From 24 March 2016, we’re changing the way headlamp aim is measured on the MOT test. The new testing standards will emphasise the importance of correct alignment and stress that it shouldn’t be just a quick check.
It’s been trialled with the help of VTS council member volunteers with the results verified by the Vehicle Safety Research Centre at Loughborough University.
The changes are similar to those introduced for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) last year. Since being introduced in April 2015 the fail rate for HGVs have significantly decreased as a result.
The new method is just a few simple changes and you don’t need new equipment.
Why we're changing the test
Headlamp aim consistently tops the MOT compliance survey as one of the most likely items to be assessed incorrectly by testers.
These new changes will look to reduce errors and increase test consistency.
So what are we changing?
The changes will slightly widen the tolerance band for European ‘E’ beams with headlamp centres up to 850mm. We’re also changing the requirement to test the ‘image break’ point for all European 'E' beams.
1. Horizontal cut-off
The method of checking the aim of the horizontal cut-off is the same. It’s only the lower limit for headlamps up to 850mm that has changed from 2.0% to 2.75%.
A headlamp will now fail if its horizontal cut-off is:
-
- above the upper limit of 0.5%
- below the lower limit of 2.75%
See technical pen picture for ‘Horizontal cut-off’
2. Dazzle Zone
In the past we've had to find the ‘image break point’ and check it’s within a very small area of the headlamp beam tester screen. If the ‘break point’ was outside of this small box then the headlamp would fail the test. You won’t need to check that anymore.
From 24 March 2016, you need to check for “white light” in the area formed by the 0% vertical and the 0.5% horizontal lines for all European 'E' beams.
We've called this the 'dazzle zone' because if a beam is aimed in this area then it’s likely to dazzle oncoming vehicles. Any white light in this area would result in the headlamp failing the test.
See technical pen picture for ‘Dazzle zone’
3. Kick up
Finally, you must still make sure that there is a 'kick up' visible on the screen if it’s required. Remember that not all headlamps have kick ups, some have flat tops and some have beam deflectors fitted.
If a kick up is required, it will only fail the test if it isn’t visible on the screen
The MOT inspection manuals on GOV.UK have been updated on 24 March 2016 to include the new standard. You can take a look at the new headlamp aim inspection manual pages for classes 1 and 2 and for classes 3, 4, 5 and 7.
If you have any questions about the new standards please email testing.technical.standards@vosa.gov.uk.
140 comments
Comment by Andrew Glossop posted on
This is unbelievable where is the MOT testing scheme going?
Comment by tony posted on
guys you are the testers you are responsible for the safety of that verhicle and other road users.
we are to try and do our job as correctly as possible, and make sure people are safe..................................................
Comment by j mordue posted on
1 Surely if you put kick up to the left you risk dazzling pedestrians walking towards oncoming traffic as they are advised to do in haig way code.2 I work at a Ford dealer and all to often we get customers were you fail a vehicle with zenon/Hid lights and they say they were adjusted at last test but Ford need the diagnostic tool plugged in so you can tell body control module that you adjusting lights otherwise the module resets the lights back to orginal set position when next switch off and back on.3 As someone else commented all to often customer have moved in car adjuster and knocked the aim down I always prs and write in free text were adjuster was and that I've set to zero
Comment by Shane Scammell posted on
So the idea is that we reduce the standards because cars are failing. To dazzle is bad but the fact that you cant see at night because your headlamp aim is in the hedge is ok. Nothing wrong with what we had in my opinion
Comment by Hitesh. K. Raichura. posted on
That's all fair but you get those people who fit HID kits which are very bright and the kick off point is at a steeper angle and can't fail the test and because the bulbs emits brighter light it dazzles the on coming cars and is dangerous but still passes the test. It should be illegal and banned. The other thing that is annoying is that front fog lamps are not part of the test and illegal to use if the visibility is less then 100 meters yet you see people drive with them on on and clear night they should also be part of the test if they are fitted and the police should prosecute them for use ing them as per high. Way code.
Comment by Darren posted on
I think you are spot on about front fogs mate.
