On 08/03/2017 11:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 00:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
You need to use parking lights by law then.
Also there have to be two red at the rear and two white at the fron that
mark the edges of the vehicle.

No. Those old parking lights were a single unit which had to be
mounted on the offside of the car. The back of the lamp being red, the
front white.

I know what they were, they aren't legal to use as parking lights in the
UK. They may have been in the '20s.

They were legal in the '50s, dennis. Why not just take note of what those
who know about such things say?


I am not old enough to have had a car in the '50s and you should never
trust what anyone on usenet says, even you have been wrong in the past.

Past performance is no indication of present performance either, at one
time you would have trusted TNP but there is no chance you would now.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 11:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
but since reflectors are compulsary on cars, there should be no need to
mention it.

The legal requirement for rear reflectors came in round about the same
time as the need for that parking light. As did the requirement for twin
tail lights. All somewhere round about the start of the '50s. I remember
my father had a '40s Morris Minor which had to be converted to twin tail
lights. It did appear to have two as built, but only one wired up. Talk
about penny pinching. ;-)


I had a hillman avenger, no reversing lights.
To fit them you needed the switch and two bulbs, all the wiring and
lamps were already there. Or was that the Triumph herald and you just
needed the bulbs on the avenger? One of them needed the switch the other
didn't. That was penny pinching.

remember the basic Ford Popular only had one windscreen wiper, the 2nd was
an optional extra. It's not "penny pinching" it's "customer choice".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 11:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 00:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
You need to use parking lights by law then. Also there have to be
two red at the rear and two white at the fron that mark the edges of
the vehicle.

No. Those old parking lights were a single unit which had to be
mounted on the offside of the car. The back of the lamp being red,
the front white.

I know what they were, they aren't legal to use as parking lights in
the UK. They may have been in the '20s.

They were legal in the '50s, dennis. Why not just take note of what
those who know about such things say?


I am not old enough to have had a car in the '50s and you should never
trust what anyone on usenet says, even you have been wrong in the past.

I passed my driving test in the 50s - although I didn't own a car until
1964. But - I did follow what my father did with his car.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 08/03/2017 11:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
but since reflectors are compulsary on cars, there should be no need to
mention it.

The legal requirement for rear reflectors came in round about the same
time as the need for that parking light. As did the requirement for twin
tail lights. All somewhere round about the start of the '50s. I remember
my father had a '40s Morris Minor which had to be converted to twin tail
lights. It did appear to have two as built, but only one wired up. Talk
about penny pinching. ;-)


I had a hillman avenger, no reversing lights.
To fit them you needed the switch and two bulbs, all the wiring and lamps
were already there. Or was that the Triumph herald and you just needed the
bulbs on the avenger? One of them needed the switch the other didn't. That
was penny pinching.

When did reversing lights and fog lights become a standard fit? I can
remember my dad fitting rear fog lights on his various Hillman Hunters.
Fitting the towing hitch seemed to require it to be fastened to a horizontal
bar that had to be fitted below the rear bumper (no doubt fastened to some
solid part of the body shell) and this bar was a convenient place to attach
fog lights, with a little switch (with its reminder light next to it) under
the dashboard (*). I bet those lights were not within the distances
stipulated by Construction and Use regulations...

His earlier Hunters had to have a similar switch and lights on the "tow bar
beam" (or maybe just below the rear light cluster) for reversing lights. I'm
sure I can remember that when he changed from an older model to a new one,
it had reversing lights in the light clusters for the first time - and
presumably a switch in the gearbox rather than a manual switch. But I can't
find any photos online of Hunters with a modified cluster that included
reversing lights, so maybe I'm imagining that.

Looking at pictures of old cars reminds me of something else: the days when
many cars had a petrol cap that wasn't lockable...


(*) Typically a cylindrical switch that you pulled out to turn on, with a
central green portion that lit up as the reminder light. This was thought to
be trendier than that older plastic paddle switch which you moved up and
down to turn on/off, with a separate light mounted next to it.

