Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleHo
I have the same globes on the wife's Subaru and they rock
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleHo
I have the same globes on the wife's Subaru and they rock
I've got a spot light bar and will be getting a flood light bar to augment it. One of these will go on the bull bar and one will get mounted under the roof rack but I'm wondering if the collective oracle has any advice on which would best suit the roof/bullbar. The one on the roof will hang off the hannibal rack about 200mm back from the edge to reduce glare onto the bonnet and bar, and the one on the bar will sit on the standard spottie mounts.
At the moment I'm leaning towards having the spot on the roof as it will glare less, but haven't made up my mind. What are your experiences?
I am also a little curious (though not very concerned) about the legality of the whole shebang, in particular for NSW. It appears that the law has finally caught up and light bars are now legal (LATEST LED LIGHT BAR LAWS FOR NSW - Unsealed 4X4), but I'll be damned if I can find anything concrete about driving light positioning for NSW. If you can point me to any government documentation then I would love to see it. Wiring wise it will be set up so that they can only be turned on with hi-beam on.
Have a read of this:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-ch...sbury-nsw.html
Cheers Mick, I was hoping you would post something; you're always the first to look for/post actual proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
So, from that thread I found Section 90 of NSW Legislation:
Given that I genuinely want to prevent reflected light I should be good here.Quote:
89 How additional headlights are to be fitted
If 2 or more additional headlights are fitted to a motor vehicle with 4 or more wheels, the additional headlights must as far as possible be fitted in pairs.
90 Performance of headlights
(1) When on, a headlight, or additional headlight, fitted to a vehicle must:
(a) show only white light, and
(b) project its main beam of light ahead of the vehicle.
(2) Headlights must be fitted to a vehicle so their light does not reflect off the vehicle into the driver's eyes.
But in ADR 13:
Which makes it a bit more interesting, I think that it is reasonably open to interpretation, particularly considering that it has been mentioned that Jeeps and (I think) Nissans could come with roof lights, and I could argue that the front of my roof is the front of the vehicle.Quote:
7.3.4.2 In height: no individual specifications.
7.3.4.3 In length: at the front of the vehicle and fitted in such a way that the light emitted does not cause discomfort to the driver either directly or indirectly through the rear-view mirrors and/or other reflecting surfaces of the vehicle.
Given this legislation, unless there's some documentation I'm missing then I think I'm quite happy with the legality of a roof light.
So, which one up top and on the bar?
Flood up top - would help more having it there if out wheeling at night, further back so can see the sides/front of the vehicle easier. No point having max forward throw of light further back on the car.
Which would mean spot on bar. Obviously.
Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app
The big problem with having roof mounted is when you have a small rise between you and an approaching car. If their lights are below the horizon, you don't know that they are there, but their eyes, and your roof lights are both above the horizon. You will be blinding them without knowing that they are there. All lights used on the road should be mounted below the driver's eye level.
Aaron
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...016/04/909.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Aaron IIA
Looking above into ADR 13, 7.3.4.3, could one argue that the front of the vehicle is anything forward of the centre of the vehicles overall length?
I wasn't commenting on the legal standing on how far forwards lights should be mounted, or whether the top of the windscreen could be considered the front of the vehicle, but rather how high in comparison to the driver's eye level they should be mounted, for reasons of safety and courtesy towards other motorists.
Aaron
And I was commenting on it either being illegal, or not.
If it's not illegal, then it is legal. The rest is just details.
BUT, oftentimes things like 'reasons of safety and courtesy towards other motorists' translates to law... which is what I (and the OP) are hoping to uncover.
Yep. I think that is the view the RMS took, but not Mr. Plod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic_Avenger