From Simon Says: Providing relevant information on policing and law

In my previous article, which I wrote for OntarioTicket.com, I discussed the legislation regarding lighting on motor vehicles in Ontario at length. Arising from this discussion there is an issue which I would like to elaborate on further: that of lights visible to the front, other than white or amber headlights.

My previous article outlined that Section 62 of the Highway Traffic Act clearly requires at least two white or amber headlights and clearly prohibits both red and red and blue combinations to the front, but what about other colours? A lot of vehicles have blue or green LED lights on the wiper blades or in the grill of the vehicle. Is this legal? Simon says: In my opinion, yes!

Section 62 (1) states that, “when persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor vehicle other than a motorcycle shall carry three lighted lamps in a conspicuous position, one on each side of the front of the vehicle which shall display a white or amber light only.” If one considers that the intention of this section is to prohibit anything more than the two specified lights to the front, the argument could be advanced that LED lights to the front violate Section 62 (1). I dissent with this interpretation, for the following reasons.

Section 62 (1) states that lighted lamps to the front are required at night and at any other time when “persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernable at a distance of 150 meters or less”. From this wording I draw the inference that the purpose of this section is to require lights that are capable of illuminating persons and vehicles on the highway ahead of the vehicle, for safety reasons. These lights then fulfill two functions: 1) they ensure that the driver of the vehicle can see ahead of them and 2) that the vehicle can be seen. I do not draw the inference that the purpose of this section is to prohibit additional lights to the front that cannot fulfill this function, simply for regulatory reasons. I believe that the subsequent subsections support this inference.

Section 62 (6) seems to support the first function, by stating that “lamps on the front of a motor vehicle shall be so constructed, located, arranged and adjusted that…they produce under normal atmospheric conditions and on a level road a driving light sufficient to render clearly discernible to the operator of the motor vehicle any person or vehicle on the highway within a distance of 110 metres ahead of the motor vehicle.” From this it seems apparent that the legislators were concerned with ensuring vehicles had sufficient lighting for their drivers to see the road ahead of them clearly.

Section 62 (4) supports the second function, by stating that “any lamp required under subsection (1) shall, when lighted, be clearly visible at a distance of at least 150 metres from the front or rear, as the case may be.” From this it seems apparent that the legislators were also concerned with ensuring that vehicles could be seen by others.

Section 62 (7) goes on to state that attachments that reduce the effectiveness of the lighted lamps referred to in 62 (1), (attachments which would prevent them from fulfilling one or both of their purposes), are prohibited.

Finally, Section 62 (9) prescribes a maximum of 300 candella for the lamps referred to in Section 61 (1). But if the purpose of Section 62 (1) was to prohibit additional lights (such as LEDs) then why would legislators not have taken the opportunity to create a section to prescribe a minimum lamp strength as well?

These sections strongly suggest to me that the purpose of Section 62 (1) is one of requirement for adequate lighting, not one of prohibition on additional lights.

What I take as perhaps the most obvious support for my interpretation of the purpose of Section 62 (1) is the lack of the word “only” in 62 (1) itself. If the legislators wanted to prohibit more lights than the two required they could have written the section to read “only one on each side of the front of the vehicle.”

They could also have enacted additional sections at a later date to expressly prohibit colours such as blue or green or anything else to the front, as those colours came into common use. There was a perfect opportunity to do so in 2007 when subsections were added to Section 62 prohibiting red and blue combinations to the front.

I think it is clear from the reasoning outlined above that Section 62 (1) only serves to require vehicles to have a minimum of two regular headlights and not to prohibit different coloured LED lights on the front of a vehicle. Bear in mind that this is my interpretation of the legislation. I am not saying this is the only interpretation, nor am I saying this is necessarily the correct interpretation. I know prosecutors in some regions have been prosecuting charges under Section 62 (1) for LED lights to the front, but the legislation is clearly open to interpretation. Ultimately it is up to the Justice of the Peace to decide.