On 08-Mar-17 11:19 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
but since reflectors are compulsary on cars, there should be no need to
mention it.

The legal requirement for rear reflectors came in round about the same
time as the need for that parking light. As did the requirement for twin
tail lights. All somewhere round about the start of the '50s. I remember
my father had a '40s Morris Minor which had to be converted to twin tail
lights. It did appear to have two as built, but only one wired up. Talk
about penny pinching. ;-)


According to Hansard, two red rear reflectors were made compulsory for
all vehicles with more than two wheels and one on two wheel vehicles
from 1 October 1954. For pedal cycles, this replaced a requirement to
have a white portion on the rear mudguard. Two red rear lights for
vehicles with more than two wheels were made compulsory from 1 January
1954 for new vehicles and 1 October 1957 for those already on the road.
It was probably this that marked the end of the single parking light,
rather than the 1964 Act that I suggested earlier. The Road Transport
Lighting (Rear Lights) Act 1954 also first made it legal to use white
reversing lights.

--
--

Colin Bignell

In article , NY
wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 08/03/2017 11:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
but since reflectors are compulsary on cars, there should be no need
to mention it.

The legal requirement for rear reflectors came in round about the same
time as the need for that parking light. As did the requirement for
twin tail lights. All somewhere round about the start of the '50s. I
remember my father had a '40s Morris Minor which had to be converted
to twin tail lights. It did appear to have two as built, but only one
wired up. Talk about penny pinching. ;-)


I had a hillman avenger, no reversing lights. To fit them you needed
the switch and two bulbs, all the wiring and lamps were already there.
Or was that the Triumph herald and you just needed the bulbs on the
avenger? One of them needed the switch the other didn't. That was
penny pinching.

When did reversing lights and fog lights become a standard fit? I can
remember my dad fitting rear fog lights on his various Hillman Hunters.
Fitting the towing hitch seemed to require it to be fastened to a
horizontal bar that had to be fitted below the rear bumper (no doubt
fastened to some solid part of the body shell) and this bar was a
convenient place to attach fog lights, with a little switch (with its
reminder light next to it) under the dashboard (*). I bet those lights
were not within the distances stipulated by Construction and Use
regulations...

His earlier Hunters had to have a similar switch and lights on the "tow
bar beam" (or maybe just below the rear light cluster) for reversing
lights. I'm sure I can remember that when he changed from an older model
to a new one, it had reversing lights in the light clusters for the
first time - and presumably a switch in the gearbox rather than a manual
switch. But I can't find any photos online of Hunters with a modified
cluster that included reversing lights, so maybe I'm imagining that.

Looking at pictures of old cars reminds me of something else: the days
when many cars had a petrol cap that wasn't lockable...


(*) Typically a cylindrical switch that you pulled out to turn on, with a
central green portion that lit up as the reminder light. This was
thought to be trendier than that older plastic paddle switch which you
moved up and down to turn on/off, with a separate light mounted next to
it.

A single hole was easier to DIY. If you're going back to old electrics
you've forgotten floor mounted dip switches and semaphone indicators.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 11:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
but since reflectors are compulsary on cars, there should be no need
to mention it.

The legal requirement for rear reflectors came in round about the same
time as the need for that parking light. As did the requirement for
twin tail lights. All somewhere round about the start of the '50s. I
remember my father had a '40s Morris Minor which had to be converted
to twin tail lights. It did appear to have two as built, but only one
wired up. Talk about penny pinching. ;-)


I had a hillman avenger, no reversing lights. To fit them you needed the
switch and two bulbs, all the wiring and lamps were already there. Or
was that the Triumph herald and you just needed the bulbs on the
avenger? One of them needed the switch the other didn't. That was penny
pinching.

Were these bought new?

The early Herald certainly didn't have reversing lights as part of the
rear light cluster. Not sure about later ones.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 11:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 00:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
You need to use parking lights by law then. Also there have to be
two red at the rear and two white at the fron that mark the edges
of the vehicle.

