Lot of fog this morning, so thought I'd spot cars which still have two rear fogs as I cycled to work. Top of the list of design brainlessness - Range Rover Sport; right next to the brake lights. I suppose it's so large it wouldn't notice someone ploughing into the back because they didn't notice the brake lights come on. Also, new Peugeot, although these are quite well separated from the brake lights. Also Mini.
Why does stupidity persist? Is it because these cars are assembled in intellectually challenged English factories?
Anyway, that's three from me - please add to create an HJ blacklist!
|
|
As all vehicle lighting must confirm to standards laid down by our EU overlords, then it is hardly the fault of British factories.
|
|
|
I like them - bright and colourful. Anyway you are on a bike, if you cycle into the back of me you are gonna come of worse.
|
Two are better than one. Much better chance of being seen. Also if one bulb goes then there is still one lit.
I don't usually buy cars with one and if I do then I convert them to two if possible.
I only ever use them when visibility is very bad.
|
I think it's stupid to have just one. You have two brake lights and two rear lights, so why just one foglight? With double foglights, you can not only see a vehicle is there, but approximately judge its size and width.
My S60 has two live bulbholders for the foglights, but a plastic "blank" stopping you from putting a bulb in one of them. Crazy.
I agree that foglight abuse is a big problem. I think Clarkson's idea about enforcing minimum speed limits using snipers on motorway bridges to shoot offenders in the face could be adapted for people who don't know how to use foglights properly. :-)
|
I agree that foglight abuse is a big problem. I think Clarkson's idea could be adapted for people who don't know how to use foglights properly. :-)
Clarkson actually mooted a rather good idea a few years ago; that rear fog lights should be wired up to a speed limiter which keeps the vehicle below 40 mph. His theory (which I agree with) was that if you do need rear fogs on it's not safe to exceed this speed anyway.
I actually think that makes good sense, and would sort out the retards who don't know what that pretty orange light symbol on their dashboard is for!
|
|
|
My S60 has two live bulbholders for the foglights, but a plastic "blank" stopping you from putting a bulb in one of them. Crazy.
I got a dealer to put a second in for me. Only took two minutes
|
|
|
|
|
To the OP,
What do you propose for rear foglights ?
A single light which illuminates the wrong side of the car when you take it abroad ?
You then have the situation where you have two sets of rear bulb holders depending on where you are driving. That's a simplified solution.
Or, a single lamp in the centre of the rear bumper which is obscured when a towbar is fitted.
Edited by gmac on 28/11/2008 at 10:12
|
For the last 35+ years all my cars have had twin reversing lights and twin rear for lights.
I had twin "add on" reversing lights as standard on my Cortina 1600E and fitted matching twin fog lights.
Since then all my Fords have, IMO, been properly equiped.
My previous Fords had combined side/fog lights with stop lights by the number plate ( like RRs) . The downside was non standard /rarer bulbs rather than the normal 5/21W side/brake light bulbs.
I really do not like the current trend of one reversing light and one fog light.
IIRC it is another EU /thing and the bean counters like it too :-((
Apart from the redundancy aspect, twin fog lights give the following driver a better perspective of the vehicle ahead.
So I will continue to one of those with "Stupid lights"
|
I think foglights should be banned full stop. The misuse of the things far outweighs any benefits. When they are used you have a lot more difficulty noticing brake lights and i'm not convinced night time usage is, with some exceptions, wise, even in poor conditions.
If it is an absolute pea souper, you should be crawling along anyway.
|
I wouldn't go as far as to ban them, but much better driver education would be welcome.
Quite often, when used in busy motorway-style convoys, the 'uncovering' of rear fogs by cars shifting laterally relative to one another can appear like brake lights going on. This leads to 'concertina braking' and the attendant disruption of traffic flow.
My own take is only to use rear fogs in the most 'pea soup' conditions - and then only as back-marker in a stream of traffic (or on my own). Once someone comes within following distance I switch the rear fogs off.
As to whether there should be one or two, I'd say two. It used to be the case that a single fog had to be positioned on the offside, though many are now mounted centrally.
|
|
|
i'm not convinced night time usage is with some exceptions wise even in poor conditions.
I agree. At night you can often see normal tail lights from a distance of 100 metres when in the same fog or spray conditions but daylight you wouldn't be able to.
Perhaps design the electrics so that when the automatic dusk sensing headlights come on, the rear fog lights are disabled? :)
More seriously, does anybody else's car do what my ZX does? The rear fog light switch is a toggle button rather than a two position switch. After you switch the engine off, it simply doesn't remember that the fog lights were on. If you want them on next time you drive, you just press the button again. That means it's impossible to spend the next fortnight driving around annoying everyone until you finally remember to return the switch to the off position. Tremendously useful and simple little idea but I wonder how commonplace that scheme is?
|
>>The rear fog lightswitch is a toggle button rather than a two position switch. After you switch the engine off it simply doesn't remember that the fog lights were on. If you want them on next time you drive you just press the button again. That means it's impossible to spend the next fortnight driving around annoying everyone until you finally remember to return the switch to the off position. Tremendously useful and simple little idea but I wonder how commonplace that scheme is?
I think that is a splendid idea.
BUT surely cars have a great big orangey-yellow and another green light on the dash which anyone with a brain in their head KNOWS means "You have your foglights on, buddy"?
Oops, sorry, forgot... having a brain is not a prerequesite for driving these days.
|
>>The rear fog light >> switch is a toggle button rather than a two position switch. After you switch the >> engine off it simply doesn't remember that the fog lights were on. I think that is a splendid idea.
Me too :-)
BUT surely cars have a great big orangey-yellow and another green light on the dash
Well that's the less splendid bit in the Citroen. No light on the dashboard itself. The button lights up orange but is positioned to be completely obscured by the steering wheel and my left hand while driving. Oh well, can't have everything I suppose...
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my view, cars should all have two such high-intensity rear lights.
Furthermore, I believe drivers should be encouraged to use them in times of very heavy rain on motorways and dual carriageways. They are for use when visibility is less than 100 metres; in torrential rain it is easily less than that near the road surface with vehicles obscured by rain.
|
rarely do i agree with the cartographer, but in this case.... I do.
I have seen spray so thick that even high intensity lights are not visible at 25 yards.
|
|
|
They are for use when visibility is less than 100 metres;
I do wish that advice was fleshed out a bit sometimes. Certainly fog isn't the only thing that can reduce visibility to less than 100 metres, at least at road level where it matters. But there are also times when even though general visibility might be below 100 metres, the vehicle behind is quite safely following at a closer distance than that (unlikely in heavy rain on a motorway, but quite possible on e.g. a rural road where fog density severly limits speed) and quite able to see your normal tail lights from their position. And in that case there is no need to leave the fog lights on.
|
|
|
Furthermore I believe drivers should be encouraged to use them in times of very heavy rain on motorways and dual carriageways. They are for use when visibility is less than 100 metres; in torrential rain it is easily less than that near the road surface with vehicles obscured by rain.
Come and sit in the passenger seat of my lorry and see the effect of that! The reflection of the high-intensity lamps off the wet road surface (especially if low-mounted) is, quite literally, a pain in an HGV, as bad as main beam coming at you.
Whilst I do not accuse anyone on here of the practice, why is it that some drivers think that if they switch their fog-lamps on they can drive just as fast in appalling visibility as they would on a clear road?
|
|
|
|
Top of the list of design brainlessness - Range Rover Sport; right next to the brake lights. I suppose it's so large it wouldn't notice someone ploughing into the back because they didn't notice the brake lights come on.
If this were true then you could get all Range Rover Sports removed from the road.
ECE R38 specifies a MINIMUM of 10cms should exist between brake and fog lights.
It is also specified in The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 2d as follows:
Minimum separation distance between a rear fog lamp and a stop lamp-
(i) In the case of a rear fog lamp which does not share a common lamp body with a stop lamp:
A distance of 100 mm between the light-emitting surfaces of the lamps when viewed in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle
(ii) In the case of a rear fog lamp which shares a common lamp body with a stop lamp:
100 mm
|
If this were true then you could get all Range Rover Sports removed from the road.
Go on, do it :)
|
|
Worse than fog lights are indicators set into rear brake lights or set too close to very bright headlights. Often when at a roundabout the only indicator I can see is the side repeater if lucky.
|
|
You mean people actually use indicators where you are?
|
As long as lights are visible when they're meant to be, and don't cause dazzle, then we're OK. Unfortunately idiocy prevails, partly with manufacturers and partly with brain dead drivers...
Far too many cars with tiny dots of indicators surrounded by large circular brake lights (Seat Altea, Fiat Punto) mean indicators become virtually invisible when the car is also braking. Great thinking!
The rear "one fog or two?" argument is going nowhere: a lot of cars now only have sufficient capacity in the loom/fuse for one 21 W rear foglight, so only one can be wired up. Offside or centrally - does it really matter? Saab abandoned the practice of fitting two when their own research showed that ONE foglight was far less likely to be confused with TWO brakelights.
The final "facelifted" versions of the Ford Sierra and Citroën BX showed how far idiocy in car lighting could go: the brake lights and rear foglights suddenly and inexplicably swapped their positions within the rear light panel.
|
Offside or centrally - does it really matter? Saab abandonedthe practice of fitting two when their own research showed that ONE foglight was far less likely to be confused with TWO brakelights. >>
Thanks folks, good debate - mostly. And thanks Bilboman for the best piece of evidence from Saab as to the wisest configuration.
Thanks also to gmac for the legal info. [although EU legislation is not always to the right end of the 'stupid..........wise' spectrum!] 10cm, less the 4inches, is a mere palmswidth between lightbulbs in a shared cluster. Having nearly crashed into the back of a car in the rain on a motorway, I wondered why I had done so. I realised it was because I hadn't noticed the brake lights come on because the two foglights outshone them.
|
Having nearly crashed into the back of a car in the rain on a motorway I wondered why I had done so. I realised it was because I hadn't noticed the brake lights come on because the two foglights outshone them.
This could be why a third high level brake cluster was added.
|
This could be why a third high level brake cluster was added.
>>
I believe the Americans "invented" the third brake light because their rear indicators are (or were) red and easily confused with brake lights.
|
Where do you find all this fog to use these lights anyway.
I can't remember the last time i used them, probably when Thatcher was on the throne.
Probably the most pointless extra ever thought of, i wonder how many thousand shunts have been caused because of these useless things. The driver behind not instantly spotting brake lights due to identical intense glow from ill used fogs.
Lights have become fashion accessories now anyway, as said above many cars have indicators that are almost impossible to see when braking (thats really an impossibly clever feat of stupidity from the 12 year old designers) or in direct sunlight.
And the topper being the front indicators in the headlight cluster so again almost impossible to see when needed.
No matter they look stylish...well maybe they do to people who think white sports footwear are the biz.
|
|
|
|
The Americans "invented" the third brake light as it was visible through the back windows of cars in a line of traffic, and has been proved to reduce rear end collisions. Red indicators, which the Americans have had for decades, aren't as annoying at night as white flashing indicators due to poor orange bulbs or , worse still, indicators set into the centre of brake lights. What a brilliant piece of design work that is!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tests carried out at TRRL indicate that the minimum separation of brake lights and high intensity rear lights should be 100 mm. tinyurl.com/5mueze
|
|
|
