Flow
Flow
TriniTuner.com  |  Latest Event:  

Forums

is this true?

this is how we do it.......

Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods

User avatar
Stephon.
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10263
Joined: October 10th, 2009, 4:50 pm

Re: is this true?

Postby Stephon. » March 10th, 2012, 7:25 pm

That's nice, still doesn't change the fact that "illegal" cars are being licensed with the same lights you are so passionate about correcting me with, which are illegal to drive with.

Then again, your laws have to be enforced in 2012, yet it seems like they were written with a nail and hammer into stone.

People are driving 2012 vehicles on a road with 1912 laws :?
Last edited by Stephon. on March 10th, 2012, 7:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Rooki3
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 7219
Joined: December 18th, 2008, 10:52 pm

Re: is this true?

Postby Rooki3 » March 10th, 2012, 7:26 pm

coolstorybro

User avatar
Stephon.
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10263
Joined: October 10th, 2009, 4:50 pm

Re: is this true?

Postby Stephon. » March 10th, 2012, 7:27 pm

Rooki3 wrote:coolstorybro

same.

S_2NR
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13305
Joined: May 22nd, 2010, 8:11 pm

Re: is this true?

Postby S_2NR » March 10th, 2012, 7:30 pm

nervewrecker wrote:
S_2NR wrote:
nervewrecker wrote:
S_2NR wrote:foglights make potholes more visible so yes, they serve a purpose in trinidad


Headlights do too....


foglights do a better job imo (maybe cause they're closer to the ground)


Yea? where your headlights aimed?

So your foggies closer to the road you say, alright, Quick question:

foggies closer to the road & illuminate only a short distance in front le veekle while le headlights illuminate a larger distance in front (in your case at treetops)....which one gives you better reaction time to a pothole spotted in front your vehicle?


Oh goarr all this beat up.
Ill buy an almera, clearly their lights are superior.

User avatar
nervewrecker
3NE 2NR Power Seller
Posts: 23829
Joined: July 31st, 2007, 2:27 pm
Location: The world is fl4t

Re: is this true?

Postby nervewrecker » March 10th, 2012, 7:30 pm

Stephon. wrote:That's nice, still doesn't change the fact that "illegal" cars are being licensed with the same lights you are so passionate about correcting me with, which are illegal to drive with.

Then again, your laws have to be enforced in 2012, yet it seems like they were written with a nail and hammer into stone.

People are driving 2012 vehicles on a road with 1912 laws :?


Whats illegal about the cars?

You still didnt see where or what I corrected you about either smh.

User avatar
nervewrecker
3NE 2NR Power Seller
Posts: 23829
Joined: July 31st, 2007, 2:27 pm
Location: The world is fl4t

Re: is this true?

Postby nervewrecker » March 10th, 2012, 7:31 pm

S_2NR wrote:
nervewrecker wrote:
S_2NR wrote:
nervewrecker wrote:
S_2NR wrote:foglights make potholes more visible so yes, they serve a purpose in trinidad


Headlights do too....


foglights do a better job imo (maybe cause they're closer to the ground)


Yea? where your headlights aimed?

So your foggies closer to the road you say, alright, Quick question:

foggies closer to the road & illuminate only a short distance in front le veekle while le headlights illuminate a larger distance in front (in your case at treetops)....which one gives you better reaction time to a pothole spotted in front your vehicle?


Oh goarr all this beat up.
Ill buy an almera, clearly their lights are superior.


You have left over cash from when you bought your licence I see.

User avatar
Stephon.
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10263
Joined: October 10th, 2009, 4:50 pm

Re: is this true?

Postby Stephon. » March 10th, 2012, 7:33 pm

nervewrecker wrote:
Stephon. wrote:That's nice, still doesn't change the fact that "illegal" cars are being licensed with the same lights you are so passionate about correcting me with, which are illegal to drive with.

Then again, your laws have to be enforced in 2012, yet it seems like they were written with a nail and hammer into stone.

People are driving 2012 vehicles on a road with 1912 laws :?


Whats illegal about the cars?

You still didnt see where or what I corrected you about either smh.


So LEDs are legal then? Dunno seems like the officer I spoke to a few months ago were wrong then.

S_2NR
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13305
Joined: May 22nd, 2010, 8:11 pm

Re: is this true?

Postby S_2NR » March 10th, 2012, 7:36 pm

:lol: :lol:

Funny. What's funnier is u actually think I'll buy that sh1t

User avatar
nervewrecker
3NE 2NR Power Seller
Posts: 23829
Joined: July 31st, 2007, 2:27 pm
Location: The world is fl4t

Re: is this true?

Postby nervewrecker » March 10th, 2012, 7:37 pm

Stephon. wrote:
nervewrecker wrote:
Stephon. wrote:That's nice, still doesn't change the fact that "illegal" cars are being licensed with the same lights you are so passionate about correcting me with, which are illegal to drive with.

