28 replies to this topic

[PaulEden]

The A413 that goes from the A40 to Gerrards Cross sprouted some new illuminated cats eyes last year. Personally, I always thought they were a cheap alternative to street lighting, which that stretch does need. The colourful stretches of lights do indeed show drivers on the 413 where the road goes, but don't improve visibility as such and I'm sure they are are a nice distraction to drivers on the M25 as it crosses over on the flyover.
There are now claims they may be causing even more problems.
http://news.bbc.co.u...sex/6226285.stm

(bah. the 'anti-all-capitals' filter has butchered my topic title)

[a t o m i c]

The A413 that goes from the A40 to Gerrards Cross sprouted some new illuminated cats eyes last year. Personally, I always thought they were a cheap alternative to street lighting, which that stretch does need. The colourful stretches of lights do indeed show drivers on the 413 where the road goes, but don't improve visibility as such and I'm sure they are are a nice distraction to drivers on the M25 as it crosses over on the flyover.
There are now claims they may be causing even more problems.
http://news.bbc.co.u...sex/6226285.stm

(bah. the 'anti-all-capitals' filter has butchered my topic title)

I think they are an enormous improvement. The Chalfont-bound carriageway is an absolute deathtrap at night or in bad weather, and those catseyes have a made a genuine difference.

[PaulEden]

I think they are an enormous improvement. The Chalfont-bound carriageway is an absolute deathtrap at night or in bad weather, and those catseyes have a made a genuine difference.

It's an improvement, yes, but street lighting would have been better.

[Eaton]

I read an article last night about the same LED Cats Eyes on the A12 in Essex that caused problems for an epileptic girl. She could feel that they were going to trigger a fit and had to look away. Not sure if she was driving or not, but if she had been, then looking away would have defeated the object of making the road safer!!!

[Trevie]

I read an article last night about the same LED Cats Eyes on the A12 in Essex that caused problems for an epileptic girl. She could feel that they were going to trigger a fit and had to look away. Not sure if she was driving or not, but if she had been, then looking away would have defeated the object of making the road safer!!!

If the girl knew she was epileptic, then she should not be driving.

They say they are going to think about changing the distance between the cats eyes. Not sure that will help, I believe its the frequency of the flashes. 100 Cycles per second, I guess you would not be able to see that flashing so quickly, It would be more like a constant dim glow.

I am surprised aircraft haven't tried to land on the road mistaking it for a runway!

[Eaton]

If the girl knew she was epileptic, then she not be driving.

Is this correct?

[Fran]

If the girl knew she was epileptic, then she not be driving.

Is this correct?

I think you only have to have been seizure-free for either 6 months if you're on medication or for 1 year if you're not.

At least, that's what a colleague's husband was told when he had his first fit in his early 40s a few years ago.

If you're the patient, that's an infuriatingly long time, but as a non-patient with negligible knowledge of the condition, it sounds worryingly short.

Anyway, the story originally posted here wasn't clear whether the woman was a driver or merely a passenger. However, if you're driving and someone in the car has an epileptic fit, that must still be dangerously distracting, so certainly the lights should be adjusted if they really are causing these problems.

[PaulEden]

so certainly the lights should be adjusted if they really are causing these problems.

I think that the problem is technical, Fran.
These cats eyes use LED lights, and they have a flicker effect to them. I'm guessing, but flashing lights can be a cause of fits for some sufferers and so it might be that the flicker effect of these is implicated. There is no adjustment available if this is the case.

[Kiff]

I think that the problem is technical, Fran.
These cats eyes use LED lights, and they have a flicker effect to them. I'm guessing, but flashing lights can be a cause of fits for some sufferers and so it might be that the flicker effect of these is implicated. There is no adjustment available if this is the case.

I thought/heard/understood epeleptics that are badly effected by this were not allowed to drive ?

[Eaton]

I thought/heard/understood epeleptics that are badly effected by this were not allowed to drive ?

I don't know much about epilepsy, although I am aware that some people rarely have fits, some people can tell when they are going to have a fit and others, sadly, have many fits a day.

According to: epilepsy.org.uk:

It is possible to apply or reapply for a category A, B, or P licence as long as you have:
been free from seizures completely for one year or only experienced sleep seizures for a period of at least three years and the DVLA/DVLNI is satisfied that as a driver you are not likely to be a source of danger to the public

On a separate note, I knew a man who lost an eye through diabetes and was allowed to drive. He had to have a lesson/s to remind him how to use his mirrors to compensate. It all seemed a bit barmy to me and I was glad when he stopped driving, although for the 12 months that he did drive he didn't have an accident. Whether he caused any was unclear!!!

[Kiff]

Thanks for clarifying that for me Eaton

[Fran]

I knew a man who lost an eye through diabetes and was allowed to drive. He had to have a lesson/s to remind him how to use his mirrors to compensate.

A friend of mine recently lost all sight in one eye and although they mentioned that driving took a bit of getting used to, especially in the dark, they didn't mention having any lessons in how to compensate etc, which did worry me rather, but by the time they mentioned it, they'd been driving one-eyed for a while, so it seemed somewhat irrelevant.

[Kiff]

Aren't 2 eyes were required for correctly judging distances ? (biologically rather than legally)

[Matthew (Admin/MPJ)]

Aren't 2 eyes were required for correctly judging distances ? (biologically rather than legally)

Interesting. Having only one eye, I have never had any problem judging distances.

As someone with a serious vision problem, I often think when I am going about I look whereas other people see. What I mean by this is that I have to think about what I am looking at whereas I believe normal sighted people just see without having to think about it. I wonder if others feel this way and thus if you are a one eyed driver perhaps you concentrate more to make up for the reduced field of vision.

I have not travelled along the A413 lately, but am quite curious to see these L E D s

[Jinni]

It's amazing how the eye-brain link compensates where there is permanent damage.
But flashing light is also a trigger for migraine sufferers - I sometimes have problems on the A404 through Chenies when the sun is low, because of the trees. You just learn to take avoiding action (timing, route) if it is a problem

[Kiff]

Interesting:

http://www.abledata...._Perception.htm

One Eye with Normal Visual Acuity - and The Other Eye Totally Blind
This person, lacking light perception in the poorer eye, sees clearly and without distractions using his one good eye. And, despite being without stereopsis, he quickly learns to accurately and quickly perceive distances of people, objects and vehicles. This truly monocular person usually has an overall field-of-vision width or 140 degrees or more ... more than enough to drive safely.

That's epilepsy and monocular vision's effect on driving covered in 2 days

[a t o m i c]

It's an improvement, yes, but street lighting would have been better.

I find street lighting to be worse than good road design on dual carriageways. They've just cut all of the street lights down on the Westway in W London, and the improvement is amazing - you can now concentrate on car, truck and motorbike lights instead of the unshielded, far too bright sodium lamps. They've been taken down because one was blown over - though I'm sure they'll be replaced in the not-too-distant. Maybe I'm justy weird, but I've been using my sunvisor to shield against streetlamps ever since I've been driving. Try it yourself and you may be surprised how much better you can see without the streetlights flaring in your eyes and spoiling the contrast.

[PaulEden]

Maybe I'm justy weird, but I've been using my sunvisor to shield against streetlamps ever since I've been driving. Try it yourself and you may be surprised how much better you can see without the streetlights flaring in your eyes and spoiling the contrast.

We need no more evidence of your weirdness , but I do agree about contrast. I usually go one step further. I put the sunvisor so it covers the sky, almost to the horizon. Cutting out the bright sections of view greatly improves your ability to see what is happening on the ground, which is of course, where it all happens when you are driving. Other things that help are a good pair of wrap-around polarizing (agh! help David P, should that be polarising?) sunglasses and a clean windscreen.
That said, the Highways Agency is gradually replacing all the yellow street lighting with ones that give a purer white. Having driving under these new lights, I can say that they are much better. Depth perception is better, colour recognition is better, the 'starring' effect on wet windscreens is reduced, the light pollution is reduced too. Everyone is, as they say, a winner.
I still maintain that some pretty LED catseyes are not a full and proper replacement for street lighting though. If the carriageway is such a deathtrap, how have these catseyes improved matters?

[Fran]

polarizing (agh! help David P, should that be polarising?)

Until David P is around, I would say my personal preference is with an S, though many would claim that is less correct, including me! At a gut level, I tend to side with Kent in King Lear, "Thou whoreson Z, thou unnecessary letter" and think the main thing is to be consistent in your approach to such words.

However, the etymology is not necessarily as you might think. People often assume "-ize" is American and hence wrong. This is an understandable, but erroneous belief, reinforced by Word's British English spell checker.

