headlight covers and the plod

[mark skett]

got stopped the other day by the plod because i had a red headlight cover on the bike. he said it looked like a brake light. even though my lights were turned off and it was about 6:30pm and daylight. he said it was 3 points and a fixed penalty. i said i only use it in the daylight with my lights off but he said it doesnt matter because anything covering the light is illegal cos it has to be clear white.
in the end he let me off with a warning cos i didnt now about this particular law. but he did say if he saw me with it on again he would book me.

has anyone any idea about this ruling because i see loads of bikes with them on

[BarryH]

"Disclaimer: A clear headlight cover is the only finish that is legal to use on the road. All other finishes are illegal and for show purposes or off road use only"

Disclaimer that appears on many of the accessory dealers pages.

[cupasoop]

Don't know about the legality but the style Nazis should give you a kicking for it. Coloured headlight cover

[Jbrebel]

Nice one Rich

Had a smoked cover on my storm. Never had any issues with that.

[benny hedges]

anything covering the light is illegal cos it has to be clear white.
has anyone any idea about this ruling because i see loads of bikes with them on

if the same copper pulls you over again, offer him a handshake, but put your hand to the left side of his instead of the right, then twist your wrist to the left violently as you exhale, linking his thumb with yours and walk forwards over him as he falls to the ground.
when he's on the deck, piss in his face and tell him to go read the lawbook - he's full of sh1t.

[Lutonstorm2]

Unfortunately he's got a point, but you might have an interesting get out! The only colours allowed to show are: White to the front and white or red to the rear. That's why all "ice blue" etc headlights and silly red/blue posing lights are all illegal. However yours were not on, and I cannot see how he could enforce the law here. It would be the same as booking you for wearing a tinted visor during the day because you "might" still be wearing it later in the dark!

[tony.mon]

Sadly, I think it's the "construction" part of the construction and use regs they'll get you on......

Just like you can be prosecuted for sleeping in a vehicle while under the influence (don't ask..)

Wasn't driving, wasn't going to, but still got banned.

[benny hedges]

Sadly, I think it's the "construction" part of the construction and use regs they'll get you on......

Just like you can be prosecuted for sleeping in a vehicle while under the influence (don't ask..)

Wasn't driving, wasn't going to, but still got banned.

same thing happened to a mate after a night on the piss and a row with his bird, who decided to lock him out of his own house - if it was me i'd have taken the bloody door off lol, but he decided it would be a good idea to kip in the car and as it was freezing, leaned over and started the engine from the back seat to warm up.

plod came along (his bird reported him) and he got an 18mth ban and lost his job, house etc.
needless to say he sacked the daft bint off.

re construction regs, if the eurocrats had their way we wouldn't be allowed to alter a bike from it's original spec - and we'd be limited to 100hp.
only reason they havent done it already is because the aftermarket industry employs so many.
face it, if a plod is feeling anal he will always find something to nick you for.
persecution imo as there's so many unlicensed uninsured drivers out there driving death traps with bald tyres, exhausts hanging off, illegally spaced number plates with black screws to read their name etc etc

[fritz]

if conditions are dark and your head light is on, then you are in breach of the law.

it is perfectly legal to have no headlight whatsoever, aslong as you obtain a daylight hours MOT!! it negaites the use of lights.

as said in the earlier post, any forward facing light must be white (or some shitty off yellow colour apparently if you inclued EU laws) rear light are to be red (reverse lights as per front facing) and indicators orange.

but the law only applies to iluminated lights!!

go and ask your MOT tester for advice on this, he will confirm it. and after all, the MOT tester is the enforcer of the law is he not??? he is the man who says if your bike is fit for the road!!

