Just seen my first one eyed LED DRL car. As my father would have said, something else to go wrong...
Might be an easy fix, but since I'm not even sure if having a DRL out is an offence, I can't imagine a terribly high priority being attached to fixing it.
|
I think you can turn them off on my car. Never tried to but I seem to remember something in sub menu, sub section, sub ancillary, sub something or other where it was possible. Don't know if it's legal either. Anyway, not bovvered.
;-)
|
I think you might be able to turn them off on the BMW as well - after wading through a dozen "Settings" menu ! Have a look later when it's back from its travels.
I think DRLs are for idle cusses. Pollute the street scene they do, make bikes even less visible. Some idiots think that having them on at the front abdicates responsibility from illuminating the rear of their cars...
Good letter in the month's Advanced Driver magazine, from a fighter pilot. The summary was you can't cure stupid.
|
I think DRLs ... make bikes even less visible.
If that's biker code for 'make it more risky for bikes to take liberties in traffic' then my thought is 'tough t****'. Bikers who respect the principles of traffic flow and safe spacing will be as easy to see as always; those who don't are a nuisance and a menace.
I think DRLs work well for their intended purpose of distinguishing a vehicle that's moving or about to move from one that's parked. Makes a big difference when negotiating a long, straight road full of parked cars, as I routinely do.
The critical development was dedicated, shaped DRLs, which (a) are not too bright, and (b) have scale and can therefore help with judging distance. Dipped headlights in daylight have the opposite effect and turn the car into a blob of light that could be almost anywhere. I really like the BMW ring DRLs; pity the newer models have boring blocks instead.
Not a substitute for brains, though; we can agree on that much.
|
|
Rather a sweeping statement though WDB...:-).it's smaller bikes that I worry about though, especially in urban areas, not people who ride them for fun but many for commutes etc. I try to stay safe by road positioning and try to respect spaces etc...as you describe. Bikes with lights used to stand out in any given street-scene but if uncle John Cobly and all has them, they'll disappear into the clutter..off to check the Bimmer's menus now !
Last edited by: R.P. on Wed 30 Mar 16 at 20:42
|
Bikes are easy to miss is because
- they have a small visual angle
- when an object is in your peripheral vision, and not changing apparent position, it is difficult to see anyway. Inconveniently, moving objects that stay on the same bearing are also on a collision course.
- In a scan, unless you look at the actual point where the bike is, you are relying on peripheral vision.
High contrast, e.g. a light, increases the chances of a pick up, but if the light is one of several then the bike might still not be seen.
I have seen no experimental data to support this view but I am reasonably sure that DRLs on everything will make bikes harder to pick up, regardless of how they are driven.
Not to say that they don't have benefits; at least those who don't put their lights on in fog can now be seen, at least from ahead. On the negative side, It seems likely that there are also people who would have put their lights on, but now don't think they need to, and consequently show no rear lights.
My car doesn't have DRLs but after a couple of recent frights - in bright conditions where somebody has driven directly at me or into my path - I now use headlights much more in daylight than I did before.
|
|
Very sensible. My perception is that there has, in recent years, been a downward turn in driving standards....I expect something on every commute these days, and I'm not disappointed. I use a Go-Pro on my bike now and have just bought a Roadhawk HD2 for the car. I have a small cheap NextBase dash cam which will now be facing rearwards. It really is getting worse.
|
DRL's are not part of an MOT test, so I can't see how it can be an offence if one (or both) aren't working.
mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/common-mistakes-made-by-mot-testers/
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 30 Mar 16 at 14:04
|
I believe you can turn off DRLs
Optional, as per the indicators for us BMW drivers
|
>> I believe you can turn off DRLs
I think after a certain year (2013 ish?) it was no longer an option on vehicles to be able to switch them off. Could be wrong though.
|
|
I'll check the Bimmer when it comes home. It's a 2015. They're not awful smiley things either.
|
|
The off function may have been removed when they became a legal requirement on all new cars in Europe.
|
Not sure about maintenance - but they may fall into the failure to maintain lights under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regs.
|
|
My dad's 1970 Volvo 140 had lights that came on automatically whenever the engine was on. People used to flash their headlights at him to "tell" him. He would always give them a cheery salute...
|
|
As I've said before, I'm firmly anti DRLs. Forget about motorbikes, what about cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians?
|
|
I'm firmly "couldn't care less" I just try to avoid driving into things in general whether they're lit up or not.
|
In the recent spell of dark cloud and rain for days on end, an awful lot of motorists were driving on DRLs only.
