TK4
Well-known member
Just asking, you know, for a friend...?
Is this street legal ?
- Thread starter TK4
- Start date
No according to CMVSS. The lens requires a DOT marking. There are probably 100 other things that is fails to comply with for CMVSS too. As far as HTA, also no good. You need at least two beams. Probably more things in there that fail as well.
www.ontario.ca
Law Document English View
Welcome to the new e-Laws. It’s now easier than ever to find Ontario laws. We welcome your feedback.
www.ontario.ca
If someone really was dedicated to the look, you could monkey with the electronics in the base of the bulb to allow the same form factor driven off 12 VDC.
Something something beam something something.
... as of 1982.No according to CMVSS. The lens requires a DOT marking. There are probably 100 other things that is fails to comply with for CMVSS too. As far as HTA, also no good. You need at least two beams. Probably more things in there that fail as well.
Law Document English View
Welcome to the new e-Laws. It’s now easier than ever to find Ontario laws. We welcome your feedback.
If that picture was taken PRE 1982, it was street legal. (it wasn't, so it isn't)
Reg Rodair (sp?) used to ride a 400CR Husky that had lights like that... those were the days....
No according to CMVSS. The lens requires a DOT marking. There are probably 100 other things that is fails to comply with for CMVSS too. As far as HTA, also no good. You need at least two beams. Probably more things in there that fail as well.
Law Document English View
Welcome to the new e-Laws. It’s now easier than ever to find Ontario laws. We welcome your feedback.
Iare ya sure? Ignore the DOT marking ISSUE, I found this
Highway Traffic Act section 62(2) as follows:
Lamps required on motorcycles
(2) Subject to subsection (3), when on a highway at any time every motorcycle shall carry two lighted lamps in a conspicuous position, one on the front of the vehicle which shall display a white light only, and one on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red light only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (2).
So what? It complies with a few select portions of CMVSS and HTA but is in contravention of many more. As per the definition, motor vehicle explicitly includes a motorcycle.
Assuming you mounted two as per 596 2.1, you fail as soon as you get to 2.2 as you have no beam cutoff.
"2. (1) Subject to section 3, the headlamps on a motor vehicle shall be capable of projecting at least two beams, so controlled that only one beam can be selected for use by the driver of the motor vehicle at any one time according to the requirements of traffic. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 596, s. 2 (1).
2) One beam shall be a lower or passing beam so aimed that none of the high intensity portion of the beam that is directed,
(a) to the left of the vehicle, is higher than 127 millimetres below; or
(b) to the right of the vehicle, is higher than,
the horizontal line through the centre of the headlamp from which it comes, at a distance of 7.6 metres ahead of the headlamp, when the vehicle is not loaded, and the high intensity portion of the lower or passing beam shall not rise higher than 1.07 metres above the level on which the vehicle stands at a distance of 22.9 metres ahead of the vehicle. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 596, s. 2 (2)."
Umm? How does it meet the HTA regulation regarding cutoff?
Huh? A housing with a reflector that meets a DOT compliant beam pattern was required way before 1982
I only watch ̶h̶o̶c̶k̶e̶y̶ GTAM for the fights.
Trying for the trophy for troll post of the day?
Maybe it's a trilight.
Jeebus people. Go pick on the Anti vaxxers.
Jeebus people. Go pick on the Anti vaxxers.