Comment by murray @stadium mot posted on
the problem is the beam testers themselves which seem to give a slightly different image from time to time ,but thats a minor issue ,theyre easy to set up, also alot of h/lamp adjusting systems seem to stop operating quite easeley due to them being made out of plashit plastic .but yeah the height or now dazzle zone is the safety issue hopefully will be checked and adjusted not to dazzle , big variation on the side to side though ,the moving diagram of the light beam to the left is nearly right off the scale is it the same for beam angle to go to the right so far ? im assuming so . happy testing .
Comment by martin posted on
This is about massaging failure rates and not road safety.
Comment by c woolf posted on
so if bald tyres became the highest fail item will we be told to just pass them, it's unbelievable but not quite as stupid as allowing solid rust where there used to be a disk brake.
Comment by John Eady posted on
Car manufactors should give more design thought to making the replacement of headlamp bulbs far easier .A lot of customers try to change bulbs themselves often buying cheap bulbs and then finding the task anything but simple.Even skilled mechanics find that they have to be contortionists to do this even after the sometimes stripping off other parts to gain accsess. Customers then have to face a high cost for what should be a routine job. No wonder there are so many fail rates.
Comment by Jim Murray posted on
If you can't assess if the headlamp aim is correct what else of more safety related importance is being incorrectly assessed? Should we have the brake test changed to state if the vehicle slows down then that's a pass ?
Making the parameters larger is only masking a problem if testers are getting it wrong, what is required is more / proper training which was provided on refresher courses which are now obsolete, the MOT scheme is fast becoming a safety issue because DVSA want to safe money running it.
Comment by Pete posted on
So the idea that something is now different to the way a car is tested is a bit confusing as when I was testing a few years ago about 5years ago as long as the beam pattern us correct and you are between the upper and lower fail lines. what difficult?
Comment by kevin cairney posted on
ther is nothing wrong with the way it has been from the day mot testing started most head lamp faults are bulbs incorrectly fitted 06 03 2016
Comment by Adrian posted on
I'm sick of garages saying the headlight aim needs adjusting so they can charge the customer £5-£10 for not actually adjusting them,, the customer can't argue it, one of the very few things Joe on the edge of the road can't test or prove,, so good move Vosa, dvsa or what ever these days
Comment by Brian posted on
That is where the comment !! you can't argue the testers decision ???.? Is totally incorrect!!, you can using the vt 17 form on display at every vts station and all conscious testers know this, another flippant comment,ment to be another demoralising reason to get out of testing, remember the corner shops and banks fast disappearing,you won't miss them until they're gone
Comment by Kalpesh posted on
What about honda jazz they are so rubbish because they don't even provide altering adjustment hexagons or screws . What do u do If they fail for being too low
Comment by Steven posted on
Yes they do. Buried down a very long hole...
Comment by Ken Robbins posted on
So we set the lights exactly the owner takes the vehicle out that night after adding a full tank of fuel,heavy load in the boot and 2 large people in the back! instant high dipped beam.Just makes a mockery of the hole process.
Comment by Steven posted on
You can't account for every possible scenario as a tester, although in my opinion they should be tested with a person in the driving seat, as that's always going to be the case on the road. I suppose since many test stations are one man lanes these days, that had to go... The majority of modern cars have internal height adjusters, so it's up to the driver to adjust to suit the load being carried.
Comment by colin drissell posted on
I had a taxi transit came in for a service 18 months old it had pdi first service then a council test at 12 months and no one had noticed it had a left hand drive head light in it with kick to right so much for testing.
Comment by richie renovator posted on
i test classic cars regularily.
i use my brains but a lot of younger mot testers will now get scared and try and find a kick up or say the beam pattern on a sealed beam is incorrect.
more stress .more hassle.
Comment by madmechanic posted on
Could the high percentage rate of fails be due to the vosa refresher courses and visits pushing us to PRS every time they fail
Comment by Dave Moore posted on
Not a coincidence!
