"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps

[snip]

What is that quoted from? It looks more like construction and use regs.
The highway code is the more important one.

The construction and use regs are what they build cars to.
The highway code is not actually law.
However if you cause an accident while not driving according to the highway
code you will probably be done under the real laws the highway code is
derived from.
Also you may well leave yourself open to being sued, which doesn't require
you to break any laws.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps

[snip]

What is that quoted from? It looks more like construction and use regs.
The highway code is the more important one.

Construction & Use Regs are a legal requirement. The Highway Code simply
points out all the varios bits of law applying to driving.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The highway code is not actually law.

The bits marked 'must' are.

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The highway code is not actually law.

The bits marked 'must' are.

Well if you can show me where the highway code has been enacted into law
please do.

On Apr 17, 9:31*am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...

So you based your statement on your experience of one car.

No I based it on fact!

On your view of the facts, which was lacking experience fo the counter
example.

I knew of none where what you said was true, now someone has stated it to be
true on one.

And you based yours on experience of how many?

Irrelevant I never implied that my experience was indicative if the
general case. On the contrary, I was filling in your lack of knowledge
to show that both examples (independent fog lights or interlocked with
headlights) can be found

And how do you get to *most* based on your experience?

I didn't claim *most*. I simply gave a counter example to your claim
that you knew of none.

At least I didn't make stupid claims.

I didn't make *any* claims. I recounted my experience.

You have a strange way of debating. No wonder you get so much flack.

MBQ

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The highway code is not actually law.

The bits marked 'must' are.

Well if you can show me where the highway code has been enacted into law
please do.

It says in the introoduction to the Highway Code that where it says that
something "must" or "must not" be done, this is related to a law
mentioned in the Code, either in the Rule itself, or in the index.

The Highway Code is not law, and it admits this in the introduction,
however, it contains references to laws which *must* be obeyed.

When it say that dipped headlights *must* be used in conditions of
reduced visibility, this is a law which must be complied with. When it
says foglights *may* be used, then they are optional, so, in conditions
of reduced visibility, it is against the law to use foglights without
also having dipped headlamps lit as well. It is, however, perfectly
legal to use dipped headlamps without folglamps, even when visibility is
everely reduced. This is whay the vast majority of vehicles that I drive
have the foglights wired in such a way that if the dipped headlamps are
off, then the foglights will not work. The foglights also turn off when
the main beam headlamps are on.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The highway code is not actually law.

The bits marked 'must' are.

No, it's just pointing out the bits that are law. In itself it is not law.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The highway code is not actually law.

The bits marked 'must' are.

No, it's just pointing out the bits that are law. In itself it is not
law.

Splitting hairs, Charles. They refer to things which are law.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Apr 17, 4:20*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *charles wrote:

In article ,
* *Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* *dennis@home wrote:
The highway code is not actually law.
The bits marked 'must' are.
No, it's just pointing out the bits that are law. In itself it is not
law.

Splitting hairs, Charles. They refer to things which are law.

If there were no split hairs, Dennis would have nothing to argue over.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 9:31 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in
...

So you based your statement on your experience of one car.

No I based it on fact!

On your view of the facts, which was lacking experience fo the counter
example.

Well your view of the facts would be wrong as there is no way you can know
how many cars with fog lamps that work as I stated that I have seen.
However I know exactly and its therefore a fact in my case.

Anyway it was only one example, I have seen others but not my cars so I have
no idea if they were built like it or retro fitted later.

The construction and use regs do not require the headlights on with *fog*
lamps.

the stupid ones fitted to some cars that are more than 400mm from the edge
are not fog lamps and can't be used without the headlights.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The highway code is not actually law.

The bits marked 'must' are.

Well if you can show me where the highway code has been enacted into law
please do.

It says in the introoduction to the Highway Code that where it says that
something "must" or "must not" be done, this is related to a law mentioned
in the Code, either in the Rule itself, or in the index.

