"Submarine" lights

[Dis86]

Yes, it's a 2nd mirror, fitted to the left of the standard mirror. It's not like I sit and stare for miles after mile. It's no more of a risk that checking the rear view or wing mirrors.

I'm guessing Dis86 is simply trolling for a reaction which is quite pathetic.

Research says you're wrong I'm afraid...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10479254/Children-in-cars-more-distracting-than-mobiles.html

To quote another page

• Visual inattention (looking away from the road ahead) is the single most significant factor contributing to crash and near-crash involvement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distracted_driving

But yeah...I'm just trolling.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Is this a submarine light thread cos it’s diving into a really dark play devoid of common sense?

I’ve had enough of Dis bile.

 

[Dis86]

Is this a submarine light thread cos it’s diving into a really dark play devoid of common sense?

I’ve had enough of Dis bile.

The bile supported by research and stats?

 

[Resident]

Research says you're wrong I'm afraid...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10479254/Children-in-cars-more-distracting-than-mobiles.html

To quote another page

• Visual inattention (looking away from the road ahead) is the single most significant factor contributing to crash and near-crash involvement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distracted_driving

But yeah...I'm just trolling.

Checking your speed/fuel
Checking your rear view
Checking your side mirrors
Checking your blindspot

All required as part of your driving test and all take your eyes off the road ahead.

Some of us are perfectly competent & confident in that competency in making the decision of when it's safe to look away to complete these tasks.

All you're doing in my opinion is either the trolling or showing that your own driving skills are lacking in the basics.

 

[Dis86]

Checking your speed/fuel
Checking your rear view
Checking your side mirrors
Checking your blindspot

All required as part of your driving test and all take your eyes off the road ahead.

Some of us are perfectly competent & confident in that competency in making the decision of when it's safe to look away to complete these tasks.

All you're doing in my opinion is either the trolling or showing that your own driving skills are lacking in the basics.

Checking your rear view
Checking your side mirrors
Checking your blindspot

We're not just talking about the road ahead. They're all essential parts of driving. Looking at a child isn't.

And tell me, if checking speed and other info isn't a distraction why do HUDs exist?
You know, those things that put that information graphically at eye level...so its more easily read.

And again, I've posted research and stats that back up what I'm saying. Where's your evidence?

 

[Resident]

Checking your rear view
Checking your side mirrors
Checking your blindspot

We're not just talking about the road ahead. They're all essential parts of driving. Looking at a child isn't.

And tell me, if checking speed and other info isn't a distraction why do HUDs exist?
You know, those things that put that information graphically at eye level...so its more easily read.

And again, I've posted research and stats that back up what I'm saying. Where's your evidence?

Research says you're wrong I'm afraid...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10479254/Children-in-cars-more-distracting-than-mobiles.html

To quote another page

• Visual inattention (looking away from the road ahead) is the single most significant factor contributing to crash and near-crash involvement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distracted_driving

But yeah...I'm just trolling.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Contradicting your own quotes. I'd get off to bed mate.

Excluding the last 10 years, how many cars as far back as 1950s have been fitted with HUDs as standard equipment?

If they were that essential they'd be required equipment and testable on MOT.

But I'm sure manufacturers love to waste time and money designing instrument binnacles & their positioning.

Stop talking out of your arse.

 

[Resident]

Double post

 

[Dis86]

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Contradicting your own quotes. I'd get off to bed mate.

Excluding the last 10 years, how many cars as far back as 1950s have been fitted with HUDs as standard equipment?

If they were that essential they'd be required equipment and testable on MOT.

But I'm sure manufacturers love to waste time and money designing instrument binnacles & their positioning.

Stop talking out of your arse.

Remind me...How many cars in the 50s had seatbelts?
Airbags?
Side impact bars?
Laminated safety glass?
Automatic fuel isolation systems?
ABS?
Fire retardant materials?
Rollover protection?

Or...what about active pedestrian protection systems? My old bmw had one. My partners car doesn't. You telling me they don't increase safety? They're not a legal requirement and yet...increase safety.

It's almost as if technology has improved and things have been added to cars because they improve safety. Things like HUDs. There's always a delay between tech appearing and legislation.
Heck we all know headlights are important and yet some cars still don't even have the option of adaptive or LED lights yet manufacturers still spend money on designing light fittings.

