• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Hit and run

and in roughly the same vein, why do manufacturers, Mercedes included, only fit one rear fog lamp when there is a moulding in the other side to take the bulb holder???:wallbash:

Legally only required on the off-side, so sorted for LHD and RHD. Cost saving? That said I thought most MB models had lamps fitted both sides so could be used as substitute lamps.

IIRC they are not enabled on both sides as they could be confused with brake lamps being applied....
 
Legally only required on the off-side, so sorted for LHD and RHD. Cost saving? That said I thought most MB models had lamps fitted both sides so could be used as substitute lamps.

IIRC they are not enabled on both sides as they could be confused with brake lamps being applied....

legally maybe just one side but if that bulb fails at least the other side will be on
 
legally maybe just one side but if that bulb fails at least the other side will be on

Which is why I said most MB models have lamps both sides and will use substitutes should one fail.
 
Legislation re rear fog lamps varies from country to country : many require two rear fog lamps .

However when 'high intensity rearguard lamps' ( to use the phrase originally used by M-B ) were originally introduced on the facelift W114/5 models around 1973 in the form of an additional lamp mounted under the rear bumper , it was stated that research had been carried out which showed that two rear fog lamps could be confused with brake lamps ( indeed back around then many people bought aftermarket rear fog lamps and wired them up to the brake lamps - illegally - remember that ? ) hence Mercedes-Benz decided that a single rear fog lamp was preferable .

The first model to have an integrated rear fog lamp within the cluster would , IIRC , have been the W116 , don't think early W107's had them ?
 
I was always a fan of dim-dip which was fitted to UK cars from 1987 up to the mid 90ies. As implemented on my Accord, if you put your sidelights on without the ignition on, then just the sidelights come on. If the ignition is on, then the dip headlights come on at 50% brightness. Always seemed a sensible idea to me, but the EU disagreed and prosecuted the UK for it in the ECJ in 1988. The practice of fitting them died out in the 90ies.

Dash cams certainly seem to be a sensible precaution these days. I have one on my Christmas list.
 
DRL's on cars under a certain age are ok, a little too bright when I'm driving my SLK. What really gets my goat is the boy racer, mid twenties racer and the mid twenties to late thirties poser, in their vehicles not fitted with DRL's driving all day and night with their sidelights and front fog lights on! You can't see a bloody thing! Quite a few new drivers put their fog lights on in drizzle and rain, I asked one I followed into the petrol station recently, he said his driving instructor recommended to put them on in the rain, dazzling other drivers albeit with front of rear lights seems to be the order of the day. Going back to the motorcycle lights. I personally think that if every vehicle was to have their lights on all the time, would the poor motorcyclists light just blend in, causing more accidents due to not seeing them?
 
Never been dazzled by front foglights.
Not in the day, night or drizzle.

Rear fogs however are a different matter.
 
"Dash cams certainly seem to be a sensible precaution these days. I have one on my Christmas list."

I'm tempted too, but what if I have a red mist moment and it all turns to rats**t? They provide evidence for and against...
 
I saw a motorbike cutting in between lanes and there was a massive camera mounted on top of the crash helmet.

I guess he/she wants to record in 4K what happens when someone decides to pull over having not seen the bike.
 
I saw a motorbike cutting in between lanes and there was a massive camera mounted on top of the crash helmet.

I guess he/she wants to record in 4K what happens when someone decides to pull over having not seen the bike.

Quite right too, blind car drivers are a real menace
 
Quite right too, blind car drivers are a real menace

Funny you say that, I don't recall cutting in between lanes at speed being part of the Highway Code.

Can you show me the part in the HC where it states it?
 
I saw a motorbike cutting in between lanes and there was a massive camera mounted on top of the crash helmet.

I guess he/she wants to record in 4K what happens when someone decides to pull over having not seen the bike.

I used to see this Mad Max "filtering" regularly on the M1 near Luton. Slow moving traffic and bikes doing up to 70mph between the lanes.
Others would be filtering past cars doing 70mph already...

I saw about 4 fetched off, but still the Lemmings continued...
 
I used to see this Mad Max "filtering" regularly on the M1 near Luton. Slow moving traffic and bikes doing up to 70mph between the lanes.
Others would be filtering past cars doing 70mph already...

I saw about 4 fetched off, but still the Lemmings continued...

As a biker myself, I have on many occasions been chatting to other bikers who have complained bitterly about how they were knocked off by some "idiot car driver" who "stupidly" changed lanes without seeing them whilst they were either whisking between two lines of traffic or zooming down the outside of a queue on a single carriageway road.

It never ceased to amaze me that they could not for one second see the insanity - and selfishness - of their own actions. Accordingly, I imagine that many were doomed to repeat the stunt at regular intervals until they finally met the big one.
 
Before I step off the pavement and onto the zebra crossing, I look right and left... given that a car is made of metal which is not kind to the flesh.

The reason for doing so is that it will be of little consolation to my family to know that the driver who hit me was later prosecuted and found guilty.

I don't see why bikers should not apply the same.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom