Fog Lights

You're very close, and I was way off. I dug out a reference book to check
for sure.

Rear fog lights in the UK have been madatory new-car fitment from
April 1, 1980. You only need one of them, that being on the driver's side.
So if you have two, only the driver's side one is subject to the UK MoT.

 

You're very close, and I was way off. I dug out a reference book to check
for sure.

Rear fog lights in the UK have been madatory new-car fitment from
April 1, 1980. You only need one of them, that being on the driver's side.
So if you have two, only the driver's side one is subject to the UK MoT.

 

nope. If you ahve two, both are subject to the MOT. My UK work car -
an 89 volvo 340 has two, they're in the main light cluster on the
innermost sides, either side of the number plate. during my test in, i
think, 2000, the bulb had one in the passenger side one. he asked if I
had any spare brake bulbs, and when i said no, he said "you can either
pay 2 quid, or i can fail your MOt. I paid the 2 quid, got a pair of
bulbs, one of which he went and fitted for me, whilst it was still on
the jacks.

Friend has a 74 Jago, and his rear fog doesn't work. If he leaves it
as is, he'd fail MOTs, instead he has it covered over with thick black
duct-tape, completely obscuring the light entirely. AS such its not
considered as an item to be tested..

 

nope. If you ahve two, both are subject to the MOT. My UK work car -
an 89 volvo 340 has two, they're in the main light cluster on the
innermost sides, either side of the number plate. during my test in, i
think, 2000, the bulb had one in the passenger side one. he asked if I
had any spare brake bulbs, and when i said no, he said "you can either
pay 2 quid, or i can fail your MOt. I paid the 2 quid, got a pair of
bulbs, one of which he went and fitted for me, whilst it was still on
the jacks.

Friend has a 74 Jago, and his rear fog doesn't work. If he leaves it
as is, he'd fail MOTs, instead he has it covered over with thick black
duct-tape, completely obscuring the light entirely. AS such its not
considered as an item to be tested..

 

Generally, at least in the U.S., especially for commercial vehicles, the rule
is, if it is equipped, it must work. If not equipped, it needn't work. I suspect
that explains the duct-tape thing.

 

Generally, at least in the U.S., especially for commercial vehicles, the rule
is, if it is equipped, it must work. If not equipped, it needn't work. I suspect
that explains the duct-tape thing.

 

Then either my reference is wrong, or they've changed the law.

It's also possible the MoT tester is not fully familiar with the specific
law regarding rear fogs.

 

Then either my reference is wrong, or they've changed the law.

It's also possible the MoT tester is not fully familiar with the specific
law regarding rear fogs.

 

Fog lights,auxiliary driving lights,and spot beams do not bother me much
as long as the light is WHITE.Those new BLUE halogen lamps is what I
hate.There is something in the light frequency range of those lamps that
almost burn holes in my retinas.Even from 500 feet away I find them
irritating.I wish the auto industry would abandon that type of lamp.

 

(SAC 441) wrote in 3254.bay.webtv.net:

Are you referring to HID lamps? They do not use halogen.

 

TeGGeR® wrote:
----"Are you referring to HID lamps? They do not use halogen."----


Reply:
Ok,they do not use halogen ( I do not know what the acronym stands for
by the way).
I know them when I see them,and they are like lasers burning through my
eyes.The light is tightly focused like a laser,and I find them
distressing.I would like to see them banned.I would not really do it for
real,but my gut instinct tells me to bash them in with a baseball
bat.Good thing I do not react just on instinct.

 

If you drive in fog a lot, they really help.

My '87 Accord has flip-up headlights. I prefer to have daytime running
lights for safety (Canadian law requires all new cars manufactured since
the early 90s to have daytime running lights of some sort; it's a
recognized safety feature). So I wired up fog lights to be on whenever
the engine is running.

 

If you drive in fog a lot, they really help.

My '87 Accord has flip-up headlights. I prefer to have daytime running
lights for safety (Canadian law requires all new cars manufactured since
the early 90s to have daytime running lights of some sort; it's a
recognized safety feature). So I wired up fog lights to be on whenever
the engine is running.

 

(SAC 441) wrote in 3252.bay.webtv.net:

High Intensity Discharge. It's the same technology as that behind
streetlights, but with a bit of a twist that allows them to begin producing
usable light without a lengthy warm-up time.
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/HID%20headlight%20operation.html

They do use a metal halide arc tube, but are not halogens.

That's a common complaint. Apparently the NHTSA has investigated this issue
and has determined that the apparent glare is not a problem.

My understanding is that the glare you see is partly due to the
government's mandated beam cutoff pattern, probably why the NHTSA sees no
trouble (why would they condemn their own regulations?).
http://tinyurl.com/do4v2

Automakers are not free use any beam pattern they want in the US market,
and are specifically prohibited from using European-style beam patterns.

 

True, but many of the "blue headlights" being used in the US are
not HID lamps but halogens with blue-tinted bulbs, sold in auto-
parts chains like Auto Zone to idiots who think they look cool.

I don't know whether those bother the OP, or only real HID lamps
do, of course. (Personally, I find them annoying because cars
are dangerous tools and ought to be treated as such, but there's
not much to be done about it.)

--
Michael Wojcik

What is it with this warm, quiet, nauseating bond between them?
-- Rumiko Takahashi, _Maison Ikkoku_, trans. Mari Morimoto, adapt. Gerard
Jones

 

(Michael Wojcik) wrote in

Those are not OEM lights. I was assuming the OP was referring to the glare
from OEM HID lamps.

Those "blue" aftermarket bulbs are illegal for road use in North America by
the way, since only emergency vehicles are permitted to display a blue
light towards the front of the vehicle.

It's not a police priority, but if you get pulled over for something else,
or you catch the attention of a bored cop, you may get charged.

 

It's more than that, it seems...

According to a knowledgeable poster in rec.autos.tech, the main problem
with the "blue" bulbs is minimum output, not specifically the blue color.

The "blue" bulbs tend to have actual output (as opposed to "nominal"
output) that's below the legal minimum.
http://fmvss108.tripod.com/light_source_list.htm

 

Agreed. It wasn't clear to me whether the OP was distinguishing OEM
lights from aftermarket ones, or was just complaining about head-
lights with a bluish hue in general.

Well, *I* wouldn't, since I wouldn't use a bulb that emits less light
for no useful purpose, but I know what you mean. Frankly, I'd be
happy if there were more enforcement of this sort of thing.

--
Michael Wojcik

Only the obscene machine has persisted
jerky and jockeying and not knowing why
I have never existed. Nor should. -- George Barker

 

Yep. Daniel Stern's site (http://www.danielsternlighting.com/) is
also good on this topic, and other matters related to headlights.

 

The "blue" headlights I am talking about have extremely high output,have
almost coherent light beams (but not quite, fortunately) like lasers and
tend to leave after image "spots" on my retinas.I hate them.They started
showing up on high-end cars around 2002 or 2003.
Even from 1000 feet away,when other cars headlights are in close
proximity with "normal"
white lights,you can pick out these lamps almost immediately.From my
perception,they even have "coronas" around the emanating discharge
point.