Again...i notice you've provided no facts to support your opinion. I've provided sources which are backed by research.
You've provided a hissy fit.

Here's one for you to dwell on...since you've raised what manufacturers do and don't include. Seatbelts were invented in the mid 1800s. They were only compulsory in this country in 1983. Nearly 150 years after their invention. They were an optional extra in a few cars in the late 50s with their benefits recognised even then. 30 years to go from optional extra to law. And your argument is that because something isn't fitted as standard it's not a safety improvement yet you say I'm talking out my arse?

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Put away the glue.

 

[Skully]

Generally with a fork. Do babies use forks? Or are you stupid enough to leave objects within range of a baby in the back of a car that they can put in their mouth?
Or do you employ a modicum of intelligence and think 'hmm, what could I do to reduce the risk of this child choking?'

With your personality you won't need to worry about finding out how children can find things to put in their mouth..

Babies can also choke on their own spit. Or be sick for no reason. Just because you can't imagine choking on anything that wasn't served to you on a plate doesn't mean it doesn't happen

 

[Conscript]

Dis, no one's objecting to your evidence. I think we all accept that children in cars can be distracting, as can anything which isn't directly related to vehicle control. What everyone is perplexed about is you vehemently attacking the OP simply for doing his best to mitigate the very dangers you highlighted in your link, by going to great lengths to ensure he has a mechanism which means checking on the child is no more distracting than the mirror check that most competent drivers will be doing hundreds of times in their drive.

If you accept that children in cars are objectively distracting, but you also accept that transporting them is a necessity, then surely you'd agree that what the OP is doing makes sense?

 

[scaza]

I'd much rather have submarine lights so I can glance at the mirror and see everything's okay, rather than spending more time trying to make out shapes in the dark.

I don't understand the derailment of this thread at all, the OP's idea makes perfect sense to me

 

[Dis86]

Dis, no one's objecting to your evidence. I think we all accept that children in cars can be distracting, as can anything which isn't directly related to vehicle control. What everyone is perplexed about is you vehemently attacking the OP simply for doing his best to mitigate the very dangers you highlighted in your link, by going to great lengths to ensure he has a mechanism which means checking on the child is no more distracting than the mirror check that most competent drivers will be doing hundreds of times in their drive.

If you accept that children in cars are objectively distracting, but you also accept that transporting them is a necessity, then surely you'd agree that what the OP is doing makes sense?

I'll ask again, what is there thats so important to look at?

If there's this risk of choking then remove objects that present the risk. Simple solution.
If we're talking.about choking on vomit - the allegation is that the OP only glances "once in a while" well...what's the point in that? The child doesn't only stand the risk of throwing up once in a while. It's a constant risk. Only check once in a while and the kid could have stopped breathing by that point.
You're also pretty damn likely to hear it happen.

Now...if there's that much concern about needing to get to the child quickly to stop something bad happening why not put them in the front passenger seat? They can easily be seen with peripheral vision. Can be reached quickly in the event of this choking incident. Can even help change songs if they're old enough. Surely a far better solution, no?

 

[Conscript]

I'll ask again, what is there thats so important to look at?

If there's this risk of choking then remove objects that present the risk. Simple solution.
If we're talking.about choking on vomit - the allegation is that the OP only glances "once in a while" well...what's the point in that? The child doesn't only stand the risk of throwing up once in a while. It's a constant risk. Only check once in a while and the kid could have stopped breathing by that point.
You're also pretty damn likely to hear it happen.

Now...if there's that much concern about needing to get to the child quickly to stop something bad happening why not put them in the front passenger seat? They can easily be seen with peripheral vision. Can be reached quickly in the event of this choking incident. Can even help change songs if they're old enough. Surely a far better solution, no?

No idea. I don't have kids. But the OP obviously does have reasons which you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend. So when he asks for some simple advice about how he can do it quickly and safely at a glance, it seems really odd to go off on one about him not paying enough attention to the road. It really seems like your response is just an overreaction in an attempt to generate an argument. If you seriously have such an objection to drivers being able to visually check their children whilst on the move, it seems there's better targets than the man who's going to great lengths to do it as safely as possible.

