Hi, I'm just wondering if these integrated headlights are legal. Thanks for the help.
Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
Headlight Legality
- Thread starter flipz
- Start date
Insufficient information. Can't tell by just the picture.
If the headlight has the appropriate compliance markings and documentation (and they're not forged *cough* made in C***a) it MAY be legal provided that in the installation, it is correctly applied.
If the headlight has the appropriate compliance markings and documentation (and they're not forged *cough* made in C***a) it MAY be legal provided that in the installation, it is correctly applied.
Jimsun
Well-known member
So whats the minimum distance between blinkers for those who has gone integrated TLs?
Also the rule is, if you can see your blinkers 50 FEET away during a sunny day then its okay. If you cant see it through the HL then no. Also the HL has to be on as long as the bike is running. Since this does t satisfy that. That HL isnt legal.
Edit. If its marked DOT or CSA then use it.
Also the rule is, if you can see your blinkers 50 FEET away during a sunny day then its okay. If you cant see it through the HL then no. Also the HL has to be on as long as the bike is running. Since this does t satisfy that. That HL isnt legal.
Edit. If its marked DOT or CSA then use it.
Wondering if this is now a gray area....Chryslers' headlights turn off on the side of the indicator that is flashing....I wonder if this is the same idea....just thinking out loud.
A few years back a guy in my group got a ticket for it on my 507 run (along with "no mud flap" and 3km/h over the speed limit
, guess cop was having a bad day). There is an actual measurement, going from memory it said "the distance between the geometric centres of the light sources must be a minimum of 9 inches apart" and yeah yeah, I know some factory bikes don't even have the blinkers 9" apart, but if you modify it, and it violates the CMVSS, then you can expect a charge if the cop feels like it.Where did you see 50 feet? When my friend "returned his bike to stock" and went to court to fight the tickets they made him get his bike tested, and if I remember correctly it was 100ft in sunlight and 300ft at night (there was a 50ft test, but it was only for a bike manufactured prior to 1984 or something).
Last edited:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/roadsafety/108_TSD_rev_5R.pdf
Happy reading. Start on page 47 of the PDF, then again at page 95. Pay particular attention to page 97.
Happy reading. Start on page 47 of the PDF, then again at page 95. Pay particular attention to page 97.
From PDF page 97 (numbered page 90). Note that the dimensions in the "at or near the front" rule out compliance of the turn signals built into the headlight assembly that was the original topic of this post, and the dimensions in the "at or near the rear" rule out ALL combined stop/tail/turn "integrated" lights because the turn signals are too close together. Also, for those "integrated" lights that turn off the red brake light function while the amber turn function illuminates ... that's not legal. (described elsewhere in the document)
At or near the front
-
1 amber on each side of the vertical centerline at the same height, and having a minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline of lamps) of 400 mm (16 inches). Minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and headlamp is 100 mm (4 inches).
At or near the rear
-
1 red or amber on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height and having a minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline to centerline of lamps) of 230 mm (9 inches). Minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp is 100 mm (4 inches), when a single stop and tail lamp is installed on the vertical centerline and the turn signal lamps are red.
Thanks for the links! Yeah, my friends ticket was for the rear signals, woot for remembering the 9 inches
No ... some (not all) Chrysler (and others ... they're not the only ones to do it) DAYTIME RUNNING LAMPS turn off on the side that the indicator is flashing. Repeat and with emphasis deliberate: the DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHT turns off. If the driver (or the automatic switch) has the headlamps selected, they remain on regardless of turn signal operation.
This has to do with the separation distances between the turn signal and the other functions and the relative brightness of them. If the turn signal is too close to the DRL then they switch the DRL off when the turn signal is activated, to ensure that the turn signal is more visible. There is something in the standard about the relative brightness of the adjacent functions also.
It is entirely possible that some vehicles do this even though the dimensions don't require it to be done for that specific vehicle. Easier for the manufacturer to use the same control module regardless of which vehicle it goes into ...
My van (late model Fiat/Chrysler) does not switch off the DRL when the turn signal is on ... because the DRL is on the opposite side of the housing from the turn signal.
My car (few years old from the DaimlerChrysler era) uses the low beam headlamp as the DRL. It does not switch it off when the turn signal is on, even when it is in DRL mode ... because even though the turn signal function is next to the headlamp, it's far enough away and big enough and bright enough that they don't have to.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
All the TC laws are federal wrt new or import vehicle/motorcycle requirements. It's my understanding local/provincial police do not enforce federal TC laws, rather they enforce provincial laws related to any such prescribed requirements, which vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/motorvehiclesafety/tp-tp12957-menu-173.htm
ON has much less descriptive light standards.
http://www.ontarioticket.com/motor-vehicle-lighting.php
Last edited:
Yes, that's true. But ...
The Ontario laws contain requirements for lights to be visible from a certain distance. This is a vague requirement. But lights that are CMVSS 108 compliant will always be visible from that distance (provided, of course, that the bulb is not burned out).
