Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Here's the Article, LED's Not allowed for headlamps and if used elsewhere (Brakes/Indicators/Etc) they must confirm to (UN) ECE standards 128 & 148 what ever they are?

I have LEDs fitted to my Sunbeam with H4 Halogens on the Headlamps.

I have had numerous comments when on Classic car runs that the brake Lights in particular are much brighter than standard, if it stops someone running into the back of me that can't be bad surely?

Gary 

LED Article.jpg

Edited by Gary Flinn
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

This really is a case of 'The law is an ass'.  LED brake lights and in the case of sidescreen cars side/indicator lights really are a significant safety improvement to which anyone who has tried driving at night on a busy motorway can attest.  You feel insignificant and vulnerable surrounded by stonking great SUV's and need all the illumination you can get to make you visible.

Rgds Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ian Vincent said:

This really is a case of 'The law is an ass'.  LED brake lights and in the case of sidescreen cars side/indicator lights really are a significant safety improvement to which anyone who has tried driving at night on a busy motorway can attest.  You feel insignificant and vulnerable surrounded by stonking great SUV's and need all the illumination you can get to make you visible.

Rgds Ian

As stated in ‘Richard’s Bicycle Book’. http://www.disraeligears.co.uk/Site/Richard_Ballantine_-_Richards_Bicycle_Book.html
when considering lights for your bike, at night you want to look like a demented Christmas Tree.

This suggestion works for drivers of any vehicle with dim lights.

Yes visibility is a potential life saver.   
 


Peter W

Link to post
Share on other sites

I maintain that the article above is incorrect with regard to vehicles older than 1986.

Having trawled through the Vehicle lighting regulations on many occasions, "E" marking only applies to newer vehicles.

The regs mentioned above are here: & I see nothing to prohibit LED bulbs provided they meet required intensity, & colour. (which decent ones will)

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/4-lamps-reflectors-and-electrical-equipment#section-4-2-3

Section 4.1.4 talks about failing LED headlights if replacing Halogen, but we knew about that one which came in on 11 Jan this year.

Bob.

Edited by Lebro
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lebro said:

I maintain that the article above is incorrect with regard to vehicles older than 1986.

The first part re DVSA advice clearly just applies to headlights. Everything after "its also worth noting...." is more of an opinion piece.  The quoted UN regs are still under negotiation and revision afaik and cannot be retrospective anyway.

https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2019/wp29gre/GRE-82-30e.pdf

They are aimed at the design of new cars - not the modification of old ones so probably do not apply to TRs.  It's not even clear whether the regulation has or will be adopted by the UK.  IMHO there is currently no chance of a MOT failure from using led bulbs other than headlamps, not least because the testers do not dismantle anything to see what bulbs are fitted.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem being most owners have ditched the sealed beam headlamps for H4 units then they change that bulb to LED there's the failure because the wording is

existing halogen units shouldn't be converted etc etc as for the "E" marking it doesnt make a difference if its 1920 or 2020 vehicle when you buy a LED headlight bulb to fit and use on the highway it  has to be "E" marked  

Chris  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

what is the basis of the TRR comment in that CCW.

Have they asked and received factual information from the FBHVC 

And if they have, have the FBHVC asked and received factual information from the knowing sources with an explanation for the ambiguity.

And can they state where/what these factual sources are.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I agree with the TRR statement in the magazine article, There are some LED replacement bulbs out there which are a downgrade compared to the original, & some (headlamp) which have appalling beam patterns which would dazzle oncoming vehicle drivers. The trick is to choose ones which are properly designed to do the job.

Bob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents

This is from the Daily Express on line, so, make of it, what you will

I am not quoting word for word.

 

Headlights from halogen to HID or LED, no, no.

An MOT pass or fail related to any other lights is at the discretion of the examiner.

 

So;

Your regular, local, friendly MOT centre could be OK, otherwise, a pass is in the lap of the Gods

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wjgco said:

Gents

This is from the Daily Express on line, so, make of it, what you will

I am not quoting word for word.

 

Headlights from halogen to HID or LED, no, no.

An MOT pass or fail related to any other lights is at the discretion of the examiner.