Comment by laurence craven posted on
no wonder more hgv ,pass test you have made it a wider goal, why cant we move headlamps to the highest position , then test them, owner moves lights down in car for test ,then puts them where he wants after pass, yes people are fitting bulbs incorrectly, but its a manufacture design fault
Comment by Stuart D posted on
Yes I agree they should be tested at the highest level otherwise the owners will just reset and continue to blind everyone.
Comment by andrew mcgill posted on
e bay cheap Chinese bulbs don't help matters either
Comment by Graham Middleton posted on
It all makes sense, below .5% and above 2.75% and no white light above .5% dazzle zone
Comment by rob bowman posted on
further to my above comment(currently awaiting moderation)have any guys at the ministry tried a basic correlation between spring failure rates and headlamp aims?yes we all know best practice is to change them as a set or at the very least a matched pair but in practice this doesn't happen,this also ignores the variability of the replacement parts concerned.a 5-10mm difference at the rear is gonna equate to about a degree at the front correct?you have the figures from(at the very least)comp1 onwards yes?although if a basic engineering principle like the ride height of the vehicles concerned hasn't been part of the considerations explored by the section of our industry responsible for maintaining/improving road safety standards I for one would find that worrying...
Comment by rob bowman posted on
stop me if im wrong but isn't this essentially reverting to the old standards where too low wasn't a fail,break off point wasn't tested and the only real failure was headlamp too high(about 25yrs back from memory)cos if it takes a university team to tell us to go back 20yrs in standards god help us! how much did it cost to tell us to test to standards that were binned decades ago.do you really think us testers are so dumb that we cant properly set up a beam setter with a collecting lens on the front that makes precise levels irrelevant?most of your failure problems are fail for profit at franchised chains or modern cars that make bulb replacement difficult even for professionals.try making the manufacturers supply vehicles that make basic maintenance that should be performed by any vehicle owner according to the highway code possible.
Comment by Nigel Hardie posted on
there is no mention of vehicle wheels having to steered in the straight ahead position to check headlight aim i.e citroens with steering angles adjusted when cornering this could affect the kick up result of the test!!
Comment by Lloyd posted on
You drive the car straight forward to the beam tester so you wheels should be forward, so why would you turn the wheels ?????
Comment by Gary nuthall posted on
Less failures , makes cars safer , no need for mot every year
Comment by rob crane posted on
why is it a problem on the old system-----if it's not aligned correctly then it fails or prs. high failure rates are due to bad maintenance or lack of it, not because the nt wants to fail it. this proves that nt is checking aims.
Comment by kris spiller posted on
Theres a old saying if its not broken don't fix it.
I don't think its the testers at fault hear .I think the main reason for the fail rate being so high is due to how hard it is these days to change a headlight bulb for example a old ford mk1 fiesta you can change it and see its fitted properly .But now like on sum renaults you have to put the car on full lock and get ur hand up throw the inner wheel arch to change a bulb throw the little access flap . I bet theres sum other car makes that are sum real beautys to change the headlamp bulbs on
Comment by colin merritt posted on
really lowering the standards why ?
Comment by pg. posted on
Some people have touched on the main reasons for this being the most common failure item. It is not in my opinion testers getting it wrong, As some some say its not that difficult to asses headlamp aim correctly, the main problems by a country mile are the inability by the fast fits to install a bulb correctly, I know this as I always ask presenters who has fitted the bulb and always get the same two answers (no prizes). The other reasons being the poor and in some cases extremely poor design of bulb housings and installations and finally poor quality imported lights from the far east. But then we all know that don't we.
Comment by jon hodgson posted on
headlamp alignment seems to be a regular occurrence for me, but mostly on newer vehicles.Once set correctly, a repeat customer is unlikely to need any re-adjustment to their lights.
I totally agree with an earlier comment made that some testers are not paying enough attention in setting up the test equipment correctly. The old ways were (and still are) the best ways. Straight forward to understand. This new "change" i'm sure will only show up more problems later on.
Headlamp levelling devices, like 'em or not are probably here to stay along with higher output bulbs. I cannot see anything wrong with using the existing tollerences in the new requirement.