A lighting function that is too close to another function (e.g. turn signal too close to headlight, left turn signal too close to brake lamp or too close to right turn signal) may not be visible from that distance ...
The policeman at the roadside, who has the vague Ontario laws memorized, but who sees something he doesn't like, can always issue the HTA s. 84 "unsafe vehicle" ticket, and then it's up to you to prove that it's not. If your vehicle is compliant with the federal motor vehicle standards, the crown has no case (and in all probability, you would not be getting the ticket to begin with). If your vehicle is in a lesser state of compliance, or is arguable, then the crown may have a case, and you don't want the crown to have a case.
Finally, the rules in CMVSS are generally there for a reason: visibility. Do you really want to be making yourself less visible?
The Ontario laws contain requirements for lights to be visible from a certain distance. This is a vague requirement. But lights that are CMVSS 108 compliant will always be visible from that distance (provided, of course, that the bulb is not burned out).
A lighting function that is too close to another function (e.g. turn signal too close to headlight, left turn signal too close to brake lamp or too close to right turn signal) may not be visible from that distance ...
The policeman at the roadside, who has the vague Ontario laws memorized, but who sees something he doesn't like, can always issue the HTA s. 84 "unsafe vehicle" ticket, and then it's up to you to prove that it's not. If your vehicle is compliant with the federal motor vehicle standards, the crown has no case (and in all probability, you would not be getting the ticket to begin with). If your vehicle is in a lesser state of compliance, or is arguable, then the crown may have a case, and you don't want the crown to have a case.
Finally, the rules in CMVSS are generally there for a reason: visibility. Do you really want to be making yourself less visible?
Last edited:
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Light visibility in the Ontario HTA not a vague requirement, it is specifically defined and described in the legislation, and visible distance requirements only apply to headlights and brake lights.
It is up to the prosecutor to prove their case, not for the defendant to prove theirs. IMO, if charged a half decent court representative should be able to quiz the the officer on his determination. An officer's determination has to be specific and apply directly to the case. If the officer did not do specific measurements per the HTA or gives an issue/justification not supported in HTA legislation a whole line of questioning can be opened up to bring applicability issues or reasonable doubt into the evaluation. One can also bring their own evidence to a hearing. There is no such thing as a lesser state of compliance. It is either in compliance or it is not.
The unsafe vehicle section of the HTA is very specific. The vehicle specifically has to be examined or tested specifically and to specific standards. As mentioned before, Ontario laws, and specifically the HTA only have visibility requirements for a headlight and brakelight (on motorcycles newer than 1970), which need to be visible from 150 metres. And there is nothing on signal lights visibility in Ontario legislation. I looked at Reg. 611: SAFETY INSPECTIONS. There isn't even a requirement in the safety inspection regulation for signal lights on a motorcycle. Motor tricycles interestingly specifically require signal lights but motorcycles have no such specific requirements. All it says for motorcycles is that "turn signal lamps and the flasher unit shall operate properly". Not that they are required, or that they have to be a certain distance apart, or visible from a certain distance, etc. Essentially most all aftermarket signal lights are not prohibited by the HTA and regulations.
There is a reason that there are almost no charges brought up against motorcyclists on these related issues. Many issues aren't prohibited in the HTA and regulations, and some of the related ones here that are prohibited are onerous to prove and prosecute. I've never seen anyone ever get a charge for signal lights or headlight issues (other than burned out headlights) on a motorcycle in 25 years.
From my experience I've seen lots of motorcyclists riding without any signal lights without tickets... it is actually technically permissible in ON legislation and in specific HTA sections which describe the use of hand signals.
Police find other charges that are easier to prosecute and hold up in court.
My bike doesn't meet CMVSS and it is fine for visibility IMO and IME. I've never heard of an accident where someone said "if only my signal lights were 9 inches apart I'd have been fine". There are generally much bigger determinants to accidents
I'd recommend bright signal lights, not the cheap stuff many people buy.
Personal decisions and choices. While these related issues exist technically and are worth a quick note, in reality they are of much less significance from a legality and enforcement perspective than I've seen people refer to them as. As noted, some of these various issues are not enforced through provincial legislation nor provincial authorities and are not illegal as referred to in the Ontario HTA and regulations. Much of this is a tempest in a teapot imo.
Last edited:
As per the HTA:
[h=2]Number Plates[/h] 9. (1) Evidence of validation issued for use on a number plate shall be affixed,
(a) where the permit is for a commercial motor vehicle, in the upper right corner of the number plate exposed on the front of the motor vehicle; and
(b) in all other cases, in the upper right corner of the number plate exposed on the rear of the motor vehicle. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 9 (1).
(2) Despite subsection (1), a RUO sticker shall be affixed in the upper left corner of the number plate exposed on the front of the bus. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 9 (2).
(3) The number plates for a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle or a motor assisted bicycle, shall be attached to and exposed in a conspicuous position on the front and rear of the motor vehicle. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 9 (3).
(3.1) Where the number plates attached to the vehicle are year-of-manufacture plates, and only one plate was issued by the Ministry in that year for display on a motor vehicle, that plate shall be attached to and exposed in a conspicuous position at the rear of the vehicle. O. Reg. 331/01, s. 2.
(4) The number plate for a motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle or trailer shall be attached to and exposed in a conspicuous position on the rear of the vehicle. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 9 (4).
(5) This section does not apply in respect of Dealer permits and number plates, Service permits and number plates or Dealer and Service permits and number plates. O. Reg. 367/04, s. 2.
10. (1) For the purpose of subsection 11 (3) of the Act, a number plate may be affixed to a trailer and number plates, one of which bears evidence of current validation, may be affixed to a motor vehicle where the permit holder is in possession of,
(a) the vehicle portion of the permit issued for the vehicle and the transfer application completed and signed by both the person named in the vehicle portion and the new owner;
(b) the plate portion of the permit that corresponds with the number plates to be affixed to the vehicle; and
(c) in the case of a used motor vehicle, a safety standards certificate issued upon an inspection of the vehicle that was completed within the preceding thirty-six days. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 10 (1).
(2) Clause (1) (b) does not apply where the permit that corresponds with the number plates is a permit that was issued before the 1st day of December, 1982. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 10 (2).
(3) Clause (1) (c) does not apply where a safety standards certificate would not be required to be submitted to the Ministry in order to obtain a permit other than a permit marked “unfit motor vehicle”. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 10 (3).
(4) Where a plate holder, as the first owner or first lessee of the vehicle, takes possession of a motor vehicle from a motor vehicle dealer registered under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, other than a dealer registered as a broker or outside Ontario dealer or registered only as an exporter,
(a) a copy of the dealer’s bill of sale or some other document establishing ownership; or
(b) a copy of the dealer’s bill of sale and a copy of the lease agreement,
may be substituted for the requirement under clause 10 (1) (a). R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 10 (4); O. Reg. 446/09, s. 2.
(4.1) Subsection (4) applies with necessary modifications where a plate holder, as the first owner or first lessee of the vehicle, takes possession of a motor vehicle from a motor vehicle dealer referred to in clause 2 (2) (c.1) or (c.2). O. Reg. 211/10, s. 2.
(5) Where a corporation signs the transfer application referred to in clause 10 (1) (a), the signature of a person authorized to sign on behalf of the corporation is a sufficient signing of the transfer application. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 10 (5).
(6) A person driving a motor vehicle or drawing a trailer on a highway under the authority of subsection 11 (4) of the Act is required to carry the applicable documents referred to in subsection (1) or true copies thereof, and must surrender them for inspection upon a demand made under the Act. O. Reg. 119/12, s. 2.
11. (1) A year-of-manufacture plate shall not be used on a commercial motor vehicle,
(a) if the commercial motor vehicle has a gross weight of more than 3,000 kilograms; or
(b) if the commercial motor vehicle is not used primarily for personal transportation. O. Reg. 62/11, s. 4.
(2) A permit shall not be issued or validated for a commercial motor vehicle described in clause (1) (a) or (b) on which a year-of-manufacture plate is used. O. Reg. 62/11, s. 4.
Now, define "conspicuous position", and define "on the rear of the vehicle", bearing in mind that with most of those swingarm-mounted plates, (A) the plate is sideways (is having to read letters sideways "conspicuous", or is it an impediment?), (B) the plate is not as far back as it physically can go, (C) there will be some positions generally behind the vehicle but towards the opposite side of where the plate is mounted, in which some portion of the rear wheel/tire will block view of the license plate.
If a swingarm-mounted plate is legal/illegal then discuss the ramifications of the way a lot of sport bike riders mount the plate on the underside of the tail section and explain why it is similar/different to the interpretations above. (Lack of a plate light is another matter ...)
The stock mounting position of license plates on the average motorcycle is unquestionable with regards to these requirements and their potential interpretations. It's when you do something different from stock that certain issues start getting open to being questioned.
(I deal with this "type" of crap all the time, although in industrial settings, and my advice is always, whenever possible, if something is in a grey area of interpretation, do something so that it is NOT in a grey area.)
If a swingarm-mounted plate is legal/illegal then discuss the ramifications of the way a lot of sport bike riders mount the plate on the underside of the tail section and explain why it is similar/different to the interpretations above. (Lack of a plate light is another matter ...)
The stock mounting position of license plates on the average motorcycle is unquestionable with regards to these requirements and their potential interpretations. It's when you do something different from stock that certain issues start getting open to being questioned.
(I deal with this "type" of crap all the time, although in industrial settings, and my advice is always, whenever possible, if something is in a grey area of interpretation, do something so that it is NOT in a grey area.)