Then again, your laws have to be enforced in 2012, yet it seems like they were written with a nail and hammer into stone.

People are driving 2012 vehicles on a road with 1912 laws :?


Whats illegal about the cars?

You still didnt see where or what I corrected you about either smh.


So LEDs are legal then? Dunno seems like the officer I spoke to a few months ago were wrong then.


I thought you have led lights? :lol:

User avatar
Stephon.
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10263
Joined: October 10th, 2009, 4:50 pm

Re: is this true?

Postby Stephon. » March 10th, 2012, 7:38 pm

Thanks for avoiding the question and proving my point, bye.

User avatar
nervewrecker
3NE 2NR Power Seller
Posts: 23829
Joined: July 31st, 2007, 2:27 pm
Location: The world is fl4t

Re: is this true?

Postby nervewrecker » March 10th, 2012, 7:44 pm

S_2NR wrote::lol: :lol:

Funny. What's funnier is u actually think I'll buy that sh1t


so leme assess this situation properly:

you bought your licence,

then you bought a car...

I wonder what will you buy next, a geiger counter?

There seems to be a trend in your purchases, you keep buying things you have no use for & dont know how to use.

S_2NR
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13305
Joined: May 22nd, 2010, 8:11 pm

Re: is this true?

Postby S_2NR » March 10th, 2012, 7:49 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

anything else u wanna get off your chest sugarplum?

User avatar
nervewrecker
3NE 2NR Power Seller
Posts: 23829
Joined: July 31st, 2007, 2:27 pm
Location: The world is fl4t

Re: is this true?

Postby nervewrecker » March 10th, 2012, 7:53 pm

thelem wrote:i think people are missing the point of the true matter. The law is enforce upon the officer. And not based on the beliefs of citizens.

So far everyone is saying things based on hear say or what an officer or LO told them. The law never specifically said "FOGLIGHTS" are illegal. It said additional lights. And i further believe that when people use HID kits in the foglight, make them an easy target for an officer to say...aye you pull aside. That's illegal. Or when they want to drive with the foglights on alone even if its with HID or without.

So in other words, if 2 cars were driving on the highway during a roadblock. A B14 and an Audi, both with foglights on, but the B14 has his park lights on with his foglights and the Audi with his headlights and fogs, the officer would pull the B14 arse aside.


I think what they beating up about in here is the fact that Audi, Benz & some of those other cars come with a led strip (under the disguise of some other fancy name) that remains on & the law says that its illegal for other vehicles to have led's on it (illuminated btw).
I see no reason for led's to be illegal as it serves a purpose just like normal lights (as a matter of fact I have led's illuminating my rear plates) but typical danraj mentality have to do some sort of fcukery & make police kick brass. As a matter of fact led's use less energy, give off less heat & most outlast the traditional incandescent bulbs decreasing the amount of solid waste produced.
What I was questioning earlier is the fact that the law specifically says 'lights', led's are diodes that emit light.

User avatar
nervewrecker
3NE 2NR Power Seller
Posts: 23829
Joined: July 31st, 2007, 2:27 pm
Location: The world is fl4t

Re: is this true?

Postby nervewrecker » March 10th, 2012, 7:59 pm

S_2NR wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

anything else u wanna get off your chest sugarplum?


As a matter of fact, yes. I have a tutorial on how to properly aim your headlights....know anyone that might be interested?

User avatar
silent_riot
punchin NOS
Posts: 4495
Joined: December 26th, 2004, 11:40 pm
Location: Pumpitating
Contact:

Re: is this true?

Postby silent_riot » March 10th, 2012, 8:06 pm

Motor Vehicles & Road Traffic Act, Ch48:50 Fines

Only offenses I am seeing wrt light are "Unauthorised lights to front or rear of vehicle" and "Vehicle with unauthorised spot or swivel lights".

Unauthorised lights are defined as:

"there shall not be affixed to the front of a motor
vehicle any lighted lamp other than the headlights
and side lights except with the approval in writing
of the Licensing Authority, nor to the rear of a
motor vehicle or trailer any lighted lamp other
than the red light prescribed by these Regulations
except as permitted by paragraph (m)(iii) of
this regulation;"

The key word is any.

Pg 156 in here

I do have a vehicle with "fog lights" but they are integrated within the headlights themselves. The reasoning that they are "useless in our climate and hazardous to road users" is false. Yellow fog lights (single wavelengths) are better at penetrating fog than mixed spectrum "white" headlights, which improves the safety of all drivers. I drive through light fog occasionally between Couva and Port of Spain on early mornings.

User avatar
pioneer
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 16934
Joined: April 18th, 2003, 12:27 am
Location: OM-TT.COM
Contact:

Re: is this true?