The Highway Code is not law, and it admits this in the introduction,
however, it contains references to laws which *must* be obeyed.

It is someone's interpretation of the law.


When it say that dipped headlights *must* be used in conditions of reduced
visibility, this is a law which must be complied with. When it says
foglights *may* be used, then they are optional, so, in conditions of
reduced visibility, it is against the law to use foglights without also
having dipped headlamps lit as well.


Which law states this?
The construction and use doesn't.

It is, however, perfectly legal to use dipped headlamps without folglamps,
even when visibility is everely reduced. This is whay the vast majority of
vehicles that I drive have the foglights wired in such a way that if the
dipped headlamps are off, then the foglights will not work. The foglights
also turn off when the main beam headlamps are on.

Which cars?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

However, the HC rule as quoted earlier is ambiguous on this point.

Like hell it is.

Thanks for confirming your lack of comprehension.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Here's the rule again since you probably couldn't
find it unless someone does it for you.

************

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).

Pity you flagrantly dishonestly ripped away the context where
its clear that they don’t have to both be on at the same time.

And even that bit doesn’t say that the headlights have to be on when the fog
lights are on.

dennis@home wrote:


"John Williamson" wrote in message
The Highway Code is not law, and it admits this in the introduction,
however, it contains references to laws which *must* be obeyed.

It is someone's interpretation of the law.

As it's a Government publication, I'd say it's the Government's
interpretation, which has a pretty good chance of being the correct one.

However, the only problem from your point of view is that it's not an
interpretation of the law, but a condensed reference to the laws all
road users are required to follow.


When it say that dipped headlights *must* be used in conditions of
reduced visibility, this is a law which must be complied with. When it
says foglights *may* be used, then they are optional, so, in
conditions of reduced visibility, it is against the law to use
foglights without also having dipped headlamps lit as well.


Which law states this?
The construction and use doesn't.

Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, sections 25 and 26. As quoted in
Rule 226 of the HIghway code.

It is, however, perfectly legal to use dipped headlamps without
folglamps, even when visibility is everely reduced. This is whay the
vast majority of vehicles that I drive have the foglights wired in
such a way that if the dipped headlamps are off, then the foglights
will not work. The foglights also turn off when the main beam
headlamps are on.

Which cars?

Currently, IIRC, Ford Focus, Ford Fiesta, Ford Galaxy, Various Scania
and Volvo coaches, and at least one Mercedes minubus. The Ford Torneo
minibus may have the same interlock, but I've not driven it for a while.
The VW Sharan had the same system, but that was scrapped a while ago, as
was the Mondeo.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"John Williamson" wrote in message
The Highway Code is not law, and it admits this in the introduction,
however, it contains references to laws which *must* be obeyed.

It is someone's interpretation of the law.

As it's a Government publication, I'd say it's the Government's
interpretation, which has a pretty good chance of being the correct one.

However, the only problem from your point of view is that it's not an
interpretation of the law, but a condensed reference to the laws all road
users are required to follow.


When it say that dipped headlights *must* be used in conditions of
reduced visibility, this is a law which must be complied with. When it
says foglights *may* be used, then they are optional, so, in conditions
of reduced visibility, it is against the law to use foglights without
also having dipped headlamps lit as well.


Which law states this?
The construction and use doesn't.

Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, sections 25 and 26. As quoted in
Rule 226 of the HIghway code.

No it doesn't, I have already quoted that Act.

Here it is again...

Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps

25.-(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall use, or cause or
permit to be used, on a road a vehicle which is fitted with obligatory
dipped-beam headlamps unless every such lamp is kept lit-
(a)during the hours of darkness, except on a road which is a restricted
road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
by virtue of a system of street lighting when it is lit; and .
(b)in seriously reduced visibility. .
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) do not apply-
(a)in the case of a motor vehicle fitted with one obligatory dipped-beam
headlamp or a solo motor bicycle or motor bicycle combination fitted with a
pair of obligatory dipped-beam headlamps, if a main-beam headlamp or a front
fog lamp is kept lit; .
(b)in the case of a motor vehicle, other than a solo motor bicycle or motor
bicycle combination, fitted with a pair of obligatory dipped-beam headlamps,
if- .
(i)a pair of main-beam headlamps is kept lit; or .
(ii)in seriously reduced visibility, a pair of front fog lamps which is so
fitted that the outermost part of the illuminated area of each lamp in the
pair is not more than 400 mm from the outer edge of the vehicle is kept lit;


..........................................