Almost invisible cars at the rear in heavy spray.
I take it DRL means Dumb Robotic Loon.
Last edited by: madf on Wed 30 Mar 16 at 14:47
|
>> My dad's 1970 Volvo 140 had lights that came on automatically whenever the engine was
>> on. People used to flash their headlights at him to "tell" him. He would always
>> give them a cheery salute...
>>
Like the 240.
They operate at the rear too, which seems obvious.
You can turn them off by taking the fuse out.
|
|
Road traffic "accidents" are not usually caused by inanimate objects, they are caused by people not paying attention.
|
|
Gone through the settings menu on the BMW (May 2015) doesn't look as if you can turn them off. Mind you they are quite inoffensive, not ludicrous grinning chav things.
|
Road traffic "accidents" are not usually caused by inanimate objects, they are caused by people not paying attention.
Indeed, most of them are a deliberateness... OK so the perpetrator(s) have not actually thought, "cool, lets hit that car/bike/stationary object that has leapt out in front of me". But sometimes, you'd be forgiven for thinking that was their train of thought.
|
www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/holyhead-restaurant-owner-lucky-escape-11116295
This is what's being reported locally tonight....! Figure that one out....matt black car in matt black town doesn't help any.
|
The majority are just too bright. Iirc the worse is, I think a small Nissan something with horizontal drl's, very low and close to each other and they are completely blinding. Some Citroens and Hondas.
What happened to the construction and Use regulations. Fog lights in daylight illegal. Drl's not so. Typical carp.
|
...it gets even more confusing when you have a vehicle like my motorhome motorcaravan campervan, which is built on the latest Ducato.
Now DRLs are compulsory, there is a Fiat (factory) option of either standard (W21/5W bulbed, of which I assume the 21W is DRL and the 5W side/parking, and at no time are both illuminated) or LED DRLs laid "stlylishly" around the bottom of the headlamp unit.
Mine has the standard option, which I'm quite happy about. They are considerably less dazzling than LEDs, the bulbs are easily obtainable and replaceable, and replacement headlamp units are a fraction of the cost of those incorporating LED DRLs.
Why bother with two options? I'm very fond of it, but it's only a flippin' van!
|
|
My 2014 old model van has the DRL's on top of the cab. They can be de-activated through the menu thingy. My main worry is people don't bother with obligatory lights and are unlit to the rear and on a dual carriageway that is downright dangerous.
|
I think you're drawing a false causative link. There have always been dopey gits who have neglected to put lights on at dusk, under streetlamps, in the rain or whatever. I haven't noticed an increase in this since DRLs became prevalent.
It's auto-lights that people rely on too heavily, regarding them as an alternative to thinking about what lights they ought to show.
|
|
You may be right I suppose, lights should be programmed to come on with the wipers. There's a definite dependance on auto lights as you mention though. Had them on last few cars. Always overriden to manual or always on
|
I'm not convinced that driving standards have fallen noticeably in recent times. What is certain is that there are simply more vehicles out there.
Simplistic view I know but I really do just always take the position that the "others" will do something unpredictable, aggressive or just plain stupid at any moment and try to keep myself with options to mitigate that.
|
>> There's a definite dependance on auto lights .... Always overriden to manual or always on
I also only use the old manual control.
|
It's a useful piece of idiot-proofing. I use Auto instead of the 0 position in mine, particularly because my drive home begins in a brightly-lit car park and it is possible to forget, but (if I don't forget!) I do turn it to On.
The BMW system does seem pretty well linked to the wiper sensors, to the extent that I seldom look down thinking 'about time I put some lights on' and don't see the little green LED showing that the system is there ahead of me. The LEC has a higher threshold, meaning that I usually intervene before it does.
|
|
The auto lights on my Yaris have adjustable sensitivity, I have it set at one step higher than default. There is always the manual override though. :-)
|
|
The DRL's on my 2012 Polo are dipped headlights, i turn the sidelights on instead. Someone i know had his Volvo DRL's turned off at a main agent, cost him £40. That was several years ago.
|
|
DRL's on the 13 reg Berlingo can be turned off via the control menu. They're LEDs and bright enough to mislead one that lights are on. Not done it myself but was surprised how much light they cast when turning it round at a relative's isolated place nr Lake Vyrnwy
|
|
Who remembers the very short lived "dim dip" fitted to cars in around 1987/8 ?
|
>> Who remembers the very short lived "dim dip" fitted to cars in around 1987/8 ?
Yep, had it fitted to one of my Cavaliers. The control unit packed up after a while though.
Damn good idea though, and it stopped the idiots driving around on sidelights.
|
My last Vitara had dim-dip. Came on with the side lights. A much better option for city driving.
The Jowett has them...but only because I've fitted sealed beam headlights with pilot bulbs which show up the whole of the reflector. The old sidelights are now indicators.
|
Dim Dip was a Canadian system IIRC correctly.Banned by Europe - brilliant pre-DRL system where even the dimmest driver had a modicum of visibility after dark.
I love the stylized lights that certain premium brands have adopted - The new Volvo have a "Thor's Hammer" design.....lovely.
|
>> >> Who remembers the very short lived "dim dip" fitted to cars in around 1987/8
>> ?
Later Volvo 240s have it (1990-93). The rear sidelights are on all the time the engine is running, and the headlights run on low power giving a fairly diffused glow.
They don't dazzle, are very visible, and do give a modicum of illumination for the driver in marginal lighting situations or until you remember to turn the headlights on properly.
|
|
Yes. Very subtle once set up. Annoyance with the latest car is the sidelight tell-tale. Bright as a bright thing even in my favourite dimmed down cluster...damn you BMW an idiot light if there ever was one.
|
|
So that's why BMWs rarely use lights when they should. A mystery solved. Is the indicator repeat annoying also? :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 31 Mar 16 at 18:02
|
|
Strangely enough the "BMW" system on this latest one is not as sensitive as the others I've owned...even the MINI which has the same system as the BMWs is better. As mentioned light switch is left in the always on position...I forget when I actually last used it.
|
|
They may not be an MOT check item but I understood that all fitted lights must be in a working condition with intact lenses. A traffic policeman outranks a MOT tester. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 29 Nov 17 at 18:43
|
>> They may not be an MOT check item but I understood that all fitted lights
>> must be in a working condition with intact lenses.
Nope, only mandatory lights have to work.
eg, front fog lights aren't mandatory and therefore won't fail an MOT if they're not working. They would however fail if they posed a danger to the public by having broken glass for example.
Even reverse lights aren't a testable item.
Nor are DRL's. Daytime running lights are not tested as part of the MOT test. However the lights must function normally at night if they are part of your headlights/side lights.
Here is what is actually tested.
www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/m4i00000101.htm
Lamps, Reflectors and Electrical Equipment
1.1 Front and Rear Position Lamps, End Outline Marker Lamps, Registration Plate Lamps 1.2 Stop Lamps
1.3 Rear Fog Lamps
1.4 Direction Indicators and Hazard Warning Lamps
1.5 Rear Reflectors
1.6 Audible Warning (Horn)
1.7 Headlamps
1.8 Headlamp Aim
1.9 Electrical Wiring and Battery
>> A traffic policeman outranks a MOT tester.
That's as maybe, but all plod would do is request you visit a garage and verify the fault has been rectified and report back with 'x' number of days. The garage would say that DRL's are not part of an MOT test and therefore not breaking any laws.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 29 Nov 17 at 20:12
|
>> Nope, only mandatory lights have to work.
>>
DRLs are mandatory lights on new vehicles.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 29 Nov 17 at 20:39
|
But they're not part of an MOT test, other than they must function normally at night if they are part of your headlights/side lights. i.e. they must dim down.
The police rarely know the difference between front fog lights and DRLs, hence why you get so many plonkers these days driving around with they're front fogs on thinking they look cool.
Plus when was the last time you actually saw the police stop anyone for having a light out?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 30 Nov 17 at 02:17
|
I aggree that the MOT has not kept up with the DRL legislation.
They are mandatory on any car submitted for European type approval after the 7th of February 2011. It is not a requirement to retro fit them to cars approved before this date.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 30 Nov 17 at 08:30
|
DRL"s are considered Obligatory Lights (note capitals) under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regs of 1989. If fitted ( and they must be fitted to certain classes of vehicles of a certain year) they must work in matching pairs like any other Obligatory Light. Offence is complete if the lights are failed to to maintained. Statutory defence is that the defect occurred on the journey. Police have discretion to deal with a Vehicle Defect Rectification scheme (as outlined in ACPO guidelines) or by Non-Endorsable Fixed Penalty, or of course by report for summons, or indeed by arrest if SOCA conditions apply.
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/3/made
That's the reference to the legislation that trumps an MoT inspector rules.
|
|
So if a DLR failed on a journey and you were stopped - what can you actually do? Or what should you even do if you notice it's failed during a journey? Mine are LED based so there's no bulb to change but that's not to say they can't fail. Mine would need to be booked into a dealer to look at.
|
On the Berlingo they're a bright LED string under the main headlamp. They go off when headlights go on and (IIRC) can be switched off from a menu acessed via the ICE display.
So I'd either drive on dips or turn them off until they can be fettled. Or for ever if fettling was silly money.
|
On my previous Passat you could turn of DLR in a menu somewhere - they were just regular bulbs.
DLR on the Audi A3 and this Skoda Superb look better and more noticeable because they are LED strips. Well they are if you have the Xenon HID lights.
www.rushlane.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-Skoda-Superb-Review-11.jpg
My lights also illuminate those 'eyelash' looking bits in the headlight unit.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 30 Nov 17 at 18:40
|
|
You could disable them on my last two 3 Series. This one won't. Neither will the MX5.
|
No option is the infotainment system on this Superb or the A3 either. Both can be disabled with VCDS I would think. But they serve a purpose and are a good thing from a safety perspective.
On the Superb (not the lower level models with halogen lights), the same strip for DLR is also the indicator light.
|
|
The law was written long before cars became complicated bits of electronic engineering. The defence has its roots in the Road Traffic Act 1968 (And probably versions of various Road Safety laws in the 30s and 50s) loads of case-law about it.
|
>> Plus when was the last time you actually saw the police stop anyone for having
>> a light out?
>>
Usually around this time of year when they're trying to push thier drink drive arrest quota.
That's what irks me so much about both the police and DVSA; lorry and bus drivers get fined for one side marker bulb out, car drivers go around for weeks or months with one headlight and get away with it.
|
|
There are no police round here to stop anyone.
|
|
There is that. Just driven home in rush hour traffic from Chester. Loads of one eyed monsters roaming front and rear - no Police (seems they were all busy dealing with a nasty accident elsewhere)
|
Oddly enough there were lots about on the M4 tonight down Port Talbot way. A convoy of five riot vans, headed by a motorcycle and with a traffic car bringing up the rear; no blues and two's though. Plus a couple of traffic cars in panic mode heading t'other way but I suspeced unrelated.
No football, royal visits or anything else that I know of so can only suspect that some poor sucker in Swansea has been watching TV without a licence.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Thu 30 Nov 17 at 19:12
|
>> Just seen my first one eyed LED DRL car
I saw one last week as well. The unusual aspect was that as it approached me the driver indicated left; the non-functioning LED DRL then lit up at half-brightness, as it's supposed to do to make the indicator more visible. Likely to be some kind of (probably expensive) DRL ECU fault rather than a simple wiring issue.
|
|
Some may remember that the LED rear light cluster packed in on my 08 BMW a few years ago. The car was low mileage and 4 years old then. They're not indestructible.
|
My eldest bought a Volvo 480 in the early 90s . He loved it apart from the "always on" sidelights at the front.
The 1st owner had looked after the car very well but he must have had something about buying the correct bulbs,. Normal side lights have the pins at the same level - the Volvo bulbs were off set and expensive.
Obviously not wishing to line Volvo's pockets he had forced normal bulbs in and nackered the fitments - maybe this explained bulbs blowing weekly.
Being OCD he was always buying & fitting bulbs - the Volvo loom & bulb holders were not cheap but solved the problem
|
|
I was equally as OCD about BMW OE bulbs for the GS' and RT that I've owned.Apparently the bikes' loom and ECU is sensitive to the proper bulbs being used causing the ECU to throw up false bulb blown messages. The latest GS has LED indicators and brake lights, predictably it blew a dipped beam bulb, not being close enough to a Motorrad outlet to swap it out with an OE bulb, I stuck a cheap Halfords one in, bearing in mind that that light is always on when the engine is running not had a problem.
|
The DRL on one side of my Kia had failed. Speaking with dealer, they wanted to inspect and it said it is a common problem and once they confirm as failure they can order new light clusters under warranty.
However, due to high number of backlog cases, parts will take 2-3 months to arrive!!
I understand DRL is not MOT tested, so can I ask dealer to disable the DRL on other side too (if possible) so that my car doesn't look like one eyed monster?
DRL = another solution looking for problems
|
|
Why not just take the bulb out the working side? Presuming it's a bulb and not LED.
|
It is LED strip, part of headlight assembly.
|
|
Surely one DLR is better than none. After all you are using them in the day so your car can be seen with or w without them.
|
|
I would argue not. Car's running in twilight on one sided DRL can cause confusion for other road users. I think these DRLs are awful for a lot of reasons. Far more light clutter on the streets so that bikes and cycles disappear from view making them far more vulnerable. Buffoons who drive on front DLRs so that their rear are unlit etc
|
Totally agree RP!
Best to disconnect the good DRL or use headlights all the time until other DRL can be fixed.
|
You shouldnt be running your car on DLRs in twilight whether you have one or two. They are DAYTIME running lights. As long as the OP observes this rule I don't see what the problem is.
An objection to DLRs in principle is neihter here nor there.
|
The objection to one DLR in daylight is very valid.
At a quick glance it will look like a motorbike of cycle and could cause an accident.
Disconnect the other one while you have to wait.
Pat
|
No it isn't. It is illogical
The purpose of DLRS of so that cars may be noticed in daylight
Answer this simple question.
Is a car in broad daylight more noticeable with one light or none?
The answer can only be either more or the same It cannot be less. If the OP is really concerned the answer is surely to drive on dipped headlights.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 29 Nov 17 at 18:56
|
>>Answer this simple question.<<
Easily from the standpoint of someone who has spent 30 years driving lorries on the road all day every day.
When you are busy looking out for everyone else on the road one light registers.....as a cyclist or a motorcyclists.
Don't ask me why, but I can assure you it does, and further than that I'm not prepared to argue the point as I've been the one almost caught out by it.
Pat
|
>> I'm not prepared to argue the point as I've been the one almost caught out
>>
Nor evidently to answer the question I posed.
|
I have mixed views on the things. On the one hand it's all too easy at dusk to have the dRL's on and forget to switch the main lights on, thus having no rear illumination; on the other hand DRL's are a vast improvement on the nefarious and IMO dangerous practice of driving on sidelights only.
My reasoning for the latter is that side lights (or, as the Americans quite correctly call them, parking lights) are nowadays often incorporated into a large lens, making the already feeble glow even less effective.
It is high time the law wasa brought up to date regarding the correct use of lights, and driving on side lights only made illegal as it is in America. With modern batteries and charging systems, the old excuse of "saving the battery" is completely redundant and has been for a generation or more.
|
|
Dim-dip was a great innovation, it is a pity it disappeared. DRLs I hate.
|
|
DRLs are just improved dim dip lights which were almost useless in bright light or spray.
|
>> DRLs are just improved dim dip lights which were almost useless in bright light or spray.
My LED strips around the outside of the light unit are pretty bright. Also used for the indicators (colour different of course).
|
>> Dim-dip was a great innovation, it is a pity it disappeared. DRLs I hate.
Dim was right, the Ford ones looked like flickering coach lamps.
|
>> I have mixed views on the things. On the one hand it's all too easy
>> at dusk to have the dRL's on and forget to switch the main lights on,
>> thus having no rear illumination; on the other hand DRL's are a vast improvement on
>> the nefarious and IMO dangerous practice of driving on sidelights only.
>>
My car has auto lights which work well without intervention except in fog or spray with high ambient light levels. The headlights come on (and DRLs go off) a bit earlier than I would switch them but it is not a problem, the main lights also come on with the wipers.
|
|
On most cars it's probably possible to turn on rear lights when DRLs on.... on VW group cars you'd use VCDS.
|
>>
>> >> I'm not prepared to argue the point as I've been the one almost caught
>> out
>> >>
>>
>> Nor evidently to answer the question I posed.
>>
Perhaps an irrelevant question as you would use headlights as an alternative to the DRLs.
|
>>Is a car in broad daylight more noticeable with one light or none?<<
It is more noticeable but as what?
A car, I don't think so.
I thought I made that clear but never mind!
Pat
|
|
Just been reading the November edition of Car Mechanics magazine, the article about not failures includes a statement that if more than 50% of the LEDs in any unit are not working it is a MOT fail.
|
|
...the 50% rule has been a long-term one, LED or not.....
|
So a more than 50% failed DRL is a mot fail?
|
>> So a more than 50% failed DRL is a mot fail?
>>
>>
....no....
...as set out up-thread, they are not tested at MOT.
|
|
Given that LEDs are in clusters not visible to the eye behind diffused lenses, what do they do, take them apart and count them?
|
|
If you dont know how can anyone else?
|
>> Given that LEDs are in clusters not visible to the eye behind diffused lenses, what
>> do they do, take them apart and count them?
Not quite the same for high level brake lights though. Usually you can see the strip of LEDs and spot which one(s) aren't working and base your 50% failure observation on that. Some earlier ones had individual bulbs.
Yes I know we're talking about DRL's, but IIRC the 50% rule was primarily for high level brake lights.
|
|
All the lights On my Merc are LEDs. Must be the thing now I suppose.
|
|
Took car to dealer. They confirmed it would be warranty claim (common problem with 2013-14 Ceed) but parts are on back order and can take up to 2 months for to be delivered =:-o. They can't (or won't) disable DRL on other side. The root cause for this problem is a faulty circuit board for DRL, which Kia has fixed from 2015 onward.
Last edited by: movilogo on Sun 3 Dec 17 at 09:21
|
>> The root cause for this problem is a faulty circuit board for DRL, which Kia has fixed
>> from 2015 onward.
I bet there's a man in a shed somewhere who'll repair it for a couple of quid.
|
MoT aside, it appears to be illegal to use a vehicle with a running light that is not in working order. Disabling the other one won't make it legal either.
E&OE. I'm not a lawyer of any kind.
Regulation 23 of The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989:
Maintenance of lamps, reflectors, rear markings and devices
23.—(1) No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road a vehicle unless every lamp, reflector, rear marking and device to which this paragraph applies is in good working order and, in the case of a lamp, clean.
(2) Save as provided in paragraph (3), paragraph (1) applies to–
(a)every–
(i)front position lamp,
(ii)rear position lamp,
(iii)headlamp,
(iv)rear registration plate lamp,
(v)side marker lamp,
(vi)end-outline marker lamp,
(vii)rear fog lamp,
(viii)retro reflector, and
(ix)rear marking of a type specified in Part I of Section B of Schedule 19,with which the vehicle is required by these Regulations to be fitted; and
(b)every–
(i)stop lamp,
(ii)direction indicator,
(iii)running lamp,
(iv)dim-dip device,
(v)headlamp levelling device, and
(vi)hazard warning signal device,with which it is fitted.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply to–
(a)a rear fog lamp on a vehicle which is part of a combination of vehicles any part of which is not required by these Regulations to be fitted with a rear fog lamp;
(b)a rear fog lamp on a motor vehicle drawing a trailer;
(c)a defective lamp, reflector, dim-dip device or headlamp levelling device on a vehicle in use on a road between sunrise and sunset, if any such lamp, reflector or device became defective during the journey which is in progress or if arrangements have been made to remedy the defect with all reasonable expedition; or
(d)a lamp, reflector, dim-dip device, headlamp levelling device or rear marking on a combat vehicle in use on a road between sunrise and sunset.
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/made
|
How can a legislation written in 1989 take care of day time running lights? It is not tested in MOT. Not all lights have to work either. Offside rear fog lamps are not MOT tested (that's why many cars have it on one side only).
I am now switching on headlamp most of the time anyway (unless it is very bright daylight - rare at this time of year). DRL intensity is reduced when headlamps are on.
|
>> How can a legislation written in 1989 take care of day time running lights? It
>> is not tested in MOT. Not all lights have to work either. Offside rear fog
>> lamps are not MOT tested (that's why many cars have it on one side only).
Don't shoot the messenger!
I did say I'm not a lawyer, but as you can see, 'running lamps' are explicitly mentioned and some cars have had them since at least 1989.
Also, there is a distinction between what is MoT tested and what the law holds an individual responsible for. Rear fog lamps which you mention, if present, must be clean and in good working order. Front fog lamps apparently do not have to be. 'Running lamps' do.
Maybe there is other legislation or I am just wrong, read it for yourself. And your chance of actually getting done must be nil unless you actually point it out to a police officer, poke him in the eye, question his parentage, and then stamp on his foot.
The reason I mentioned it is that if you are jerked around by the dealer, you can point out to them that they are actually expecting you to use the car illegally.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 5 Dec 17 at 13:48
|
>> Not all lights have to work either. Offside rear fog lamps are not MOT tested (that's why many cars have it on one side only).
I think you mean nearside isn't a testable item.
|
>> I think you mean nearside
Yes, my mistake. It has to be either on driver's side or middle.
>> Also, there is a distinction between what is MoT tested and what the law holds an individual responsible for.
This is a new thing to me. I assumed non MOT test items are not legal requirement.
Last edited by: movilogo on Tue 5 Dec 17 at 14:57
|
>> This is a new thing to me. I assumed non MOT test items are not legal requirement.
>>
>>
I think the catch all is the fact that it is always the drivers responsibility to ensure the vehicle is roadworthy, regardless of any MOT inspection.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 5 Dec 17 at 15:31
|
Failed daytime running lights - Runfer D'Hills