No. Those old parking lights were a single unit which had to be
mounted on the offside of the car. The back of the lamp being red,
the front white.

I know what they were, they aren't legal to use as parking lights in
the UK. They may have been in the '20s.

They were legal in the '50s, dennis. Why not just take note of what
those who know about such things say?


I am not old enough to have had a car in the '50s and you should never
trust what anyone on usenet says, even you have been wrong in the past.

Not about something like this. Apart from not giving the dates to the day.
Those who were kids at the time probably remember being sent out to switch
on the parking light while dad snoozed in front of the telly. Always
assuming you had both a car and telly, of course.

Past performance is no indication of present performance either, at one
time you would have trusted TNP but there is no chance you would now.

I caught him out very early on, spouting rubbish about something he
claimed to be an expert on, work wise. Which was rather sad, then.

--
*Just give me chocolate and nobody gets hurt

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
I had a hillman avenger, no reversing lights. To fit them you needed
the switch and two bulbs, all the wiring and lamps were already
there. Or was that the Triumph herald and you just needed the bulbs
on the avenger? One of them needed the switch the other didn't. That
was penny pinching.

remember the basic Ford Popular only had one windscreen wiper, the 2nd
was an optional extra. It's not "penny pinching" it's "customer choice".

And of course heaters were an option too - if you were lucky. And a radio
a pure luxury.

I never quite understood the first Ford Popular. Why buy a 20 year old
design new when you could get a good used Morris Minor etc for the same
price? But then people bought new Reliant 3 wheelers too - so no
accounting for taste.

--
*Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only once a year.

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
I am not old enough to have had a car in the '50s and you should never
trust what anyone on usenet says, even you have been wrong in the past.

I passed my driving test in the 50s - although I didn't own a car until
1964. But - I did follow what my father did with his car.

Even if the wasn't a family car, most kids would have known what a parking
light was and what it was for. In those days, they looked around them
rather than just at a phone screen. ;-)

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

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

In article ,
NY wrote:
When did reversing lights and fog lights become a standard fit? I can
remember my dad fitting rear fog lights on his various Hillman Hunters.

Yes. I really can't remember any car having reversing lights fitted that
didn't work from new. But plenty added them (or one) in the form of a bolt
on type - rather like a front fog light.

--
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

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

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
According to Hansard, two red rear reflectors were made compulsory for
all vehicles with more than two wheels and one on two wheel vehicles
from 1 October 1954. For pedal cycles, this replaced a requirement to
have a white portion on the rear mudguard. Two red rear lights for
vehicles with more than two wheels were made compulsory from 1 January
1954 for new vehicles and 1 October 1957 for those already on the road.

Interesting. Not got any accurate dates, but my father changed jobs in
1954, and therefore company cars. In the old job, he had a 40s Morris
Minor which he had the second tail light fitted to. With the new job came
a brand new Morris Minor - the very first OHV one in Scotland, the actual
one on show at the Scottish motor show. That had twin working lights as
standard.

I'm surprised the retro regs for two lights was as late as '57, though.
Perhaps my father was ahead of the times. ;-)


It was probably this that marked the end of the single parking light,
rather than the 1964 Act that I suggested earlier. The Road Transport
Lighting (Rear Lights) Act 1954 also first made it legal to use white
reversing lights.

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
(*) Typically a cylindrical switch that you pulled out to turn on,
with a central green portion that lit up as the reminder light. This
was thought to be trendier than that older plastic paddle switch which
you moved up and down to turn on/off, with a separate light mounted
next to it.

A single hole was easier to DIY. If you're going back to old electrics
you've forgotten floor mounted dip switches and semaphone indicators.

Pull or rotary switches were the norm on older cars. Until the toggle type
arrived.

--
*Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy *

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

"charles" wrote in message
...
(*) Typically a cylindrical switch that you pulled out to turn on, with a
central green portion that lit up as the reminder light. This was
thought to be trendier than that older plastic paddle switch which you
moved up and down to turn on/off, with a separate light mounted next to
it.

Yes although you could buy metal brackets, pre-drilled with one or two 1/2"
(approx) holes for a switch and a reminder light. Those could be screwed
onto the underside of the dashboard.

A single hole was easier to DIY. If you're going back to old electrics
you've forgotten floor mounted dip switches and semaphone indicators.

I remember my mum's 1959 (Mark 2 - without split screen) Morris Minor which
had a floor-mounted dip switch. It originally came with trafficators
although these had been supplemented by flashing indicators by the time mum
bought the car in 1966 or 1967 (after she passed her test). The trafficators
continued to work for a few years afterwards (quite a novelty to a four year
old boy!) but eventually either stopped working (seized up?) or else dad
disconnected them.

On 08/03/2017 13:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I never quite understood the first Ford Popular. Why buy a 20 year old
design new when you could get a good used Morris Minor etc for the same
price? But then people bought new Reliant 3 wheelers too - so no
accounting for taste.


You could (can?) drive a three wheeler on a motorcycle license.

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 13:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I never quite understood the first Ford Popular. Why buy a 20 year old
design new when you could get a good used Morris Minor etc for the same
price? But then people bought new Reliant 3 wheelers too - so no
accounting for taste.


You could (can?) drive a three wheeler on a motorcycle license.

You could. But was it really such a problem to get a car licence if you'd
passed a motor bike one? The lower RFL might have been the main reason.

--
*WHERE DO FOREST RANGERS GO TO "GET AWAY FROM IT ALL?"

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

On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:39:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 13:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I never quite understood the first Ford Popular. Why buy a 20 year old
design new when you could get a good used Morris Minor etc for the same
price? But then people bought new Reliant 3 wheelers too - so no
accounting for taste.


You could (can?) drive a three wheeler on a motorcycle license.

You could. But was it really such a problem to get a car licence if you'd
passed a motor bike one? The lower RFL might have been the main reason.

A lot of the older drivers attracted to them like my grandad would
have gone the Motorcycle then Motorcycle and Sidecar then 3 wheeler
route. Bubble car first then a couple of Reliants.

Long gone now so I cannot ask why he never got a car classification
as pre 1947 one test got you a licence for both.
As a member of the Royal Engineers from a volunteer recruit in the
30's and managing to survive right through with some close shaves in
Norway and Italy I'm sure he would have driven lorries and cars at
some point but never got a civilian licence in time afterwards.
He was never wealthy so maybe it was the lower RFL.

G.Harman

On 08/03/2017 15:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 13:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I never quite understood the first Ford Popular. Why buy a 20 year old
design new when you could get a good used Morris Minor etc for the same
price? But then people bought new Reliant 3 wheelers too - so no
accounting for taste.


You could (can?) drive a three wheeler on a motorcycle license.

You could. But was it really such a problem to get a car licence if you'd
passed a motor bike one? The lower RFL might have been the main reason.


Originally the motorcycle licence allowed three wheelers to be driven if
they had no reverse fitted. The car test was required for this. Three
wheelers with reverse could have a blanking plate fitted to stop reverse
being engaged. This could be removed later if a full licence was obtained.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Dave Plowman (News) explained :
But then people bought new Reliant 3 wheelers too - so no
accounting for taste.

It was at the time a cheap way to ride/drive protected from the weather
and without needing a car licence. I think the rule originally was that
it had to have no reverse gear and weight not exceeding (6cwt,
8cwt???).

Cars were also expensive to buy at the time, when the costs fell (mini
and etc.), so did the number of three wheelers sold.

Sam explained on 08/03/2017 :
Originally the motorcycle licence allowed three wheelers to be driven if they
had no reverse fitted.

That requirement was later dropped, the Reliant had reverse.

On 09/03/2017 13:45, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Sam explained on 08/03/2017 :
Originally the motorcycle licence allowed three wheelers to be driven
if they had no reverse fitted.

That requirement was later dropped, the Reliant had reverse.

Before the requirement was dropped the Reliant had a blanking plate
fitted. This was removed if required after the change. We sold a number
of vehicles with the plate which we modified later.

