Good headlight bulbs..

rev_henry

AdrianHi wrote: »

Yes but the dft article goes on to say:
For the after market, a used vehicle cannot obtain type approval because it is only applicable for new vehicles. However we feel that saying "HID is banned in the after market" would not be reasonable. Instead we should make analogies with new vehicles. It would be reasonable to require HID in the after market to meet the same safety standards as on new vehicles. The same level of safety should apply.
Therefore a HID headlamp unit sold in the after market should:.... etc. etc.

Ah, its been a while since I read that. I would agree with your conclusion then. Basically you can only fit them easily if you've an older Range Rover or similar that already has self levelling suspension and headlamp washers but not Xenons, as is quite likely on ones around 10 years old or so.

Lum

AdrianHi wrote: »

Yes but the dft article goes on to say:
For the after market, a used vehicle cannot obtain type approval because it is only applicable for new vehicles. However we feel that saying "HID is banned in the after market" would not be reasonable. Instead we should make analogies with new vehicles. It would be reasonable to require HID in the after market to meet the same safety standards as on new vehicles. The same level of safety should apply.
Therefore a HID headlamp unit sold in the after market should:.... etc. etc.

Which leads to the absurd situation that an early factory-fit installation (such as my old 1999 Subaru Legacy which had factory HIDs, no washers and manual leveling) need comply with a low standard of rules, but a car made even earlier than that need comply with the modern 2010 rules. Why should my 1993 Nissan have to comply with rules that don't apply to my old 1999 Subaru

Also that DFT "factsheet" should really be called an "opinionsheet" there are very few actual facts in it.

AdrianHi

Lum wrote: »

Which leads to the absurd situation that an early factory-fit installation (such as my old 1999 Subaru Legacy which had factory HIDs, no washers and manual leveling) need comply with a low standard of rules, but a car made even earlier than that need comply with the modern 2010 rules. Why should my 1993 Nissan have to comply with rules that don't apply to my old 1999 Subaru

Also that DFT "factsheet" should really be called an "opinionsheet" there are very few actual facts in it.

Some people are of the opinion that for the aftermarket what is said here is not legally enforceable anyway. So you could just go and fit some HID's and forget the washers, self leveling and even special designed of light lense... if you agree with their opinion of course.

ritesh

alo6 wrote: »

the Halfords Extra Bright ones are white(ish) and are only £25 a bulb with a constant buy one get one free.

not quite what your asking for, but good all the same.

I actually bought the Halfords extra bright ones and was very dissapointed with them. I had to replace the bulbs three times in less than 6 months! This was for a nissan amlera. May be just my bad luck but now use standard bulb which has now lasted over 1 year

rev_henry

AdrianHi wrote: »

Some people are of the opinion that for the aftermarket what is said here is not legally enforceable anyway. So you could just go and fit some HID's and forget the washers, self leveling and even special designed of light lense... if you agree with their opinion of course.

I think the real question is has anyone been prosecuted recently for it? If the answer's no, as I suspect, then the law isn't really a law at all is it?

vikingaero

rev_henry wrote: »

I think the real question is has anyone been prosecuted recently for it? If the answer's no, as I suspect, then the law isn't really a law at all is it?

I'm not aware of any prosecutions either but there are plenty of stories of people failing MOTs with aftermarket HIDs.

maninthestreet

Lum wrote: »

Which leads to the absurd situation that an early factory-fit installation (such as my old 1999 Subaru Legacy which had factory HIDs, no washers and manual leveling) need comply with a low standard of rules, but a car made even earlier than that need comply with the modern 2010 rules. Why should my 1993 Nissan have to comply with rules that don't apply to my old 1999 Subaru

Also that DFT "factsheet" should really be called an "opinionsheet" there are very few actual facts in it.

Because the Subaru had them fitted at the factory, the Nissan didn't - if you make modifications to a car, they have to comply with the current 'legislation'.

anewman

vikingaero wrote: »

I'm not aware of any prosecutions either but there are plenty of stories of people failing MOTs with aftermarket HIDs.

Read http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/107534-i-also-got-pulled-over-today/page__p__1339187__hl__pulled__fromsearch__1&#entry1339187

Inactive

vikingaero wrote: »

I'm not aware of any prosecutions either but there are plenty of stories of people failing MOTs with aftermarket HIDs.

There are a lot of cars failing as well..

( Sorry....couldn't resist ).

AdrianHi

anewman wrote: »

Read http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/107534-i-also-got-pulled-over-today/page__p__1339187__hl__pulled__fromsearch__1&#entry1339187

wrote:

He's inside doing time for having factory fitted xennons

:rotfl:

Wonder what did happen in the end.