LED

[Lebro]

Hi Phil.

 

If I point towards the specific sections of the regs which I have found to imply exemptions for vehicles made before 1985, & in some cases 197?

I could be accused of "cherry picking" the bits I want users to read.

It does not take all that long to work out the relevant areas from the indexes near the front (after the definitions), & I would respectfully suggest that anyone interested in this topic should read, & then draw their own conclusions.

 

I have only been interested in the signal lamps fitted to our cars - not headlamps.

 

Cheers

Bob.

[Peter Cobbold]

No-one seems to be considering the insurance and legal laibility of tail/brake lights being too dim. Dimness is all too easitly achieved with poor reflectors, low voltage battery, corroded connectors. Dim is more dangerous I'd have thought than overly bright.

Peter

[RogerH]

Hi Folks,

most, if not all, of what is being put forward appears to be concentrating on the headlights and HID etc bulbs.

 

However most members are concerned with tail/side and brake lights - can this be expanded and clarified.

 

As for a number plate light allowing your insurer to jump ship - that is utter tosh.

 

Roger

[Peter Cobbold]

Hi Phil.

 

If I point towards the specific sections of the regs which I have found to imply exemptions for vehicles made before 1985, & in some cases 197?

I could be accused of "cherry picking" the bits I want users to read.

It does not take all that long to work out the relevant areas from the indexes near the front (after the definitions), & I would respectfully suggest that anyone interested in this topic should read, & then draw their own conclusions.

 

I have only been interested in the signal lamps fitted to our cars - not headlamps.

 

Cheers

Bob.

 

 

Philip.

 

Have you studied the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations, 1989 ?

 

Re exemptions for older cars?

 

Bob.

Schedule 15 allows blindingly bright number plate illumination- no wattage stipulated and no markings prior to '86.

Peter

[RogerH]

Hi Pete,

one of the other regs states that there will be no white light reflected rearwards.

 

Roger

[signalredshaker]

If I were selling LED bulbs, as some are, I would be really concerned that my product was "legal" whatever that means.

If I, as a user of such bulbs, was to be prosecuted for a motoring offence with such bulbs as a factor I would be beating a path to their door quicksticks!

Lets face it, if you're in business and you are responsible this is the first thing you would do before your products go out of the door, as any defective stuff would be on your head. Yes/No?

If that cannot be determined then this stuff shouldn't be on the market. (or so one would think!).

Oh, the worry of it all....

James

[Peter Cobbold]

Hi Pete,

one of the other regs states that there will be no white light reflected rearwards.

 

Roger

Roger, The 6's rear plate is yellow, so there'd be a big yellow rectangle lit up like Blackpool. And maybe there are yellow LEDs? Peter

[Ragtag]

 

I'd be grateful if you will spare me (and others) the search and point us to the specific section(s) of the RVLR 1989 that permits the fitting of LED bulbs to standard Lucas light fittings.

I would agree that LED bulbs, if properly specified, offer significant advantages over filament bulbs but I would like to be able to quote chapter and verse to MOT station, police, insurance company or court if challenged.

 

 

The RVLR 1989 doesn't mention LED bulbs so it can't specifically permit them but it does state quite clearly that cars produced before 1986 are exempt from the rules on filament bubs.

 

See my post #58

 

However all we have to go on is OPINION. If it was a big issue there would have been a court case and ruling by now so until the Government updates the applicable law to be definitive each person must make up their own mind.

[Ragtag]

As for a number plate light allowing your insurer to jump ship - that is utter tosh.

 

No it must be true, Wayne mentioned it in his article so he must know the details of the specific case

[signalredshaker]

This morning I see Better Car Lighting seem to have a "get-out clause" posted on the home page. Its their interpretation of the present situation by the looks of things. It states quite clearly that their LED's are for off road use.

They are offering refunds to all who have bought from them who wish to return the stuff.

 

I am keeping my side and stop/tail on safety grounds as they are safer. However, I'll return the indicators and hazards simply because they don't work well (flasher rate/sounder poor). Shame though.

 

 

http://bettercarlighting.co.uk/

 

James

[RogerH]

Hi James,

it is a kind offer by BCL but if by returning all these what are now totally useless item they go out of business then we will be the poorer.

The LED bulbs cost a few pounds - a pint of beer - but may make the future less safe if we take up their offer.

 

Keep them safe, or better still fit them.

 

Roger

[DRD]

 

I am keeping my side and stop/tail on safety grounds as they are safer. However, I'll return the indicators and hazards simply because they don't work well (flasher rate/sounder poor). Shame though.

 

 

The LED bulbs cost a few pounds - a pint of beer - but may make the future less safe if we take up their offer.

 

Keep them safe, or better still fit them.

 

 

 

James & Roger,

 

Totally agree - btw I see Moss are still selling them and I can't see any disclaimer!