NY formulated the question :
When did reversing lights and fog lights become a standard fit? I can
remember my dad fitting rear fog lights on his various Hillman Hunters.
Fitting the towing hitch seemed to require it to be fastened to a horizontal
bar that had to be fitted below the rear bumper (no doubt fastened to some
solid part of the body shell) and this bar was a convenient place to attach
fog lights, with a little switch (with its reminder light next to it) under
the dashboard (*). I bet those lights were not within the distances
stipulated by Construction and Use regulations...

Reversing lights were always an option, when they became standard I
would guess in the mid 1990's, but never included on all cars even
then. I remember adding fogs to my 1980 SAAB and putting them on to use
as reversing lights (standard fit), because my reversing lights had
failed. The fog warning had failed so I forgot and left them on. I got
less than 100yds before being pulled by two motorcycle cops and
reminded :-)

Fogs appeared late 1970' early 1980's as an option. Many manufactures
just used the add on after market housing in the early years of them
being a requirement. By the 1990's the were included in the usual lamp
clusters at the rear.

On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:58:48 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:



Fogs appeared late 1970' early 1980's as an option. Many manufactures
just used the add on after market housing in the early years of them
being a requirement. By the 1990's the were included in the usual lamp
clusters at the rear.

Were they one of those things that started out as being yet another
gadget found in motor accessory shops on a Saturday morning and fitted
over the rest of the weekend by those who loved to tinker with cars
for any reason and possibly illegal as being too bright under the
regulations of the time? Though unlike many such gadgets they were
actually seen as being useful and the law changed quickly so they went
from illegal to being a requirement in a very short period of time or
had the law been changed before they appeared in Halfords etc.

G.Harman

In article ,
wrote:
Fogs appeared late 1970' early 1980's as an option. Many manufactures
just used the add on after market housing in the early years of them
being a requirement. By the 1990's the were included in the usual lamp
clusters at the rear.

Were they one of those things that started out as being yet another
gadget found in motor accessory shops on a Saturday morning and fitted
over the rest of the weekend by those who loved to tinker with cars
for any reason and possibly illegal as being too bright under the
regulations of the time? Though unlike many such gadgets they were
actually seen as being useful and the law changed quickly so they went
from illegal to being a requirement in a very short period of time or
had the law been changed before they appeared in Halfords etc.

I suspect the need for rear guard fog lamps became apparent (or guessed
at) after those crashes on the then rather new motorways in fog. Which was
also one of the reasons for the 70 mph blanket limit. Although never quite
saw the logic of that, as 70 mph is far too fast for restricted visibility
anyway.

No idea if rear guard fog lights do improve safety, though. Very difficult
to get any accurate data.

--
*If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean?

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

On 08/03/2017 17:16, Sam wrote:
On 08/03/2017 15:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2017 13:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I never quite understood the first Ford Popular. Why buy a 20 year old
design new when you could get a good used Morris Minor etc for the same
price? But then people bought new Reliant 3 wheelers too - so no
accounting for taste.

You could (can?) drive a three wheeler on a motorcycle license.

You could. But was it really such a problem to get a car licence if you'd
passed a motor bike one? The lower RFL might have been the main reason.

Originally the motorcycle licence allowed three wheelers to be driven if
they had no reverse fitted. The car test was required for this. Three
wheelers with reverse could have a blanking plate fitted to stop reverse
being engaged. This could be removed later if a full licence was obtained.

How about some three wheelers where you could start the (2 stroke)
engine in reverse if you wanted to go backwards?

How about some big motorcycles that had a reverse gear?

--
Max Demian

On 09/03/2017 13:58, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
NY formulated the question :
When did reversing lights and fog lights become a standard fit? I can
remember my dad fitting rear fog lights on his various Hillman
Hunters. Fitting the towing hitch seemed to require it to be fastened
to a horizontal bar that had to be fitted below the rear bumper (no
doubt fastened to some solid part of the body shell) and this bar was
a convenient place to attach fog lights, with a little switch (with
its reminder light next to it) under the dashboard (*). I bet those
lights were not within the distances stipulated by Construction and
Use regulations...

