so are these legal or not?

[Westheath]

Been doing a lot of night driving in this rain of late and in the country lanes of Kent
some oncoming traffic is constantly flashed at because they are dangerously blinding the oncoming traffic,
they respond by flashing their main beam to indicate they are on dipped beam,
which then results in an almost white out in the reflection off the rain soaked road and surrounding rain fall.

Its dangerous and needs sorting out, even in streets where pavement/road lighting is provided
you are blinded by oncoming cars with standard or non standard lights.

Why do you need to flood light the road ahead so much or is it a cosmetic thing ?


http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/4636.html












.

 

[Yugguy]

Ah well.

I'm going to get quotes to fit the fog surround drls and led h11s in the fogs themselves.

That and the led numberplate bulbs should satisfy my inner chav, er, modder...

 

[EmilysDad]

...
http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/4636.html


.

especially true when halfwits drive with them on at dusk/dawn when they should have lights on. I've seen loads of cars recently driving on just DRL which as the article says, are just too bright in anything other than daylight.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Ah well.

I'm going to get quotes to fit the fog surround drls and led h11s in the fogs themselves.

That and the led numberplate bulbs should satisfy my inner chav, er, modder...

Well don't be a stranger if you do, I'm considering doing this on the 211. Plenty of space in the foglamp grille for it.

I MIGHT be tempted to try similar on the 215 if I can be tempted to be brave enough, but I know how tight the space is behind the bumper. Those headlamp cleaners take up quite a bit of room, bulky piping.

 

[kid-jensen]

For the police to prosecute you after an accident, they would have to prove that your non-approved headlights were a cause of that accident.

You're not likely to drive into someone or something that you can actually see...

 

[Craiglxviii]

For the police to prosecute you after an accident, they would have to prove that your non-approved headlights were a cause of that accident.

You're not likely to drive into someone or something that you can actually see...

See V6 Matty's post about investigating lighting as cause of an accident. You ARE likely to be either unable to see something due to being blinded, or to miss something that's in a dark spot in your beam pattern because you've fitted a lighting source into a reflector not designed for it.

All there needs to be is an allegation from one party that he/she couldn't see due to being blinded by the other party, for the lighting sources in both cars to be investigated.

Don't think it doesn't happen, it does and all the more so now that RTI forensics are a working-level thing.

You are defending a completely, directly illegal position. The Government has put out its own official view in the DoT document. It couldn't be any clearer- well, it could if you found yourself defending a manslaughter charge in court I suppose.

 

[LostKiwi]

For the police to prosecute you after an accident, they would have to prove that your non-approved headlights were a cause of that accident.

You're not likely to drive into someone or something that you can actually see...

If want to willingly break the law then go ahead. Just don't try to justify it as its highly unlikely a court would agree with you if it were brought to court.

The law is clear.

As for not driving into something you can actually see... how about if they drive into you because your lights prevented them seeing?

 

[kid-jensen]

Lost Kiwi's points:

If want to willingly break the law then go ahead. Just don't try to justify it as its highly unlikely a court would agree with you if it were brought to court.

Thanks for the permission. Time to live in the real world here. With brighter lights (assuming they comply with the MOT-approved lighting pattern - which I've said form the beginning) you are MUCH less likely to drive into something that you would miss with the standard glowworm-level offerings. The Law would never get involved.

The law is clear.

Not relevant for the reasons I've given before.

As for not driving into something you can actually see... how about if they drive into you because your lights prevented them seeing?

Nobody, not even the brain-dead drivers I encounter everyday, is going to be dazzled by an oncoming car with MOT-sanctioned baam patterns..

 

[LostKiwi]

Lost Kiwi's points:

If want to willingly break the law then go ahead. Just don't try to justify it as its highly unlikely a court would agree with you if it were brought to court.

Thanks for the permission. Time to live in the real world here. With brighter lights (assuming they comply with the MOT-approved lighting pattern - which I've said form the beginning) you are MUCH less likely to drive into something that you would miss with the standard glowworm-level offerings. The Law would never get involved.

The law is clear.

Not relevant for the reasons I've given before.

As for not driving into something you can actually see... how about if they drive into you because your lights prevented them seeing?

Nobody, not even the brain-dead drivers I encounter everyday, is going to be dazzled by an oncoming car with MOT-sanctioned baam patterns..

I'll keep saying it in the hope that one day you'll understand.
Its illegal. Your justifications as to why you can break the law don't change that. Simples.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Lost Kiwi's points:

If want to willingly break the law then go ahead. Just don't try to justify it as its highly unlikely a court would agree with you if it were brought to court.

