so are these legal or not?

[Yugguy]

Fair enough. I would only be looking at 35w 4300k, as oem as possible.

I have fitted hids into projector lenses before, on my Signum, and got no change in pattern or bleed/dazzle.

LED attracts me due to the longevity, so if they could get a legal LED option I'd be very interested.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Fair enough. I would only be looking at 35w 4300k, as oem as possible.

I have fitted hids into projector lenses before, on my Signum, and got no change in pattern or bleed/dazzle.

LED attracts me due to the longevity, so if they could get a legal LED option I'd be very interested.

The problem Yug is that an LED lamp and an incandescent (of whatever flavor) lamp are diametric opposites. One projects its light in a 360 degree sphere (dependent on masking and harness attachment); the other projects light in a 130-170 degree cone only,, and that is for L50 value; the actual 100% of luminous flux from an LED is usually projected in a 90 degree cone. Very narrow. In addition to that, incandescent lamps project their heat forwards, it is effectively a broad visible, near-UV and medium-IR range producer. That heat follows the light (as its mixed in with it). LEDs produce their heat backwards. So trying to put any form of LED lighting engine into a housing designed for an incandescent lamp means enclosing the LED's heatsink into a box of captive air. Which insulates it. Which then burns the LED out in a much quicker timescale than it should do.

This is most commonly seen when fitting LED GU10 downlighters, especially those in enclosed fireproof fittings. Those fittings hold the heat around the lamp's heatsink... lamps that should make 120k hours will now struggle to make 40k, and likely well under that.

The best for for an LED lamp is one that allows free air movement past a heatsink that is unencumbered by anything else. To do that requires a custom-designed housing for the LED lamp... and that cannot be anything like the (box type) housing required for normal lamps.

 

[kid-jensen]

flowrider,

This has been discussed at length on other threads.

Basically, most owners want to be able to drive along a dark road without risking Life and bodywork by hitting things you can't see. With SOME standard Mercedes light uinits this is just not possible (obviously, other manufacturers are more or less guilty of the same problem).

Therfore, some of us are prepared to experiment in fitting aftermarket bulbs in the hope of improving things without major bodywork or wiring loom changes.

To this end, most ownere are only concerned with:

1. Keeping the cost and aggravation of the conversion down (otherwise they would just buy another car)

2. Making sure they don't fail the next MOT because of it.

My view is that the legality is irrelevant if the MOT is passed, that's legal enough. I know some contributors here don't agree. We all know that being Legal does not automatically make things right.

If the weather wasn't so appaling over the weekend, I might have had a chance to fit my LED bulbs and meke a decision as to whether they are worth using long-term. Maybe next week.

In the real world, no copper is going to arrest you for being able to see better, so long as the headlights are adjusted to not offend oncoming drivers too much. which they would be if you had an MOT.

As I'm sure we've all noticed, perfectly legal, E-Marked and what-have-you headlights often dazzle you just as much as dodgy aftermarket products.

 

[LostKiwi]

flowrider,


In the real world, no copper is going to arrest you for being able to see better, so long as the headlights are adjusted to not offend oncoming drivers too much. which they would be if you had an MOT.

So its ok to offend them a little bit?

I suspect most responsible drivers would be more concerned about ensuring their car is legal rather than being able to drive 5mph faster down a wet dark country lane. If you can't see slow down. Its not difficult.

I drive a 23 year old r129 and the lights are poor by modern standards yet I'm happy to change how I drive to suit the car and conditions.

There is NO justification for illegal lighting on a car.

 

[Craiglxviii]

flowrider,

This has been discussed at length on other threads.

Basically, most owners want to be able to drive along a dark road without risking Life and bodywork by hitting things you can't see. With SOME standard Mercedes light uinits this is just not possible (obviously, other manufacturers are more or less guilty of the same problem).

Therfore some of us are orepared to experiment in fitting aftermarket bulbs in the hope of improving things without major bodywork or wiring loom changes.

To this end, most ownere are only concerned with:

1. Keeping the cost and aggravation on the conversion down (otherwise they would just buy another car)

2. Making sure they don't fail the next MOT because of it.

My view is that the legality is irrelevant if the MOT is passed, that's legal enough. I know some contributors here don't agree.

If the weather wasn't so appaling over the weekend, I might hve had a chance to fit my LED bulbs and meke a decision as to whether they are worth keeping from the light output point of view. Maybe next week.