 

http://www.moss-europe.co.uk/led-replacement-bulbs.html

 

Has any classic car owner actually been prosecuted for using them or had their insurance voided? All I've seen are opinions and hearsay.

[signalredshaker]

I think I made it clear from my post that I am a supporter of better safety by retaining those LED's which work and only sending back those that don't.

If that means risking a fine for having these then so be it. I'm pretty sure that not all the safety-critical parts we fit to our classics are "type approved" or whatever.

The link I posted is factual.

James

[RogerH]

...me understand now......

 

Roger

[monty]

I think I made it clear from my post that I am a supporter of better safety by retaining those LED's which work and only sending back those that don't.

If that means risking a fine for having these then so be it. I'm pretty sure that not all the safety-critical parts we fit to our classics are "type approved" or whatever.

The link I posted is factual.

James

 

It is not the fine but the insurance question that is still unanswered really.

[Wayne Scott]

A couple of points I wish to pick up on made here.

 

Firstly, in the article I only researched UK and EU roadworthiness - not other parts of the world. Under the UK Road Traffic Act 1988 it is an offence to supply, fit or use vehicle parts which are not legal.

 

Secondly, the article is NOT THE OPINION OF THE TR REGISTER - just a report back on the results found from weeks of research in response to numerous queries sent in to the office and magazine. That we all don't like the answer to that question is not anything the magazine has control over. To have discovered what it did and then to have kept quiet about it after being asked to investigate, to my mind, would have been the cop out.

 

Until the article was published I also had LED bulbs fitted to my TR for all the same reasons as everyone else!

 

Suppliers were given the right of reply, but either did not respond or were not able to tell us why their bulbs were legal. The nearest was a link to some out of context and out of date legislation.

 

Unless otherwise instructed by Directors, I will continue to accept advertising from Better Car Lighting and anyone else who marks their adverts "not for road use." In fact half of Better Car Lighting's last advert majored on LED light upgrades for interiors with which there are no issues as they are not subject to type approval. They have transformed the visibility of my gauges in my opinion.

 

A post above says:

 

"not all the safety-critical parts we fit to our classics are "type approved"

 

 

- correct because the law does not require them to be. Shockingly, other safety critical components like brakes for example are not subject to type approval!

 

Another member asked if their Halogen bulb headlight upgrades are illegal. They are perfectly legal, because (amongst many other reasons) when you replaced the sealed beam units you would have replaced them with an entire, specifically designed light unit with revised lenses and halogen bulb connections - all type approved and probably from a recognised supplier like Hella or Valeo who lab test all their units with in depth R&D.

 

Got an Old Stock bulb from the 1950s? That is legal also because legislation comes into play that says that before 1974, type approval was not in place on new cars or their components, so therefore the component is exempt.

 

Is the law fair? Maybe not. But when you look at the LEDs around the marketplace in use, although the majority to the untrained eye look to be a good safe improvement, some are so bright they cause dazzle, others are so dim they are worse than filament bulbs and others have a light pattern that is so tiny you can barely make them out. Without a standard for these components to follow - those sometimes dangerous variations are always going to exist.

 

Neither I nor the club are the least bit interested in law enforcement or putting anyone out of business. But I am interested in researching and communicating facts in the club magazine when asked to by members, so that members may make informed decisions for themselves about components. Many commercial magazines have published the same article with the same conclusions for the same reasons. I consulted as many others in the industry as possible so nobody is being asked to "take my word for it."

 

The issue identfied here is that what we need in the marketplace is a type approved complete LED lamp unit for TR 2-8 models. My Land Rover has an aftermarket LED light unit, specifically developed and perfectly legal and replaces the entire rear light cluster with LEDs, all type approved and correct for road use.

 

Rather than turn on our own club magazine, TR Action and the article for it's findings and blaming it for our disagreement with the law - perhaps we should turn our energies towards helping suppliers to engineer an unambiguously legal solution to the problem for TR owners? Is this possible? Perhaps bodies like the SDF could help fund someone to R&D something like this for the rear lights and turn signals on TRs? We all want companies that supply parts to succeed and there must be an opportunity here.

 

Insurers

 

A sample were asked for their take on this. "A car's insurance may be invalidated if the car is deemed unroadworthy." Was the response from all that were prepared to comment.

Fittting parts that are not legal makes a car unroadworthy. An MOT is not proof of roadworthiness. Ambiguous? Yes! Why? I sympathise with them here for this reason:

 

Take the example of legal LED upgrades on the Land Rover above. These were declared to the insurer as a modification. Now, they are type approved full units and perfectly legal. But how is the sales man/lady on the end of the phone supposed to know the difference between those and someone screwing in a non-type approved (therefore illegal) replacement LED adaptation into a filament bulb fixing and unit on a TR? - also declared as a mod to the insurers. He / She is not qualified to know the difference. That is the assessor/engineers job and sadly he doesn't get to look at your car until you have made a claim.

