Side lights

[Blackwolf]

I suspect that there are significant cultural and national differences here, but this is certainly an issue in the UK and any other countries subject to EC regulations (which the UK has chosen to be post Brexit). In our crowded part of the globe it is common and often unavoidable to park on the road.

My (excellent) dealer has now raised a technical ticket with Ineos on the matter, when I hear what they have to say I will post.

 

[landmannnn]

I suspect that there are significant cultural and national differences here, but this is certainly an issue in the UK and any other countries subject to EC regulations (which the UK has chosen to be post Brexit). In our crowded part of the globe it is common and often unavoidable to park on the road.

My (excellent) dealer has now raised a technical ticket with Ineos on the matter, when I hear what they have to say I will post.

Did you see that post on Facebook where somebody did the same?
The response from IA was that the Grenadiers is not fitted with parking lights.

 

[Eric]

I suspect that there are significant cultural and national differences here, but this is certainly an issue in the UK and any other countries subject to EC regulations (which the UK has chosen to be post Brexit). In our crowded part of the globe it is common and often unavoidable to park on the road.

My (excellent) dealer has now raised a technical ticket with Ineos on the matter, when I hear what they have to say I will post.

Did you see that post on Facebook where somebody did the same?
The response from IA was that the Grenadiers is not fitted with parking lights.

Agree with that and the implications. But it is @Blackwolf point that the issue hinges on. Does the ignition circuit constitute a " second switch " within the context of the legislation and MOT. Obviously IA believes it doesn't.

 

[Blackwolf]

The Grenadier is indeed not fitted with "parking lights", and in fact there is no legal definition of the term. The Grenadier is however most definitely fitted with "obligatory front and rear position lamps", a term which is very clearly defined in law.

It is the manner of operation of the obligatory front and rear position lamps and whether this meets the requirements that is being questioned.

Ultimately the truth of the matter may come down to the interpretation of the relevant legislation and an understanding of exactly which regulations are applicable. I am not, and I doubt that anyone on this forum is, in a position to provide a definitive interpretation of the law (only a court can do that). I am sure that there are people at Ineos better qualified than I and it is these people to whom I'd like to speak.

What is beyond doubt is that at present the Grenadier is a vehicle which by design makes it impossible for the driver to comply with the law under certain circumstances. It could further be argued, quite convincingly I believe, that by virtue of the car's design Ineos is "causing or permitting" an offence under the RVLR Regulation 24 (quoted in my earlier posts), the word "causing" being significant.

Anyway I will await a reply from IA via my dealer.

 

[landmannnn]

The Grenadier is indeed not fitted with "parking lights", and in fact there is no legal definition of the term. The Grenadier is however most definitely fitted with "obligatory front and rear position lamps", a term which is very clearly defined in law.

It is the manner of operation of the obligatory front and rear position lamps and whether this meets the requirements that is being questioned.

The right answer!

 

[CrazyOldMan]

I didn't suggest that the US is interested in UNECE. Not sure where you got that from.

I didn’t think you had - what I was saying is that we (US) are rather uncooperative and so therefore unlikely to follow suit. Sorry if my wording was obscure

I didn't suggest that the US is interested in UNECE. Not sure where you got that from.

I didn’t

 

[landmannnn]

I didn’t think you had - what I was saying is that we (US) are rather uncooperative and so therefore unlikely to follow suit. Sorry if my wording was obscure

I didn’t

Understood.
You can't blame anybody for not following UN rules. Your president has the right view on that organisation.

 

[CrazyOldMan]

Understood.
You can't blame anybody for not following UN rules. Your president has the right view on that organisation.

“Stand back - the UN is here to discuss the formation of a subcommittee to develop a resolution concerning a possible non-binding statement of support for a framework for an oversight task force . . . “

 

[Blackwolf]

Update: INEOS has responded via my excellent dealer that (a) "parking lights" are optional under UNECE R48 and the vehicle is quite legitimately not fitted with them, and (b) later editions of the owners' manual have had the instructions about parking lights removed (and I note that the version available online with the workshop manual etc no longer contains these instructions). The reply ends with the sentence "In short the vehicles are compliant for UK markets even if this does seem to contravene the highway code."

Since this answer completely fails to address the specifics of my question I have asked the dealer to push this back to INEOS stressing that there is no dispute that "parking lights" are both optional and not fitted but the question concerns the operation and use of obligatory front and rear position lamps which are not optional and which most definitely are fitted.

I will update in due course.

 

[Blackwolf]

Since INEOS was helpful enough to refer to UNECE R48 as the top-level lighting requirements standard for the vehicle, I've done some rapid reading (and very dull it is too). However the initial findings are interesting. In the list below I am only mentioning requirements relevant to the current discussion (there are pages of requirements that are not relevant to this issue).

• Paragraph 2.7.22 defines the term "parking lamp" as "a lamp which is used to draw attention to the presence of a stationary vehicle in a built-up area. In such circumstances it replaces the front and rear position lamps"
• Paragraph 5.11. requires that the electrical connections shall be such that the front and rear position lamps and the rear registration plate lamp can only be switched ON and OFF simultaneously.
• Paragraph 6.12.1 makes it clear that parking lights are optional on vehicles not exceeding 6m in length and not exceeding 2m in width and prohibited on vehicles exceeding these dimensions.
• Paragraph 6.12.7 requires that parking lamp(s) can be lit independently of other lamps, and that parking lamps "and, if applicable, the front and rear position lamps according to paragraph 6.12.9 below, shall be able to operate even if the device which starts the engine is in a position which makes it impossible for the engine to operate. A device which automatically deactivates these lamps as a function of time is prohibited".
• Paragraph 6.12.9 states that the function of the parking lamp may be performed by the front and rear position lamps.

