^^It'd be technically right.

 

hey tom thanks for the info

what im thinking though is a loop hole around this. If i can find the part numbers for the old benz and what not i think i could pull it off since those have to be DOT approved since they came stock.

 

But they were NOT stock on any car built after a specific date, and all cars built after that date are prohibited from using them.

Just like prior to 1969 white front turn signals were OK, and even if the entire assembly has DOT approval, they cannot be used on vehicles built after January of 1969.

T'ain't that easy...

Tomas

 

I disagree in the friendliest way possible, but CA law is very clear about front signal indicators. As long as you do not overlay your amber side reflectors, the tC (as well as any car on the road so equipped) may use clear (white) turn indicators in the front.
Specifically, the 2006 CA Vehicle Code, Section 24953 states:
(a) Any turn signal system used to give a signal of intention to turn right or left shall project a flashing white or amber light visible to the front and a flashing red or amber light visible to the rear.
(b) Side-mounted turn signal lamps projecting a flashing amber light to either side may be used to supplement the front and rear turn signals. Side-mounted turn signal lamps mounted to the rear of the center of the vehicle may project a flashing red light no part of which shall be visible from the front.

Kalifornia is an anomoly I bet. As an example, the "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)", which is the nationally mandated and accepted way to mark streets and roads so each state has uniform markings at intersections and such.....isn't adopted by California. We have the MUTCD-California Edition (we made changes).

Traffic engineers in CA cities have to have a copy of both and cross reference that CA hasn't made a change to the Fed on each item, because the manuals haven't been combined. Some of the CA edition changes are a direct result of our CA vehicle code being different than the rest of the planet.
[/rant]
BTW, Tomas, I hope the fire in MT isn't near where you'r going; 295 sq mls so far?

 

Ha Ha He said taint

 

Damn, that law sucks.. These cops dont care.. lol, I got mine blue.. and they didnt say nothing.. and i have blue signal lights.. so yeah, that sucks though.. but would be awesome.. especially on a BSP ...

 

Well, Dan, I beg to disagree. While the segment of CA law you quote does say front turns signal can be white to amber, note that it doesn't give any manufacturing dates to associate those colors with. According to federal regulations, cars built prior to 01JAN1969 can indeed have white front turns, but cars built after that cannot.

What makes that interesting, is that California, like all other states that enjoy feeding at the federal trough for some of their highway funds (in other words, all of them), has tiny twists in their lawbase that quietly admit that more exacting federal laws and regulations override state in regards to vehicle standards...

For example,
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24011.htm

There are also other areas that say the same for just about anything to do with vehicles. If there is a federal rule, it superceeds, so long as it is tougher than state law. If state law is tougher, it is on top.

In other words, legally, put federal, state, county, city, and private laws (parking lots, communities, etc.), regulations and rules all side by side, compare them on any single specific topic, and the toughest one superceeds the rest. :D

Yeah, that's been posted up here before, just not in this particular topic, I guess.

NOW, as a practical matter, I doubt seriously if ANY law enforcement officer knows all the ins and outs of all the regulations, or even considers all of them important.

That means that your chances are likely fairly good to sneak almost anything by the majority of them most of the time - BUT, all you need is to find that ONE cop who happens to know that ONE tiny paragraph out of hundreds of thousands that you just broke, and he wants your butt for some reason...

Enjoy,
Tomas

 

Ah....while I appreciate your knowledge of the ideosyncracies of the specific Federal law...I need to check if the clear turns fall under a law that 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30101 et seq would address as relevant. I also bet someone would argue this specific point:
This does not preclude the purchaser from making changes that don't adhere to the Fed .

BTW, I'll try and find the Cal section that says we play by our own rules. Give me a minute... (forgive me being labor dayed out.)

What about the fire, everything okay I hope.

 

 

White lights don't present a hazard imo. I'd argue that.

 

Not (a), but (b).

The state vehicle code requires vehicles to be equipped as per federal code to be eligible for sale in the state.

The state vehicle code requires vehicle parts to meet federal code to be eligible for sale in the state.

The state vehicle code makes it unlawful to operate a motor vehicle that fails to meet those codes.

One can modify vehicles as much as one wants, so long as the final result meets state and federal code (each code being considered a "minimum" not an absolute).

If state says "you have to have white or amber front turn signals," and the state also says that to be sold in the state they must meet fed code, and the feds detail that they can be white if the vehicle was built before 1969 but must be amber if built after 1968, and the state ALSO says that it is unlawful to operate a vehicle that doesn't meet the code, uh, you're cornered.

Remember, if any state wants the 90% highway matching funds for their qualifying highways, they must agree to follow the fed safety regs referenced in fed code.

Yes, it is a bribe to the states to make them say the federal regs are above state code for vehicles and highways, but it works. I don't know of any state that has told the feds to go pound sand in that area... :D

Tomas

 

State Patrol loves after market lighting!

 

And IMO, the point here is that even if you don't get pulled over for non-conforming lights, when you get stopped for something else (like speeding or such), cops love to look for other things they can pile on top of the original offense. Especailly if you give them hard time.

 

no just clarification imo.
btw brb

 

 

Heh. MUCH easier and safer to stop (and make stick) an "unlawful lighting" tickee than a speeding tickee... :D

If a cop is hot on stopping cars/persons he doesn't like (for whatever reason), lights are an easy target - if they are the wrong color, shape, or mounting location it is super easy to spot and stop.

It's a freebie! A give-away to the traffic cop. A no brainer. Doesn't even have to drop his doughnut.

(I need to make some of our local cops aware of the state and federal laws on bumper and light height. Easy to spot and shut down some of those ridiculous lumber-loader-tall pick-ups. http://www.wsp.wa.gov/traveler/cvd/pasequip.htm#Height)

Tomas

 

Oh! I just happened to think of something else about those two tables from the fed regs I posted back on page one. Like most tables they cover most of the 'general' stuff pretty well, but there are details one will only find in the detail paragraphs.

For example, there is a requirement in the table for amber "intermediate side reflectors" - which our Scions don't have.

In the detail paragraphs, one finds that only applies if the vehicle is 30 feet or more long...

Tomas

 

Double checked it with the .gov website.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24953.htm
"Amended Ch. 207, Stats. 1994. Effective July 18, 1994.
Amended Sec. 22, Ch. 945, Stats. 1997. Effective January 1, 1998."

 

Just as I was looking up the laws, saw that you had allready done so..
I've had way too many conversations with the DOT & their inspections.....

good job.

 

Yes? So?

That does not contradict what I've been saying or the federal regs at all.

The laws are like an onion - layers.

Try http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26103.htm, too.

This could go on for weeks, even months, but it all eventually boils down to whether or not the cop on the corner knows enough details to give you a ticket, and whether or not he wants to.

Ciao!
Tomas