[Zakalwe]

if conditions are dark and your head light is on, then you are in breach of the law.

it is perfectly legal to have no headlight whatsoever, aslong as you obtain a daylight hours MOT!! it negaites the use of lights.

as said in the earlier post, any forward facing light must be white (or some shitty off yellow colour apparently if you inclued EU laws) rear light are to be red (reverse lights as per front facing) and indicators orange.

but the law only applies to iluminated lights!!

go and ask your MOT tester for advice on this, he will confirm it. and after all, the MOT tester is the enforcer of the law is he not??? he is the man who says if your bike is fit for the road!!

A "daylight" MOT doesn't exist for a start...it is a standard MOT with a advisement that there are no lights.

Secondly, a "daylight" MOT does not mean a bike is legal. Any Plod that knows his onions (thankfully it is a grey area and not many do) can still do you under "Construction and Use" regs....for instance, a bike can pass a "daylight " MOT without a brake light. Try riding it past a copper that knows his stuff and you will get done.

The MOT man is not an enforcer of the law....the Dibble and the courts are. The MOT only shows that the bike is roadworthy (in so far as it has no obvious mechanical defects), not that it is road-legal (ie not that it complies with Construction and Use regs).

Another example: If a bike was made after a certain date - I think it's 1991 - and was fitted with lights when it left the factory, then it must retain them to be legal for road use, unless you have put it through single vehicle approval test - basically to register it as a separate model.

[Stratman]

I ride with my headlight on dipped beam. I don't have a headlight cover as I want cars to see me, not mistake my coming for something going etc.
IMHO on a purely common sense basis these things are pointless.

[LutonStorm]

Theres also a way of getting around the whole sleeping pissed in the car and getting nicked for it!

The police have to show that you were trying to, and "capable" of driving the car. The keys are indeed, the "key"

If they are in your hand, pocket, front seats or ignition, then you are capable of driving the car.

THEREFORE, place them in a box/bag/coat pocket etc IN THE BOOT OF THE CAR.

You are then unable to operate the vehicle and cannot be done....

Dont you love the law!

[Jbrebel]

IMHO on a purely common sense basis these things are pointless.

I agree as regards coloured covers. I fitted mine to save the lense cover in the event of stone chips, cracks etc-not for asthetic purposes.

Each to there own at the end of the day.

[Anotherbikerbabe]

I wonder if my chrom coloured one would be legal then as it is not blue/red etc and light shines right through it as I've held it up to bike one night when Dave was showing me after I bough it off Kemics.
Not fited it yet to the bike though.
ABB

[fritz]

if conditions are dark and your head light is on, then you are in breach of the law.

it is perfectly legal to have no headlight whatsoever, aslong as you obtain a daylight hours MOT!! it negaites the use of lights.

as said in the earlier post, any forward facing light must be white (or some shitty off yellow colour apparently if you inclued EU laws) rear light are to be red (reverse lights as per front facing) and indicators orange.

but the law only applies to illuminated lights!!

go and ask your MOT tester for advice on this, he will confirm it. and after all, the MOT tester is the enforcer of the law is he not??? he is the man who says if your bike is fit for the road!!

A "daylight" MOT doesn't exist for a start...it is a standard MOT with a advisement that there are no lights.

Secondly, a "daylight" MOT does not mean a bike is legal. Any Plod that knows his onions (thankfully it is a grey area and not many do) can still do you under "Construction and Use" regs....for instance, a bike can pass a "daylight " MOT without a brake light. Try riding it past a copper that knows his stuff and you will get done.

The MOT man is not an enforcer of the law....the Dibble and the courts are. The MOT only shows that the bike is roadworthy (in so far as it has no obvious mechanical defects), not that it is road-legal (ie not that it complies with Construction and Use regs).

Another example: If a bike was made after a certain date - I think it's 1991 - and was fitted with lights when it left the factory, then it must retain them to be legal for road use, unless you have put it through single vehicle approval test - basically to register it as a separate model.

what ever you want to call it, my mate had no lights fitted on his bike for a few years but it always passed the mot!! it was a 2004 ducati monster btw.

he did eventually give up riding in this manner due to the constant stopping by the plod for having no lights and the need for the producers of the necessary documents!!