Running without lights

[alan.moore]

In the UK you have to remember that the MOT regulations are totally separate from the actual law / Regulations regarding Lighting and Construction and Use. Just because something is not required / tested under the MOT regulations does not mean it is not required by law. I.E the MOT does not check the operation of the speedometer, but one is required by law.

However, having said that, with regard to lighting it is my understanding that based on section 4 of the 1989 Road Vehicle Lighting regulations which deals with General Exemptions:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989 ... ion/4/made

"Nothing in these Regulations shall require any lamp or reflector to be fitted between sunrise and sunset to (a) a vehicle not fitted with any front or rear position lamp,"
This seems to say that a brake light is not required if these conditions are met. There is an interesting forum entry here regarding this
http://www.trf.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0&start=30

I do wonder what an Insurance companies position would be concerning covering a motorcycle which would originally have been fitted with lights and a brake light. I suppose when you insure such a machine you would have to state that there were no lights / brake light fitted as this would count as a modification from original, which is one of the questions they ask.

Cheers
Alan

[admin]

I am still on the fence, with regards whether I ought to fit one as a "safety " precaution. I even found rechargeable bicycle ones which light up on slowing down.

However, I did wonder if I fit a brake light, in the centre of the bike, then it could be construed as a position light ?
As I am thinking about a side mounted number plate (the remains of the rear mudguard I have won't extend that far over) on the near side of the bike, then I can put the brake light on that and it won't be classed as a position lamp.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989 ... le/10/made

I think I can put the number plate on the side (as I see plenty of other bikes with them):

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001 ... rt/II/made

[JohnnyBeckett]

HI i would fit a rear brake light for your own safety

[Simon.Gardiner]

In the discussion about brake lights I'd like to note that I'm not entirely comfortable having a brake light that's only linked to the rear brake...

SG

[j.coleman]

Many modern track / race bikes are ridden on the road in dalight hours without lights, some as daily rides in the summer. I would think it more likely to meet a " sorry I didn't see you mate " moment at modern speeds.
Just a suggestion. I have some of that 2" reflective tape used on lorry trailers, and I put it on the bottom bar of the rear stand. When the bike is parked on the stand it's hardly noticed but when the stand is up the sunlight really catches it to make you noticeable on the road.

[JohnnyBeckett]

if you have a bright brake light at least they can see you slowing down or stopping i have two rat bikes with just a brake light that i ride in london and is a no brainer to ride without a brake light

[IanM]

Interesting thread, I'm considering not putting lights on mine.

[paul.jameson]

I love the idea of the reflective tape on the underside of the rear stand.

So far as the brake light debate goes, it occurs to me that a brake light is intended to tell following traffic that you are slowing down. Given the effectiveness of Ariel brakes in comparison with modern brakes, I wonder how much useful information is imparted to the following driver by the brake light on an Ariel. Just how many of us have been shunted in the rear on an Ariel when we have out-braked the vehicle behind us?

[JohnnyBeckett]

Their one more thing if someone did run into the back of you they will say you gave no warning that you were slowing down or stopping they will use that as a get good out clause it was a lot different over 65 years ago wen cars went about 30 to 40 mph and you did not need a brake light airel started to fit brake lights in 1953 i think that is wen it became law to have one fitted

[Simon.Gardiner]

If someone runs into the back of you it's their fault, in law, and there's no arguing about it.
I speak as someone who's been rear-ended several times although only once on a bike (the BM).
(And I'm not suggesting that it isn't something to not be bothered about even if it isn't going to be your fault....)

SG