If fact, in standard British dictionaries the preferred spelling of nearly all verbs whose ending rhymes with "eyes", is to spell them with "-ize", although "-ise" is listed as a secondary/less correct alternative. But of course, there are plenty of exceptions that never have a Z, such as advertise, exercise, compromise, revise and many more!

Anyway, for the normal ones with a Z, in most cases, the ending is derived from the Greek "-izo" or the Latin "-izare". People (and even reputable publishers) often follow the French habit of exchanging the Z for an S, regardless of the word's original language. However, Fowler's Modern English Usage, Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, Oxford English Dictionary and The Times (as well as Americans) all favour the original form.

What do you think David P?

[David P]

What do you think David P?

I agree with all you say! (Now, that's not something you hear from me very often).
There are some words, which are not derived from the Latin or Greek, that can never be spelt with a z in British English - advertise, despise, advise, exercise, etc.). It is generally accepted that those that are classically derived may be spelt either way. Therefore, the safest way is to spell all words with an s.
The fact that -ize is usually thought to be an Americanism is, however, sufficient reason for me to always use -ise.

[a t o m i c]

I still maintain that some pretty LED catseyes are not a full and proper replacement for street lighting though. If the carriageway is such a deathtrap, how have these catseyes improved matters?

Oh, it's still a death trap, but at least you can see where the edges of the road are now in the rain with a full-beaming Range Rover coming the other way. The side roads are still horrendous and the drainage is not worthy of the name.

[jkracing]

sorry to bring this up again, ive noticed occasionally the cats eyes are broken for a stretch of the road (not lit up), the problem is that they do not reflect the headlights so you are left with no lights or cats eyes at all and at 70mph this can be a bit off putting if you did not know where the road goes!

[hyposmurf]

sorry to bring this up again, ive noticed occasionally the cats eyes are broken for a stretch of the road (not lit up), the problem is that they do not reflect the headlights so you are left with no lights or cats eyes at all and at 70mph this can be a bit off putting if you did not know where the road goes!

Report it on here, they do eventually pick things up and rectify them.They rely on the public to inform them of road problems.

HOC

[Fran]

I've noticed occasionally the cats eyes are broken for a stretch of the road (not lit up)

I'd reiterate Hyposmurf's suggestion that you report it. Meanwhile, which stretch of the A413 is it?

[PaulEden]

I'd reiterate Hyposmurf's suggestion that you report it. Meanwhile, which stretch of the A413 is it?

I think it's the dark bit as the road goes under the M25.

[Fran]

I think it's the dark bit

I thought it might be.

[PaulEden]

I thought it might be.

If this is the stretch in question, I think it needs proper street lighting. When I used to work shifts, more than once I'd be on that road, late at night in the summer and find deer, rabbits and various wildlife on the road. I had a very close call with a badger once near the M25 flyover. Also, the road floods a lot and extra lighting would really help, as would proper drainage, of course!
If you've ever been on the M25 as you cross the A413, the LED lane markings verge on the distracting. Street lights would be better.

[hyposmurf]

If this is the stretch in question, I think it needs proper street lighting. When I used to work shifts, more than once I'd be on that road, late at night in the summer and find deer, rabbits and various wildlife on the road. I had a very close call with a badger once near the M25 flyover. Also, the road floods a lot and extra lighting would really help, as would proper drainage, of course!
If you've ever been on the M25 as you cross the A413, the LED lane markings verge on the distracting. Street lights would be better.

I've also found it a little unhelpful travelling on the A41 in the early hours when there is very little light.The dual carriageway doenst have lighting either.Travelled from Chesham to Stansted and whilst the M25 is well lit the M11 and A41 rely on cats eyes.Its so much easier driving on a fast road thats well lit.

[PeterC]

I've also found it a little unhelpful travelling on the A41 in the early hours when there is very little light.The dual carriageway doenst have lighting either.Travelled from Chesham to Stansted and whilst the M25 is well lit the M11 and A41 rely on cats eyes.Its so much easier driving on a fast road thats well lit.

On the M25 I hardly notice the transition between the lit and unlit sections.

A41 isn't too bad when I use it at night as it is very quiet and I can usually use full beam.

We could use LED cats eyes in Chesham. Using St Mary's Way on a wet night between the Blucher Street and Broad Street roundabouts the white lines can be pretty well invisible, and the road there is really too narrow for two lanes in each direction.