It is, however, perfectly legal to use dipped headlamps without
folglamps, even when visibility is everely reduced. This is whay the
vast majority of vehicles that I drive have the foglights wired in such
a way that if the dipped headlamps are off, then the foglights will not
work. The foglights also turn off when the main beam headlamps are on.

Which cars?

Currently, IIRC, Ford Focus, Ford Fiesta, Ford Galaxy, Various Scania and
Volvo coaches, and at least one Mercedes minubus. The Ford Torneo minibus
may have the same interlock, but I've not driven it for a while. The VW
Sharan had the same system, but that was scrapped a while ago, as was the
Mondeo.

Focus manual states the fog lamps can be operated in the dipped or parking
light (side lights to the uneducated) position.
The fiesta manual say nothing useful.

On 16/04/2012 21:39, Man at B&Q wrote:

Shows how much you know.

I have never owned car where you could have the front fogs on without
the headlights.

Try any Ford with the rotary/pull position/headlight/fogs switch for
example. Turn it to off and it pops back in turning the fog lights off
as well.


My Toyota is such a car. Pretty sure my old Nissan was too.

Rear fogs require either/or headlights or front fogs.

Andy

On 17/04/2012 11:43, dennis@home wrote:
Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps

25.-(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall use, or cause
or permit to be used, on a road a vehicle which is fitted with
obligatory dipped-beam headlamps unless every such lamp is kept lit-

(a)during the hours of darkness, except on a road which is a restricted
road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act
1984 by virtue of a system of street lighting when it is lit; and .

(b)in seriously reduced visibility. .

(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) do not apply-

(a)in the case of a motor vehicle fitted with one obligatory dipped-beam
headlamp or a solo motor bicycle or motor bicycle combination fitted
with a pair of obligatory dipped-beam headlamps, if a main-beam headlamp
or a front fog lamp is kept lit; .

(b)in the case of a motor vehicle, other than a solo motor bicycle or
motor bicycle combination, fitted with a pair of obligatory dipped-beam
headlamps, if- .
(i)a pair of main-beam headlamps is kept lit; or .
(ii)in seriously reduced visibility, a pair of front fog lamps which is
so fitted that the outermost part of the illuminated area of each lamp
in the pair is not more than 400 mm from the outer edge of the vehicle
is kept lit;

Ah, this will be

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

It says in there you're not allowed to fit flashing lamps. As most of
the new front running lights, and a lot of LED tail lights, flash at
about 50Hz, these must be obsolete. I don't suppose you have the new ones?

Andy

John Williamson wrote
dennis@home wrote
John Williamson wrote

The Highway Code is not law, and it admits this in the introduction,
however, it contains references to laws which *must* be obeyed.

It is someone's interpretation of the law.

As it's a Government publication, I'd say it's the Government's
interpretation, which has a pretty good chance of being the correct one.

Not necessarily with the detail being discussed, whether its
legal to have just the fog lights on without the headlights,
particularly when the construction and use is a legal document
and does make it very clear that that is perfectly legal.

However, the only problem from your point of view is that
it's not an interpretation of the law, but a condensed reference
to the laws all road users are required to follow.

That's not a problem from his point of view when the construction
and use is the law and is quite clear on that question of foglight use.

When it say that dipped headlights *must* be used in conditions
of reduced visibility, this is a law which must be complied with.
When it says foglights *may* be used, then they are optional, so,
in conditions of reduced visibility, it is against the law to use
foglights without also having dipped headlamps lit as well.