Postby pioneer » March 10th, 2012, 8:11 pm

yuh know things bad when stephon n nervewrecker agruing over sense

User avatar
nervewrecker
3NE 2NR Power Seller
Posts: 23829
Joined: July 31st, 2007, 2:27 pm
Location: The world is fl4t

Re: is this true?

Postby nervewrecker » March 10th, 2012, 8:15 pm

silent_riot wrote:Motor Vehicles & Road Traffic Act, Ch48:50 Fines

Only offenses I am seeing wrt light are "Unauthorised lights to front or rear of vehicle" and "Vehicle with unauthorised spot or swivel lights".

Unauthorised lights are defined as:

"there shall not be affixed to the front of a motor
vehicle any lighted lamp other than the headlights
and side lights
except with the approval in writing
of the Licensing Authority, nor to the rear of a
motor vehicle or trailer any lighted lamp other
than the red light
prescribed by these Regulations
except as permitted by paragraph (m)(iii) of
this regulation;"

The key word is any.

Pg 156 in here

I do have a vehicle with "fog lights" but they are integrated within the headlights themselves. The reasoning that they are "useless in our climate and hazardous to road users" is false. Yellow fog lights (single wavelengths) are better at penetrating fog than mixed spectrum "white" headlights, which improves the safety of all drivers. I drive through light fog occasionally between Couva and Port of Spain on early mornings.



you see, thats where they have me confused:

1 - what about park lights & indicators? they illegal too?

2 - led's are not lights, they are diodes

3 - how the law saying one thing & they licencing those vehicles with the daytime running lights that remain on day or night.

edit:

law about them DRL

In 2008 a new law was passed by the European Commission that meant all new cars and small vans purchased after February 2011 had to have daytime running lights, and lorries will follow suit from August 2012. The new vehicles will have the daytime running lights (DRL) that come on automatically when the engine is started. This law will not affect cars bought before this period and DRL´s will not have to be retro fitted.
Daytime running lights are not new to the UK. Volvo´s were the first vehicles that came with these as standard, although the driver did have the option to turn them off. Volvo´s were fitted with DRL´s due to the laws in Sweden and have always been seen as a safety feature. The European Commission had introduced this law on advice that there could be a significant reduction in road deaths and serious injuries. Those that are opposed to the new law argue that the glare from these lights will be distracting. There is also concern over motor cyclists and the possibility of a rise in pollution due to increased fuel usage.
In a report for the Department for Transport it was confirmed, "There is substantial evidence that the mandatory use of DRL would provide a net accident reduction. However, the evidence concerning the magnitude of the effect and particularly the relationship with accident severity is considerably weaker."
Many manufacturers are already planning and designing their new ranges of cars and vans with the future regulations in mind. The new range of Audi´s (which can be seen below) will all come with daytime running lights as standard.


some facts about DRL's:

* Could save 5500 lives a year
* European Parliament expected to approve it
* Britain opposed to plans, but can't block them
All new cars could have headlights that remain on all of the time from 2011.
A Dutch study found that daytime running lights could prevent 5500 deaths and 155,000 injuries across Europe each year, and the switch has been backed by
the European Commission.
The proposal is now being sent to the European Parliament for final aproval.
Daytime running lights were made compulsory in Scandinavian countries in the late 1970s.
In 2006, Austria, Croatia and Chech Republic became the first countries outside of
Northern Europe to follow suit.
However, the proposals have come in for criticism, as it is estimated that having headlights on all the time will increase the average fuel bill by up to 5%.
Britain has opposed the measure as unnecessery, but is unable to block it because a majority of other EU nations were in favour and transport issues are not subject to veto.


http://audiled.eu/

User avatar
silent_riot
punchin NOS
Posts: 4495
Joined: December 26th, 2004, 11:40 pm
Location: Pumpitating
Contact:

Re: is this true?

Postby silent_riot » March 10th, 2012, 8:25 pm

I think "park lights" are "side lights". Indicators are not lighted, they are blinking.
Not sure what's your point with LED's being diodes...

User avatar
nervewrecker
3NE 2NR Power Seller
Posts: 23829
Joined: July 31st, 2007, 2:27 pm
Location: The world is fl4t

Re: is this true?

Postby nervewrecker » March 10th, 2012, 8:27 pm

park lights stay on.

led is not a bulb :mrgreen:

User avatar
kurpal_v2
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11904
Joined: December 28th, 2007, 9:17 pm
Location: Chilling with Akeem

Re: is this true?

Postby kurpal_v2 » March 10th, 2012, 8:31 pm

An led bulb is however a bulb

User avatar
nervewrecker
3NE 2NR Power Seller
Posts: 23829
Joined: July 31st, 2007, 2:27 pm
Location: The world is fl4t

Re: is this true?

