Latest thinking on LED headlights

[Tazio]

I have a 1985 car and as I understand it the new rules apply to cars registered from 1987, I will therefore be putting leds in my headlamps.

[SLR No.77]

Re #50

There's a number of reasons why a car might be road legal but might not pass an MOT, flat spare tyre if you've just had a puncture, empty washer bottle, etc.

The interesting aspect of the new LED bulb ruling is that it's MOT specific, as far as I'm aware it would need LED bulbs to contravene a specific motoring law to void your insurance?

Stu.

[StevehS3]

Link here to guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/special-notice-01-21-headlamp-conversions/mot-special-notice-01-21-headlamp-conversions

2. Changes to current rules

From 22 March 2021, we’re changing these rules so that not all motorcycles and vehicles will fail the MOT test if their halogen headlamp units have been converted to be used with HID or LED bulbs.

Class 1 and 2 motorcycles

Class 1 and 2 motorcycles must not be failed for the defect ‘Light source and lamp not compatible’.

Headlamps must comply with all other requirements of the test and headlamp aim.

The motorcycle inspection manual will be updated shortly, and the ability to select the defect within the MOT testing service will be removed.

Class 3,4,5 and 7 vehicles

For class 3,4,5 and 7 vehicles, the defect ‘Light source and lamp not compatible’ only applies to vehicles first used on or after 1 April 1986.

Should a vehicle be presented for an MOT test with conversions before 1 April 1986 they must not be failed with immediate effect.

Vehicles presented with converted halogen headlamp units first used on or after 1 April 1986 will continue to be failed.

Headlamps must comply with all other requirements of the test and headlamp aim.

The cars and passenger vehicles inspection manual will be updated shortly.

[John Vine]

Re #50:

...would they therefore cause your insurance to be invalidated...

After I fitted LED headlight bulbs, indicators, rear lights and fog, I notified Footman James of the modifications and they accepted them without question. 

JV

[7 wonders of the world]

Switching to led bulbs or clear lens in any light as I have said many time means the light no longer has E mark approval.

As for dazzling causing an accident - entirely possible -  Audi and the like might have some heafty claims heading its way   

[Colin Heseltine]

Its obviously a bit of a minefield.  Good to see FJ accepted them as okay, but was this since the law changed?

Colin

[John Vine]

Re #56:

No. I fitted my LEDs between Dec 2019 and Mar 2020.  I'm going to ask FJ what their current view is.

JV

[GulfSeven]

I would have specced LED headlights when I bought my car, but the option price seemed a bit high. Once the car was delivered I very quickly realised that the standard lights weren't up to the job, so I fitted LED bulbs. Then of course the MOT regs changed, so I bit the bullet and upgraded to full LED headlights.

It's worth noting that the JAL units are actually the same as the Caterham OEM units, but because you're only buying the inners (and you get the club discount) it works out about £130 cheaper than speccing them on the car from new 

 

[StevehS3]

It's worth remembering that regardless of what an insurance company says or a MOT test station says, it doesn't change the law or take any precedence over it - and it doesn't prevent anyone bringing a claim in the event of an accident.

[John Vine]

Re #59:

What exactly is the applicable law here?  Is it Construction and Use, or something else?

JV

[ScottR400D]

Road vehicles lighting regs? 

 

 

[John Vine]

Re #57:

Well, I had a prompt reply from FJ, who said "As the car has a valid MOT there are no insurance implications."

JV

[Colin Heseltine]

My old car has just had its first MOT with its new owner.  Car passed with just advisory on rear antirollbar link ball ends.  BUT they would have failed it for having LED bulbs fitted.  He had to remove them and fit standard H4 bulbs to get the pass.

Colin

[Jonathan Kay]

Thanks, Colin... was that a comment from the tester?

If so I think it might be the first that I've heard since the regulations changed.

Jonathan

[Colin Heseltine]

I will check with my colleague on their exact words, but I think they were not happy at how blinding they were. When I had the car I thought they were great to drive with.

I had to talk to the tester over the phone on my mates behalf to inform him it was a kit, built by me in 1997 prior to SVA and only needed a visual test.  Once informed he found appropriate bit in MOT rule book and was happy.

Colin

[Jonathan Kay]

Thanks

Jonathan

[Golf Juliet Tango]

Thanks Colin. I'll certainly have a set of tungsten lamps to hand.  I'm wondering if it would save potential trouble just to fit them before going and swop back subsequently.   I'm certainly not going to ask in advance; that is confessing you know it ought to fail.

[Roger Ford]

Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 say that a dipped beam headlight should have "an approval mark or British Standards mark" (post 1986 vehicles).

 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/4/made

It doesn't specify whether that mark has to be on the bulb, the outer housing, or both. I would assume that if your reflector/lens has a BS or EU mark then you're covered.

Generally insurance says your vehicle has to be "roadworthy". I don't think there's any legal definition of that term, but there might be some case law that defines it. However, I doubt that "conforms to every sub-regulation relating to construction and use" would be a reasonable definition - if it was a large proportion of the population would probably be driving uninsured.

It's commonly thought that having no MOT invalidates your insurance, but very few insurance policies contain any such clause, so it's unlikely to be true. Being incapable of passing an MOT is even less of a reason - as someone commented earlier there are several situations where your car is perfectly roadworthy and legal, but would still fail an MOT.

