Alternative to beam benders.

[Dave Newell]

Speak up, we can't hear you. D.

[W3526602]

Hi, (Whoops pressed the wrong button). I've been thinking about fitting a pair of free standing headlamps in addition to my vans fitted lamps. The idea is that the extra lamps would dip to the right. I could then choose which lamps to use, depending on which side of the road I'm driving on. Wrong! I am advised that it is a crime in France to have lights that CAN dazzle, even if they are switched off. Pity, it seems a sensible solution to a problem that thousands of people meet evry day. Any comments? Also, can the Continentals buy deflectors to use when they visit the UK? And what about that long list of "legal necessities" displayed at at least two ferry terminals. Its the best part of £100 to buy everything they say you need.....and when you get to the other side you find they are not legally required. Advisable, maybe, but thats not quite the same thing. 602

[W3526602]

PS. Headlamps that dip vertically might be a sensible solution, too. But they are not allowed either.....except in USA. 602

[Dave Newell]

Hi 602, Among the list of "legal requirements" are a reflective waistcoat for each person on board, a warning triangle, a spare set of bulbs. All of these are worthwhile anyway and if you've got a motorhome worth many thousands of pounds why not spend £100 on vital safety equipment. I have no worthwhile comment regarding your idea for a secondary set of headlights except to ask where exactly you intended to fit them? Its purely academic as you've already discovered they wouldn't be legal. D.

[W3526602]

Hi Dave, My objection is to the sign telling you that you MUST have the various items of safety equipment. As far as I know, yellow waistcoats are not a requirement in France. Spare spectacles might be, but they are not on the list. Warning triangle?.....I read somwhere that they are not necessary if you have hazaard lights, but I won't argue about that. First aid kit - I am not qualified in First Aid, so in UK I am vunerable to being sued if I do it wrong (and I understand that I would be a criminal if I helped a lady to deliver a baby). As well as a camper, I have an old Land Rover. It would be easy to fit extra lamps on the front bumper. It isn't that the extra lamps would be illegal. The problem is that the original lamps would be illegal unless I fitted beam benders. It would be almost quicker and easier to replace the entire headlamps with RH dip at the ferry terminal. Do you want to see my recent correspondence on another group about changing lamp bulbs? It will have to be off-list, due to sheer volume. 602

[chas]

Hi 602- I cant see the problem of fitting a pair of beam deflectors on your van ! and also gathering all the other items as well, with carfull spending it would not cost anywhere near £100. Remember when you are entering another country, it is only right you comply and respect their laws. chas

[Basil]

I must agree with the comments already made, what is the problem people have with complying with mainly sensible requirements/ recomendations? If you go over the water on a regular basis, as we do, get clip on protector/ beam benders they pay for themselves in the end and only take seconds to fit plus they protect your headlights. Having had a blow out on a motorway I was really glad we had reflective jackets and two warning triangles, so whats the problem? People pay lots of money even for older second hand motorhomes so why grumble about a few pounds, not to save the motorhome but your money (fines) and also possibly your life? Bas

[Keith T]

Slightly off -topic perhaps, but anyone know how you bend the beam on the brand new Fiat type headlamps? All the front lights seem to be in this swish cluster, so is there a clever way as to doing it??

[W3526602]

Hi Basil, My objection is to a commercial enterprise declaring that something is a legal requirement, when it isn't, and doing so at a time when you have no alternative to buying from them. I am not arguing about whether it is sensible, or not, to carry this safety equipment. But to be consistant, anybody who is that serious about living safetly should ask themselves whether we should legislate against smoking, drinking, eating red meat, watching TV, using a mobile phone, keeping pets, having children....... There is still a lot of argument about what really is a legal requirement in other countries. Even the motoring organisations cannot get their act together. As for beam benders, I suggest that if you deflect the beam from your headlamps you are reducing their efficiency. ????? If so, you will be driving a sub-standard vehicle. But if I'm wrong, then beam deflectors should enable a LHD vehicle to pass a UK MOT. Tell me, if I come to an unexpected halt (breakdown or accident) what should I do first? Dash down the road with my warning triangle? Or get myself and my passengers into their reflective jackets? The UK Highway Code tells you not to stand behind your vehicle. It would be difficult to change a rear bulb without doing so. When changing a front bulb, would you switch your lamps off? Don't answer that, of course you would, you'd use your hazaards while you remove your front bumper. Not so easy in a small Ford, cos you have to remove the battery to access the lamp. I'm trying defend an undefendable attitude. I shouldn't really want to defend it.....its just that legislation has taken away our right to use common sense according to the prevailing circumstances. How many more safety requlations do they need to impose before we all become immortal? 602

[chas]

