Tail lights with built in indicators - WOF legal?

[Milts]

So I'm considering getting one of these for a CBR900RR I've just bought...

http://www.raceevolution.co.nz/161/parttpl/shopproduct_details/11357

Now the seller states that "Tail lights are for show purposes or off road use only, May not meet warrant of fitness standards ETA around 2 week under normal conditions"

Does anyone know for sure if they are WoF legal or not? Other sellers are not including that statement (e.g. http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/parts-for-sale/lights/auction-582426323.htm).

Very keen on buying these but I don't want to waste $100 and fail a WoF.... thoughts?

[Gubb]

I passed 3 WOF's with mine on.

[blackdog]

Guess it depends who does yer WOFs. My understanding is not legal.

[scumdog]

Bugger worrying if they're legal not - important thing is: Are they really REALLY visible when you are indicating your 'change of direction'?

[Wingnut]

Bugger worrying if they're legal not - important thing is: Are they really REALLY visible when you are indicating your 'change of direction'?

14 Day money back guarantee they say. Send em back if they're shyte.

[Milts]

Bugger worrying if they're legal not - important thing is: Are they really REALLY visible when you are indicating your 'change of direction'?

I did wonder about that. Should be perfectly visible from behind though, and I don't know many bikes where the rear indicator is visible from the side - mostly you see the front one.

[hayd3n]

are they e marked??

[tigertim20]

email and ask them if they are e-marked. if they arent then they are a fail - IF the inspector notices.

[grusomhat]

I've got non-legal indicators on the front and back of mine. The rear set are from a reputable store in NZ so was annoyed at that but never had any issue with either set passing WOF at VTNZ.

[Milts]

In the past I've had indicators on a bike which failed a re-vin. I was told they failed to pass compliance for putting the bike back on the road, but would have passed a standard WoF - so would have been fine for any normal check, just not to re-vin.

Are e-marks the same? I.e. would fail if you tried to put a bike on the road for the first time without them, but no issue to just get a wof?

[Laava]

So I'm considering getting one of these for a CBR900RR I've just bought...

http://www.raceevolution.co.nz/161/parttpl/shopproduct_details/11357

Now the seller states that "Tail lights are for show purposes or off road use only, May not meet warrant of fitness standards ETA around 2 week under normal conditions"

Does anyone know for sure if they are WoF legal or not? Other sellers are not including that statement (e.g. http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/parts-for-sale/lights/auction-582426323.htm).

Very keen on buying these but I don't want to waste $100 and fail a WoF.... thoughts?

In my experience the wof guys are more interested in whether or not your reflectors are e marked.
They are never interested in your indicators. I have 2 bikes with home made indicators.

[bogan]

I had a mate got pulled up when getting his bike vinned for indicators too close together, however I've never been able to find specs on separation. He just added spacers on the stalks as that was easier than arguing the point. I've got integrated indicators similar to the one posted, but also run an addition set of normal indicators, brake/park light on a removable tail tidy. The wof guys have never had any issue with any of it.


email and ask them if they are e-marked. if they arent then they are a fail - IF the inspector notices.

Wrong. E-marking just means they pass beam pattern tests that meet or exceed NZ standards. Non e-marked units can meet the same standards and thus be perfectly legal.

[Milts]

Wrong. E-marking just means they pass beam pattern tests that meet or exceed NZ standards. Non e-marked units can meet the same standards and thus be perfectly legal.

That is my impression.

I've had a look on the VTNZ motorcycle WoF inspection portal and I see nothing which would exclude them, unless they happen to be not very visible:

http://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/in-service-wof-and-cof/motorcycles/lighting/cornering-lamps

http://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/in-service-wof-and-cof/motorcycles/lighting/direction-indicator-lamps

So: I think I will go ahead and order them. Will report back on just how nitty the inspectors are :rolleyes:

Next step... anyone have a nice streetfighter headlight suitable for a CBR900RR without plastics, which bloody aren't 460USD?

281331
(from http://www.streetfightersinc.com/Headlightkits.htm)

[bogan]

That is my impression.

I've had a look on the VTNZ motorcycle WoF inspection portal and I see nothing which would exclude them, unless they happen to be not very visible

As long as you know the regs (and don't have anything else they shouldn't notice), you can argue the point and probably get them passed if they comply with the regs, which from memory are fairly common sense visibility things.

[scumdog]

I did wonder about that. Should be perfectly visible from behind though, and I don't know many bikes where the rear indicator is visible from the side - mostly you see the front one.

Me'nMrs Scummies Harleys have dorky factory indicators which in the meantime I have left in place mainly because they are very visible, even from quite an angle out to either side.

[bogan]

A vrod headlight might work well? That pic made me think of one of the guys who put on on their hawk; that site may have other good inspiration for you if you search around too.

http://hawkgtforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28564

[kinger]

Bugger worrying if they're legal not - important thing is: Are they really REALLY visible when you are indicating your 'change of direction'?

I've been frustrated by the modern car design idea where the indicators are inside of the headlights. Very difficult to see them compared to old school orange on the corner types.

[scumdog]

I've been frustrated by the modern car design idea where the indicators are inside of the headlights. Very difficult to see them compared to old school orange on the corner types.

Damn tootin' right - not very good really, I'm suprised they passed scrutiny.

[thehollowmen]

I failed a wof because of a light leak to the side from my indicator.
Guess it it who checks out your bike. If it is a good bike shop, then you're probably fine.


I did wonder about that. Should be perfectly visible from behind though, and I don't know many bikes where the rear indicator is visible from the side - mostly you see the front one.

[biggo]

I failed a wof because of a light leak to the side from my indicator.
Guess it it who checks out your bike. If it is a good bike shop, then you're probably fine.

Lights do not need an "e" maek or any marking for WOF , they do for entry certification.

The only reason I can see the lights may not meet WOF requirements is they would be consodered as retrofit and therefore would need to meet the light angles stated in the VIRM

14. A mandatory lamp that is not OE and not mounted in the original position emits a light that is not visible within:

a) 15˚ above and below the horizontal, or

b) 45˚ inboard and 80˚ outboard.

http://vehicleinspection.nzta.govt.nz/virms/in-service-wof/motorcycles/lighting/direction-indicator-lamps

[Devil]

Bugger worrying if they're legal not - important thing is: Are they really REALLY visible when you are indicating your 'change of direction'?

Yerp - bugger the legality, this is my biggest problem with integrated indicators. I've never seen a set that has been effective. They're usually too close together to get an obvious picture of which way its going, or they're just not clearly distinguishable from the brake lights.

I'd rather not get cleaned up from behind by a motorist that hasn't figured out what you're trying to do.

[Motu]

Lights do not need an "e" maek or any marking for WOF , they do for entry certification.

All standards marking requirments have been removed from the VIRM for some time (years and years) and they are now a compliance/repair issue. The theory being that at a VIN or repair stage the vehicle will be compliant, and they think should stay that way. A lot of OE lamps no longer have markings, so lack of markings is hard to enforce - an inspector is still able to fail if he suspects it's not compliant, and it's up to the owner to confirm compliance. In the real world it hardly ever happens.

[Gubb]

Guess it depends who does yer WOFs. My understanding is not legal.

Two different VTNZ locations in Wellington.

[BMWST?]

I did wonder about that. Should be perfectly visible from behind though, and I don't know many bikes where the rear indicator is visible from the side - mostly you see the front one.


i think you are missing the point.The average road user fails to see 1/2 of what is presented to them i wouldnt give them ANY excuse to say they didnt see your indicator,and some of the tiny led ones and these integrated ones are pretty poor.They might be fine in the garage but on a rainy night or facing directly into the sun they are almost indistuingable from either the tailight or brake light

[rapid van cleef]

integrated tail lights/indicators definetly road legal.

[rastuscat]

Followed a new Nissan recently with the shiny new integrated indicator and tail light. I bet the designer got a real pat on the back, as they looked shit hot. Have noticed some Citroens with similar.

Didn't work for nuts, but really looked the part.

[G4L4XY]

i think you are missing the point.The average road user fails to see 1/2 of what is presented to them i wouldnt give them ANY excuse to say they didnt see your indicator,and some of the tiny led ones and these integrated ones are pretty poor.They might be fine in the garage but on a rainy night or facing directly into the sun they are almost indistuingable from either the tailight or brake light

I agree with you here. It's just like those flush front indicators, they wouldn't be very visible at all, sure they look good but wouldn't be very safe, cars in front wouldn't see you indicate to pull out and pass and cut you off or some bs.
I like the IT (integrated taillight), would help clean up the tail a bit, but would it be worth it?

[rastuscat]

Have paid a bit more attention to this since reading this thread. Sports bikes seem to be more likely to have the integrated lights. Piss poor visibility for indicators from behind. Cool factor is there, but in terms of functionality they suck salty chocolate balls.

[98tls]

Have paid a bit more attention to this since reading this thread. Sports bikes seem to be more likely to have the integrated lights. Piss poor visibility for indicators from behind. Cool factor is there, but in terms of functionality they suck salty chocolate balls.

Yep correct,bought an intergrated system years back but quickly got rid of,useless.Strangely led tailghts work well but combine indicators and you might as well don the invisible man suit.

[Motu]

I think the safety factor is hugely over rated. So long as it looks cool, and people who see you riding it think you look cool, then the product has met it's design objective. Don't over think it.

[98tls]

I think the safety factor is hugely over rated. So long as it looks cool, and people who see you riding it think you look cool, then the product has met it's design objective. Don't over think it.

Didnt work for Kawasaki a few decades ago did you?