It would appear therefore that the only explicit requirement on position lights is 5.11 and the Grenadier is undoubtedly compliant with this.

It is perhaps unfortunate that 6.12.9 does not state that in the absence of parking lamps the function must be performed by the position lamps since this would entirely disambiguate the intent.

Unfortunately we now enter the murky world of interpretation. I would suggest, however, that the wording of 2.7.22 is significant. An - optional - parking lamp replaces the position lamps on a stationary vehicle, suggesting that if parking lamps are not fitted the position lamps perform the equivalent function. TO be able to do this the requirements of 6.12.7 logically apply equally to position lamps. This interpretation would then allow compliance with the UK legislations (the RVLR). It is, regrettable, my interpretation and one which I am entirely unqualified to make!

I'll see what Ineos comes back with but I feel that I may need to engage with the IVS in the near future.

 

[landmannnn]

Update: INEOS has responded via my excellent dealer that (a) "parking lights" are optional under UNECE R48 and the vehicle is quite legitimately not fitted with them, and (b) later editions of the owners' manual have had the instructions about parking lights removed (and I note that the version available online with the workshop manual etc no longer contains these instructions). The reply ends with the sentence "In short the vehicles are compliant for UK markets even if this does seem to contravene the highway code."

Since this answer completely fails to address the specifics of my question I have asked the dealer to push this back to INEOS stressing that there is no dispute that "parking lights" are both optional and not fitted but the question concerns the operation and use of obligatory front and rear position lamps which are not optional and which most definitely are fitted.

I will update in due course.

I suspect this issue will be escalated fairly soon. In the next few weeks the first MOTs are due, the vehicles probably will not fail, just getting advisories.
The dealers will have some work to do!

In the EU it is 4 years for the first roadworthiness test. So it won't happen for another year. I am guessing some will issue an outright fail.

 

[parb]

It is not a safety defect of the vehicle. It's operation is not safety predudicted. It curtails the operation/use of the vehicle in certain circumstances, it will be the driver not the vehicle that commits an offence. And it " may" TBC, make all Grenadiers on the UK not eligible to be driven on the public highway when they reach there 3rd birthday.

I read the uk Road Traffic Act 1988 which does explicitly state that no construction of vehicles may be done without confirming to lighting regulations.
And the act is very specific on this, as is the supporting vehicle lighting law.

surely there must be a legal instrument and supporting process for reporting manufacturing compliance violations against the statue to the regulatory agency?

Btw, this is not at all how the US does it. The law confers powers to nhtsa to enact rules for safety. Vehicles manufactured for sale must conform to these safety rules. But the rules are not in the law itself, it would be much to slow to leave that to law making, its done in rule making which also must follow a specific process across agencies.

Once sold, it moves to traffic enforcement and state laws. They typically incorporate rules from nhtsa into their law making. Uk kind of makes all of this into one law that spans both making of a vehicle with operation and maintenance of a vehicle.

Not stating that one is better than the other, just different because of states vs federal in the US. It makes nhtsa a single point of enforcement for safety with manufacturers and states a single point of enforcement for maintenance and modifications with owners.

Of course nothing is a simple as that, we also have two other laws,
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which is the foundation for fuel emissions or the cafe rules for car manufacturers that nhtsa also administers. this collides a bit with environmental protection agency and in particular with California's air resources agency who also make rules in these areas. But for vehicle safety nhtsa is it.

 

[Blackwolf]

I've emailed an enquiry to International Vehicle Standards within the DfT, a division which until now I had never heard of but which is described as "a division within DfT who make the processes behind creating and setting safety standards for the automotive industry within the UK. The IVS ... will be able to give guidance on the required standards for vehicle safety, construction and use within the UK."

From the description this sounds like a fairly good match.

 

[landmannnn]

I read the uk Road Traffic Act 1988 which does explicitly state that no construction of vehicles may be done without confirming to lighting regulations.
And the act is very specific on this, as is the supporting vehicle lighting law.

surely there must be a legal instrument and supporting process for reporting manufacturing compliance violations against the statue to the regulatory agency?

Btw, this is not at all how the US does it. The law confers powers to nhtsa to enact rules for safety. Vehicles manufactured for sale must conform to these safety rules. But the rules are not in the law itself, it would be much to slow to leave that to law making, its done in rule making which also must follow a specific process across agencies.

Once sold, it moves to traffic enforcement and state laws. They typically incorporate rules from nhtsa into their law making. Uk kind of makes all of this into one law that spans both making of a vehicle with operation and maintenance of a vehicle.

Not stating that one is better than the other, just different because of states vs federal in the US. It makes nhtsa a single point of enforcement for safety with manufacturers and states a single point of enforcement for maintenance and modifications with owners.

Of course nothing is a simple as that, we also have two other laws,
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which is the foundation for fuel emissions or the cafe rules for car manufacturers that nhtsa also administers. this collides a bit with environmental protection agency and in particular with California's air resources agency who also make rules in these areas. But for vehicle safety nhtsa is it.

It is fairly similar everywhere, maybe a bit simpler!

If the manufacturer has been shown to have breached type approval then they are subject to fines and forced to take remedial action. We all know about VW and their emmission defeat devices.

Triggering breaches is that the country vehicle agency finds out about the issue. Typically spot checks or feedback from police, general public etc.

For the UK is the DVSA, Germany TUV, France ANTS etc. There may be a form to fill in with a long complicated reference number.