There was no evidence found of any issues , prosecutions or refusals on claims within classic car insurance but the insurers were cagey about discussing anything with me. I did find one instance in modern vehicles but am not allowed to say anymore on that apart from what is already in the article.

 

That said, Derek is seeking clarification from A - Plan (TR Register Insurance) for a clearer answer.

NOTE: ​Ultimately the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts based on individual facts of any particular case. You are therefore advised to consult the relevant legislation and, if necessary, seek independent advice.

[james christie]

Excellent, clear and concise post, Wayne.

Incidentally, when recently booking my 3A in for its biennial French 'Contrôle Technique' - as elsewhere in Europe absurdly, no longer obligatory - I asked my Inspector if I should remove my LED stop & taillights his reply was 'on the contrary leave them in' his view being that anything that improved visibilty was useful.

I'll tackle the insurance problem after the inspection

 

James

[Peter Cobbold]

I recall years ago that the shortage of TR6 rear lenses was due to the exorbitant cost of testing repros for type approval.So retro-fitted LEDs are unlikely ever to be made fully legal. LEDs are getting ever cheaper, its the TA testing that is the barrier.

 

Surely a brighter rear end can be achieved by fitting a type-approved aftermarket fog light....and 'forgetting' to switch it off. An insurer cant be unhappy at a declared fitment of that safety device ....surely? It does not have to be LED to be bright enough to be seen !

 

As for gauges - there was recently a succesfull prosecuiton of a driver with an illuminated gauge mounted on screen pillar that obstrcuted his vision of the person he hit. It was at night and the gauge light was the main factor.

 

Peter

Edited April 25, 2017 by Peter Cobbold

[DaveN]

Interesting point there Peter about the light lenses. I would guess by now most TR's of whatever vintage may have repro light fittings and or lenses! Do these pass legislation? I know my replacement lenses have no markings on them at all... CE or otherwise!

[signalredshaker]

Have the AA or RAC been asked about this I wonder? Would they know?

[Charlie D]

Peter,

 

You say:

 

"...fitting a type-approved aftermarket fog light....and 'forgetting' to switch it off..."

 

Unfortunately, the Highway Code says:

 

“You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced as they dazzle other road users and can obscure your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves.”

 

You can't win...

 

Charlie.

[Deggers]

So, back to Lucas "candle" power we go.

 

(Anybody happen to know the RVLR guidelines about how big I can have the flame?)

 

 

 

Cheers, Deggers

 

 

 

 

 

[TR5tar]

Wayne's post #91 is a reasonable position to take. After all, it is his duty to report what his investigation discovered. We can't shoot the messenger. And as for whether or not to accept ads from LED suppliers in the future, well I can understand why that's a matter for the committee, rather than Wayne.

 

Unfortunate as it may be, we have to accept that using LEDs of the type in question is illegal. Everything I've read on the subject following Wayne's article does back that up. But, as I've said before, if it was just the legality issue then I really couldn't care less, as I think the likelihood of prosecution is so minimal that the advantages of using LEDs far outweigh the risk of it. I'd be surprised to hear that anyone has been prosecuted for using them. So, it's really just the insurance issue we need to be enlightened about. Any news Derek?

 

What is interesting is to see that even firms like Ring supply LED stop/tail lights of the type in question, although hidden away in the smallish print, they also say that they are for "off road use only".

 

Wouldn't it be nice to have a good dose of common sense prevail for once.

[monty]

Wayne's post #91 is a reasonable position to take. After all, it is his duty to report what his investigation discovered. We can't shoot the messenger. And as for whether or not to accept ads from LED suppliers in the future, well I can understand why that's a matter for the committee, rather than Wayne.

 

Unfortunate as it may be, we have to accept that using LEDs of the type in question is illegal. Everything I've read on the subject following Wayne's article does back that up. But, as I've said before, if it was just the legality issue then I really couldn't care less, as I think the likelihood of prosecution is so minimal that the advantages of using LEDs far outweigh the risk of it. I'd be surprised to hear that anyone has been prosecuted for using them. So, it's really just the insurance issue we need to be enlightened about. Any news Derek?

 

What is interesting is to see that even firms like Ring supply LED stop/tail lights of the type in question, although hidden away in the smallish print, they also say that they are for "off road use only".

 

Wouldn't it be nice to have a good dose of common sense prevail for once.

 

Common sense in this Country! You must be joking!

[Peter Cobbold]

Reflective beads anyone? mix into paint for the tail of your TR and be seen ??

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Stationery-Office-Supplies/Liquitex-Professional-Glass-Beads-Effects-Medium-237/B000KNI1IU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493149436&sr=8-1&keywords=reflective+glass+beads

Peter