People who sit on their brake lights give me the rage

[Tusktusk]

When I’m stuck in a traffic jam and it’s dark, I inevitably end up behind a huge car with super bright brake lights and the driver just sits there for the whole wait time - a good 15 minutes tonight as I was caught up in traffic leaving a big football match - with their foot on the brake, half blinding me with their brake lights!

It seems most people do this now and most modern cars have these super bright in your face brake lights - especially big family 4x4 type of cars. I find it really inconsiderate. Why don’t people use the handbrake in these situations? It’s so much nicer to take all your feet off the pedals and relax while you wait. Plus you won’t be blinding the poor soul sitting behind you!

Is it just me?

I do find modern headlights often too bright and dazzling, never been affected by brake lights though, but wouldn’t expect other drivers not to use them..and like pp have said, often the car not the driver. They are NOT designed for aesthetics.
The highway code is not law in itself but parts of it are.. however this rule is not.
You can fail your driving test on it though, and safety wise you should technically be doing it. But theres a lot of aspects of driving that you should ‘technically’ be doing that nobody does as it isn’t practical especially with modern cars

@MagicalTimes99 fair enough. Let’s all ignore the Highway Code then. It’s not law so it doesn’t matter. Thread done?

I have honestly never thought about brake lights dazzling anyone!

The highway code exceprt you are relying on uses the word 'must' when refering to improper use of foglights, which it makes it madatory. It uses 'should' for your issue with brake lights, which mearly means its only advisory. Which makes sense, as no one knows how long they will be stationary. So, those using auto-hold or siting with their foot on the brake pedal aren't breaking any rule after all...

Well you asserted twice:

"I stand by my point that they are designed unnecessarily bright, for aesthetics."

That position doesnt lend itself well to your changed view that they comply etc.

You now claim this brightness exceeds legal requirements - care to show us this please? Grateful if you could, and if not, you should retract that remark.

Sure, car makers want to sell cars, but people dont buy cars because of brake lights/design 🤦‍♂️🙄

No-one has a hand break, unless they are giving their hand a rest. The correct term is literally in my post.

I don't really care what it is you have in your car, manual or automatic, it's not safe to be sitting dazzling other drivers.

I agree with the headlights. They’re just too bright nowadays! I was thinking people were driving around with their full beams on for ages until I realised that’s just how cars are made nowadays.

@HelplessSoul my view didn’t change.

That is what I do. That allows for the car to have its thinking time before I move off from a standstill. The delay from putting it into drive before moving off is particularly slow though so it's not enough to mitigate for that. The car I drive is particularly annoying for that. Other automatic cars I have driven haven't been so slow to be fair.

@Tusktusk You are correct. Sitting with foot on brake in traffic is rife. I think it’s easier to keep a manual car in gear. Quicker to move. Most large cars are automatic and size of brake lights does not go up with the size of the car! An auto car has an easy shift of the gear selector to park. I would suggest large autos have no need to sit on brakes.

Now we have electric cars. In ours you press a button to get park. Then press another to start. It’s less easy than moving the gear shift in an automatic. So people just put their foot on the brake and leave it in drive.

I don’t think there’s an answer. I think brake lights need to be bright for their intended purpose. My hate is people who don’t know they have rear fog lights on! Usually small cars! That’s also poor driving.

You ought to read what you write.

Twice you moaned about lights being bright only for looks/aesthetics. Ergo, such lights are not compliant for road use.

Then you said:

"Tusktusk · Today 09:30

I am quite sure they are complying with current safety legislation."

So if that isnt a change in position, I dont know what is.

Either way, helpful if you get your eyes tested. 👍

Well, not exactly. As lots of people have said here, many people have automatic cars now which require you to put your car in park, and then pressing a button to remove the handbrake then maneuvering back into drive. This isn't as instant as simply pushing down a manual handbrake, which is very fast. It is much safer, especially when on a hill to make use of the anti roll back technology and footbrake. One example, there is a steep hill near me which has a roundabout at the top. It's busy and you have to move fast. Lots of accidents at this roundabout and lots of petitions to make it safer. Until then, I won't be using my handbrake when waiting, I'll be using my footbrake so I'm ready to go when needed. Driving isn't as black as white as following every advisory rule in the highway code. It's about doing that is safe and in SOME cases convenient (causing a delay faffing around with auto brakes isn't convenient for anyone and would probably end up with me being honked at by impatient drivers!). If the highway code says you must do it, then you must do it as it is supported by law. In this case it isn't.

@HelplessSoul I never said they weren’t compliant. You extrapolated that part. I said I find them uncomfortable on my eyes.

Me too. I was taught by my driving instructor to apply the handbrake when sitting in stationary traffic for safety reasons (if hit from behind you're less likely to be shunted into the vehicle in front). Is this not part of driving lessons now? It's just good manners as well surely.