Reversing lights were always an option, when they became standard I
would guess in the mid 1990's, but never included on all cars even then.
I remember adding fogs to my 1980 SAAB and putting them on to use as
reversing lights (standard fit), because my reversing lights had failed.
The fog warning had failed so I forgot and left them on. I got less than
100yds before being pulled by two motorcycle cops and reminded :-)

Fogs appeared late 1970' early 1980's as an option. Many manufactures
just used the add on after market housing in the early years of them
being a requirement. By the 1990's the were included in the usual lamp
clusters at the rear.

There was a cheap way of adding rear fog lights where you wired extra
red lights to the brake lights and fitted a switch under the dashboard
that turned the brake lights on - meaning you didn't have to put extra
wires to the rear. But these were illegal as you didn't have any extra
lights when you were braking.

Then high level rear lights came in, confusing traffic cops, who thought
they were illegal.

--
Max Demian

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

snip

No idea if rear guard fog lights do improve safety, though. Very difficult
to get any accurate data.

Their misuse in light fog certainly causes danger, speed, distance and
other vehicles difficult to distinguish.

--

Roger Hayter

On 09/03/2017 15:33, Max Demian wrote:


Originally the motorcycle licence allowed three wheelers to be driven if
they had no reverse fitted. The car test was required for this. Three
wheelers with reverse could have a blanking plate fitted to stop reverse
being engaged. This could be removed later if a full licence was
obtained.

How about some three wheelers where you could start the (2 stroke)
engine in reverse if you wanted to go backwards?

How about some big motorcycles that had a reverse gear?

Yes, how about them.

Some engines would start and run in reverse if started at the wrong part
of the cycle. It wasn't a design feature or a selling point.

After the regulations changed I believe three wheelers like the Trojan,
Heinkel and Isetta could start the engine in the reverse direction as
part of the design.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Fogs appeared late 1970' early 1980's as an option. Many manufactures
just used the add on after market housing in the early years of them
being a requirement. By the 1990's the were included in the usual lamp
clusters at the rear.

Were they one of those things that started out as being yet another
gadget found in motor accessory shops on a Saturday morning and fitted
over the rest of the weekend by those who loved to tinker with cars
for any reason and possibly illegal as being too bright under the
regulations of the time? Though unlike many such gadgets they were
actually seen as being useful and the law changed quickly so they went
from illegal to being a requirement in a very short period of time or
had the law been changed before they appeared in Halfords etc.

I suspect the need for rear guard fog lamps became apparent (or guessed
at) after those crashes on the then rather new motorways in fog. Which was
also one of the reasons for the 70 mph blanket limit. Although never quite
saw the logic of that, as 70 mph is far too fast for restricted visibility
anyway.

I thought the 70mph limit was introduced, by Barbara Castle (who didn't
drive). as a way of saving fuel.

No idea if rear guard fog lights do improve safety, though. Very difficult
to get any accurate data.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 09/03/17 17:30, charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Fogs appeared late 1970' early 1980's as an option. Many manufactures
just used the add on after market housing in the early years of them
being a requirement. By the 1990's the were included in the usual lamp
clusters at the rear.

Were they one of those things that started out as being yet another
gadget found in motor accessory shops on a Saturday morning and fitted
over the rest of the weekend by those who loved to tinker with cars
for any reason and possibly illegal as being too bright under the
regulations of the time? Though unlike many such gadgets they were
actually seen as being useful and the law changed quickly so they went
from illegal to being a requirement in a very short period of time or
had the law been changed before they appeared in Halfords etc.

I suspect the need for rear guard fog lamps became apparent (or guessed
at) after those crashes on the then rather new motorways in fog. Which was
also one of the reasons for the 70 mph blanket limit. Although never quite
saw the logic of that, as 70 mph is far too fast for restricted visibility
anyway.

I thought the 70mph limit was introduced, by Barbara Castle (who didn't
drive). as a way of saving fuel.
Don't think so..

saving lives I reckon



No idea if rear guard fog lights do improve safety, though. Very difficult
to get any accurate data.

they are at least something that stops you being rear ended so easily


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
I thought the 70mph limit was introduced, by Barbara Castle (who didn't
drive). as a way of saving fuel.
Don't think so..

saving lives I reckon

I think the 70 mph limit was for safety, because some sports cars (E-type
Jag etc) were road tested on the motorways at silly speeds well in excess of
100 mph, and it only took one pillock to move into the right-most (*) lane
without checking that it was safe to do so, and you had a very serious,
probably non-survivable crash.

Saving fuel came later: the temporary 50 mph limit on all roads was in the
70s at the time of fuel shortages - maybe a dispute/war in oil-producing
countries.

No idea if rear guard fog lights do improve safety, though. Very
difficult
to get any accurate data.

they are at least something that stops you being rear ended so easily

They allow cars behind you to see you further back than they would be able
to otherwise. Unless you have an object (eg a car) in front of you in thick
fog, whose distance from you can be judged by the spacing of the lights, it
is very difficult to know how far ahead you can see. You can try to judge it
by counting the number of dashed white lines you can see down the centre of
the road, but that's imprecise. Some people woefully overestimate how thick
the fog is and drive absurdly slowly (which is safe but over-cautious,
leading to people being tempted to overtake) whereas many people
underestimate the thickness and drive far too fast.

In fog, I tend to try to keep the lights of the car in front of me just in
sight but at a safe distance for the speed, with an extra factor of safety,
rather then let them get out of sight and have nothing in front of me but
blank fog.


(*) I say "right-most" rather than "lane 3" because not all motorways in
early days had the standard three lanes: some only had two. There are
probably some stretches of road even nowadays which are classed as motorway
but only have two lanes.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote on 09/03/2017 :
I suspect the need for rear guard fog lamps became apparent (or guessed
at) after those crashes on the then rather new motorways in fog. Which was
also one of the reasons for the 70 mph blanket limit. Although never quite
saw the logic of that, as 70 mph is far too fast for restricted visibility
anyway.

The 70 limit came in as a result of the fuel shortages and increasing
car speeds generally. I seem to remember it was originally to be only a
temporary measure.

On 09/03/2017 22:02, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote on 09/03/2017 :
I suspect the need for rear guard fog lamps became apparent (or guessed
at) after those crashes on the then rather new motorways in fog. Which
was
also one of the reasons for the 70 mph blanket limit. Although never
quite
saw the logic of that, as 70 mph is far too fast for restricted
visibility
anyway.

The 70 limit came in as a result of the fuel shortages and increasing
car speeds generally. I seem to remember it was originally to be only a
temporary measure.

The 70 limit was purely for safety; the 50 limit was for fuel economy in
the 70s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_sp...United_Kingdom

--
Max Demian

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote on 09/03/2017 :
I suspect the need for rear guard fog lamps became apparent (or guessed
at) after those crashes on the then rather new motorways in fog. Which was
also one of the reasons for the 70 mph blanket limit. Although never quite
saw the logic of that, as 70 mph is far too fast for restricted visibility
anyway.

The 70 limit came in as a result of the fuel shortages and increasing
car speeds generally. I seem to remember it was originally to be only a
temporary measure.


Nope. That was the 50mph limit.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote on 09/03/2017 :
I suspect the need for rear guard fog lamps became apparent (or
guessed at) after those crashes on the then rather new motorways in
fog. Which was also one of the reasons for the 70 mph blanket limit.
Although never quite saw the logic of that, as 70 mph is far too fast
for restricted visibility anyway.

The 70 limit came in as a result of the fuel shortages and increasing
car speeds generally. I seem to remember it was originally to be only a
temporary measure.

It was introduced soon after a very bad crash in fog - with the press
saying 'something must be done' And some stories of fast cars being tested
at high speeds very early in the morning. It may well have been in the
pipeline for some time, though.

