MM
There are two separate issues here.
Any Law/regulation has to be enforceable ie if the pilot contravenes that regulation that contravention has to be provable in a court of law.
Taking an existing situation may show my point.
RVR is provable cloud base is not! You may take an ILS where the cloudbase is given as overcast 100 feet.
Legally you can fly that approach! You may still be in IMC at minima of say 200 feet but as long as the pilot says he was visual at 200 feet there is nothing the authorities can do.
RVR is provable and the pilot cannot even take the approach if the RVR is quoted below minima.
So cloudbase reports are unreliable and hence legally not enforceable and we are not even looking at airports which cannot give weather information.
Remaining clear of cloud is different but a cloudbase given as an altitude cannot be enforcable.
You are legal at 1499 feet illegal at 1501?? and how do you prove that in court? So the cloudbase restrictions in this case have to be guidlines only.
The second point is VFR at night? Fuji makes the point that in reality pilots do no more than night circuits close to the airport? and do not use the night rating in anger without full instrument ability!
Ok why not put that into law. A pilot cannot fly at night without a minimum of an IMCR unless he remains below 2000 feet and within a set radius of the centre of the airport? Provable by radar traces.
Having flown a lot at night and having seen how easy it is to become IMC without knowing about it IMO it is madness to allow night flight without full instrument flying capability.
But that just my opinion
The UK night rating has always been a case of putting the cart before the horse. The horse has to be instrument flight capability including approaches before anyone is allowed to use the night rating in anger anything less is foolhardy.
Pace