 

[-westy-]

I'll ask again, what is there thats so important to look at?

Your own damn child

If there's this risk of choking then remove objects that present the risk. Simple solution.
If we're talking.about choking on vomit - the allegation is that the OP only glances "once in a while" well...what's the point in that? The child doesn't only stand the risk of throwing up once in a while. It's a constant risk. Only check once in a while and the kid could have stopped breathing by that point.
You're also pretty damn likely to hear it happen.

Yes, you are likely to hear it happen, a which point you'll need to either turn around and check, or look in the mirror to see if the issue is large enough to need to pull over ASAP. Either way you'll be momentarily be distracted. Some of us don't have the luxury of the other parent being there to "assist".

Now...if there's that much concern about needing to get to the child quickly to stop something bad happening why not put them in the front passenger seat? They can easily be seen with peripheral vision. Can be reached quickly in the event of this choking incident. Can even help change songs if they're old enough. Surely a far better solution, no?

Young children can't go in the front passenger seat.

At this point I genuinely can't believe you're continuing with this. The OP has asked about the legality of installing "submarine" lights so that he can see his child and mitigate the risk of turning his head and looking back; instead using a second mirror. There are times when the whole "Oh you don't have kids so you don't understand" argument is complete bull****, I agree. But there are also times when it's clearly obvious that someone doesn't and has little to no interest in children. This time is one of them.

 

[Dis86]

No idea. I don't have kids. But the OP obviously does have reasons which you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend. So when he asks for some simple advice about how he can do it quickly and safely at a glance, it seems really odd to go off on one about him not paying enough attention to the road. I really don't see your response as anything than an overreaction in an attempt to generate an argument out of nothing. If you seriously have such an objection to drivers being able to visually check their children whilst on the move, it seems there's better targets than the man who's going to great lengths to do it as safely as possible.

Great lengths, putting a few lights in? Just because you're putting some effort in to doing something doesn't mean its right.
Like I've said...even easier than that is to put that kid in the passenger seat if it's so important.
How do you know the OP does have reasons? No reasons have been offered that make any sense. The only reasons are irrational.

Your own damn child



Yes, you are likely to hear it happen, a which point you'll need to either turn around and check, or look in the mirror to see if the issue is large enough to need to pull over ASAP. Either way you'll be momentarily be distracted. Some of us don't have the luxury of the other parent being there to "assist".



Young children can't go in the front passenger seat.

At this point I genuinely can't believe you're continuing with this. The OP has asked about the legality of installing "submarine" lights so that he can see his child and mitigate the risk of turning his head and looking back; instead using a second mirror. There are times when the whole "Oh you don't have kids so you don't understand" argument is complete bull****, I agree. But there are also times when it's clearly obvious that someone doesn't and has little to no interest in children. This time is one of them.

And why can't young children go in the front passenger seat?
I'll give you a hint; they can.

 

[Simon]

Sat next to you is probably more distracting !

 

[-westy-]

And why can't young children go in the front passenger seat?
I'll give you a hint; they can.

They can, it's not illegal.

However, RESEARCH SHOWS (as you seem to be so reliant on it) that children are FAR safer in the rear of the car.

Also, a child in the front seat, where they can potentially interact with the controls of the car, are FAR more likely to be distracting than in the back.

 

[Conscript]

Great lengths, putting a few lights in?

You know exactly what I'm getting at. He's gone to some effort to make minor modifications like installing an extra mirror. I'm not getting into a gish gallop with you over what constitutes "great lengths" just so you can justify further arguments over wording.

Getting back on track... @Resident, have a look on somewhere like ebay or alibaba for things like red footwell lights. They can probably be adapted for what you need fairly easily.

 

[Dis86]

They can, it's not illegal.

However, RESEARCH SHOWS (as you seem to be so reliant on it) that children are FAR safer in the rear of the car.

Also, a child in the front seat, where they can potentially interact with the controls of the car, are FAR more likely to be distracting than in the back.

But we're talking about very young children here who are seemingly at risk of death when left unattended for short periods. How are they going to reach the controls? Especially when strapped in?
Happy to view some sources on the safety if you can provide them.