70 mph in those days wasn't going to save much fuel. It was more like the
top speed that many cars could cruise at - and faster than plenty could
manage indefinitely.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote on 09/03/2017 :
I suspect the need for rear guard fog lamps became apparent (or
guessed at) after those crashes on the then rather new motorways in
fog. Which was also one of the reasons for the 70 mph blanket limit.
Although never quite saw the logic of that, as 70 mph is far too fast
for restricted visibility anyway.

The 70 limit came in as a result of the fuel shortages and increasing
car speeds generally. I seem to remember it was originally to be only a
temporary measure.

It was introduced soon after a very bad crash in fog - with the press
saying 'something must be done' And some stories of fast cars being tested
at high speeds very early in the morning. It may well have been in the
pipeline for some time, though.

70 mph in those days wasn't going to save much fuel. It was more like the
top speed that many cars could cruise at - and faster than plenty could
manage indefinitely.

It seems weird to think of many cars in the 1960s being unable to reach 70
and overheating if they did for long distances, when I should imagine every
car that's made today can do 70 for hour after hour. Also, with the drum
brakes in 60s cars, what would the stopping distance be like if they needed
it in an emergency?

The only time I've had to do a full emergency stop was in the first car that
I had with ABS, and that was from about 20 mph when a car pulled out of a
side road. I gave me the confidence that I could slam full on without
holding back to avoid skidding and could steer out of the way onto a kerb at
the last minute when I'd got down to a low speed. I'd already practised an
emergency stop on a deserted road so I knew what the repetitive pulsing of
the brake pedal felt like and what to expect if I ever had to do it for
real.

Before that all my cars had disc brakes all round, so I still had quick
stopping - had to stop fast once to avoid a pileup on the motorway, but I'd
seen wreckage fly in the air a few seconds earlier in the distance so I had
warning and it was balancing stopping to avoid hitting things in front with
giving as much warning so I didn't get rear-ended. Shame the hazard light
switch on most cars is a long way from the steering wheel - only on on car
(I think it was a Fiat) was it on the end of the indicator stalk with the
horn on the spokes of the wheel.

NY wrote:


It seems weird to think of many cars in the 1960s being unable to reach 70
and overheating if they did for long distances, when I should imagine every
car that's made today can do 70 for hour after hour. Also, with the drum
brakes in 60s cars, what would the stopping distance be like if they needed
it in an emergency?

Well that's easy. Just look at the stopping distances quoted in the Highway
Code. Don't think they've been updated since forever. ;-)

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

In article ,
NY wrote:
It seems weird to think of many cars in the 1960s being unable to reach
70 and overheating if they did for long distances, when I should
imagine every car that's made today can do 70 for hour after hour.

Remember that before motorways (and autos) top gear performance was
thought very important. Being able to climb hills without changing down.
Which led to many UK cars being very low geared. VW knew with the Beetle
that high gearing made for a long(er) engine life and relaxed cruising.
Since Germany had the first motorways.

Also, with the drum brakes in 60s cars, what would the stopping
distance be like if they needed it in an emergency?

Very true. Before Jaguar discovered disc brakes, it was possible to fade
their drums to nothing with a single stop from high speed.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

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

On 10/03/2017 14:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Very true. Before Jaguar discovered disc brakes, it was possible to fade
their drums to nothing with a single stop from high speed.


Yes why did it take Jaguar from ~1900 until the 1950s to discover disk
brakes?
The Germans managed to use them in 1942.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 10/03/2017 14:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Very true. Before Jaguar discovered disc brakes, it was possible to fade
their drums to nothing with a single stop from high speed.


Yes why did it take Jaguar from ~1900 until the 1950s to discover disk
brakes?
The Germans managed to use them in 1942.

I dunno. You can make drum brakes work ok - Rolls managed that very well.
They didn't fit discs until the '60s.

But didn't the D Type Jaguar do so well at Le Mans in the '50s because it
had discs - when the competition was still on drums?

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

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