Is It Illegal to drive with 1 headlight? Edited.. Meet Captain Supra of the 7 seas...

[Mk4Gaz]

Good stuff mate

[MattP]

I dont like when people are fed the wrong information when it comes to Legal matters so for the benefit of you that are still confused.

 

 

 

Original Legal Question

 

a98pmalcolm

 

I'm going to send off one of my headlights for resealing but I use my car as a daily runner in the day (to drive 5 miles away from my house to a roadside space in a housing estate)

 

IS there any law to drive a car in the day with a missing headlight?

 

 

Benji

 

"Headlights can be removed and it will pass an MOT believe it or not. Can't see it, can't fail it."

 

Reply: But we can see it Benji, only one housing has been removed not "headlights" refer to pictures.

 

Mk4Gaz

 

"It also says in the above mot testers guide "headlights are not required to be fitted to vehicles used only in the hours of daylight"

 

Reply: True but that would require that the car had been presented for MOT in the aforementioned state,at which point it may have been Passed and advised which is key in one circumstance which I will get to later on.

 

However the car was not presented for MOT in a state of having no lights (to our Knowledge) nor did it have both lights removed in the original post (see 1st post)

 

Remember I am staying on topic with the Original Legal question.

 

Benji

 

"Explain to me how you register a vehicle for a "daytime only" test, and how you issue a "daytime only" certificate then..."

 

Reply: According to VOSA you must pass and advise on the MOT Certificate, which in this case you could not as the vehicle was not presented in the state aforementioned nor did it have its "headlights" removed it had one housing removed.

 

Benji

 

"Couldn't find nothing on Google then?

 

A VT32 is issued upon completion of the test indicating that the vehicle is used only in daylight hours. As long as the vehicle is presented for test on a clear, dry day, no lights are required. If the presenter says it is only used in daylight, and not in darkness or weather that causes reduced visibility, you give them the benefit of the doubt, and pass and advise."

 

Reply: Precisely and the vehicle in question was not supplied for MOT in that state therefore it could not possibly have a PASS AND ADVISE on its MOT certificate as a means of defence. This is besides the relevant Legal Question but worth mentioning for later.

 

Benji Just wondering how qualified you are to dish out advice...

 

Reply: With a Legal question reading "IS there any law to drive a car in the day with a missing headlight?" I am overqualified to be honest it should be a one line answer but here we are.

 

Gaz6002

 

"There are laws against having sharp edges on the front of cars too. This is why you have to tape up a broken light or window before driving."

 

Reply: Yes there is which in this case is important we will look at why in my conclusion.

 

 

Benji "Indeed, but with the bonnet shut, it's just a hole. It doesn't protrude, so technically it's ok.

 

For the sake of your engine bay, I'd cover it up. Even if it's with a bin bag and masking tape."

 

Reply: See Full Conclusion on Legality of this its not that clean cut In Court.

 

Benji "You can't prove what the wires are for though mate. Same as if the centre brake light doesn't work, you're not allowed to test wires or remove anything to check the wiring. As long as the wires aren't bare, insecure to the extent of becoming damaged or pose a fire hazard, electrical wiring doesn't come into the test."

 

Reply: You can when the other headlight is fitted and functional as in this case, I have no doubts that a prosecution expert witness would have had no problem pointing this out....

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEGAL ANSWER: YES there is a Law that is relevant Refer to:

 

The Road Traffic Act 1988 chapter 52 part 2 Section 40A

 

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses or causes or permits another to use, a

motor vehicle or trailer on a road when:

 

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

© the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

 

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.

 

For Reference see here....http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/40A

 

 

If You Are Genuinely Interested Read On If Not This Will Bore You Further.

 

 

Now what does this mean with reference to our question and this specific case well there are a few possible outcomes.

 

A. The OP drives the vehicle as is and nothing happens (Most likely)

 

B. The OP gets pulled and and a stern talking to. (Likely)

 

C. The OP gets pulled and gets a producer and or VDRS (a chance to rectify the problem) (Possible)

 

D. The OP gets pulled and is Reported for above offence (Possible)

 

etc etc the list goes on.

 

OK so why am I still banging on about this... Well my Legal reasoning in this case is thus.

 

1.The car has a FULL UK MOT and was presented as such for MOT in its full capacity as it was intended to be driven.

 

2.The car has (in theory) one Functioning Headlight in place refer to (pictures on page 1)

 

3.The car May present a danger in a frontal impact to either a pedestrian or other road user (Biker etc) which it otherwise would not if fitted with the correct housing. (The But For Test) also possible application of (Thin Skull Principle)

 

Basically A Judge or Majistrate may apply the But For Test in your case for example: (Should you be involved in an accident whereby you have hit a pedestrian lets say in this case a child it could be said that But For your action of removing the headlight housing the child may have struck the curved headlight housing and bounced off thus surviving however the child hit and was lodged by the Hole where the headlight housing would otherwise have been and was dragged etc... The Thin Skull Principle being an additional test whereby you must take the victim as they lie (basically you must give consideration to every outcome) You could not turn around at this point and say I had an MOT the car was safe as a Judge most likely state your car was not presented for MOT in that state as there is no pass and advise on your MOT for lights being removed, nor were both of your lights removed and the holes covered sufficiently to avoid foreseeable injury.

 

Remember Section 40 see Bold.

 

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses or causes or permits another to use, a

motor vehicle or trailer on a road when:

 

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or

(b) the purpose for which it is used, or

© the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or

(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,

 

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.

 

ANY PERSON

 

 

 

There are mountains of case Law for anybody interested in this it turns out this is not the first time this has happened (Shock Horror)

 

 

 

As I said in the beginning the simple answer is no..... However personally I may have been inclined in your position to have driven it.

 

You takes the risk you makes your choice....

[Benjy]

We were done the other night. Look...

 

and IT IS DONE WITH

[straightsix]

In fairness, the question was 'will my car be legal' not 'will it pass an MOT'

 

I think Matt has more than answered the question.

[Ian C]

Also Matt has taken full liability if any of that turns out to be incorrect legal advice

[Ian C]

Correct LEGAL info has now been supplied.

 

There is now no ambiguity to the OPs specific question.

 

You're a lawyer aren't you?

[Benjy]

Nope I gain nothing from this other than being dragged into an argument where I simply stated dont drive it is the simplest solution.

 

And you're still going!

[listy]

In the end, as MattP has pointed out, the question was about legality. Considering his proffesion, MattP was in the best position to answer the question.

He may not have done it in the best way to start with, however, I feel the (HUGE) post from MattP sums up everything required.

 

Also, Benjy, stop baiting MattP, there was no need for any of your latest replies.

 

Thread closed, as the question has been answered.