Thanks for the permission. Time to live in the real world here. With brighter lights (assuming they comply with the MOT-approved lighting pattern - which I've said form the beginning) you are MUCH less likely to drive into something that you would miss with the standard glowworm-level offerings.

The law is clear.

Not relevant for the reasons I've given before.

As for not driving into something you can actually see... how about if they drive into you because your lights prevented them seeing?

Nobody, not even the brain-dead drivers I encounter everyday, is going to be dazzled by an oncoming car with MOT-sanctioned baam patterns..

So the law isn't relevant? Interesting. Maybe someone who doesn't believe in seatbelts could make the same argument then. Or pedestrian impact.

As far as the MoT test for beam pattern, the test looks at beam ALIGNMENT. Not pattern, shape or flux density variation/ wave interference; they are all fixed by design. I've never seen the MoT test do a radial spectroscopy analysis of my car's headlights, or an FEA CAD study. They just point them at a target and make sure the bright spot is where it should be. That test does not look at the shape of the beam when viewed from above, or rather the three-dimensional volume of illumination and how that overlays on the road and is visualized by other users, it cannot do that due to the nature of the test.

Paul, very sorry, you are arguing an indefensible point. By the same token we should be allowed to fit aftermarket airbag units ("these work quicker"), use different coloured license plates ("I like black on red!") and black out front windows and windscreens ("I don't like people looking in!"). All of those actions are also illegal and for good reason, why do you think the car's lighting units are any different?

 

[kid-jensen]

Craig, Thanks for the reasoned reply..

Of course I wouldn't leave off my sealtbelt or put in different airbags. This is all about improving an inadequate design without spending more money that the value of car justifies. Money is ALWAYS a factor, even to the Law.

As you say, the MOT pattern covers alignment. Therefore oncoming drivers will not be dazzled. The inadequacies of the beam WITHIN the MOT-approved region, or as viewed from above are for me to judge. If I can see better, I'll use them, if not, I'll try something else.

I understand as someone in the industry, you can't condone non-Legal light mods, but other Members here should support me for making the effort to find an affordable solution to a design inadequacy.

The Legal issues should be stated (and I have) but Legal headlights do not allow me to drive safely at any (Legal) speed.

 

[PovertySpec]

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/4636.html

Interesting comments under that article:

"Interesting comments provided by concerned motorists! I am one of the ever decreasing few who attend road traffic crashes and since 2011, I can say that neither DRLs or HIDs have been an issue in any of the incidents that I have investigated. G. McArthur. Roads Policing, Sussex"

"I have just checked MAST Professional (which contains contributory factor data for police-attended collisions) and can say there has been no change in the proportion of 'dazzling headlight' collisions since 2006. In every year since 2006 (apart from 2010), collisions involving the contributory factor 705 Dazzling Headlights represented 0.3% of all police-attended injury collisions (it was 0.2% in 2010). Tanya Fosdick, Road Safety Analysis"

Given the number of rsoles driving round with blue headlights, stick on coloured LED lights, one light on, one off, fogs on (usually one broken) I think it's safe to say that one could ignore the dramatic Judge Dredd style "THE LAW IS THE LAW" nonsense and do what you like.

Plod doesn't seem to give a hoot.

 

[LostKiwi]

Craig, Thanks for the reasoned reply..

Of course I wouldn't leave off my sealtbelt or put in different airbags. This is all about improving an inadequate design without spending more money that the value of car justifies. Money is ALWAYS a factor, even to the Law.

The design is not inadequate. Its is sufficient for purpose.The whole point of E-Marks is to ensure a minimum standard is met.

As you say, the MOT pattern covers alignment. Therefore oncoming drivers will not be dazzled. The inadequacies of the beam WITHIN the MOT-approved region, or as viewed from above are for me to judge. If I can see better, I'll use them, if not, I'll try something else.

Beam alignment is NOT the same as beam pattern. Craig explained it very well. Re-read what he said.
Beam setters only look at the bright spot and where it falls. They cannot look at the scatter or glare resulting from the interaction of the light source and reflector. This is precisely what Craig explained.

I understand as someone in the industry, you can't condone non-Legal light mods, but other Members here should support me for making the effort to find an affordable solution to a design inadequacy.

Seriously? You expect us to thank you for encouraging others to break the law, perform modifications that impact on other road users safety?
Where are your qualifications that enable you to make the decisions as to what is safe and what is not or what is inadequate and what is not?
I think I'd rather leave those decisons to qualified experts and not to some bloke on the internet.

The Legal issues should be stated (and I have) but Legal headlights do not allow me to drive safely at any (Legal) speed.

So you can't drive safely at 10 mph at night? Or 20 mph? or 30 mph? Maybe we should ask the police to send you to Specsavers for an eye test.

The vast majority of the population don't seem to have any issues with the headlights fitted to their car, nor with maintaining progress in the dark.

 

[Craiglxviii]

To be fair to those calling for sticking an HiD lamp in their halogen reflector units, I would say this:

Have you tried using the latest generation of ultra-bright halogen lamps? They claim 130% improvement over OEM types, but that is a "safe" number. The reality is more like 150% from the data I have seen.

Examples- both purely personal. I once owned a Golf MK.IV and an Audi A3 8P (Mk.II Facelift) both of which had famously sh1te headlamps. The Golf was far better than the A3 but still not "good". On both of these cars I replaced the standard H7 lamps with ultra-bright types, Osram Nightbreakers on the Golf and Nightbreaker Unlimited on the A3, and they totally transformed the night drive.

Now, both of these lamps shared one or more characteristics with those on the W163 MLs, the Golf most especially. That is, they're ****** small for the size of the car. The reflectors are not wide and the lamp units are not very deep in aspect ratio. The A3 by the way had wide lamps that were quite shallow. This configuration reduces the favourable interaction conditions inside the reflector and lens assembly to allow for a true uniform beam pattern to develop. Basically, it puts the right shape of light onto the road (regulations met) but isn't too good at translating lamp output into road illumination (actual performance).

When cars are designed, the first thing that poor, benighted lamp design engineers get is a styling surface (3D shape) to fit their performance into. So the first thing they take is, what can we do with this dog's breakfast to meet Legals? Once they achieve that they then ask, what can we do with this refined dog's breakfast to achieve Performance? One doesn't always follow the other and the W163 comes into that camp quite firmly from the shape of it.

The other thing to consider is that HiD is by no means a magic wand, just because you change the illumination source doesn't automatically give better light output. Remember, HiD lamps were primarily introduced as a means of reducing the lamp volume for a given performance level, they do not improve performance in and of themselves. So for that analysis I can point to two identical-in-all-other-respects lamps, they are fitted to a well-known Japanese car currently on our roads. One has an HiD source, t'other an H7 source. The actual performance (illumination e.g. flux density as measured on the road surface) is nigh-on identical.

 

[Yugguy]

I'm the first to admit that part of my wanting HIDs is for the aesthetic.

But on the performance side I don't want my light to go further, I just want it sharper and a little brighter. I have Philips Extreme in but they are still dull at the edges.

That said I don't believe that a properly fitted and aligned aftermarket HID is any worse than an OEM. I've been dazzled by plenty of oem cars, 4x4s are especially good at boiling your retinas.

 

[Craiglxviii]

I'm the first to admit that part of my wanting HIDs is for the aesthetic.

But on the performance side I don't want my light to go further, I just want it sharper and a little brighter. I have Philips Extreme in but they are still dull at the edges.
That said I don't believe that a properly fitted and aligned aftermarket HID is any worse than an OEM. I've been dazzled by plenty of oem cars, 4x4s are especially good at boiling your retinas.

(my bold )This is all to do with lens/ reflector interaction and nothing to do with the light source.

You won't change beam definition, at all, ever, with your existing headlamp units- no matter the light source.

 

[LostKiwi]

I'm the first to admit that part of my wanting HIDs is for the aesthetic.

But on the performance side I don't want my light to go further, I just want it sharper and a little brighter. I have Philips Extreme in but they are still dull at the edges.

That said I don't believe that a properly fitted and aligned aftermarket HID is any worse than an OEM. I've been dazzled by plenty of oem cars, 4x4s are especially good at boiling your retinas.

How are your lenses? If they are at all hazed, yellowed or pitted that will be the cause.

 

[LostKiwi]

How about these Yugguy?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2-X-Merce...846110?hash=item3f524ef5de:g:Uc8AAOSwa-dWtRS3

Or if you need pre-facelift:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DAYLIGHT-...854549?hash=item2eef464195:g:I2sAAOSwubRXM-8c

(Just make sure they're RHD!)

 

[Yugguy]

(my bold )This is all to do with lens/ reflector interaction and nothing to do with the light source.

You won't change beam definition, at all, ever, with your existing headlamp units- no matter the light source.

No but I can get brighter within the boundaries shurely?

 

[Craiglxviii]

No but I can get brighter within the boundaries shurely?

You can do that with ultra-bright H7 lamps like the Nightbreaker Unlimited/ Laser, with the added benefit that they will actually work in your headlamp units as they were designed to do so.