Postby nervewrecker » March 10th, 2012, 8:33 pm

them ricer lights is strips, not bulbs. :lol:

User avatar
silent_riot
punchin NOS
Posts: 4495
Joined: December 26th, 2004, 11:40 pm
Location: Pumpitating
Contact:

Re: is this true?

Postby silent_riot » March 10th, 2012, 8:43 pm

Why is this so difficult to understand?
The law says headlights, it doesn't specify that your headlights has to powered by a tungsten, halogen, HID, or LED source, nor does it say the number of light sources in that headlight are limited to a single source.

User avatar
rollingstock
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 17931
Joined: June 29th, 2009, 8:21 am
Location: Ain't got no chill!

Re: is this true?

Postby rollingstock » March 10th, 2012, 8:54 pm

I too sick to reply here, too much to type too little patience, kinda pissy with this cold.

But just to help, some of you all talking rell sheit.

User avatar
kurpal_v2
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11904
Joined: December 28th, 2007, 9:17 pm
Location: Chilling with Akeem

Re: is this true?

Postby kurpal_v2 » March 10th, 2012, 8:57 pm

rollingstock wrote:I too sick to reply here, too much to type too little patience, kinda pissy with this cold.

But just to help, some of you all talking rell sheit.




whore.

User avatar
Wolfstein
Sweet on this forum
Posts: 285
Joined: September 6th, 2009, 9:50 am
Location: Arima
Contact:

Re: is this true?

Postby Wolfstein » March 11th, 2012, 12:19 am

rollingstock wrote:Let me help out here.

1. You cannot be charged for playing a loud instrument in a vehicle if your music is off. (yes music is considered a loud instrument, in fact if you are beating a piece of iron, that suffices by law)

2. If your speakers on your backdash or anywhere on the vehicle obscures your view you can be charged.

3. They cannot charge you for having speakers bigger than 8", however this size and bigger in a custom dash may/will block your view.

4. That arseness about trunk space? really dude? REALLY???


ignorance is no excuse to the law if a maxi has a cd deck it is also a charge do you know that also and the speakers must not exceed 16cm aka 6 inches.

User avatar
Wolfstein
Sweet on this forum
Posts: 285
Joined: September 6th, 2009, 9:50 am
Location: Arima
Contact:

Re: is this true?

Postby Wolfstein » March 11th, 2012, 12:21 am

silent_riot wrote:Why is this so difficult to understand?
The law says headlights, it doesn't specify that your headlights has to powered by a tungsten, halogen, HID, or LED source, nor does it say the number of light sources in that headlight are limited to a single source.


headlight must not be coloured

User avatar
BrotherHood
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 8250
Joined: October 20th, 2010, 2:41 pm
Location: Bringing HID & LED to a location near you! 355-3165. 704-5442 (WhatsApp).

Re: is this true?

Postby BrotherHood » March 11th, 2012, 1:23 pm

thelem wrote:So in other words, if 2 cars were driving on the highway during a roadblock. A B14 and an Audi, both with foglights on, but the B14 has his park lights on with his foglights and the Audi with his headlights and fogs, the officer would pull the B14 arse aside.

What about if this was the other way around? i.e the Audi with his park lights and fogs and the B14 with headlights and fogs?

User avatar
Garrett Inside
Trinituner Peong
Posts: 455
Joined: November 22nd, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: boostin pass u dawg!!

Re: is this true?

Postby Garrett Inside » March 15th, 2012, 8:28 pm

BrotherHood wrote:
thelem wrote:So in other words, if 2 cars were driving on the highway during a roadblock. A B14 and an Audi, both with foglights on, but the B14 has his park lights on with his foglights and the Audi with his headlights and fogs, the officer would pull the B14 arse aside.

What about if this was the other way around? i.e the Audi with his park lights and fogs and the B14 with headlights and fogs?


the b14 go still get pull over.

But seriously I dunno y some ah alyuh still driving a b14, think a lil bit nah man, cause a b14 price never seems to drop and an Audi certainly never holds its value which brings them to about the same price in just 5 years for a Audi when bought new, lol.

Ah just kidding eh, yuh don kno some ah alyuh driving b14.

User avatar
triniboy
18 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2433
Joined: April 27th, 2003, 10:44 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: is this true?

Postby triniboy » March 15th, 2012, 10:34 pm

i hope you people can realize what is going on in this thread. everyone has their OWN interpretation of the law.
the original laws have their OWN interpretation.
even the government has their OWN interpretation of what is legal and illegal because they are the ones that licence vehicles with fog lights and then give people tickets for them.

User avatar
Pointman-IA
Shifting into 6th
Posts: 2035
Joined: April 3rd, 2005, 11:34 pm
Location: South West Trinidad
Contact:

Re: is this true?

Postby Pointman-IA » March 15th, 2012, 10:45 pm

I move around with a letter from the Transport Commissioner stating that my vehicle was licensed with the additional lights (fog lights).

Advertisement

Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests