View Full Version : Rear Red Reflectors?
Thinking of getting a Hamicad tail tidy, thus removing the snow shovel atrocity currently aesthetically ruining the posterior of my lovely bike.
Obviously rear red reflectors are an MOT requirement to pass. I suppose I would be alright with a sticky reflector circle in the bottom right hand corner?
It occured to me though, what if you were rear ended and you didn't have a red reflector on the back, would you invalidate a claim? or is it such an insignificant detail and nothing to worry about?
dizzyblonde
10-05-11, 01:58 PM
Pushbike reflector attached to the bottom of the plate will suffice. Had one on my black SV for years with no MOT complaints.
I just stuck a sticky reflector on my plate for my MOT and then took it back off after. Not sure what position that leaves me in claims wise now you mention it... but could always say it got knocked off ;)
mpsricky
10-05-11, 02:06 PM
i put a tail tidy on, managed to get a rectangular reflector that stuck to the front ege of the number plate light, thus hiding it and making me legal with the reflector.
Sid Squid
10-05-11, 02:29 PM
A rigid plastic reflector stuck to your bike is OK, reflective sticky tape doesn't satisfy the MOT requirements.
I had an R&G tailtidy put on by the dealer before I picked up my bike... they put a really nasty 10p sized reflector on the numberplate as they have to send the bikes out the door completely legal. It looks totally naff and as soo as I can be bothered to get the hairbryer out it will be coming off.
I had an evotech on my 600rr for years with no reflector and it passed it's MOT everytime.
I'm not allowed a reflector on my CBR600
benji106
10-05-11, 04:23 PM
I asked about the reflector when I had my MOT, the guy said mine wasnt right because it was angled downwards and needs to be 90* to the road. Though he didnt do anything about it, i.e. no advisory.
I asked about the little 10p sized ones that stick on the numberplate. he said most MOT guys will pass them but they need to be in centre of number plate, not in the corner.
I really do not see the point of a 1" square red reflector. The back of a bike has a 7" by 9" yellow reflector sitting there all the time. It's just a hang up from days of old when bulbs were shaken to bits by POS Brit bikes and we had black and silver non-reflective plates... which is why my MOT man couldn't give a monkeys if a bike has one or not.
Sid Squid
10-05-11, 05:32 PM
I really do not see the point of a 1" square red reflector. The back of a bike has a 7" by 9" yellow reflector sitting there all the time. It's just a hang up from days of old when bulbs were shaken to bits by POS Brit bikes and we had black and silver non-reflective plates... which is why my MOT man couldn't give a monkeys if a bike has one or not.
Couldn't agree more - still in the regs though.
it is rather silly all these rules like tinted visors, baffles and most stupid of all, reflectors. But as Squid said, its the rules. What I simply want to know is could NOT having a reflector on the rear cause complications when claiming off someone who hits the back of you? could they argue that with a reflector they would have seen you?
does it not come down to "construction and use", went through a fair bit of this when I made my own tail tidy. Seems you dont need one to pass an mot, but a copper could pull you up for it not being there.
I just bolted a standard reflector to the bottom of my number plate, hung off a small bracket.
Dont put a circular one on the side of your number plate, they look really effin pants :D:D Id rather go without :smt082
danf1234
10-05-11, 10:01 PM
Here's what I did when I fitted a hamicad.
http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?p=2426202#post2426202
does it not come down to "construction and use", went through a fair bit of this when I made my own tail tidy. Seems you dont need one to pass an mot, but a copper could pull you up for it not being there.
The requirement to have a 1" square red reflector in an upright position in the centre line of the bike at the rear is in the MOT test. If your reflector does not comply or if you don't have one at all, then that is a reason for a fail notice to be issued.
http://www.motuk.co.uk/mcmanual_140.htm
You'll note that the requirement only exists if lights are fitted to the vehicle. Technically this means if you don't have lights fitted then you are not allowed a reflector
What I simply want to know is could NOT having a reflector on the rear cause complications when claiming off someone who hits the back of you? could they argue that with a reflector they would have seen you?
If they hit your parked bike at night on an unlit road, they could certainly argue about the lack of reflector. If they hit you while you're riding with your lights on I can't see the lack of a reflector making any difference. If they hit you at night, riding without your lights on, you could have a problem, but that would be the lack of lights rather than lack of reflector.
Thanks for the tips, annoyingly, I have also discovered that a No. Plate light is NOT an MOT requirement, but is however the law! Do insurers cover tail tidys without No. Plate lights?
Whilst they could technically have a problem with it I suppose, I've never heard of an insurer getting in a knot about something as trivial as that, particularly as it's not a safety issue.
Just had another Glance at the Hamicad product, it uses the a number plate light, so no worries there! All set to go and buy one now!
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.