Which law states this?
The construction and use doesn't.

Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, sections 25 and 26.
As quoted in Rule 226 of the HIghway code.

Pity about the construction and use regs he quoted.

It is, however, perfectly legal to use dipped headlamps without
folglamps, even when visibility is everely reduced. This is whay the
vast majority of vehicles that I drive have the foglights wired in
such a way that if the dipped headlamps are off, then the foglights
will not work. The foglights also turn off when the main beam
headlamps are on.

Which cars?

Currently, IIRC, Ford Focus, Ford Fiesta, Ford Galaxy, Various Scania
and Volvo coaches, and at least one Mercedes minubus. The Ford Torneo
minibus may have the same interlock, but I've not driven it for a while.
The VW Sharan had the same system, but that was scrapped a while ago, as
was the Mondeo.

In article , dennis@home
wrote:

[Snip]

It is, however, perfectly legal to use dipped headlamps without
folglamps, even when visibility is everely reduced. This is whay the
vast majority of vehicles that I drive have the foglights wired in
such a way that if the dipped headlamps are off, then the foglights
will not work. The foglights also turn off when the main beam
headlamps are on.

Which cars?

It certainly used to apply to Range Rovers

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Apr 17, 7:36*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...

On Apr 17, 9:31 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in
...

So you based your statement on your experience of one car.

No I based it on fact!

On your view of the facts, which was lacking experience fo the counter
example.

Well your view of the facts would be wrong as there is no way you can know

How many is irrelevant.

I know *for a fact* that both situations exist. My factual knowledge
is correct.

It was your assertion, and the implication that the person you replied
to was wrong, quote "Do you mean the rear fogs, I know of none that
have front fogs where you have to have the headlamps on as well. "
that is at issue.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

It was your assertion, and the implication that the person you replied
to was wrong, quote "Do you mean the rear fogs, I know of none that
have front fogs where you have to have the headlamps on as well. "
that is at issue.

That was a question and an indication of why I asked the question.

I also revise my previous answer, I still don't know of one that has front
*fog* lamps that don't work independently of the dipped headlights. AFAICS
none of the ones quoted actually have front *fog* lamps that work only with
the dipped headlamps according to the owners manuals that I have downloaded.

I suspect that the ones that work only when the dipped headlights are on are
*not* fog lamps. They probably don't meet the construction and use regs for
fog lamps. I have seen cars with what look like fog lights but they aren't
close enough to the edges of the car so they *can't* be fog lights.

So I guess I am asking you for evidence that there are cars with
manufactures (anyone can fit ones that work either way if they want) *fog*
lights that only work with the dipped headlights on.

On Apr 18, 1:13*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...

It was your assertion, and the implication that the person you replied
to was wrong, quote "Do you mean the rear fogs, I know of none that
have front fogs where you have to have the headlamps on as well. "
that is at issue.

That was a question and an indication of why I asked the question.

I also revise my previous answer, I still don't know of one that has front
*fog* lamps that don't work independently of the dipped headlights. AFAICS
none of the ones quoted actually have front *fog* lamps that work only with
the dipped headlamps according to the owners manuals that I have downloaded.

I suspect that the ones that work only when the dipped headlights are on are
*not* fog lamps. They probably don't meet the construction and use regs for
fog lamps. I have seen cars with what look like fog lights but they aren't
close enough to the edges of the car so they *can't* be fog lights.

So I guess I am asking you for evidence that there are cars with
manufactures (anyone can fit ones that work either way if they want) *fog*
lights that only work with the dipped headlights on.

04MY Cmax handbook. Front and rear fog lamps are interlocked with the
side/headlight switch.

If you don't think they are fog lights, then take it up with Ford.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

04MY Cmax handbook. Front and rear fog lamps are interlocked with the
side/headlight switch.

That is normal, you can't put the fog lights on without the side lights.
Does it say you have to put the headlights on to get the front fog lamps to
work?

