what are the rules for neons.

[Angel205]

turbolag said:

modified307 said:

the actuall law is they are allowed on the high way as long as the bulb isnt visable if you can only see the glow on the floor and not the actually strip of light then it is legal ....ow the only colour that isnt is blue as you would be arrested for impersonating a police officer!

sorry to sound like a no it all !

Wrong! i'm a dibble sergeant...

It is a specific offence to show other than a red light to the rear, or amber to the side. The VL regs makes no distiction between the source being visible or not...the key word is "light".

However, there is a hole in con & use regs so there is no such caveat for the front lights. Provided your headlights, sidelights etc are the corect hue, any aditional forward facing lights (such as the ghay blue washer jet lights) are not specifically covered. That said, if the light is blue and is capable of flashing (either automatically, or by being switched repeatedly on/off) then you run the risk of impersonating dibble "by word or deed".

And finally, it looks chuffing stupid, so don't do it.

Thats fantastic! That you as a sergent have said your piece on it.
I guess neons are up to everyones personality.
I notice i said earlier in post id have neon footplate and gearstick etc.. i cant believe i said that tbh lol!

I much prefer peugeot's to look how they left the factory, changing them even in the slightest bit makes me furious now.
I think a pug should be a pug, not trying to look like anything else but a pug, the whole pug and nothing but the pug hehe

[christi]

I have daytime running lights on the front of two of my cars
One has a pair of permanent 5W lights showing white light and the other 5W lights showing yellow/amber.
Both have failed their MOTs as a result (I just pull the fuse out to get the certificate)
I have been pulled over by traffic police in the one with white lights for having "fog lights" on when it's not foggy.
I have also had a policeman at a checkpoint in London complain about my amber lights, despite Land Rover Discoverys and BMW 5s all having as standard for a while now.
I read the con and use regs myself and it clearly says that what I am doing is legal, but it seems that the police and MOT test stations don't actually know the law.
It also says in con and use that you can have white front lights provided that they don't dazzle oncoming road users. As front fog lamps have a cutoff just like dipped beam, they don't dazzle provided that they are adjusted properly. Therefore the police are not within their rights to prosecute for having front fog lamps on, unless they are actually dazzling (I accept that some do, but mine were always adjusted properly). Personally I've never actually argued the point at the roadside as your average policeman that has just pulled you over just isn't listening. None of my current cars have front fogs anyway.

[briandamaged]

Neons......on a Lowrider with hydraulics bumping up and down on Sunset with half-a-dozen bikini-clad cuties in the back......cool.

Neons......on a hatchback parked on a wet retail park car park in Cheltenham with three 14 yr old girls in the back spewing up WKD Blue and chips....wa*k.

[Piston Broke]

christi said:

ITherefore the police are not within their rights to prosecute for having front fog lamps on, unless they are actually dazzling (I accept that some do, but mine were always adjusted properly)

Wrong!

The offence is in the road traffic act, not con and use. Vehicle lighting regs (regs 11-22, specifically schedules 2 & 10 for position or marker lamps)govern all this, and they include strict dimensional regs governing the positioning of auxillary lighting, such as yours, and could be while you keep failing MOTs, getting fingers wagged at you by coppers etc.

Fog lights, and I quote "Regulation 27 states that no person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road, any vehicle on which any lamp, hazard warning signal/device, or beacon of a type specified in column 2 of the table in the manner specified in colum 3". The table, on page 3.9.6 of the 2008 Blackstones Road Manual (the UKs definitive legal guide to road traffic law, and the standard used by courts and even in police exam questions) lists front and rear fog lamps being improperly used when visibility is not seriously impaired due to fog or rain to a distance of elss than 100 metres, fixed penaly offence code 7033.

Glad you're not my solicitor!

Another little known one - ever sit at the lights, too bone idle lazy to apply the handbrake so you hold the car steady with the foot brake? Well, if your bake lights dazzle the driver behind (and this affects older folk as the eyes sensitivity shifts to the red end of the spectrum), you can be stuck on for that too.

[yella]

RULE number 1 clearly states : Don't buy them unless you are a chav trying to look cool in a clapped out heap that has no other function than to keep other motorists amused, Thus bringing more attention to your clapped out pile of cack for others to gaze upon and laugh at.

[christi]

turbolag said:

The offence is in the road traffic act, not con and use. Vehicle lighting regs (regs 11-22, specifically schedules 2 & 10 for position or marker lamps)govern all this, and they include strict dimensional regs governing the positioning of auxillary lighting, such as yours, and could be while you keep failing MOTs, getting fingers wagged at you by coppers etc.