In the real world, no copper is going to arrest you for being able to see better, so long as the headlights are adjusted to not offend oncoming drivers too much. which they would be if you had an MOT.

As I'm sure we've all noticed, perfectly legal E-Marked and what-have-you headlights often dazzle you just as much as dodgy aftermarket products.

It's not so much whether or not a copper is going to stop you and check. The issue is that you are modifying the car beyond what it was designed for, and using components that are not approved by the issuing motor authority in doing so. Now that is all fine until, if or when you have an accident where vision or illumination has been cited or determined to be a cause of the collision.

Ask yourself, "Would my insurance company cover this conversion?"

 

[LostKiwi]

This is quite clear regarding HIDs:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/aftermarket-hid-headlamps

Also:
http://www.motester.co.uk/mot-infor...tions-and-answers/mot-questions-and-answers-3

"Remember too that your vehicle has to comply with 'construction and use' regulations which are not necessarily the same as the regulations regarding the MOT."

And here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/made

"Filament lamps

14.—(1) Where a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st April 1986 or any trailer manufactured on or after 1st October 1985 is equipped with any lamp of a type that is required by any Schedule to these Regulations to be marked with an approval mark, no filament lamp other than a filament lamp referred to in the Designation of Approval Marks Regulations in–

(a)regulation 4 and Schedule 2, items 2 or 2A, 8, 20, 37 or 37A; or

(b)regulation 5 and Schedule 4, item 18,

shall be fitted to any such lamp."

 

[Craiglxviii]

LK you asked about the upcoming changes to regulations:

Shortly, all headlamp units with a luminous flux density of >2000lm will be required to have a self-leveling system ONLY, regardless of lighting source. The self-leveling system can be a manual twiddle knob, automatic in the lamp housing or based on suspension.

No headlamp washers will be required.

 

[Botus]

I dont get why anyone would risk using illegal headlight bulbs, just stay within the law and keep us all safe.

I don't get why anyone cares - so long as they do not produce stupid glare and irritation for other road users 9and yes I fully get that nasty HID and most LED will cause this and should be banned and drivers locked up)

I would far rather most drivers can clearly see where they are going and what not to hit, than somewhere buried inside the lamp unit is a letter E no one cares about

 

[LostKiwi]

I don't get why anyone cares - so long as they do not produce stupid glare and irritation for other road users 9and yes I fully get that nasty HID and most LED will cause this and should be banned and drivers locked up)

I would far rather most drivers can clearly see where they are going and what not to hit, than somewhere buried inside the lamp unit is a letter E no one cares about

The reason people would care is that if they have an accident and someone is killed and the police determine that illegal lights were fitted then you could be up on a manslaughter charge. Not just that but the family of the deceased could sue for compensation which could run to tens of thousands of pounds.

The other reason people care is if you have ever driven a very low slung vehicle in conditions similar to those we have now its very hard to see when a vehicle with poorly adjusted/illegal lights is coming the their way. Yes they may be able to see but other road users may not.

Yugguy, if you are going to go for anything other than nightbreakers etc then HID is probably the lesser of the two evils as its closer to the original incandescent light source than LEDs (see previous comments). Also only fit them if you have projector style lights - reflector style lights cannot control the beam pattern well enough. At least with projectors other road users have a half a chance of not being dazzled as much.

People will fit them if they want to - thats a given, but its as well they know they are illegal and why. At least then they are making an informed decision and are aware of the risks and implications.

At the end of the day your car, your choice, your risk. Just don't expect sympathy if you're pulled.

 

[Botus]

The reason people would care is that if they have an accident and someone is killed and the police determine that illegal lights were fitted then you could be up on a manslaughter charge. Not just that but the family of the deceased could sue for compensation which could run to tens of thousands of pounds.

so really you are advocating people just crash because they can't see where they are going (but its Ok because they are legal) ?

that last bit won't help in a court much when had up on dangerous driving charge after the inevitable crash. wouldn't it be simpler to fix the inadequate lighting and enjoy years of safe motoring?

 

[LostKiwi]

so really you are advocating people just crash because they can't see where they are going (but its Ok because they are legal) ?

that last bit won't help in a court much when had up on dangerous driving charge after the inevitable crash. wouldn't it be simpler to fix the inadequate lighting and enjoy years of safe motoring?

It is your responsibility as a driver to drive to the conditions and limitations of your vehicle in a safe manner.

If you do that you're unlikely to crash and unlikely to get had up on a dangerous driving charge.

I am sure that no excuse you could come up with would get you off a charge for manslaughter if your illegal lights were the cause. I also doubt your argument would hold much sway with VOSA if they did a roadside check.

The law is clear. You break it at your risk.

 

[flowrider]

flowrider,

This has been discussed at length on other threads.

Basically, most owners want to be able to drive along a dark road without risking Life and bodywork by hitting things you can't see. With SOME standard Mercedes light uinits this is just not possible (obviously, other manufacturers are more or less guilty of the same problem).

Therfore, some of us are prepared to experiment in fitting aftermarket bulbs in the hope of improving things without major bodywork or wiring loom changes.

To this end, most ownere are only concerned with:

1. Keeping the cost and aggravation of the conversion down (otherwise they would just buy another car)

2. Making sure they don't fail the next MOT because of it.

My view is that the legality is irrelevant if the MOT is passed, that's legal enough. I know some contributors here don't agree. We all know that being Legal does not automatically make things right.

If the weather wasn't so appaling over the weekend, I might have had a chance to fit my LED bulbs and meke a decision as to whether they are worth using long-term. Maybe next week.

In the real world, no copper is going to arrest you for being able to see better, so long as the headlights are adjusted to not offend oncoming drivers too much. which they would be if you had an MOT.

As I'm sure we've all noticed, perfectly legal, E-Marked and what-have-you headlights often dazzle you just as much as dodgy aftermarket products.

Sorry but that is nonsense. Aftermarket LED headlight bulbs are not legal for use on UK roads, you are just making excuses for breaking the law. If you want to enhance the light from your car there are plenty of legal alternatives. Its your car and your life so do what you are going to do just dont expect any sympathy if you get caught out.

 

[flowrider]

so really you are advocating people just crash because they can't see where they are going (but its Ok because they are legal) ?

that last bit won't help in a court much when had up on dangerous driving charge after the inevitable crash. wouldn't it be simpler to fix the inadequate lighting and enjoy years of safe motoring?

This is now getting silly. How about you just slow down if you cant see far enouh ahead, hmmm thats a thought!

 

[Yugguy]

Its certainly true that many OEM units dazzle.

And that dot link is still vague. "The dot takes the view...". Somebody make a stand ffs!

There are also two separate arguements. Hids are still incandescent so can't be compared directly to LEDs.

 

[LostKiwi]

Its certainly true that many OEM units dazzle.

And that dot link is still vague. "The dot takes the view...". Somebody make a stand ffs!

There are also two separate arguements. Hids are still incandescent so can't be compared directly to LEDs.

But they aren't e-marked. That's the clincher.

You could always do it legally. Buy the complete HID headlight assemblies....

 

[Craiglxviii]

Its certainly true that many OEM units dazzle.

And that dot link is still vague. "The dot takes the view...". Somebody make a stand ffs!

There are also two separate arguements. Hids are still incandescent so can't be compared directly to LEDs.

The DoT link is as definitive as it gets without a court case or an Act of Parliament. When the DoT "takes a view" on something it's like HMRC taking a view. It's the view that will form the official line, which in this case is exactly what it is.

 

[Botus]

This is now getting silly. How about you just slow down if you cant see far enouh ahead, hmmm thats a thought!

so you are now proposing drivers speed up and slow down erratically because headlights on many cars are inadequate ?

 

[AMck]

so you are now proposing drivers speed up and slow down erratically because headlights on many cars are inadequate ?

There doesn't need to be anything erratic about it - well not if you are a half decent driver who is capable of reading the road conditions and able to adjust your speed according to the prevailing conditions.

 

[LostKiwi]

so you are now proposing drivers speed up and slow down erratically because headlights on many cars are inadequate ?

You can justify in your own mind whatever you like.

Facts:
1. Anything not e-marked is not legal.
2. You are responsible for driving your own vehicle in a safe manner appropriate to the conditions and vehicle.
3. You are responsible for ensuring any vehicle you drive complies with the law and not drive it if it doesn't.
4. You can legally fit HIDs by fitting the appropriate e-marked headlight unit in its entirety (with appropriate extra equipment as required by law).


If you choose to do it illegally on the cheap then don't try to justify it with ridiculous statements.

 

[V6Matty]

If anyone questions wether investigations are made on lighting units in the event of accidents I can provide some information, most of it will be quite strongly redacted and makes difficult reading but just trust me these things are heavily investigated