On 15/04/2012 00:24, dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
I'd love to see *any* LED with the same light output as halogen mains.
And by that I mean a near 360 degree output of the same colour
spectrum. Not just measured by pointing some crude light meter at it.
And using the very worst possible tungsten as the comparison.

Let us know when you can get halogen lights that can do this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znivDtjl1N4

I realise you're not technical, Dennis, but multiple lamp halogens could
do exactly the same thing. Although just why you'd want to escapes me.

I realise you don't know as much as you think but the optics to do that
with halogen lamps would be rather difficult.
The filament would have to be too long to actually make the sharp cut
off required.
But I guess you don't know much about the differences between LED lamps
and filament lamps.


But it's nice to see you're impressed by computer animation.

Its not all animation, but I realise that you can't tell the difference.
Even Mickey mouse cartoons are more impressive than you these days.

I heard that Micky Mouse wears a Dennis watch?

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 15/04/2012 19:33, dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
A sharp cutoff is achieved with a french flag. Many many cars with
halogen and HID units do this. LEDs will be no different. It's down to
the optics, not light source.


What makes you think LEDs need a baffle to throw half the light away?

What makes you think there's another way of doing it? Not a knowledge of
optics, obviously.

So do you know the difference between a filament and a silicon junction?


I know, I know.

You can reclaim the VAT on a filament, but not on a silicon junction?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 17/04/2012 09:06, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:18 pm,
wrote:
"Man at wrote in ...









On Apr 14, 10:45 pm,
wrote:
wrote in message

...

In ,
Mike wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:18:50 +0100
John wrote:

In town, using dipped beams, the load is more like 150W,
anyway. You'll only use 400W in a situation where you are driving in
foggy conditions or using four high power halogen main beam lights.

How can foggy conditions result in so much more load? A pair of front
foglamps will be the same power as a pair of dipped headlamps and the
rear foglamps will only add 21w each which will only push it up to
about 200w total

'cos most cars, idiotically, only allow you to use the fog lights when
the
headlamps are switched on.

Do you mean the rear fogs, I know of none that have front fogs where you
have to have the headlamps on as well.

Shows how much you know.

I have never owned car where you could have the front fogs on without
the headlights.

2006 corsa works without the headlights on..

So you based your statement on your experience of one car.

SWMBO's 06 Corsa doesn't. Dennis is talking bollox again


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

John Williamson wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

The efficiency savings for mobile use aren't worth bothering about
except for applications like battery powered cycle lights or
torches, as the power used by the lighting on a car is a small
percentage of the total power used to move it. At 30mph on a flat
road, the absolute maximum total lighting load on most cars,
including headlamps and foglamps, is less than 400 watts, as
against ten kilowatts or more being used to overcome rolling and
air resistance.

If that 400W could be reduced to 100W there would be worthwhile fuel
savings.

Less than 3% at constant speed in town, less at higher speeds or when
accelerating. Stopping at one red traffic light in a five mile journey
would make more difference. Correcting the tyre pressures every time
the load changes can make more difference.



Removing the toolbox or
shopping from the boot makes almost as much difference.

We will see.......... Last week I removed the equivalent weight of 8 100m
drums of 2.5 T&E from my van that I have carried around unused for the last
6 months.

Fuel economy dropped from around 45MPG to 42MPG when I fitted roof bars last
month but some journeys also carried ladders (incuding motorway jouneys that
for some reason always have low MPG returns). I suspect the ladder carrying
journeys were sub 40MPG even when not on the MWays.

--
Adam

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 03:23:37 -0700 (PDT), Man at B&Q wrote:

04MY Cmax handbook. Front and rear fog lamps are interlocked with the
side/headlight switch.

That's normal. Stops thick ****s leaving the things on. "Lights on"
sounder gets people to turn their lights off and thus the fogs are
cancelled automagically.

The key question is can the either set of "fogs" be switched on with
only the sidelights on?

--
Cheers
Dave.