[John Vine]

It's commonly thought that having no MOT invalidates your insurance, but very few insurance policies contain any such clause, so it's unlikely to be true.

It seems to be true in my case, as my FJ policy wording includes the following:

General Exceptions

These general exceptions apply to the whole insurance.  Your insurance does not cover the following.

1   Any liability, loss or damage arising while any motor vehicle covered by this insurance is being:

• used for a purpose which it is not insured for;
• driven by, or in the charge of, anyone who is not mentioned in the Certificate of Motor Insurance as a person entitled to drive, or who is not allowed to drive under an Endorsement;
• driven by anyone (including You) who You know is disqualified from driving, or has never held a licence to drive the vehicle, or is prevented by law from having a licence or is not keeping to the terms and conditions of their licence;
• used on any form of race track or circuit, unless You have told Us about this and We have agreed;
• used for any off-road activity, except where the Road Traffic Acts apply;
• kept or used in an unsafe or unroadworthy condition or without a current MOT certificate (if one is needed);
• used while carrying an unsafe load;
• used while carrying more passengers than it is designed to carry;
• used to carry more than eight passengers (including the driver);
• used in or on restricted areas of airports or airfields. We will not pay for any claim concerning an aircraft within the boundary of the airport or airfield.

JV

 

[SLR No.77]

The devil is in the detail!

From John's policy wording, it's possible to not have an MOT and still be insured, the key words being "if one is needed". A car only needs an MOT to be driven on the public highway therefore if the MOT has run out the vehicle is still insured but not for road use.

Additionally, the MOT certificate is valid for 12 months unless a re-test is done, irrespective of what happens to the vehicle in the subsequent 12 months, hence the "kept or used in an unsafe or unroadworthy condition" effectively over-ruling the validity of the MOT if an accident was caused due to, for example, a bald tyre. The policy is not stating that the vehicle must be capable of passing an MOT for the duartion of the policy.  There's a lot of input goes into policy wording and it's rare that it wouldn't state exactly what is intended,

So if your washer bottle runs out of fluid or your spare tyre is flat, you're still insured!

Stu.

[John Vine]

Thanks, Stu.

I confess to finding policy wording anything but clear.  Last year, I emailed FJ on the question of exclusions:

I have some queries about the wording of my policy regarding exceptions, and I'm hoping you can clarify things for me.

Under "General Exceptions", the policy states:

"These general exceptions apply to the whole insurance.

Your insurance does not cover the following.

1 Any liability, loss or damage arising while any motor vehicle covered by this insurance is being:

...kept or used in an unsafe or unroadworthy condition or without a current MOT certificate (if one is needed);"

I'm not sure what the highlighted terms may mean in practice (especially regarding fire and theft), so I'd be most grateful if you could clarify the following:

1. I'm assuming that "used" means "driven on the public highway", but what does "kept" mean? For example, if the car is in my garage while I carry out, say, a brake overhaul (in order to render the car both safe and roadworthy), is it still covered?

2. I'm assuming that "needed" means where a current MOT certificate is required by law. As far as I can see, that would apply only when the car is used on the public highway (excluding, of course, a journey to a pre-booked MOT appointment). Is that correct?

This was their reply:

RE #1:

 

The vehicle would be covered whilst being “used”.  In the sense of “kept” this is where you are driving your vehicle when you are aware it is in an unsafe condition.

 

RE #2: 

Yes this is correct, it will be cover [sic] for a journey to a pre-booked MOT appointment.

Make of that what you will.  I still don't find it particularly clear.

JV

[SLR No.77]

Common sense would suggest that "kept" refers to the whole period of the policy therefore "unsafe" can mean different things at different times. Obviously replacing brakes whilst the vehicle is off the road being maintained would not be considered unsafe, whereas a petrol leak could, therefore to maintain insurance cover it would be your responsibility to ensure the petrol leak does not cause an unsafe condition.

Also be aware that the insurers invest a lot of time and expense in getting policy wording correct and it is the insurer that pays out if there's a claim. A broker does not.

Stu.

[Roger Ford]

It should also be noted that the wording above says:

"Your insurance does not cover the following.

1   Any liability, loss or damage arising while any motor vehicle covered by this insurance is being: ... "

My understanding of that is the insurance wouldn't cover it, in the sense that they would refuse to pay you, and if they had to pay out to a third party they would attempt to reclaim the amount from you. HOWEVER, they presumably could NOT refuse to pay a third party just because your MOT had expired, and as far as Her Majesty's Plod is concerned, you still have an insurance policy that covers the requirements of the road traffic act. So whereas you might be on the hook for a large payout to a third party in the case of an accident, you would not be guilty of the offence of driving without insurance.

Armchair lawyer stuff, I'm afraid. I have no legal training (not that basic legal training guarantees a proper understanding of the law, in my experience).

[StevehS3]

Having hit a huge pot hole in the dark the other day I wondered if there were any more experiences or products to consider?
I try to keep my car to standard spec and legal but driving in the dark with the huge pot holes is awful and quite off-putting.

[Lizzybus]

An insurance company cannot invalidate the "Third Party Liability" part of a policy .Injured 3rd parties would be paid out .But if your car had no MOT , not roadworthy you would get diddly squat .