Matters of Testing Online - Updates

In the "Your Questions Answered" section, about motorcycle rear lights it says :-

>However, the type that I believe you are referring to, where there is only one centrally mounted lamp that combines stop/tail and both direction indicators are not legal. This is primarily because they do not meet the minimum separation distance between the direction indicators and they should be failed if they are fitted at the time of test. Unfortunately, there is not a specific Reason for Rejection for this, so we require that you use - the illumination of the lamp is affected by the operation of another lamp.<

It is items like this that I can not understand.

If they know about a case like this, then why is there not an RfR for it? Unless we all read this article and can then remember this for evermore how are they ever going to get consistant standards that they are aiming for?

I could just forsee another 8 page debate on whether it should be a pass, fail or P&A and then how you should use an imaginary ball to assess the distance between the lights.

Wally

PS, how do you go on when, after driving over the brake rollers onto the lift the headlight alignment is then found to be to high, to low, to high, to low. Should I wait until it stops bouncing before I check the alignment

It's often the case were there may not be a specific RfR for a particular item and we have to use a similar RfR to cover the fail.

We are told though that unless an item has an RfR, or that we've been informed via a S\N that, that item is a failure - we must P&A.

Benefit of doubt goes with the presenter.....

Edited to add:

How a single lamp can be affected by the operation of another lamp which is part of the same single lamp is a contradiction too.

It could be spam we're all reading too so no RfR no fail until you get the S\N.....if your brave enough ......