Fog lights, and I quote "Regulation 27 states that no person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road, any vehicle on which any lamp, hazard warning signal/device, or beacon of a type specified in column 2 of the table in the manner specified in colum 3". The table, on page 3.9.6 of the 2008 Blackstones Road Manual (the UKs definitive legal guide to road traffic law, and the standard used by courts and even in police exam questions) lists front and rear fog lamps being improperly used when visibility is not seriously impaired due to fog or rain to a distance of elss than 100 metres, fixed penaly offence code 7033.

Glad you're not my solicitor!

Another little known one - ever sit at the lights, too bone idle lazy to apply the handbrake so you hold the car steady with the foot brake? Well, if your bake lights dazzle the driver behind (and this affects older folk as the eyes sensitivity shifts to the red end of the spectrum), you can be stuck on for that too.

Luckily I'm not a solicitor ;D
I'll have to read the RTA and Blackstones.
Also I don't have front fogs anymore anyway, but I'm buggered if I'm going to put the handbrake on every time I stop. That would be about every 15 seconds in central London.

[Piston Broke]

Every time your vehicle becomes stationary, you should punctuate it with an application for the handbrake - holding it stationary with your foot does not allow full control, and is one of the reasons you'd fail your driving test if you did it.

[christi]

you have now stated two reasons for putting your handbrake on every time you stop, and I don't agree with either.
If I am holding a vehicle stationary with the foot brake, then it is me that is doing it, the car is doing exactly what I want it to do (i.e. it's not moving) and I am therefore by definition, in full control. That's what control means.
Also if someone is going to be dazzled every time my brake lights illuminate, then does that mean I can't brake in case I dazzle someone?
However there is a far better reason that thinking drivers should consider.
If someone rear ends you then your feet will tend to come off the pedals.
If you're in gear with your left foot on the clutch and your right on the brake, or if you are in D on an auto, then you are now in a vehicle that it moving in gear and being driven, all be it at tickover, against your will.
The best reason then is to mitigate against the idiot that crashes into the back of you.
For that same reason I want my brake lights on when I'm stationary. I guarantee you that if you stop, put the handbrake on, and then take your foot off the brake pedal every time, then you'll get rear ended twice as often because someone behind who is half asleep/not paying attention won't realise you stopped because you've got no brake lights on.
I'm still not going to put the handbrake on every time I stop in central London, that's just just ridiculous. You are right that I would fail my test if I didn't use the handbrake, but I'm not on a test, so I don't care. So few people put their handbrake on every time that they stop that I'd bet money that the person who came up with this "full control" garbage doesn't do it either.
The real reason that this is required in the test is that it's good discipline for a new and inexperienced driver, and that's okay by me. And if a policeman wants to pull me over and needs the excuse that I'm not using the handbrake, that's okay too, as I've nothing to hide from the police, they can pull me over when ever they like; after all it can't be an easy job and have to deal with some really nasty people that I wouldn't want to. However if he starts telling me that I'm not "in full control" then I'll stop being nice to him, because it really is utter twaddle.

[Donaldiesel]

Turbolag is correct. The only way I could be in full control without the handbrake is in an Automatic and using left foot on the brake, which is not recommended. In a manual, and driving normally, if I hold the car stopped on the footbrake, I am not in full control during the moment it takes to move my foot to the accelerator. If the road is level I may get away with it, but on a slight incline (which may not always be apparent) the car can move involuntarilly in that moment.

I can understand why people do it, and in the Netherlands where most roads are level, the practise it is widespread. And I accept that in the majority of driving circumstances it will not be an issue. However, the fact remains that it is a lazy and poor driving habit which one day will catch you out.

Good point about keeping the brake lights on, and anything to help avoid being rear-ended has to be a good thing. Please don't hold them on after the following driver has stopped.

Regards,
Donaldiesel

[christi]

that's not true either
if you have a diesel then you can do even hill starts without even pressing the accelerator
you just lift the clutch to the biting point, and the engine on tickover will hold the car perfectly well, then move you foot to the accelerator pedal and go
i can do this on a slight hill on the 604 too as it has a big torquey petrol engine
in fact if you stop on a steep hill on the foot brake and then put the handbrake on, then take your foot off the brake pedal, then the vehicle will actually roll back a couple of inches until the rear suspension takes up the slack. on many cars the back will actually lift up as this happens. this is involentary and therefore not "full control"

I accept that not everyone has a car that this will work on, but the fact is that I can, and I am in full control of my vehicle, as it is doing exactly what I want it to do, even without using the handbrake

if your car rolls back because you didn't use the handbrake and haven't got good enough clutch control to hold it on tickover, then yes, you are not in control, and you deserve to be educated by the policemen behind, but I am in control, so in my case it isn't true

I suppose that this has gone off topic, but my point was, if you fit neons to your car, even if you do it in a totally legal way, I'll bet you still get hassled by certain policemen who just don't like that stuff, and no MOT tester would pass them either, even though it might be legal.

if they won't accept my 100% legal, EU approved Hella daytime driving lights with their little 5W white bulb, then they won't accept neons either.

therefore if you are going to drive around with neons, then you had better understand the law better than me (which clearly isn't that well), and you had better carry photocopies of it round to show to traffic policemen, and you had better have the car 100% legal in every other way too, because I'm sure that you are going to get some attention

[Piston Broke]

christi said:

that's not true either
if you have a diesel then you can do even hill starts without even pressing the accelerator

Ah, yes - everyone owns a diesel with sufficient toque at idle to do that on a hill. My old 1500+kg 406hDi wouldn't have been able to do it.

You've 2 pedals for one foot, hence the addition of a handbrake - your control will simply not be as effective if you ignore it and hold it on the foot, even if only for a second. Plus it's a mighty fine way to warp discs. The lady that rolled back into my car a couple of christmas' ago (my poor 406 again) proved that graphically. You could do this, and you might be able to co-ordinate the other, or you can simply use the handbrake properly as you did on the day of your test.

To go back to topic, there is no lawful way to fit neons if you plan to have them activated while the car is on a road, highway, or public place.

christi said:

in fact if you stop on a steep hill on the foot brake and then put the handbrake on, then take your foot off the brake pedal, then the vehicle will actually roll back a couple of inches until the rear suspension takes up the slack.

Do that and you need driving lessons - you don't release the handbrake until the transmision has taken up drive.

[christi]

I'm not going to get personal about it. I just don't agree with you and never will. The woman you rolled back into you was clearly not in full control of the vehicle, and probably was driving without due care and attention as well; however that doesn't mean that I have to put the handbrake on every time I've moved another 10ft on the morning queue on the A40. I'd have to put the handbrake on a thousand times a day.

I'm not guilty for her lack of driving ability and neither are all the other thousand of people around me on the A40 who also aren't putting their handbrake on every 10 seconds for the next hour either.

I'm not not quite sure why your 406 can't do a hill start at idle, as my 806 HDI with the same engine can do it quite well. It can also climb ramps in multi-story car parks without me pressing the accelerator at all, you should try it, it's quite amazing.

As for the suspension moving during the transition from foot brake to handbrake on a hill, you obviously never hill started a 305 estate, though I must admit my other cars don't it to anywhere near the same extent. It does it when you take your foot off the brake pedal with the handbrake firmly on, not when you take the handbrake off. It doesn't mean that I need driving lessons, it means that the 305 has odd rear suspension. And what about old Range Rovers with their propshaft mounted handbrake. Those thinks can roll back about 6 or 8 inches as all the UJs and diffs unload and then load up the other way, and there's nothing the driver can do about it (other than hold it on the clutch instead), do all Range Rover drivers need driving lessons?

I passed my test 20 years ago, I have 14 year no claims discount, and I have never had a point on my license. I've driven 7 1/2 ton trucks and towed car trailers and caravans. I've competed in rallies and autotests. I've also made enough mistakes, seen enough mistakes by other people and had enough near misses to have learned way beyond what's in the driving test. I've also driven in almost every country in Europe, and us Brits are the only ones obsessed with the handbrake. In many European countries the traffic lights go straight from red to green with no amber, and if you are sat there in neutral with your handbrake on, by the time you've got going the Frenchman or Spaniard behind would be apoplectic with frustration, so does that mean that almost everyone in Europe is a bad driver who needs lessons?

Anyway I did a three hour "test" with an ex traffic policeman last summer. He mentioned the handbrake thing once, saying that if I'm at the back of a queue I should put the handbrake on and put my foot on the brake as well to prevent and mitigate against being rear ended, which I thought was an excellent point, and then didn't mention it again. That guy taught me loads of other stuff too like looking for shadows of people between parked cars, and how easy it is to miss speed limit signs if you are distracted by other events (like pulling out of a junction), taking a wide line on left bends for increased visibility etc and in the end told me that my driving was fine and that he was quite happy to be my passenger. As I actually drove him around for three hours around narrow country lanes, motorways and that mad six roundabouts in one in Saint Albans I think that I will listen to his opinion rather than yours.

He also liked my daytime running lights as well which the MOT station had failed....

[briandamaged]

Poor lad......he only wanted to know if he could fit Uber-Chav lights to his 106, look what a can of worms he opened.

Take a chill pill guys. ;D

[christi]

i've never had the chance to argue with policeman before. I wouldn't have the guts to do it on the side of the road. if turbolag pulled me over for something I'd just agree with everything he said and admit how stupid I'd been :-)