

It would have taken nothing to have pulled them over and told them to sort it out, not necessarily giving a ticket, just pointing out it was illegal.

[Darcy Sarto]

Straying off topic slightly but.......the police are on a hiding to nothing when it comes to enforcing this sort of stuff.

If they stop people for having lights out (which they should) they get criticised in the usual "why aren't they catching real criminals" way. If they don't people (like us) criticise them for failing to enforce. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Just wait until we're expecting them to stop people smoking in their cars with kids in the back!

It strikes me that a coupkle of very localised "stop and advise" campaigns would be manpower effective and might be deemed a service to the community.

Perhaps someone should let Mr Lloyd (or his expensive PR person) know?

[Joby]

Straying off topic slightly but.......the police are on a hiding to nothing when it comes to enforcing this sort of stuff.

But the police should enforce the law, regardless of what that law is. It's more down to a lack of manpower and political will that motorists are allowed to flaunt the law with virtual impunity (and also react with outrage at any attempt to seriously enforce those laws).

Local stop-and-check campaigns are a good idea - I've seen a few of these in Hertford over the last few years, both mechanical (tyres etc.) and drink-driving spot-checks.

[Darcy Sarto]

"But the police should enforce the law, regardless of what that law is. It's more down to a lack of manpower and political will that motorists are allowed to flaunt the law with virtual impunity (and also react with outrage at any attempt to seriously enforce those laws)."

Er.... I thought that's what I said?

[Joby]

Er.... I thought that's what I said?

So you did...and I wasn't disagreeing with you.