I've had my eyes tested, last test was just last week. I generally wear contacts but also wear glasses, I have astigmatism as well as requiring a distance prescription.

The optician said that lens manufacturers are trying to develop lenses to cope with the huge developments in intensity of car lights.

It's definitely an issue for a lot of people and especially if you have astigmatism. As a result I don't like driving in areas with no street lights at night which hampers my life a lot in the winter. I have one DS who is the same and has astigmatism and one who is okay with it, no astigmatism.

There is clearly an issue in terms of design of rear lights. I'm glad that they are bright for when they are being actively used but when the vehicle is stationary, they should, as a minimum, reduce intensity to the same as rear lights. That's if there is no manual way/equivalent of taking your foot of the pedal.

YANBU @Tusktusk I've noticed it more and more, and it seems the majority of cars have brake lights on when stationary these days. It's something I find irritating as they're so bright it increases eye stain. I don't remember being so irritated by glaring lights, so I think it's probably down to modern car design (eg auto features, and bigger and higher vehicles so lights are nearer my eye level when driving a small low car like mine), and modern brighter headlights and brake lights.

I was taught to use the hand brake if stationary for longer than a few seconds as it decreases the chance of being shunted into the car in front if rear ended, and it's out of courtesy for the driver behind.
The Highway Code advises: In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again.

So it goes back to being a courteous driver. Depends on what's important to people; either convenience to them, or considering reducing glare on other drivers.

No, once you're in a particular lane, if it's a single route, you turn off your indicator as it's then superfluous. You only indicate on your approach to let cars behind know you're moving into a lane.

The problem with the brake lights dazzling does seem to come more from drivers of automatics. I don't get exactly why as every automatic I've ever driven (and that's quite a few) has P-R-N-D-and so on. Every car I have ever driven has a hand brake (parking brake) too be that a manual lever or an electronic button. When stationary for anything more than a few seconds, I put the car into 'N' (neutral) like you should with a manual gearbox and apply the hand brake. That way there are no brake lights dazzling others. When setting off, the lever nudges back into 'D' (drive), handbrake off and away I go. 'P' is for parking only as it locks the transmission and you have to apply the foot brake to release it, often not the case with neutral as the lever just moves to 'D'. I'm happy to accept that some cars may do things slightly differently but most in my experience work the same as I've described. People sitting with their foot on the brake pedal are lazy. YANBU @Tusktusk . Anyone sitting with their foot on the brake pedal in a car with a manual gearbox clearly doesn't know what they're doing. It's courteous to the drivers behind not to keep your foot on the brake pedal.

No its not that... the process takes longer thats all and then you've got nob heads beeping you for not getting going fast enough.,

Still waiting for your evidence re brake lights exceeding legal safety requirements....🙄

@taxguru

Sigh.

Did you miss my earlier post about indicating also being for the benefit of pedestrians, as well as other cars, not to mention degraded markings on road surfaces?

Not all routes and roads are "singular"....

Part of the reason they can be uncomfortable for some is that they are red LEDs so are emitting light in just one frequency rather than in the full range of the red part of the spectrum. Previously it would be white light through a red filter which gives a less harsh light.

Actually, it's often obvious whether you're going to be stationery for a few seconds or longer, especially in a stop/start flow of traffic or where you can gauge the sequence of traffic lights, or where you can see the volume of traffic preventing you from moving out or cutting across a road.

Sitting on the brake isn't just potentially dangerous (if you're shunted from behind, you will go forward and shunt the car infront), but also adds wear and tear to the car's gearbox & clutch (whether automatic or manual). I suppose that explains why some people seem to go through a lot of clutches and other engine damage, whilst others can go through life without such damage!

Yes, IF there is a good reason to indicate, then you do so. But NOT automatically whether anyone will benefit or not. That just leads to lazy behaviour and not actually thinking. In the advanced driving test, constantly indicating where there's no one to benefit would fail your advanced driving test. You have to THINK whether to indicate or not. That's part of the problem with driving these days, with all the automations, etc., people are driving on auto-pilot and not actually thinking anymore.

How does the process take longer than in a manual, where you have to put your handbrake on, press the clutch, move into neutral, then a bit later, press the clutch, move into gear, and release the handbrake.

I drive both a manual and an automatic car, and there's no difference in time, in fact, probably takes longer in a manual.

If it's taking a long time in an automatic, perhaps the driver just needs more practice as to what they need to do. Inevitably it will take longer if you don't have "muscle memory" as to the process.

Not everyone does the advanced test, ergo, is irrelevant to whether indicating is or isnt needed.

Its a good habit to have so people (in and out of cars) can see what you intend to do.

Indicating on an empty road at 2am is probably not needed if theres no traffic, but on balance, outside of quiet hours, even if the roads are empty, indicating is not crime of the century some snowflakes make it out to be.

Anyway this thread is about brake lights....