Hi 602- You know it all boils down to common sense, for a start beam deflectors do not reduce the light output of the headlamps, unless anyone uses the old cheap idea of black masking tape, and in the event of a breakdown ,putting on a reflective jacket for driver and passengers can only take seconds before leaving the vehicle to get to a safe area, that is if the vehicle is not on fire ! thats where common sense comes in. Changing light bulbs I would have thought would be best carried out after one has pulled off the road to a secure and safe place. chas

[Basil]

Hello 6602 ---------------------------------- """My objection is to a commercial enterprise declaring that something is a legal requirement, when it isn't, and doing so at a time when you have no alternative to buying from them. """ ------------- Don't follow that line of discussion as beam benders ARE a legal requirement and it could be considered wrong of the people not to bring it to your attention. From what you said no one said you could not continue your journey without you buying them from them! ----------------------------------- """I am not arguing about whether it is sensible, or not, to carry this safety equipment. But to be consistant, anybody who is that serious about living safetly should ask themselves whether we should legislate against smoking, drinking, eating red meat, watching TV, using a mobile phone, keeping pets, having children....... """ ---------------------------------- Sorry I thought you were! I also thought legislation was on the way to prevent smoking affecting others? Also the punitive tax on drink is partly to deter its use, also the suggested legislation is to mark the product with warnings like with smoking. We are currently going through a campaign about eating habits and to some extent legislation is being passed that identifies dangers. There is constant discussion about TV and there is legislation that limits what can be shown and when and what time. There is still unproven debate about mobile phones, but I would expect there to be legislation if there was a proven case, incidentaly there is now legislation that has caused manufacturers of phone holders to either shield the phone from the body or make the attachment spaced off of the body, have you bought a new phone holder recently? I thought there are laws that cover dangerous dog breeds and also I thought that there was legislation that insists people clear up after their dogs in the street. Maybe there should be some legislation on certain people having children but thats another discussion!!! --------------------------------------- ""There is still a lot of argument about what really is a legal requirement in other countries. Even the motoring organisations cannot get their act together. "" -------------------------------------- Don't agree with this I am quite happy that I understand my legal and sensible requirement at home and abroad. No confusion for me at all. --------------------------------------- "As for beam benders, I suggest that if you deflect the beam from your headlamps you are reducing their efficiency. ????? If so, you will be driving a sub-standard vehicle. But if I'm wrong, then beam deflectors should enable a LHD vehicle to pass a UK MOT. " ---------------------------------------- They do pas an MOT at home, I have a grey import motorcycle that has a beam bender and has passed the last five years no problem. Has little or no affect on the efficiency of the headlight neither does the clip on covers affect my motorhomes light efficiency abroad, there are no legal requirements (so far as I am aware) that stipulate a minimum number of Lumens output from the lights only a maximum wattage of bulb and the requirement to be balanced and within a certain beam pattern. ---------------------------------------- """Tell me, if I come to an unexpected halt (breakdown or accident) what should I do first? Dash down the road with my warning triangle? Or get myself and my passengers into their reflective jackets? """ --------------------------------- No brainer this one. If you are abroad, I have in this country too when I had a blow out on the M20, I would put my own jacket on and whilst the others get theirs on to vacate the vehicle be putting out my warning triangles. --------------------------------- """The UK Highway Code tells you not to stand behind your vehicle. It would be difficult to change a rear bulb without doing so. When changing a front bulb, would you switch your lamps off? Don't answer that, of course you would, you'd use your hazaards while you remove your front bumper. Not so easy in a small Ford, cos you have to remove the battery to access the lamp. """ --------------------------------- Firstly if I was changing a bulb I would not be doing that on a main road I would only find it when I checked my lights before I moved off from where I was sited or stopped, don't tell me you would stop on the hard shoulder just to change a light bulb and not go on to the first safe place to do it!!!!! --------------------------------- """I'm trying defend an undefendable attitude. I shouldn't really want to defend it.....its just that legislation has taken away our right to use common sense according to the prevailing circumstances.""" ---------------------------------- Then don't bother just do what you obviously deep down know you should be doing and use common sense whilst you are doing it ---------------------------------- """How many more safety requlations do they need to impose before we all become immortal?""" --------------------------------- Remember you might be sensible but there is a large proportin of the population that isn't and that is why we all end up suffering because of the that minority having an effect on the majority. We don't all go around stealing, mugging or housbreaking but we are all subject to the same laws. I am sorry but I just don't understand your discussion!! Bas

[W3526602]

Hi Bas, OK, the discussion is going nowhere, so I'll drop out. I'll even forgo having the last word. 602

[colin]

Ok then (lol)

[Wingpete]

BUT, I think that in other countries, if there is need to administer some first aid, you are "required " to do so. No question of qualified then (?) And in UK, if you were to leave an accident vicxtim or other casualty, you might still find yourself being pursued for "failing to take reasonable care that the victim did not suffer unduly from your inaction"