Fog Lights - Colour and MOT
Discussion
Puddenchucker said:
Lonely said:
Puddenchucker said:
C350Akra said:
OllieJolly said:
Come on, fog lights are hardly a safety requirement.
If they were, they'd be mandatory for all vehicles and not an option.
They are a legal requirement from 2018.If they were, they'd be mandatory for all vehicles and not an option.
(Rear fog(s) have been manatory since about 1979)
However, I wasn't aware they were now an MOT testable item for 2018 vehicles onwards. So thanks for that.
C350Akra said:
Puddenchucker said:
Lonely said:
Puddenchucker said:
C350Akra said:
OllieJolly said:
Come on, fog lights are hardly a safety requirement.
If they were, they'd be mandatory for all vehicles and not an option.
They are a legal requirement from 2018.If they were, they'd be mandatory for all vehicles and not an option.
(Rear fog(s) have been manatory since about 1979)
However, I wasn't aware they were now an MOT testable item for 2018 vehicles onwards. So thanks for that.
Lord Marylebone said:
MrBig said:
I can't find it now, but there was a thread on here a couple of years back that debunked the 'only white/amber lights on the front of a vehicle concept'.
Presumably there are certain criteria that make a fog lamp as opposed a running light?
There are two separate issues here.Presumably there are certain criteria that make a fog lamp as opposed a running light?
1) You can have additional lamps/lights on the from of a vehicle that can be any colour except red, and they cannot be flashing. Hence why you see the front of trucks covered in lights that are blue, green, purple, white, amber etc. This is perfectly legal as they are additional lights and the colours of the factory fitted lamps have been left standard.
2) You cannot change the colour of any of the standard/factory white lamps/bulbs that are fitted to the front of a car to anything other than yellow. So you cannot change sidelight bulbs to blue or green for example, but you could have yellow or white bulbs in the front.
To sum up:
The OP can have white or yellow fog lamps, or white or yellow headlights, provided that whatever he does to create the yellow effect does not dim the light output of the lamps.
If he wants other colours of lights on the front of his car, he would have to attach other additional lights to accommodate those colours, but even so, he cannot have red.
(Just to be clear - I am not an expert on vehicle lighting rules - This is just what I have read elsewhere on the internet and on PH previously)
Edited by Lord Marylebone on Wednesday 24th February 11:09
I know there is at least one poster on PH who doesn't agree with my view on this but as far as I'm concerned we're going to have to agree to disagree and leave it to a court if ever it came to that.
It concerns point 1) above the fitting of additional coloured lights, eg the fitting of coloured washer jets and the fairground fairy light display on some trucks.
The lighting regs allow for the fitting of additional optional position lights per RVLR Schedule 2 Part II, and the only thing which applies to anything other than motor cycles is contained within para 3 as follows.
"3. In the case of any other vehicle the only requirement prescribed by these Regulations in respect of any which are fitted is that in paragraph 7 of Part I."
and Para7 in part 1 says
"7. Colour: White or, if incorporated in a headlamp which is capable of emitting only a yellow light, yellow."
Thus there are no restrictions on number, position, size of illuminated area, angles of visibility, apart from some catch alls hidden in other parts of the regs, eg Parts I of Schedules 2 to 5, 7, 9 to 13 and 17 to 21 to the extent specified in Parts II of those Schedules.
So the question now comes are these additional multicoloured fairy lights position lights or not. My opinion, though it would be ultimately for a court to decide, is that if these lights are so wired that they come on automatically when the obligatory position lights are illuminated then they become optional position lights and thus subject to Section II para 3, ie white only except etc. If wired and switched completely separately to the obligatory position lights then they're just fairground fairy lights and pretty much anything goes legally, however different people will have various views on the aesthetics.
king Christ, that's so stupid that it shouldn't need to be proscribed.FiF said:
So the question now comes are these additional multicoloured fairy lights position lights or not. My opinion, though it would be ultimately for a court to decide, is that if these lights are so wired that they come on automatically when the obligatory position lights are illuminated then they become optional position lights and thus subject to Section II para 3, ie white only except etc. If wired and switched completely separately to the obligatory position lights then they're just fairground fairy lights and pretty much anything goes legally, however different people will have various views on the aesthetics.
The definition of what constitutes a front position lamp is in the regs, it makes no reference to the wiring/switching of such lamps.Front position lamps are defined in the Regs as:-
RVLR 1989 reg 3 said:
A lamp used to indicate the presence and width of a vehicle when viewed from the front.
Can you explain how, for example, washer jet lights which clearly don't indicate the width of a vehicle satisfy the above definition? Cat
Cat said:
FiF said:
So the question now comes are these additional multicoloured fairy lights position lights or not. My opinion, though it would be ultimately for a court to decide, is that if these lights are so wired that they come on automatically when the obligatory position lights are illuminated then they become optional position lights and thus subject to Section II para 3, ie white only except etc. If wired and switched completely separately to the obligatory position lights then they're just fairground fairy lights and pretty much anything goes legally, however different people will have various views on the aesthetics.
The definition of what constitutes a front position lamp is in the regs, it makes no reference to the wiring/switching of such lamps.Front position lamps are defined in the Regs as:-
RVLR 1989 reg 3 said:
A lamp used to indicate the presence and width of a vehicle when viewed from the front.
Can you explain how, for example, washer jet lights which clearly don't indicate the width of a vehicle satisfy the above definition? Cat
As above, previously left it as disagreeing on this issue, can't recall now, maybe you didn't agree to disagree, but that would be typical of the way you operate, which is why you're ignored on so many threads.
To cover old ground, additional lights on the front certainly add to indicating the presence of a vehicle, and with the multiple fairground fairy lights on heavies certainly fully meets that definition of indicating the presence and width (including size btw) of a vehicle, so that sentence which is only contained within the interpretation section is met. You might disagree, probably will given previous form.
Moving on, as to relying on that single sentence, you then go on to completely ignore that in the particular schedule dedicated to front position lamps, it gives no requirements other than the colour for optional lamps. Indeed it specifically goes to the trouble of saying that all the other requirements in the schedule for obligatory lamps do not apply to the optional lamps. Thus it specifically excludes provision in respect of numbers; position-(longitudinal, lateral - eg maximum distance from vehicle side, minimum distance of lamp separation, vertical - eg max and min permitted heights above the road); alignment; need for approval marks; angles of visibility; size; wattage; intensity; connection; tell tales. ALL those are specifically removed except for colour other than catch-alls as previously mentioned from other schedules.
Quite correct to say no provision is included about connection or switching, hence the clear statement that my opinion is merely that, an opinion, and it would be for a court to decide if that opinion is correct. However it is an honestly held opinion, one presented with straightforward and clear reasoning supported by the regs as written.
Begins to wonder if you've got fancy washer jets.
Anyway that's it, no doubt last word will come from you, it's what you do, time and again, until folks think stuff this and wander off. Out.
Are these the sort of foglights that come on when you are cornering or reversing, or being a Ford is it a very basic car. Perhaps the OP hasn't noticed.
If they do then they need to be legal (white).
It is the OP's choice if he wishes to attract the wrong kind of attention (plod) or, potentialy, invalidate the insurance for damage to his car.
If they do then they need to be legal (white).
It is the OP's choice if he wishes to attract the wrong kind of attention (plod) or, potentialy, invalidate the insurance for damage to his car.
Cfnteabag said:
There seems to be a common theme of people thinking it's the MOT that is the mark of road legalness, I might be wrong here but surely its construction and use regs that define wether something is legal or not and is what the police use of they want to pull you over and inspect your vehicle?
If the police are going after you on construction and use regs then you have deffo upset them. I'm not up to date with the penalties involved these days but I do know that intelligence will be shared about the vehicle and probably a marker placed on the system .Regular interaction with plod will surely follow and will certainly rapidly become tedious.
.IJWS15 said:
Are these the sort of foglights that come on when you are cornering or reversing,.
Aren't those driving lights?Foglights being specifically designed to refract light completely differently to all other lights and controlled by a switch, so they can be used only when the conditions require them.
.
Hol said:
IJWS15 said:
Are these the sort of foglights that come on when you are cornering or reversing,.
Aren't those driving lights?Foglights being specifically designed to refract light completely differently to all other lights and controlled by a switch, so they can be used only when the conditions require them.
.
(I doubt that driving lights would be legal, as cornering lamps, as they are generally wired to the dipswitch so a not to dazzel other road users)
FiF said:
As above, previously left it as disagreeing on this issue, can't recall now, maybe you didn't agree to disagree, but that would be typical of the way you operate, which is why you're ignored on so many threads.
FiF said:
To cover old ground, additional lights on the front certainly add to indicating the presence of a vehicle, and with the multiple fairground fairy lights on heavies certainly fully meets that definition of indicating the presence and width (including size btw) of a vehicle, so that sentence which is only contained within the interpretation section is met. You might disagree, probably will given previous form.
Suggesting that the coloured lights displayed within the cabs of lorries are used to indicate the width of the vehicle even though they are nowhere near the extremeties of the vehicle is fanciful. If smacks of someone desperately trying to justify an unjustifiable position.FiF said:
Moving on, as to relying on that single sentence, you then go on to completely ignore that in the particular schedule dedicated to front position lamps, it gives no requirements other than the colour for optional lamps. Indeed it specifically goes to the trouble of saying that all the other requirements in the schedule for obligatory lamps do not apply to the optional lamps. Thus it specifically excludes provision in respect of numbers; position-(longitudinal, lateral - eg maximum distance from vehicle side, minimum distance of lamp separation, vertical - eg max and min permitted heights above the road); alignment; need for approval marks; angles of visibility; size; wattage; intensity; connection; tell tales. ALL those are specifically removed except for colour other than catch-alls as previously mentioned from other schedules.
Of course I've ignored the schedule relating to front position lamps - for the those schedules to have any relevance the lamps in question need to satisfy the definition of front position lamps i.e be used to indicate the presence and width of a vehicle, washer jet lights, lorry cab lights etc. clearly aren't used to indicate the width of the vehicle as they are located nowhere near the edges of it.FiF said:
Quite correct to say no provision is included about connection or switching, hence the clear statement that my opinion is merely that, an opinion, and it would be for a court to decide if that opinion is correct. However it is an honestly held opinion, one presented with straightforward and clear reasoning supported by the regs as written.
You've stated that it is your opinion but you've not presented any reasoning behind it and it's certainly not supported by anything in the lighting regs.Given that the last time this was discussed it was your opinion that additional lights fitted to the front vehicles must be front position lamps as they weren't any of the other types of lamp defined in the Regs, apparently completely ignorant of the fact that there is no requirement that only lights specifed in regs be fitted to vehicles, I'm inclined to not give too much weight to your opinion.
Cat
Edited by Cat on Friday 26th February 18:55
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff