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