Comment by Peter Miles posted on
I have to say the static diagrams make it much clearer, for me at least. And, I assume those will be the ones in the manual "pages" when it comes on-line so that's good.
Comment by DAVE SUMNER posted on
I FAIL 3 CARS A WEEK AND RE FIT BULBS FITTED IN WRONG WAY UP .DAZALING OUTHER ROAD USERS.
Comment by Les R posted on
?
Comment by adrian posted on
it looks like a good step in the wrong direction. i just hate being dazzled my wrongly adjust headlamps.
Comment by Robert Gunn posted on
So all the tens of thousands of failed headlamps in the past were really ok then, if too many items are failing just move the goal posts, brilliant ?
Comment by Backfromthestorm posted on
So the kick up can now point right at oncoming traffic? On the far right? Even more exagerated on bends.. the kick up is there to spread the light vertically on the n/s, but if its set all the way to the right....
Comment by phillipe thomas posted on
overall it's better for the tester, don't think the driver will notice much difference unless it's out,but does make a big difference between a pass and fail regarding the tolerances and other drivers on the road i.e dazzle zone.
Comment by darren posted on
very true vast majority of customers wont notice the difference and they don't even realise when the headlight aim is out in the first place,dvsa should be looking at more important things to update within the mot than just headlight aim
Comment by richard smith posted on
looks straight forward, hopefully more testers will check and adjust headlamps or fit bulbs correctly, as there are still too many cars on the road with dazzling headlamps!!
Comment by JASON GRAVES posted on
long and short of it all is that people can't fit bulbs correctly..
Comment by Colin Baker posted on
Let's make the lighting up on the road worse not better as there are less and less street lights on these days, next we will do away with the brake test lol. I think this is a step backwards and is just there to please the public not a matter of road safety ?
Comment by Dave Moor posted on
Headlamp aim has always been straight forward as long as enough care is taken in setting up the equipment. Main failures we see are on the 1st MOT (Main dealers/manufacturers at fault there) and bulbs fitted incorrectly/cheap bulbs/ giving incorrect patterns. And as we all know, a lot of headlamp bulb replacement isn't a 'quick fix' and should be rechecked on a beam setter. Not many Joe public has one of them at home
Comment by Colin Baker posted on
Completely with you on that one.
Comment by wozza posted on
wow how much of the tax payers money did this cost for some genius in parliament to go hmmmm lets just lower the image a fraction but make it look all technical as we are wasting tax payers money as we need to pay our mortgages on our second homes.... really has this made any difference in the mot world ??? what a complete waste of everyones time and money
Comment by n jones posted on
the images move to fast on pen pictures trying to see what the image is doing whilst reading the pass/ fail information does nothing for my eye sight just as well i am not epilecic
Comment by julian bailey posted on
great illustrations and makes sence
Comment by neil posted on
all is stright forward alot easier
Comment by Hank posted on
so more dumbing down of the MOT test then for the people that don't understand how to operate a headlamp aim tester !!!
Comment by peter fearnley posted on
copy that
Comment by Bob posted on
It`s not a case of not setting the beam tester correctly. The converging lens on the tester concentrates the image onto the rear of the unit so even if it is not set 100% accurate the image will be the same. My main worry is the introduction of the "dazzle zone" 0%vertical to 0.5%horizontal. Many lamps show some white light there,older Astra`s for example + ones with deterioration to the plastic lens. I can imagine the "big four" type outfits using this, " you are showing white light on both of your headlamps, new ones are needed - KERCHING!!!!!!!
Comment by Simon posted on
I know what you mean about Astra headlamps as long as the break point I.e not to far to the right is not in the dazzle zone any other light emitted in that area is disregarded
Comment by Brian posted on
It must be new testers that are struggling it is so simple come on guys
Comment by john sorsby posted on
very enlightening
Comment by alan hirdle posted on
All seams straightforward to me, i like the pictures.
Comment by Stephen posted on
Too far left, christ
Comment by Tim posted on
hi just going over update on the kick up part mainly tells you left or right .And a lot of headlight beams are not so clear cut . to me if using kick up you would be lighting up the trees in this way you would be lighting up the trees!
Comment by con posted on
can you tell me of this is just class 4/7 or is it all class 1/2/3/4/5/7 thanks
Comment by Matters of Testing posted on
Hi Con,
The standard applies to all MOT classes. You can take a look at the new headlamp aim inspection manual pages for:
Classes 1 and 2: https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2016/03/Headlamp-aim-changes-24-March-2016-Classes-1-and-2.pdf
Classes 3, 4, 5 and 7: https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2016/03/Headlamp-aim-changes-for-24-March-2016-Classes-3-4-5-and-7.pdf
Regards
Thomas
Comment by Melfyn Moss posted on
I notice that in point 1 with the changes to Horizontal cut-off, that vehicles over 850mm are excluded.
But in point 2 and 3 where ‘image break’ point have been changed, there is no mention of vehicles with lamp over 850mm, so can I assume they are included?
Comment by Matters of Testing posted on
Hi Melfyn,
The 'Dazzle zone' applies to all European E beams. The changes to horizontal cut-off only apply to headlamps with centres under 850mm.
Regards
Thomas
Comment by lee posted on
excellent diagrams quick question is beam tester being altered
kind regards plop
Comment by keith posted on
so the lower limit for horizontal cut off only applies to centres below 850mm, i take it then that centres above 850mm still have their upper limit at 1.25%, the top of the "blue box", as for the dazzle zone surely any white light in that section was already a fail, but does the change to the position of the start of the kick up (allowed to be anywhere to the left of the 0% vertical line but still on the screen) affect centres above and below 850mm?
Comment by Paul Ellis posted on
Find it difficult to believe so many testers are allegedly getting it wrong, the number of cars presented with incorrectly aligned Headlights is on the increase from our perspective, owners fitting their own bulbs, causing damage or movement to the levelling devices etc;
The current parameters aren't difficult to understand and follow and neither will the new ones, I predict that Headlight mis-alignment will continue to be a high failure or PRS item irrespective of these changes
Comment by MIKE LEWIS posted on
I think the old lower limits were a bit of a problem for some customers but obviously not all manufactures headlamps are the same, its self levelling headlights we need to be doing something about, some of these can be a nightmare when behind you, they give you the impression that the driver is flashing you!
Comment by neil hulbert posted on
what about 4x4 etc above 850mm??
Comment by Matters of Testing posted on
Hi Neil,
The 'Dazzle zone' applies to all European E beams including those above 850mm. The changes to horizontal cut-off only apply to headlamps with centres under 850mm.
Regards
Thomas
Comment by kev posted on
if you read text it will tell you!!!!!
Comment by joakim gant posted on
very easy to understand
Comment by shoja abedi posted on
yes static picture is a must.
Comment by david hargreaves posted on
blinding
Comment by alan harrison posted on
why change and make the parameters bigger , the old system is not rocket science to understand ,why do we need it easier to understand. trying to say mot testers cant understand a simple diagram in a headlight tester and how it works.
Comment by mark huish posted on
why have you got the diagrams moving it would be easier to understand if you had static pictures
Comment by Matters of Testing posted on
Hi Mark,
The static technical diagrams are available above the animations.
Here are the links:
Horizontal cut off: https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2016/02/Horizontal-cut-off-diagram.jpg
Dazzle zone: https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2016/02/dazzle-zone-diagram.jpg
Regards
Thomas
Comment by Stuat posted on
Static diagram is much easier to understand, the animated diagram hurts my eyes.
Comment by mark posted on
thanks for the being able to print off the new headlight settings a big help
Comment by neil posted on
i agree with that moving pictures dont make it easy to see. make the tolarances bigger so more chance of dazzling on coming cars
Comment by Steven reid posted on
Great illustrations
Comment by Brian Wheatley posted on
We have been a justing a lot of head lights on new cars for customers complaining about not able to see at night on dip beam . All we do is a just them up to the old readings .I think the new requirements might be a problem .
Comment by Rob Cameron posted on
Ah, So its your customers dazzling us all then !!
Comment by Mervyn Smee posted on
This is a good move, it all makes sense