The state of our roads – what’s happening to Catseyes?

Perhaps they would create a safety hazard to the TT racers? Manx cats have no tails – coincidence?

Highway authorities have a lot of discretion to determine which road safety measures should be adopted for each length of road having regard to a number of factors. Once they have decided on a particular form then, for national consistency purposes, it has to comply with a design manual. Failure to provide any signage or driver guidance where there is a known hazard or a frequent safety problem could be considered negligent but I think it would be difficult to persuade a court that there was a breach of duty. The authorities will always fall back on the convention that a driver must proceed at a speed and with caution within the conditions and visibility prevailing at the time.

I believe the A12 is a trunk road managed by Highways England. It might be worth taking up concerns about deficient safety precautions with the relevant MP’s or with the Regulator, the Office of Rail and Roads.

A quick search produced this newspaper article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11845616/End-of-the-road-for-cats-eyes.html

From this article: “The lights have a battery which is capable of storing up to 200 hours worth of charge, which means they work even on days when there is little light.
They cost £30 and last for between eight and 10 years. By contrast cats eyes cost around £10 and last for between two and three years before they need replacing.” Is this backed up by independent tests? It smells a bit like marketing to me.

Perhaps we need to look for official information about the government’s plans. I have nothing against LED versions of cat’s eyes but would want to see some long-term testing to test durability and overall cost of installation and maintenance.

This does not answer the question posed by C Booth. Why are cat’s eyes being removed?

Clearview claim. for Solarlite LED road studs, up to 240h light output after a 3 hour charge on a sunny day – 100,000 lx. On an overcast day in winter, say 1000 lx max, a full charge would require around 300 hr. An 8 hr charge/day at this level would presumably give around 6h output – not enough to reach midnight. However the average winter level is likely to be much lower than 1000 lx. So the effective operation seems to depend upon quite regular sunny winter days. Does this logic seem reasonable?

Perhaps a Percy eye could be embedded between the LEDs, or they could be surrounded by a reflective panel, to compensate for poor weather?

I read ‘up to’ as ‘less than’. 🙂

The beauty of traditional cat’s eyes is the wiping mechanism. I hope that the LED versions work in the same way. If I was designing LED cat’s eyes I would incorporate a self-wiping mechanism, perhaps using fibre optics linking the LED with the glass ‘eye’. I agree that it would be useful to have a reflective panel.

One problem with solar devices is that dirt or abrasion will decrease the output of the solar panel. Having them on a dirty road surface and periodically being driven on is hardly ideal. Placing the solar panels on poles at the roadside and connecting wires adds to the complexity and a failure could put out a series of LED studs. Compared with other uses of LEDs on our roads, I am not convinced that this would provide good value for money.

I fail to be convinced that there is a superior system to the traditional cat’s eyes where no energy is required, they are self-illuminating from headlight beams, they clean themselves, and are made of heavy-duty materials for a long-life. In this application, solar power and LED’s seem to be solutions looking for a problem to my mind. Obviously traditional cat’s eyes need to be maintained properly. If the steel casing has become dislodged that can involve more work than just drilling a hole and plugging in a modern version [if that is how they are fitted]. I can’t believe that inserting replacement eyes into a traditional cat’s eye is much more complex than attending to a solar powered LED unit that has failed. I suspect that highway engineers have succumbed to marketing hype and wish to show off their modernity by embracing the latest technology even though it is not necessarily an advance in functionality.

As I wrote in a previous comment, there are many sensible applications for permanently-lit lane and space delineators but our rural roads are not one of them.

From the Highway Code:
“Rule 226
You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility improves (see Rule 236).”

All new cars have to be fitted with at least one additional light at both front and rear for use in fog or other bad visibility conditions like heavy rain or spray or smoke, and these lights are of higher intensity than the normal lights. Far from also being “invaluable in fog or heavy rain”, that is in fact the only time when they should be used. Fog lights, whether at the front or rear, should never be used when visibility is clear enough to drive safely, especially at night when other drivers can easily be dazzled. Not only is this dangerous, it’s also illegal, and could result in a non-endorsable Fixed Penalty Notice which carries a £30 fine but no penalty points.

Reading the car handbook is useful but it’s also a good idea to know the Highway Code.

I do wish that all cars were fitted with two rear fog lights. Many cars have only one – on the offside – with a single reversing light in the corresponding position on the nearside. If space is short then the tail lights can be combined with the fog lights using either twin-filament bulbs or some LED arrangement, but this is rarely done.

I don’t think proper lighting on both sides of the car should be compromised in the interests of a styling fashion. Some light clusters look ridiculous nowadays. It must make maintenance and replacement more difficult and a lot more expensive than it needs to be. Reversing lights are not just for alerting other drivers or pedestrians but for providing visibility when reversing into a dark space so I think they need to be on both the nearside and the offside of the vehicle.

I have modified three of my cars to provide a second rear fog light. One required the addition of an extra piece of wire but the others just need a bulb fitted. My present car has one rear fog light and a reversing light at the other side, so I have been denied to opportunity to improve the safety. On the positive side, it does have duplicated tail lights.

I agree with all you say and have had several whinges about daft LED lighting. Used sensibly, it is worthwhile but there is no need to treat cars like Christmas trees. 🙁

Thank goodness that car designers have introduced some excellent safety features.

Drivers who keep their foot on the brake at traffic lights who have large bright clusters of lights on the rear almost blind you sometimes. Don’t know what the model was, but following a car recently with very bright clustered rear lights, it was almost impossible to see the brake lights.

As for reversing lights, I touch the brake pedal to light up the side of my drive when reversing as there is insufficient light from the reversing light.

I suspect that might happen more with autos, where most drivers pause at lights, etc. by simply keeping their foot on the brakes.

Another useful device on my automatic is “auto hold”, optionally selected, that holds the car from creeping or slipping back when temporarily stopped without me doing anything. No bright brake lights there.

The Highway Code informs drivers not to keep their foot on the brake when stationary and to use the handbrake. As Malcolm points out there are alternatives to the traditional handbrake.