Ask away and I'll see if I can help.

Tim

I thought there might be one or two comments. With regards to the law, you
are right that it generally applies to everyone, but as with all things,
there are exemptions. In this case, you should be aware that the law (Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 1994) makes 3 specific exemptions for vehicles being used for
police, fire and ambulance purposes. They are: 1. speed limits; 2. red
traffic lights and 3. keep left arrows. For instance, section 87 of the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states;  "No stautory provisions imposing a
speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when
it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the
observance of the provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle
for the purpose of which it is being used on that occasion". Hence fire
engines, ambulances and police vehicles are allowed to break the speed limit
if the circumstances warrant it.

However, none of the exemptions absolve emergency service drivers from
breaches of driving standards. In many ways, emergency services drivers are
treated more severely under those circumstances than others as the
organisation will come under close scrutiny.

It's a fair point - but in all walks of life you have good and bad. I would
suggest that while there may be some or even many drivers of emergency
vehicles that you consider drive dangerously, the majority do not. As a
police driver, I am constantly aware of the fact that I must set a good
standard to those around about and believe that, by and large, I do. I'm not
perfect, by any means, but I try and I would sooner take a couple of minutes
longer responding to an incident than put peoples lives at risk.

Tim

Andy,

The legal issues have been discussed here before. I believe the concensus
was that although technically illegal to make *any* changes to original
lighting specs, in practice a prosecution would be unlikely. These
restrictions also apply to various other types of alternative bulb such as
"All-weather" (which I've found useless BTW). I'm not aware of any
prosecutions in my local area.

I've driven for about 100,000 miles using this power of bulb (though not
always at night!) without a problem. I wonder if others with relevant legal
expertise might comment?

Perhaps "young lad" and "Mini" may have been more the reason for your
previous difficulty ;-)

Chris.

Michael,

I don't understand how the *intensity* of the light source would cause a
dazzle problem - surely it's to do with the alignment? With due respect to
any other posters, the type of person who would normally fit uprated bulbs
may not be so careful about making sure their headlamp alignment is correct.

My daily commute is a 28 mile round trip. I work shifts, so at least one
trip a day is after dark. I never get oncoming vehicles flashing headlights
at me, neither do the drivers of vehicles I follow cover their interior
mirrors. The three vehicles on which I have used 80/100 Watt bulbs have had
a total of six MOT's without comment of lighting problems so my assumption
must be that I am not causing dazzle to others.

I should also mention that a number of vehicle which have 55/60 Watt bulbs
in the *cooking* version have 80/100 Watt bulbs specified for the
performance derivatives. This can be verified from the listings in Halfords
ect.

As someone else in this thread mentioned, the biggest annoyance to me on
lighting is caused by those who use fog lights indiscriminately. I have
mentioned this to a number of people at work, and not one of them understood
the laws on this.

With regard to your final comment, my driving experience dates back to 1962
so comparing then to now I certainly don't feel alone on the road ;-)

Chris.