Intermittent reverse lights...?

JustAnotherSaver

Drove the wifes car yesterday and noticed the reverse lights weren't working. This happened a while ago. Told a mechanic and he just said it's not an MOT failure which in itself i think is ridiculous but hey ho.

Kept taking out of reverse and putting in - didn't trigger it. Got out and smacked the light unit a bit on both sides - also didn't trigger it. Was tipping it down so i gave up and went inside.

Went out today to check and first time the lights came on so obviously the bulbs actually do work.

So where along the line of gear stick to light unit is the most likely break down to be looking at then if its not the bulbs?

tacpot12

Dodgy Switch on the gearbox? If both lights are off or on at the same time you are looking for a fault before the split to each bulb takes place. 

I had a failed switch with the dealer wanted £300 for parts and labour to replace. Doing it myself cost just £25 for the part (from another dealer!) and 15 minutes work; 10 of which we spent trying to find the switch in the gearbox and 3 to get the connector off without breaking it.  

facade

Could be anywhere. The switch in the gearbox is the usual culprit.

Strictly, the reverse lamps are only testable (and therefore a failure if not working) for vehicles registered after 31 Aug 2009.

AdrianC

JustAnotherSaver said:

Told a mechanic and he just said it's not an MOT failure which in itself i think is ridiculous but hey ho.

Why "ridiculous"?

It is a fail if the car is 2009 or newer.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/4-lamps-reflectors-and-electrical-equipment#section-4-6-1

If the car is older, then reversing lights weren't a required fitment in the first place.

As for trouble-shooting... <passes multimeter>
There'll be a switch - probably on the gearbox itself, maybe on the linkage. My money'd be on that if the bulbs are working and there's no corrosion in the clusters.

JustAnotherSaver

tacpot12 said:

If both lights are off or on at the same time you are looking for a fault before the split to each bulb takes place.

Ah i should've said - yes, it's both lights that don't illuminate.

tacpot12 said:

 get the connector off without breaking it.  

Haha, that reminds me, i need to update a thread later for the just jump in with both feet gang.

facade said:

Strictly, the reverse lamps are only testable (and therefore a failure if not working) for vehicles registered after 31 Aug 2009.

Wasn't aware there was a date on it. Still, i don't agree with it.

AdrianC said:

Why "ridiculous"?

Because that is my opinion which i am entitled to.

The car has reverse lights - they should work. Someone is behind you and you need to reverse up. I wont paint a scenario as i'm sure we've all been in one of those situations and you can think of one.

Car behind you wont have a clue why you're just sat there not moving. You wont have a clue why car behind you isn't just backing up a bit to give you some space.

Car behind gets mad maybe. You maybe have to get out and explain you're needing to reverse up. Whatever. It's just better if the reverse lights actually work.

For me it's on a par with those stupid DRLs where the front lights up but the rear doesn't.

I'm all for safety so why on earth some bright spark who's probably paid a nice wedge thought it was a genius idea to not illuminate the rear at the same time i do not know. I see countless people driving in the dark with DRLs on but nothing at the rear. Would it really be so difficult to make it so that the rear is also illuminated? No i highly doubt it.

Last night i was actually 2 cars behind one of these people and the car that was directly behind them kept flashing them. DRL-guy didn't get the hint. Would've been avoided if the car setup had been designed better or if it was just law to have the rear illuminated at the same time.

Rant over

AdrianC said:

As for trouble-shooting... <passes multimeter>
There'll be a switch - probably on the gearbox itself, maybe on the linkage. My money'd be on that if the bulbs are working and there's no corrosion in the clusters.

I don't have a multimeter. I could get one, but i don't know how to use one either. 101 options on them with that dial thing and all those buttons. When i say i don't know electrics it's actually not a joke.

Though thanks for the additional suggestion of corrosion on others suggestion of the switch. I'll have a look.

Have had a gander where the switch is and i think i need to take the battery out to access it. Not 100% on how it's coming out but i'll have a gander on YouTube.

AdrianC

JustAnotherSaver said:

AdrianC said:

Why "ridiculous"?

Because that is my opinion which i am entitled to.

The car has reverse lights - they should work.

Do you need the MOT tester to kick you into fixing them?

Someone is behind you and you need to reverse up. I wont paint a scenario as i'm sure we've all been in one of those situations and you can think of one.

Car behind you wont have a clue why you're just sat there not moving. You wont have a clue why car behind you isn't just backing up a bit to give you some space.

Car behind gets mad maybe. You maybe have to get out and explain you're needing to reverse up. Whatever. It's just better if the reverse lights actually work.

Lovely, an' all. But what about those cars without them fitted?

For me it's on a par with those stupid DRLs where the front lights up but the rear doesn't.

I'm all for safety so why on earth some bright spark who's probably paid a nice wedge thought it was a genius idea to not illuminate the rear at the same time i do not know. I see countless people driving in the dark with DRLs on but nothing at the rear. Would it really be so difficult to make it so that the rear is also illuminated? No i highly doubt it.

Is the issue there the car's designer's choices... or the driver's failure to turn their headlights on?

tacpot12

You really want the reversing lights to work if they are fitted. When reversing out of a parking bay, often an oncoming driver will see you lights come on before they realise your car has started to move - having working reversing lights could well avoid an accident. 

JustAnotherSaver

AdrianC said:

Do you need the MOT tester to kick you into fixing them?

And could you tell me what it is that I am here trying to do...???

