Driving without lights?

[SonnyC]

Is it legal to drive without working lights (side lights headlights, tail lights) during the day? (The question is assuming that the brake lights and indicators function correctly)

[Loosehead]

Yes

[Mortartube]

I always believed the answer to be no. Because you may need to use them in poor visibility such as mist, fog or heavy rain.

[pjm007]

I would have thought it was illegal, because of foggy conditions, heavy rain and poor daylight conditions.

[kempie]

Definitely not.

Although it is unlikely that anyone would know that the lights did not function (as they are not being used) a spot-check would show them to be faulty and thus your vehicle would be deemed as not road legal.

[pjm007]

Mortatube, looks like our posts crossed. But great minds think alike, eh !

[kempie]

A simple rule of thumb... if you have a problem with your car and you are unsure whether driving it is legal or not just ask yourself 'would the car would pass its MOT?'

If not, it is illegal.

[Loosehead]

Not true, legally a car does not even have to have lights, for use in the day. Its does not need indicators and brake lights but if they are present they must work. I know this because last year I converted my motorcycle for track days only, this involved removing all the lights. At the time I didn't yet have the trailer to get it home so I called the police for advice they said as long as I have a number plate and the bike is road legal, ie mot, insurance etc I am ok in the day light before official lighting up time. I must however do hand signals. So I screwed the number plate on and viola!

[kempie]

If a vehicle is fitted with with an electrical appliance that does not work it is an MOT failure! and that makes the vehicle unfit for use on the road.

[pjm007]

The ironic thing about MOT's is that your car could pass, but no sooner than you drive away, happy as larry that your car has passed, one of the headlight bulbs could blow and consequently make it an MOT failure in a matter of seconds.

[Loosehead]

Wrong again Kempie, as I said if they are fitted they must work for the MOT. If something goes wrong after that it is still a valid MOT and would not be picked up until the next one and then fail. If a car has a legal MOT that's one thing but subsequent deteriorations do not suddenly invalidate the MOT. Whatever the issues you do not need lights in the daytime, I agree it is unwise to drive in Fog etc but the fact remains you only need lights after official lighting up time

[Loosehead]

pjm the MOT is valid for the period it is issued, even if your car is run over by a tank! That's why the Ministry are keen that the guys dishing them out are doing the proper checks.

[pjm007]

Loosehead, I realise that. The point I am making is that a car only needs to conform to MOT requirements for the duration of the test in order to pass. Whatever happens after you drive away, whether it be after one minute or 11 months would make it an MOT failure case, but the MOT certificate would still be valid for 12 months.

[Loosehead]

Sorry missed what you where getting at, we agree!

[kempie]

So Loosehead a car crushed by a tank with a valid MOT is road legal. I think not.

Also show the policeman who pulls you over for a faulty taillight your MOT and see if he lets you off. I think not.

Just because an MOT has been issued doesn't mean a car is road legal for 12 months as you yourself argued.

And in the original question reference was made to 'working' (or not) lights not to missing (i.e. not fitted) lights.

[Loosehead]

No Kempie you seem unable to divorce the 2 issues, read what I said, I didn't say the car is necessarily road legal, what I said was anything that happens after the MOT does not invalidate the MOT. You are then in the hands of what is actually legal or not. Of course a crushed car is not road legal.

If the police pull you over with a tail light out at night that does not mean they are going to prosecute you for no MOT. They will care that you have a valid MOT and then act on descretion. Do you seriously think they are going to go back to the garage and say the car should not have passed because the bulb in question didn't last a year!

I didn't say anywhere that a car is road legal for 12 months just because it has an MOT, I just said that the MOT is valid for a year regardless of subsequent deterioration. Again read what I said.

I said that headlights and tail lights do not need to work in the day that is true. I said also that technically they do not need even to be fitted but if they are they must work for the MOT. Read it again.

Please try and see this point, you have to try and think beyond the MOT, it's another subject altogether.

Surely there's a traffic cop on here who put Kempie out of his misery.

[kempie]

Loosehead you have misunderstood my points.  Please re-read my earlier posts.

The MOT is the standard for roadworthiness.

I used the MOT analogy to show that any vehicle that would fail an on-the-spot MOT test is inherently (and legally) not fit to drive on UK roads.

I know that an MOT certificate is not really worth anything other than to prove that a car was road legal at the time of the test.

I never mentioned anything about being prosecuted for having an invalid MOT. I don't know where you got that from. I was using the example to prove you couldn't use the certificate to excuse a defective taillight (see point above).

And as I said (and you have said) if a car is fitted with equipment such as lights they must work, no matter what time of day it is. So since lights are fitted to the car in question (and it is not a case of one law in the MOT Testing Station and another on the road) you must concur that it would be illegal to drive in such a condition.

Please Mr Traffic Cop put me out of my misery.

[Loosehead]

Kempie, we're nearly there, I said they must work to pass the MOT after that you're in a different realm. I take your point about the MOT excusing a tail light.

 I repeat you do not need working headlights in the day on the road. Check with your local traffic cops please.

[kempie]

'I said they must work to pass the MOT'

A car that would not pass an MOT cannot legally be driven on the road.

'... after that your in a different realm'

The Road Traffic Act applies outside of the testing station as well as inside. Which other realm were you thinking of?

Just because you aren't using the lights doesn't mean that they need not work. It is a legal requirement (if fitted). Of course a casual observer may not be able to tell if they work without the aid of an inspection.

Are we there yet?

[kempie]

Look here especially at the section Lighting offences - Prosecutable:  Lamps, reflectors, rear markings not maintained.

[Loosehead]

almost, can I clarify, do you accept that a car without lights at all, ie none fitted, can be used in the road in the day?