 

So;

Your regular, local, friendly MOT centre could be OK, otherwise, a pass is in the lap of the Gods

Hi John

A fair amount of ambiguity... The MOT appears to state that Halogen lamps, presumably fitted as original equipment, cannot be converted to HID or LED. Since no TRs and very few classic cars had Halogen fitted as standard, apart from a few examples like the Mk3 GXL Cortina, does that rule apply?

Secondly, I think the concern centres around bulbs ‘not fit for purpose’ which do not comply with the ECE 128 Directive, and many non-compliant bulbs are available in the market. Then, on top of that it’s down to the discretion of the tester? What kind of regulation is that!

Kevin

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, boxofbits said:

Hi John

A fair amount of ambiguity... The MOT appears to state that Halogen lamps, presumably fitted as original equipment, cannot be converted to HID or LED. Since no TRs and very few classic cars had Halogen fitted as standard, apart from a few examples like the Mk3 GXL Cortina, does that rule apply?

 

Kevin

 

my point exactly.  Also, surely the MOT test would winkle out those dodgy light (LED's or otherwise) that fail the beam test.

Wiki suggests that Halogens became widespread in about 1980.

 

There is a clever management tool (certainly used at BA) that rather than create a draconian rule/law simply instate an ambiguous order.

The employees will then turn it into the dracoinian law that you first wanted - they are happy and management get what they want.

This smells just like that.

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RogerH said:

my point exactly.  Also, surely the MOT test would winkle out those dodgy light (LED's or otherwise) that fail the beam test.

Wiki suggests that Halogens became widespread in about 1980.

 

There is a clever management tool (certainly used at BA) that rather than create a draconian rule/law simply instate an ambiguous order.

The employees will then turn it into the dracoinian law that you first wanted - they are happy and management get what they want.

This smells just like that.

Roger

Let us not forget BA like Rover Group, started life as branches of the civil service.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ntc said:

But that was then? I for one would not like to put it to the test 

Hi Neil,

 that is a concern worth thinking about.

However with all the questions being asked regarding the ambiguity of the new rule it would be interesting to see the outcome of a court case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys 

What you need to remember is when you present your vehicle for test it is tested as is, so if it has H4 headlight units fitted and there are LED bulbs in place of H4s then its a failure you cannot say well they dont have them fitted as standard so you cannot fail them sir! its the same as seat belts before September 1965 they are not mandatory but if they are fitted they must be tested in the same way as a post 1965 vehicle, a tester will not overlook them because there not standard fitment they are there so must meet the pass criteria. As for " well the insurance man says yep there fine "  if its illegal to use LED headlamps on the highway no insurance will be valid if there's a serious claim ignorance is not a defence in a court of law. I'm not trying to cross swords with any one I just don't want to see the good members on here being rinsed of good money buying kits that are expensive and end up the wrong side of the law

Chris       

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of chatter about this on the vintage/pre-war car forums particularly because unless you're going to swap the dynamo for an alternator (which isn't allowed under VSCC rules) a lot of owners feel it's much safer to fit nice bright LEDs - even if technically 'illegal' - than to drive round in modern traffic at night with candle-powered filament lamps.

If you do have an MOT the tester isn't going to dismantle the (say) rear light clusters to see if the LEDs are UNECE approval marked or not. Technically you MIGHT I suppose be committing a Road Traffic Act offence but I'd be incredibly surprised to see it get anywhere near a court because the police and CPS are far too busy charging simpler offences that actually affect real world safety like driving on bald tyres or having your exhaust hanging off.

Nigel

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, trchris said:

...if its illegal to use LED headlamps on the highway no insurance will be valid...

No. For an insurer to refuse a claim on grounds of the insured's vehicle being legally non-conforming in some way would only be justified if the non-conformity was material to the circumstances of the claim.

If I had fitted 'illegal' LEDs to the back of my car, and I then pulled out if front of someone at a junction and caused an accident, or vice versa, the condition of my rear lights would be immaterial and so could have no bearing on my insurance.

Some insurers might try it on but the Financial Ombudsman has ruled pretty consistently in favour of the insured in such cases. In at least one case, the fact that the insured car had no MOT was held to be immaterial to the obligation of the insurer to pay out as it hadn't been a factor in the accident.

Nigel

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.