I'm guessing you'll probably ignore that question though since it doesn't tie in with your argument so well.

It's also irrelevant. If they're there then they should work and if they don't work they should fail. What's the difference between a 2008 car with reverse lights that don't work and a 2009 car with reverse lights that don't work? Nothing, except you're telling me one will pass and the other will fail just because one is 6 months older than the other. It's nonsense.

AdrianC said:

Lovely, an' all. But what about those cars without them fitted?

But we're talking about cars that have them fitted yet don't work.

See, I work with people who will try and drag you off course to suit their argument so I can spot it a mile off and we wont be doing that here.

Is the issue there the car's designer's choices... or the driver's failure to turn their headlights on?

Both.

The driver should of course turn their headlights on but at the same time we're not in the early 1900s and technology has advanced. Are you trying to imply we can't design a car where the rear lights automatically come on when the DRLs are on up front? Nonsense. Some cars have that setup so it's no big deal. All cars with DRLs should be set up that way.

Problem is, we're all only human and people can be forgetful. A little help from the designer would be beneficial. I don't know if all cars are going this way but i know at least in the Astra, the H clocks would illuminate regardless yet in the G they only illuminate if you turn the lights on. So in the H you could be driving in an area that is reasonably lit but the light has now disappeared (sky) and you haven't realised that your lights aren't turned on. Yes there's the light indicator but like i said, people can be forgetful. If they don't realise then they can easily drive with no lights on because their illuminated dash may not make them realise they've forgotten to turn their lights on.

tacpot12 said:

You really want the reversing lights to work if they are fitted. When reversing out of a parking bay, often an oncoming driver will see you lights come on before they realise your car has started to move - having working reversing lights could well avoid an accident. 

Exactly my point. If your lights don't illuminate they may wonder what on earth you're doing or think that you're just another parked car or you're adjusting to still stay in the bay but maybe shift sideways a little. They may not be the patient type to wait on you and instead pass closely and you may not have spotted them either. Combine the two and you could have an accident.

I actually believe that AdrianC knows this. He's not a stupid guy at all. Maybe it's just a slow rainy Sunday and he's wanting to just have a bit of fun. Who knows.

AdrianC

JustAnotherSaver said:

AdrianC said:

Do you need the MOT tester to kick you into fixing them?

And could you tell me what it is that I am here trying to do...???

Exactly. So whether the tester can fail it or not makes no difference...

What's the difference between a 2008 car with reverse lights that don't work and a 2009 car with reverse lights that don't work? Nothing, except you're telling me one will pass and the other will fail just because one is 6 months older than the other. It's nonsense.

There's a whole raft of stuff in the tester's manual that's date-specific. Not just reversing lights.
Is it similarly ridiculous that, say, front foglights aren't testable on pre-2018 cars?
Or that TPMS isn't testable on pre-2012 cars?
Or that the engine management light being on is a fail on 2003 to 2008 cars if they're petrol, but not if they're diesel?
Or that steering locks aren't testable on pre-2001 cars?
Or that the main beam warning light isn't testable on pre-1986 cars? Or that some post-1986 ones get a free pass on that because the manufacturer "forgot" to fit one new?
Or that non-working speedo illumination is a fail... despite there being a factory-fitted switch to turn it off in one of my cars? And, of course, despite the minor detail that the car won't fail if the speedo itself doesn't actually work...?

And it's not just dates. Does it make sense that 13-pin tow sockets are testable for function, but the far more common 7-pin aren't? 

AdrianC said:

Lovely, an' all. But what about those cars without them fitted?

But we're talking about cars that have them fitted yet don't work.

If it's dangerous to have them not working, why is it not dangerous to not have them at all?

Is the issue there the car's designer's choices... or the driver's failure to turn their headlights on?

 Both.

The driver should of course turn their headlights on but at the same time we're not in the early 1900s and technology has advanced. Are you trying to imply we can't design a car where the rear lights automatically come on when the DRLs are on up front? Nonsense. Some cars have that setup so it's no big deal. All cars with DRLs should be set up that way.

No, I'm not trying to imply that - because on many DRL-equipped cars, the rear lights can be programmed to come on or not.

DRLs do not provide adequate frontal illumination for driving at night. That simple. Because they aren't intended to. But it's OK if some idiot drives around on inadequate lights so long as the rear lights are on, too...?

And shouldn't the driver know the very basics about their vehicles, like what the headlight-on symbol on the dash looks like?
(Not that the dip-beam warning light has to work, of course, for the MOT... just the main beam one.)

If your lights don't illuminate they may wonder what on earth you're doing or think that you're just another parked car or you're adjusting to still stay in the bay but maybe shift sideways a little. They may not be the patient type to wait on you and instead pass closely and you may not have spotted them either. Combine the two and you could have an accident.

And that's the fault of the MOT not checking reversing lights on 12yo+ cars, not an impatient pillock who probably wouldn't have paid any attention to them anyway, combined with somebody not looking properly?

Would it be OK to blithely reverse into an impatient numpty so long as the reversing lights work but were being ignored? Because, if not, the reversing lights are kinda irrelevant to the situation...

JustAnotherSaver

Read about your opening 10 lines and it became apparent (it was pretty clear beforehand tbh but hey ho) that we are not going to agree on this.

So to save the merry-go-round ...... you're entitled to your opinion just like i am to mine. It's the internet so neither one of us are going to change the other persons viewpoint so on that note, best to call the conversation done.