aux lighting and the law

fog lights, but for use to

the main reverse lights

test my switched rear loading

The reversing lamps are not part of the test

if they consider it

if it passed the specific tests it can't be considered unroadworthy

That's a shame. I'd heard an urban myth type story which claimed that the final question an examiner was trained to ask themself was, "Would I be happy carrying my family in this vehicle?"

So in theory one could prepare a totally appalling vehicle that met the specific checks but nothing else, and it would be certified? Might be fun to try this and film the reaction at test stations... ;-)

On or around Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:28:03 -0000, "Andy.Smalley" enlightened us thusly:

which is odd, seeing as IIRC you can get done for (at least) them being on when going forwards.

not sure if you can be done for having them fitted but not working. I spose I *could* look it up, but ICBA :-)

In message , Kieran Turner writes

AIUI they can only check what is listed specifically in the MOT specification.

In message , Kieran Turner writes

The purpose of the MOT is to check predefined features which are the major safety factors on a vehicle. "Unroadworthy" means it does not conform in some way with Construction & Use regulations IMO. An MOT tester checks only against listed items. A DVLA Inspector or the Police can check against C&U regs at any time.

But that would be for showing white light to the rear, rather than specifically a reversing light. A broken (coloured) lens on any rear light would get you done for showing white light to the rear....

Just looked at the "check list" reversing lights are not mentioned specifically. But the first item under Lighting Equipment is "Front & rear lamps etc." What does that mean? The rest of the list is: Headlamps, Stop lamps, Rear reflectors, Direction Indicators & hazard lamps, Headlamp aim, horn.

I used to use 80/100w in the headlamps but I now use osram silver wossits and find them far better.

snorkel for the driver and the engine?

Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)

On or around Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:18:29 +0000, Mr.Nice. enlightened us thusly:

well, it had the snorkel for the engine, being a Camel one. I suspect the driver may have escaped beforehand.