freshly painted!

[andy_k]

It's only heavy rain or poor visibility when you have to use lights (highway code rule 226) - however, if you've got no lights, I suspect you would be running the risk of driving outside the law if you were on the road and the weather worsened

 

[talbir]

Makes sense, but i didn't know it was law....

17 years since i last read the highway code.....

thanks, learnt something new today !


ta
talbir

 

[Dieselman]

"This inspection applies to: all stop lamps fitted. Stop lamps are not a legal requirement if the vehicle is not fitted with any front or rear position lamps etc. (see 1.1)."

That's for cars older than the ark which don't fall under the construction and use lighting regulations.
All cars since xxxx date need stop lights. He does have a single high level one but I don't think that's legal on it's own.

AFAIK there is no requirement for reverse lights to be working for an MOT but there is for number plate lamps...and he hasn't got those either...

 

[whitenemesis]

That's for cars older than the ark which don't fall under the construction and use lighting regulations.
All cars since xxxx date need stop lights. He does have a single high level one but I don't think that's legal on it's own.

AFAIK there is no requirement for reverse lights to be working for an MOT but there is for number plate lamps...and he hasn't got those either...

There is no mention of a cut-off date in any of the references I've found.

The vehicle is legal only for use in conditions that do not require lights to be displayed i.e. normal daylight operation.

I think one would have a hard time explaining to a traffic officer and I would imagine special insurance would be required

 

[andy_k]

from whitenemesis' link

"This inspection applies to: all vehicles, except those which either have no front or rear position lamps or have such lamps permanently disconnected, painted over or masked that are
. only used during daylight hours, and
. not used at times of seriously reduced visibility.

If this situation occurs, the vehicle presenter should be issued with a VT32 (advisory notice) recording the above. "

no mention of date in that one

however, when it gets to stop lamps it gets slightly more complicated

This inspection applies to all stop lamps fitted.

Vehicles first used before 1 January 1936 are not required to be fitted with a stop lamp.

Stop lamps are not a legal requirement if the vehicle is fitted with neither front nor rear position lamps etc. (see 1.1),
Vehicles first used before 1 January 1971 must be fitted with one stop lamp either on or to the offside of the vehicle centre line.

If such a vehicle has two lamps fitted, it should be treated as a vehicle first used on or after 1 January 1971.

Vehicles first used on or after 1 January 1971 must be fitted with at least two obligatory stop lamps.

again, it says that if no position lamps are fitted then you don't need a brake light.

I had all this with beach buggy I used to own which had no lights fitted and it was issued with a "use during daylight hours only" advisory with each MoT. No problem for me because the only time it was ever on the road was between garage and trailer and trailer to track. However, we had a lot of hassle getting it MoT'd in the first place as every tester told us something different. In the end we had to appeal against a fail notice and get a Department of Transport inspector to check the car over and get it passed (this was a mid 1980s built Q plated vehicle).

Loads of MoT testers seem to disagree on this one

 

[andy_k]

I think one would have a hard time explaining to a traffic officer and I would imagine special insurance would be required

when I insured my buggy, it was just on the normal kit car insurance - no mention of daytime use only. I suspect if I would have been involved in an accident after dark my cover would have been void though.

Yes, I got "stopped" once by a traffic cop when I was driving the car off a trailer and along a short stretch of road. We had a chat, he checked my MoT, got on the radio, scratched his head a few times and agreed it was just about legal

 

[whitenemesis]

when I insured my buggy, it was just on the normal kit car insurance - no mention of daytime use only. I suspect if I would have been involved in an accident after dark my cover would have been void though.

Yes, I got "stopped" once by a traffic cop when I was driving the car off a trailer and along a short stretch of road. We had a chat, he checked my MoT, got on the radio, scratched his head a few times and agreed it was just about legal

He must have been having a good day!

 

[andy_k]

He must have been having a good day!

not really, we used to take the buggies to a patch of private land once every couple of months where we had the owner's permisson to have a bit of fun.

His neighbours were slightly less happy with a dozen cars ripping up his fields and used to complain to the police every time we went up there - hence the traffic copper wasting his day trying to deal with something so low down on his list of priorities that he would rather be in the cafe with his mates than crawling around on the floor/mud checking out "off roaders" to see if they were doing anything illegal.

I think by "just about legal" he meant there was nothing he could really nick me for

 

[Dieselman]

Vehicles first used on or after 1 January 1971 must be fitted with at least two obligatory stop lamps.[/I]

again, it says that if no position lamps are fitted then you don't need a brake light.

But then it fails Construction and Use regs as that car was definately designed with lights.

The ruling is for vehicles designed with no lights.

Your buggy was a Q plate kit car and wasn't designed with lights so didn't require them.
You couldn't put the buggy on the road now as it would fail SVA for no lights.

 

[whitenemesis]

But then it fails Construction and Use regs as that car was definately designed with lights.

The ruling is for vehicles designed with no lights.

Your buggy was a Q plate kit car and wasn't designed with lights so didn't require them.
You couldn't put the buggy on the road now as it would fail SVA for no lights.

I would tend to agree with you Dieselman if I had not read the refs on MoT handbook. It clearly states if the lights are "permanently disconnected" which would suggest they were originally fitted..

 

[andy_k]

But then it fails Construction and Use regs as that car was definately designed with lights.

The ruling is for vehicles designed with no lights.

Your buggy was a Q plate kit car and wasn't designed with lights so didn't require them.
You couldn't put the buggy on the road now as it would fail SVA for no lights.

another quote from the MoT manual. again,no date but clearly identifies cars which have been modified


"This inspection applies to: all vehicles except those used only during the hours of daylight, and which are not fitted with any front or rear position lamps or have such lamps permanently disconnected, painted over or masked If no front or rear position lamps are fitted to a vehicle, there is no legal requirement to fit any other lamp."

I can't comment on the SVA test stipulations as I don't know enough about it but I'll try and ask "a man who does" over the weekend.

there's loads of discussion on this subject on various bike forums and an awful lot of them are running with no lights and MoTs - I seem to remember Graeme's bike was "daytime only" perhaps he can throw some light on this?

 

[MBManInKen]

I seem to remember Graeme's bike was "daytime only" perhaps he can throw some light on this?

Well, not if it wasn't fitted with lights, he can't...

 

[andy_k]

Well, not if it wasn't fitted with lights, he can't...

very helpful - although I did phrase that rather dliberately

 

[whitenemesis]

Well, not if it wasn't fitted with lights, he can't...

Ho! Ho! Ho!

Ooops that's passed now isn't it?

 

[MBManInKen]

very helpful - although I did phrase that rather dliberately

It was too good to resist and anyway Dieselman would have said something if I had not...