Guys,
Had the Official Yamaha Indicator Plus units fitted to my new MT-07 but when I picked it up then were not working, complained and the mechanic said they were illegal with the running lights working.. so a bit of a waste of money?
So coming from a legal background I did some investigating into these lights, the result is below is your considering buying these lights.
Front running lights:
Yamaha are just covering themselves here, you can have running lights at the front and they are not part of the UK MOT, the 2007 EU amendment does not cover front running lights and neither does the MOT - so you can wire them up - bet that's a relief for all those BMW's with 10 lights on the front you see riding about
Also the UK MOT says you must have a flat headlight beam at the front (this only covers your main light if it is brought up)
Back running lights: (seen an MT-07 with these and its looks so cool - BUT)
Covered by EU law in 2007 - you can only have 1 centre back light OR two at each side - not 3 as you would have if they were wired them all up, they can be used legally if you disable the middle or main lights and brake light.
Now please be careful here. I'm not going to wire up the rear ones for the following reason that you might also consider.
So someone goes to a solicitor as they have hit a motorcyclist in the rear and the bike rider is taking them to court for a private prosecution - will also work they same way if the police (or the prosecution service) take you to court. The first thing is looking at how the rider can be blamed (that's solicitors for you as they are working for their client and not the bike rider) the first thing would be that the rider was not using legal lighting at the back and this confused the driver as he did not notice the brake light was applied (does not matter if the brake light was on or off, all you need is reasonable doubt - either way the driver is covered with a reasonable excuse)
This will help reduce the payment (or even help get the driver off the hook with the police) as the accident could be partially blamed on the rider for not displaying the correct rear lighting and confusing those behind.
So just be careful if you pay £100 for rear lights (like me) that you can't use - and please be aware of the risks if you do!
Regards
WasNotWas
Had the Official Yamaha Indicator Plus units fitted to my new MT-07 but when I picked it up then were not working, complained and the mechanic said they were illegal with the running lights working.. so a bit of a waste of money?
So coming from a legal background I did some investigating into these lights, the result is below is your considering buying these lights.
Front running lights:
Yamaha are just covering themselves here, you can have running lights at the front and they are not part of the UK MOT, the 2007 EU amendment does not cover front running lights and neither does the MOT - so you can wire them up - bet that's a relief for all those BMW's with 10 lights on the front you see riding about
Also the UK MOT says you must have a flat headlight beam at the front (this only covers your main light if it is brought up)Back running lights: (seen an MT-07 with these and its looks so cool - BUT)
Covered by EU law in 2007 - you can only have 1 centre back light OR two at each side - not 3 as you would have if they were wired them all up, they can be used legally if you disable the middle or main lights and brake light.
Now please be careful here. I'm not going to wire up the rear ones for the following reason that you might also consider.
So someone goes to a solicitor as they have hit a motorcyclist in the rear and the bike rider is taking them to court for a private prosecution - will also work they same way if the police (or the prosecution service) take you to court. The first thing is looking at how the rider can be blamed (that's solicitors for you as they are working for their client and not the bike rider) the first thing would be that the rider was not using legal lighting at the back and this confused the driver as he did not notice the brake light was applied (does not matter if the brake light was on or off, all you need is reasonable doubt - either way the driver is covered with a reasonable excuse)
This will help reduce the payment (or even help get the driver off the hook with the police) as the accident could be partially blamed on the rider for not displaying the correct rear lighting and confusing those behind.
So just be careful if you pay £100 for rear lights (like me) that you can't use - and please be aware of the risks if you do!
Regards
WasNotWas